no question human mind tools evolved in large part for hunting, the getting of food to sustain self, and offspring, through each day, forward

hunting more generalized, in the softer sense the getting of whatever, looking for, resources, for whatever purposes really

in a more immediate sense, even looking for mental resources in your own head can be hunting, or is hunting, or looking for it in others can be hunting. Searching wikipedia is hunting, or at the library

anyway, my interest here is with the redirected hunting instincts, and frustrated hunting instincts

modern man still has the instincts, even when going through the KFC drivethrough, or sitting on the sofa and getting a feed from media about royalty, or walking through a supermarket

some of out hostility toward politicians comes from frustrated hunting instincts, some of it could be you think your leader is a lousy hunter

I go out most days, sometimes a few times a day looking for whatever, often happen upon whatever, take photos, I am in fact hunting

a five year old holding a pencil writing words, pointing toward the paper searching for alphabet letters, formulating words, and word formulations, asking for corrections and applying them is hunting

seeing things more as mechanisms, plants hunt for things, roots going for water and nutrients, leaves going for the sun

anyway I think there are great exploits in redirects of the hunting instincts, and I ought mention boredom, you can thank dickens for that word perhaps

bored humans, how much trouble and are they

transition said:

no question human mind tools evolved in large part for hunting, the getting of food to sustain self, and offspring, through each day, forward

hunting more generalized, in the softer sense the getting of whatever, looking for, resources, for whatever purposes really

in a more immediate sense, even looking for mental resources in your own head can be hunting, or is hunting, or looking for it in others can be hunting. Searching wikipedia is hunting, or at the library

anyway, my interest here is with the redirected hunting instincts, and frustrated hunting instincts

modern man still has the instincts, even when going through the KFC drivethrough, or sitting on the sofa and getting a feed from media about royalty, or walking through a supermarket

some of out hostility toward politicians comes from frustrated hunting instincts, some of it could be you think your leader is a lousy hunter

I go out most days, sometimes a few times a day looking for whatever, often happen upon whatever, take photos, I am in fact hunting

a five year old holding a pencil writing words, pointing toward the paper searching for alphabet letters, formulating words, and word formulations, asking for corrections and applying them is hunting

seeing things more as mechanisms, plants hunt for things, roots going for water and nutrients, leaves going for the sun

anyway I think there are great exploits in redirects of the hunting instincts, and I ought mention boredom, you can thank dickens for that word perhaps

bored humans, how much trouble and are they

A hypothesis at least worth discussing, although I think you take it a little far in some of the examples.

I’ll think about it whilst dog walking this afternoon.

In humans, who are large-brained omnivores, “hunting” is just one particular kind of foraging behaviour, so it doesn’t really work as a “model” for all the others.

Carnivores specialised for hunting are usually larger-brained than their prey, but less generally curious and exploratory than humans.

Bubblecar said:

In humans, who are large-brained omnivores, “hunting” is just one particular kind of foraging behaviour, so it doesn’t really work as a “model” for all the others.

Carnivores specialised for hunting are usually larger-brained than their prey, but less generally curious and exploratory than humans.

>In humans, who are large-brained omnivores, “hunting” is just one particular kind of foraging behaviour, so it doesn’t really work as a “model” for all the others

think of it another way, generalize hunting with a softer definition, more loosely apply it, and consider as a thought experiment what frustrated hunting instincts might express as

I don’t expect the idea to yield much, but it may yield something useful

> anyway, my interest here is with the redirected hunting instincts, and frustrated hunting instincts … some of out hostility toward politicians comes from frustrated hunting instincts

I’ve been looking at “frustrated hunting instincts” from the point of view of aboriginal hunter-gatherers. What happens to them when they no longer need to hunt in order to eat?

Hunting requires a killer instinct, and is way down on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The violence itself is addictive, and can be a hard habit to break.

Think of a cat, a domestic moggie still hunts even though it has no nutritional need to. The same is true of many but not all humans. Ditto many but not all dogs.

When the hunting instinct is frustrated, it turns first to tobacco. Then in turn to begging, hustling and theft. The violent aspects of hunting are transmuted in turn from physical violence to verbal violence to political Machiavellianism. Killing of food is transmuted into killing of rivals, then into family feuds, then into tribal battles, then into civil wars and finally world wars.

