Fascinating scientific account for bravery and courage

[Free Capitalist 0]

From the heroic 300 Spartans of Thermopylae to the Charge of the Light Brigade, history is littered with tales of the bravery of men who knew that death was as likely an outcome as glory.

Such courage has always been recognised as a supreme asset by military strategists — Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th-century Prussian theorist, described it as “above all things . . . the first quality of a warrior”. For biologists, however, it poses a problem: humans simply should not have evolved to be heroic: the dangers to life and limb are too great.

Now, it appears, the solution to this evolutionary puzzle may lie in sex. New research suggests that braver soldiers may ultimately win more sexual partners as well as more battles, and that the extra chances to spread their genes can outweigh the risk of dying in combat.

Natural selection deals brutally with qualities that hurt organisms’ chances of survival and reproduction, and few ways of harming these prospects are quite as blatant as a heroic charge on enemy lines. American scientists have now shown how such courage could have evolved in the small tribal societies of human prehistory.

The study, by Laurent Lehmann and Marcus Feldman, of Stanford University in California, suggests that great bravery can have evolutionary benefits under certain circumstances, despite its obvious dangers.

If courage makes it significantly more likely that small bands of tribes-men will win military confrontations with their neighbours, its overall advantages can easily outweigh its risks, a mathematical model has shown.

Some men who carry genetic variants that promote bravery might perish because of them, but the ones who survive may win more battles through their greater daring. The resulting opportunities for rape and pillage can create a net evolutionary benefit.

By having sex with their vanquished enemies’ wives and children, and by taking land on which their own womenfolk could grow or gather more food, particularly courageous and successful warriors would have more offspring who share their genes. “This has consequences for our understanding of the evolution of intertribal interactions, as hunter-gatherer societies are well known to have frequently raided neighbouring groups from whom they appropriated territory, goods and women,” the scientists said.

In the research, details of which are published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, Dr Lehmann and Dr Feldman concentrated on two traits that they imagined might affect societies’ capacity and aptitude for war: bravery and belligerence.

They assumed that tribes with a high proportion of belligerent men would be more likely to attack rival groups, while those with a high proportion of brave men were more likely to win such battles. Both traits, however, also increased the chances of death.

While neither of these qualities is controlled by a single gene, the scientists imagined the emergence of single genetic variants that promoted one trait or the other. The multiple genes that influence bravery or belligerence can be assumed to have evolved in a similar way.

The scientists concentrated on the likely effects among small bands of hunter-gatherers, living in an environment in which rival groups competed intensely for food and shelter.

It is thought that people have lived in such groups for most of our evolutionary history, and that these conditions are thus the main ones that have influenced the development of the human brain and temperament.

The model demonstrated that belligerence or bravery genes could spread quite rapidly, despite the increased risk of death, if the conquest of neighbouring tribes brought a group one of two significant advantages. The first was increased opportunities for men to have sex and father offspring, in this case through capturing the women of a defeated tribe. The second was the capture of extra territory, or other material resources.

While the findings do not explain the emergence of belligerence or bravery, or shed any light on what the genes that might affect these traits might be, they do show a mechanism by which they could have evolved.

“We show that the selective pressure on these two traits can be substantial even in groups of large size, and that they may be driven by two independent, reproduction-enhancing resources: additional mates for males and additional territory (or resources) for females,” the scientists said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle4615314.ece

[Cometmaker 0]

Did you mean "fascinating scientific account" seriously or tongue in cheek?

[Carlos 0]

I would enjoy this article if (like the scientists mentioned) I believed that my genes determined/shaped my behavior and not my free will.

For as long as I can remember I've never liked pseudo-science articles like this that basically try to sweep away individuality and the importance of our conceptual consciousness by basically saying that we are driven by a combination of hormones, genes, and our physiological needs.

This reminds me of a similar article I read where "scientists" were trying to determine why younger women will be attracted to much older, but wealthy, men. Their theory was something like "an older man with a Ferrari is more impressive than a younger man with a same car, because the older man has shown greater consistency in acquiring resources.... blah blah... so the woman sees the older wealthy man as being more fit to provide for her offspring." Anna Nicole Smith didn't hook up with an elderly billionaire because she was driven by primal maternal instincts; she did it because she was a shallow gold-digger and it looked like a "practical" decision.

[Scott A. 0]

I would enjoy this article if (like the scientists mentioned) I believed that my genes determined/shaped my behavior and not my free will.

