Aggression

Trying to put into words a theory of aggression caused me to question the evidence that supports various ideas of the origin of aggression. Freud's instinct theory of aggression is typical of most of what he wrote, focusing on the libido and his over-the-top motivation of sexual desires. While I give Freud credit for being creative, I cannot support his theory of aggression for several reasons, but my main complaint revolves around one point. That point is despite his concentration on childhood development, he apparently failed to observe children in his studies. His theories are, to a large extent, based on a guess.

Biological theories of aggression have a lot to offer about the physical and neurobiological causes of aggressive acts. Studying this theory has been intriguing because it leans toward my belief that there is a neurobiological component to behavior. The problem for me is that I have only seen limited confirmation in this area. I believe that evidence for biological causes of aggression will probably increase in the future.

For me the social learning theory seems to be the most well supported and documented theory of aggression. Not only is it widely applicable to men and women, girls and boys and members of all different age levels, but it also has been repeatedly modified and improved through the years.

One important thing I have learned throughout the years is that we should not examine a problem from just one angle. Doing so leads to narrow conclusions that are only applicable in certain situations.

Since this is a physiological class let’s look at aggression as an expression of the central nervous system. As I have learned, behaviors can be generated by an external input, from within the nervous system, by transitional reasons, or even by built-in inconsistency. Finally, in today's violent world we must consider aggression as a combination of many factors. By themselves, the factors are probably are harmless, but when they are added together, they can give rise to aggression.

Perceptions

Perception is a very tricky topic. If we are talking about the material world (physical realm) I believe that the reality of a situation is based upon the correspondence view of what is true (real). Metaphysically speaking, as I suppose we should be engaged in doing within this forum, perceptions could be described as, “what is there?” and “what is it like?”

This topic could encompass volumes of writing, but within this forum there is a need to be brief.

I have used the following many times to illustrate how perceptions can differ, but reality is static. If I say, “The grass is green,” I have offered my perception of what I believe the grass to look like. That perception is based on light emanating from the sun (or some artificial source), reflecting of off the grass, enters through the cornea, passes through the lens which bends the light, which then passes through the vitreous gel, and then is focused on the surface of the retina which contains the rods and cones. From there it travels via electrical impulses to the brain through the optical nerve. Is my perception accurate? That depends on several factors. Is the pathway the light travels through my eye healthy and “normal?” Does my brain process the electrical impulse correctly? Do I have the cognitive ability to decode the information? Finally, is the grass, in fact, green? If the grass is green, and I am healthy and/or at least functioning correctly, I am accurate in my assessment. At that point, the grass being green makes the content of my perception true. However, is it a true statement to say, “The grass is green,” if I am blind? Not only is it an accurate statement, it would an accurate perception even if I did not believe it to be true. It is reality that makes our perceptions true or false. I posit that it is through evidence that we determine if our perceptions are in tune with reality.

Do you believe truth is absolute?

Do you think it is possible to understand any subject completely?

Stoics and Epicureans

The Hellenistic period began with Alexander the Great taking the throne of Macedon in 336 B.C., and it lasted to the death of Cleopatra VII of Egypt in 30 B.C. Alexander's successful invasion of the Persian Empire has been noted as a starting point. The period came to a close after the Near and Middle East, between Rome and the Iranian kingdom of Parthia was divided.

Stoicism was a new philosophical movement that began during the Hellenistic period. Stoicism got its name from the porch in the Agora at Athens were people gathered and held lectures. Zeno of Citium (334-262 B.C.) is credited with being the founder of stoic philosophy. It is, however, the follow-up to materialism and Plato. The ultimate goal of stoicism is wisdom. The idea of the philosopher had been of a supreme power which was a principle rather than a person (Bryant, p. 28). The main edict given by stoicism was that one should be free from all worldly demands, and achieve wisdom by recognizing that one needs to harmonize personal desires and nature. Being frugal and unconcerned is the worldview of the stoic person. The stoic theory of knowledge turns about the enquiry after a criterion or standard by which what is true in our notions may be distinguished from what is false (Zeller, p.74). The Stoics did hold the position that emotions like fear and envy either came from, or out of, false thinking, and that a person who would be considered a sage was one who had attained moral and intellectual perfection and would not experience this type of faulty thinking. Stoics also adhered to the idea that the soul was a blank slate and that character was developed experientially from the outside world.

