A History of (Non)Violence - By Steven Pinker | Foreign Policy
Contests for dominance, even when nothing tangible is at stake, are
among the deadliest forms of human quarrel. At one end of the magnitude
scale, many destructive wars have been fought over nebulous claims to
national preeminence, including World War I. At the other end of the
scale, thesingle largest motive for homicide on police blotters are
"altercation of relatively trivial origin; insult, curse, jostling,
etc."
There really is a commodity at stake in contests for dominance,
namely information: a shared understanding of who will not back down.
The socially constructed nature of dominance can help explain which
individuals take risks to defend it. Perhaps the most extraordinary
popular delusion about violence of the past quarter-century is that it
is caused by low self-esteem. Self-esteem can be measured, and surveys
show that it is the psychopaths, street toughs, bullies, abusive
husbands, serial rapists, and hate-crime perpetrators who are off the
scale. Psychopaths and other violent people are narcissistic: They think
well of themselves not in proportion to their accomplishments but out
of a congenital sense of entitlement. When reality intrudes, as it
inevitably will, they treat the bad news as a personal affront, and its
bearer, who is endangering their fragile reputation, as a malicious
slanderer.
No comments:
Post a Comment