For as long as I can remember I've never liked pseudo-science articles like this that basically try to sweep away individuality and the importance of our conceptual consciousness by basically saying that we are driven by a combination of hormones, genes, and our physiological needs.

I completely agree. I've read enough evolutionary psychology to know that their basic formula for the existence of virtually every behavior is: it helped spead genes through reproduction or, more generally, it had "survival value." While I think the overall subject is very interesting, the current formula of explaining behavior is completely lacking in any kind of significant depth or rational explanation. If "the resulting opportunities for rape and pillage can create a net evolutionary benefit," then shouldn't all men be out there doing this today? This kind of stuff makes me shudder.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

I agree as well. Ernst Mach said something to the effect that people who believe in free will use ignorance to justify their claims, but in truth it is the determinist who does so. They try to explain everything by a theory that is popular at the moment. In the nineteenth century it was mechanics, so the determinist said we were nothing but a machine. In the twentieth century it was computer science, and so the determinist said we are nothing but a computer. Now it is evolution, and so we are now nothing but copulating animals. In short, they apply these valid sciences outside of their proper context -- the context out of which they arose.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Did you mean "fascinating scientific account" seriously or tongue in cheek?

I didn't mean to come off as one of those who attribute every human action to evolution. I just found it interesting that there's a biological foundation for men acting heroically, though whether they choose to do so or not still depends only on their will (and values).

[Carlos 0]

Did you mean "fascinating scientific account" seriously or tongue in cheek?

I didn't mean to come off as one of those who attribute every human action to evolution. I just found it interesting that there's a biological foundation for men acting heroically, though whether they choose to do so or not still depends only on their will (and values).

If you are going to say this, could you please clearly define what you mean by "biological foundation" and what it means with respect to human behavior? Men don't go to war to increase their chance of sexual intercourse; they do it to defend their values. Men don't act heroically for physiological reasons, they act heroically to defend/pursue values. These are all strictly conceptual things.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

If you are going to say this, could you please clearly define what you mean by "biological foundation" and what it means with respect to human behavior? Men don't go to war to increase their chance of sexual intercourse; they do it to defend their values. Men don't act heroically for physiological reasons, they act heroically to defend/pursue values. These are all strictly conceptual things.

What if increased reproductive fitness is a side effect of the warrior ethic? Nature does not admire or reward courage, as such. Nature rewards (in a manner of speaking) reproductive success. The reproductively successful more often pass on whatever makes them successful than the less reproductively successful.

Suppose warriors are more attractive to females than non-warriors. Who "scores" more often and makes more babies?

What if the warrior ethic increases general survivability. Warriors are often tougher and harder to kill than non-warriors.

Whatever characteristics result in more offspring that themselves survive to reproduce, is replicated more often and eventually affects gene frequencies in populations.

ruveyn

[Carlos 0]

If you are going to say this, could you please clearly define what you mean by "biological foundation" and what it means with respect to human behavior? Men don't go to war to increase their chance of sexual intercourse; they do it to defend their values. Men don't act heroically for physiological reasons, they act heroically to defend/pursue values. These are all strictly conceptual things.

What if increased reproductive fitness is a side effect of the warrior ethic? Nature does not admire or reward courage, as such. Nature rewards (in a manner of speaking) reproductive success. The reproductively successful more often pass on whatever makes them successful than the less reproductively successful.

Suppose warriors are more attractive to females than non-warriors. Who "scores" more often and makes more babies?

What if the warrior ethic increases general survivability. Warriors are often tougher and harder to kill than non-warriors.

Whatever characteristics result in more offspring that themselves survive to reproduce, is replicated more often and eventually affects gene frequencies in populations.

ruveyn

The personally chosen values that leads one to join the military and the personally developed traits that one acquires from training rigorously in the military do not change an individual's DNA, so members of the military are not going to leave an evolved genetic fingerprint on the human race that is different from civilians. So even if people within the military did produce much more offspring than civilians, it still wouldn't change or evolve human genetics.

"whatever makes them successful" would be their values, virtues, and integrity--all conceptual things, not physiological/genetic.

[Arnold 0]

If reproduction was directly proportional to aggression, then it could make evolutionary sense to say that aggressive traits would dominate our behavior.

It would be like selective breeding of dogs for certain behavior qualities.

However, I don't see much evidence for that connection between aggression and increased in availability to reproduce. Opportunities would exist regardless of war.