The fundamental idea of self-discipline has its roots in stoic philosophy. Epictetus being a student of Zeno helped firmly implant stoicism into the Roman culture. Of all of the Greek philosophical system transplanted to Rome, Stoicism was probably the most successful (Albert, p. 66). The Stoics identify as a moral people those who live in accordance with the dictates of reason (Albert, p. 67). They actually believe that happiness does not depend on having material wealth or success, but on the character of the individual is based on rationality or logic arising from knowledge. The origins of knowledge, in the Stoic system, enter the mind through the senses. This is the where the blank-slate theory comes in to the picture. The knowledge which enters through the senses is inscribed on the blank-slate.

From the ethical perspective, virtue is a good in itself. Good consists of acting in accordance with nature. Therefore, stoicism is somewhat deterministic in its approach because it says that a person can do nothing but conform to nature, and when there is a balance between virtue and nature wisdom is obtained. The stoic teaches that the universe is governed by absolute law without exceptions. They also teach that the essential nature of humans is reason. Seneca had a famous saying which seems to sum their ideas up, “Live according to nature.”

Epicurean philosophy, unlike the Stoic philosophy which embodied forms and ideas, was born from Atomism. Atomism basically says that 2 thing make up the universe, moving atoms and void (a giant black nothingness) which is basically a radical materialism. Epicurean philosophy is a mutually dependent system which says that the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), a pragmatic theory of knowledge, an account of nature built on a form of atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic explanation of evolution, that spans the creation of the world to the appearance of human civilization. To put their system into layman’s terms is means they believe happiness equals pleasure. Epicureans believe that they should never do something without considering the pleasure it will yield. The level of pleasure received has a direct correlation on if it should be done. The real flaw in their thinking is that is pleasure equals the absence of pain, then to not be living would be preferable to life at all. According to Epicurus, it is not the state of the body, but the state of the mind. Bodily pleasure is of short duration, and has much of a disturbing character about it (Zeller, p. 451). However, Epicureans should be consistent in their beliefs and they are not. If they are consistent with their principles, (they) cannot deny that the bodily pleasure is the earlier form, and likewise the ultimate source, of all pleasure (Zeller, 451).

A mark of Epicureanism is friendship. The Epicurean philosopher places a high value on friendship because it is one of the greatest methods of achieving pleasure. Friendship provides the greatest security. They believe that a life without friends is lonely and full of trouble.

The basis for the Epicurean thought process is very empiricist and anti-skeptical. They believe that all of our knowledge comes though the senses, similar to the Stoics, and that we can trust the senses when used correctly. Unlike the Stoic belief that virtue is a good in and of itself, Epicureans believe that virtue contributes to happiness. There is a huge difference in this belief between the schools of thought. Virtue, or doing right because it is right (Stoicism), and virtue, or doing right because it makes one happy (Epicureanism) can often lead to very divergent places. If it makes me happy to take your car, am I doing the right thing? The Epicurean type of virtue, more often than not, leads to plain old hedonism, which means that the only good is found in what brings me pleasure, and anything else of value is only a tool to use to bring me the pleasurable experience. Epicurus, however, offered some idiosyncratic views about pleasure which is supposed to lead to a virtuous life without as much hedonistic influence. Hedonistic behavior is often attributed to Epicurean philosophy, but it is a common misconception.

In The Extant Remains, Bailey offers a final thought from Epicurus that gives insight to his eternal outlook,

“Some men throughout their lives gather together the means of life, for they do not see that the draught swallowed by all of us at birth is a draught of death. Against all else it is possible to provide security, but as against death all of us mortals alike dwell in an unfortified city...[But] I have anticipate thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well. We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content…Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them night and day by yourself, and with a companion like yourself, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings is not like a mortal being” (Albert, p. 63).


Crudelius est quam mori semper timere mortem
It is crueller to be always afraid of dying than to die

Albert, D. P. (1984). Great Traditions In Ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc.

Bryant, J. H. (1866). The Mutual Influence of Christianity and The Stoic School. London: Macmillan and Co.

Zeller, D. E. (1870 ). Stocis, Epicureans, and Sceptics. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

t

Anxiety!

