The Myth of Increasing Violence

[thir]

I dont think that the validity of such a graph is very far at all from how people were back then based on the evidence Ive seen during my own reaserch.

As you say, that is a matter of belief, not fact. But when you 'cook' the graf to suit your purposes it becomes worse than useles, it becomes manipulation.

The theory is looking at human group behavioral trends in general over a long period of time, as opposed to giving focus on individual actions.

But this graf it a sort of individual action in that it takes a few of the H-Gs out and look at them, a very select few, insted of them all.

In other words the focus is on the entire forrest, not a few tress here and there.

My point exactly. The graf - and the whole theory - looks at things here and there, with no apparent coherence. To be valid it should be using a scentific method which would be to choose some parameters in 'everybody' - meaning the whole forrest of societies or as many as possible. And I mean societies from sufficiently recent times for there to be a reasonable amount of data to compare.

Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after

Well, not being a new ager I cannot really comment of that part of it, but for the rest, what I am missing in the whole thing is exactly for SP to Not take things out of context as he is clearly doing in that graf! Tell me Denuseri, do you think it ok only to choose violent tribes of today, when there are actually more that are not violent? What about the rest of the forrest?

I mean, the man is postulating that the H-Gs were living in such a blood bath that it surpasses anything and everything that later civilazations with wars and crimes and what not could and did throw at each other! And with zero explanation too!

It is not about what I would want, or what I think the past was like. It is about that graf misrepresentating excisting tribes. In order for this whole theory to make sense, SP must prove that things were more violent in the past (any past, really) than they are today, and he is not doing that, because of his false graf but also because he completely avoids defining what is meant by violence, which leaves him free to take examples of some ways and avoid others as he chooses. Which means he can 'prove' just about anything!

(which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.

What does history show us? A number of more violent and less violent societies (whatever we mean by that term) after each other, and at the same time all over the globe.
To prove less violence would be a superhuman job, and would demand first of all that one defines what it is one is reseraching.

Its like the difference between making an argument based on looking at the behavior of an individual cell in the body thats been attacked by a virus instead of looking at the overall responce of the entire immune system over the life span of an organism's homeostatic proccess.

Which is what he is doing, taking a couple of cells here and a couple of cells here - those, and only those, that suit his purpose.