As far as the volitional factor is concerned, I think that (in the context of this report) this may not have had much influence in the thousands of years before we knew

how to apply reason to gain values - how to use our volition sensibly.

Just as today, many simply act on their emotions - and if the emotions say "kill" then that is what they do. This report seems a rationalistic stretch to me, selecting only supporting data.

[Free Capitalist 0]

The personally chosen values that leads one to join the military and the personally developed traits that one acquires from training rigorously in the military do not change an individual's DNA, so members of the military are not going to leave an evolved genetic fingerprint on the human race that is different from civilians.

Joining the military has nothing to do with bravery.

Bravery is that one instant, that split of an eye when you decide to run from danger, or run towards in defiance of all. I'd like to know that I'd be brave when that moment comes but I don't until I'm faced with it, and neither does anybody else who hasn't been in it. Bravery has a lot to do with one's convictions and ones values, it it also has to do with adrenaline and hormones intensely pumping into your body to enable you to do what you think you must. We are not just disjoined minds, we live in bodies which are genetically determined, and which exist in a cooperative master-slave relationships with us.

Obviously there's something materialistic in the above posted article, as is always with these new 'scientists' trying to derive everything from evolution. I'm by no means endorsing every single part of it. I just thought there's something extremely visceral in the notion that the courageous don't die off, but in fact in some evolutionary sense live on, while it's the safe cowards who end up disappearing from history.

[Free Capitalist 0]

which exist in a cooperative master-slave relationships

should be:

"which exist in cooperative rather than master-slave relationships"

[Free Capitalist 0]

Of course, by "cooperative" I refer to the level of conscious control over our bodily functions (which is cooperative, and not master-slave); I obviously don't mean that there's some additional will directing our body in parallel with ourselves.

[Carlos 0]

The personally chosen values that leads one to join the military and the personally developed traits that one acquires from training rigorously in the military do not change an individual's DNA, so members of the military are not going to leave an evolved genetic fingerprint on the human race that is different from civilians.

Joining the military has nothing to do with bravery.

Bravery is that one instant, that split of an eye when you decide to run from danger, or run towards in defiance of all. I'd like to know that I'd be brave when that moment comes but I don't until I'm faced with it, and neither does anybody else who hasn't been in it. Bravery has a lot to do with one's convictions and ones values, it it also has to do with adrenaline and hormones intensely pumping into your body to enable you to do what you think you must. We are not just disjoined minds, we live in bodies which are genetically determined, and which exist in a cooperative master-slave relationships with us.

Obviously there's something materialistic in the above posted article, as is always with these new 'scientists' trying to derive everything from evolution. I'm by no means endorsing every single part of it. I just thought there's something extremely visceral in the notion that the courageous don't die off, but in fact in some evolutionary sense live on, while it's the safe cowards who end up disappearing from history.

I don't understand your point--if you listen to police or self defense trainers in the military they are trying to train you so that your instantaneous gut reactions in a situation are the correct reactions, despite whatever your bodily chemicals would scream to do (so yes, we aren't just a mind, we are an integrated mind-body, and the mind must be trained to act even when the body tries to put it in incapacitating shock). In confrontational situations some people cower down and become meek while others get angry and defiant, but this is just one aspect of their larger personality--not their specific chemicals.

An instantaneous reaction or decision would have to be a command that was dumped straight down from your subconscious because there wasn't enough time to consciously deliberate it--but even still then it is your consciousness that is issuing commands, something that was uniquely developed by your own free will.

You need to be very specific in what you mean because this can easily be murky: are you saying that genes influence behavior?

[Carlos 0]

You need to be very specific in what you mean because this can easily be murky: are you saying that genes influence behavior?

I say this because I don't think there are (by definition) any degrees to free will--it's either purely there or it isn't. (I do think it is possible to have genetic predispositions to be more susceptible to something like depression, but you would still have control over your actions)

[Free Capitalist 0]

Ok then I wasn't clear enough in what I meant by that one instant when one's courage shows -- it's not so short of an instant that only a reflexive reaction is allowed. It's a couple of seconds, a conceptual moment, when you must volitionally choose between safety and danger, but don't have days and weeks to philosophize and figure out your answer. That's where courage lies, because courage is not reflexive, nor is it deliberate. It's conceptual, but instantaneous.

Anyway, I already pointed out what interested me in that article (despite its obvious materialism): it wasn't the notion that genes determine our courage, but that courageous men in some sense live on, while the cowards who stay in safety are actually the ones who die out.