The origins of GAD, panic disorder, phobias, PTSD, and OCD can be bio-psycho-social. They all tend to be fear/anxiety based. For the most part those fears and anxieties cause significant impairment of the person’s day to day functioning privately as well as socially. With PTSD being the exception to the rule, most of these anxieties begin early in life with GAD and phobias tending to grow for less acute beginnings. Most of the disorders are prevalent in younger populations, but GAD is most commonly seen among the elderly. Combined statistics show anxiety disorders to affect less than 13% of the population. OCD seems to affect the least number at 2.6%, while social phobias run close to 13%. Public speaking is thought to be the number one social phobia. Now for the interesting part of this study, it appears as if women are disproportionately affected by anxiety disorders. However, I would like to do a study using different variables because, in my opinion, the average man is much less forthcoming about his emotional wellbeing than the average woman. I personally believe the numbers may be skewed for several reasons. Among those reasons might be that men tend to try to put on a macho image that will usually manifest itself devoid of fear. Women tend to be much more honest about their fears. Both of these ideas are based on the social norms within our culture. Finally, all of the disorders mentioned respond best to cognitive-behavior therapy. Meds can be used for some, but the relapse rate upon ceasing the medication is high for all of the disorders.
I have often been told I have OCD. Hopefully those comments are in jest. Like most people I worry was too much about things I cannot control. Here is a great illustration I have used from time to time,
One morning Death was walking into a city when a man stopped him and asked what he was doing. Death answered, “I’m going into the city to kill 10,000 people.” The man replied, “That’s terrible that you would kill 10,000 people.” Death responded, “Taking people when their time has come is my job. Today I have to get my 10,000.” Later, as Death was coming out of the city, the man met him. Again, he was furious. He said, “You told me this morning that you were going to take 10,000 people, but 70,000 died today.” Death answered, “Don’t get mad at me. I only took 10,000. Worry killed all the rest (Robinson 1991).

As far as my misconceptions about dissociative disorders go I have been amazed that they exist in such a small portion of the overall population. Spending as much time with large groups of people as I have done through the years makes me wonder if I don’t know a disproportionately large percentage of the stated percentage! Christians seem to worry as much, if not more, than people I know who do not know Jesus Christ. Personally, I link that fact to “works theology,” which is a faulty theology at best, and a sinful yoke at worst. Christians believe that God is a cosmic kill-joy with mountains of rules. The Bible teaches just the opposite by telling us that there is nothing we can do to earn Heaven, and we should lay our worries at the feet of the Lord.
After this study, I will be less inclined to move to this type of disorder so quickly. With so few people in this category it would be prudent to entertain more options for a diagnosis. These disorders, mentioned in chapter 4, would be very easy to use as quick fixes to problems that could be much deeper.

Final Thought:
The poet Robert Frost (1874–1963) wrote, “The reason why worry kills more people than work is because more people worry than work.”

Do you believe this?

What do you think he meant by “work?”

Haddon W. Robinson, What Jesus Said About Successful Living (Grand Rapids: RBC, 1991), 221.

"Virtus, non copia vincint"
Courage, not multitude wins

T

Need to Belong

There is a basic/fundamental need to belong to social groups. People have discovered that to do more in life than merely scrape by, they need to work together with others in order to succeed in living. There are hurdles on the way to this preferred social setting. People need to have common ground upon which to agree before they can come together for the greater good of all involved. They need agreement on beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors to reduce the chance of the group becoming chaotic and erratic. The commonality needed also lends to the good of all. This may be more important than the avoidance of disunity.

People will learn to bend to rules of others as they move toward unity. This bending becomes contagious because as more people bend, others who see this conformity will likely feel obligated to bend and follow the crowd. People will often conform even when they are in a group of complete strangers. Going along with the flow is the, perceived, easiest way to avoid negatively standing out in the crowd. That being said, the strongest urge to conform and fulfill the need to belong comes when a person loves and cares about the others in the group. Within families and groups of close friends this is called normative social influence. People with self-esteem issues are more easily influenced in this way.

Non-conformity within the group is often considered deviant behavior even if the behavior is well within the social norms of society at large. Behaving outside of the group’s norms may well get a person ejected from a group. Churches provide too many examples to even begin to discuss in this forum, but suffice it to say that one of the major failures of the local church is the way they treat people who are different, and do not yet have the proper understanding of why they need to conform.

Our country is an individualist culture, but there is an irony in the fact that normative social influence is so pervasive.

What is the social impact of the normative social influence? Fads and fashion are the first two areas that come to mind. The most powerful areas are racial and political. Look at the rhetoric in the news, within congress, and within groups of differing ethnicities where the differences in norms are most acute.

Changing a person’s behavior on this level is easy or tough based on the context and personal preferences of the individual and the group. This is the plight of the local church today. Churches need to create environments with guard-rails wide enough to include as many as possible without compromising the standards. It is my goal in life to help churches do this very thing. It should be the goal of every church to help people with their need to belong.

*