The hunting of food becomes the quest for wealth and political power.

Alcohol fits in here somewhere. There’s a correlation between strength of hunting instinct and alcoholism.

Remember “There are two types of people in this world. Those who possess a keen hunting instinct, and those who pay to park.”

mollwollfumble said:

> anyway, my interest here is with the redirected hunting instincts, and frustrated hunting instincts … some of out hostility toward politicians comes from frustrated hunting instincts

I’ve been looking at “frustrated hunting instincts” from the point of view of aboriginal hunter-gatherers. What happens to them when they no longer need to hunt in order to eat?

Hunting requires a killer instinct, and is way down on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The violence itself is addictive, and can be a hard habit to break.

Think of a cat, a domestic moggie still hunts even though it has no nutritional need to. The same is true of many but not all humans. Ditto many but not all dogs.

When the hunting instinct is frustrated, it turns first to tobacco. Then in turn to begging, hustling and theft. The violent aspects of hunting are transmuted in turn from physical violence to verbal violence to political Machiavellianism. Killing of food is transmuted into killing of rivals, then into family feuds, then into tribal battles, then into civil wars and finally world wars.

The hunting of food becomes the quest for wealth and political power.

Alcohol fits in here somewhere. There’s a correlation between strength of hunting instinct and alcoholism.

Remember “There are two types of people in this world. Those who possess a keen hunting instinct, and those who pay to park.”

I suppose you lose purpose and hope and then end up not caring and use something be it violence or getting high to feel or not feel something.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> anyway, my interest here is with the redirected hunting instincts, and frustrated hunting instincts … some of out hostility toward politicians comes from frustrated hunting instincts

I’ve been looking at “frustrated hunting instincts” from the point of view of aboriginal hunter-gatherers. What happens to them when they no longer need to hunt in order to eat?

Hunting requires a killer instinct, and is way down on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The violence itself is addictive, and can be a hard habit to break.

Think of a cat, a domestic moggie still hunts even though it has no nutritional need to. The same is true of many but not all humans. Ditto many but not all dogs.

When the hunting instinct is frustrated, it turns first to tobacco. Then in turn to begging, hustling and theft. The violent aspects of hunting are transmuted in turn from physical violence to verbal violence to political Machiavellianism. Killing of food is transmuted into killing of rivals, then into family feuds, then into tribal battles, then into civil wars and finally world wars.

The hunting of food becomes the quest for wealth and political power.

Alcohol fits in here somewhere. There’s a correlation between strength of hunting instinct and alcoholism.

Remember “There are two types of people in this world. Those who possess a keen hunting instinct, and those who pay to park.”

I suppose you lose purpose and hope and then end up not caring and use something be it violence or getting high to feel or not feel something.

Does sport partly fill that need?

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

> anyway, my interest here is with the redirected hunting instincts, and frustrated hunting instincts … some of out hostility toward politicians comes from frustrated hunting instincts

I’ve been looking at “frustrated hunting instincts” from the point of view of aboriginal hunter-gatherers. What happens to them when they no longer need to hunt in order to eat?

Hunting requires a killer instinct, and is way down on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The violence itself is addictive, and can be a hard habit to break.

Think of a cat, a domestic moggie still hunts even though it has no nutritional need to. The same is true of many but not all humans. Ditto many but not all dogs.

When the hunting instinct is frustrated, it turns first to tobacco. Then in turn to begging, hustling and theft. The violent aspects of hunting are transmuted in turn from physical violence to verbal violence to political Machiavellianism. Killing of food is transmuted into killing of rivals, then into family feuds, then into tribal battles, then into civil wars and finally world wars.

The hunting of food becomes the quest for wealth and political power.

Alcohol fits in here somewhere. There’s a correlation between strength of hunting instinct and alcoholism.

Remember “There are two types of people in this world. Those who possess a keen hunting instinct, and those who pay to park.”

I suppose you lose purpose and hope and then end up not caring and use something be it violence or getting high to feel or not feel something.

Does sport partly fill that need?

I imagine so and perhaps even video games.
I was thinking about how people feel about their job, do they think their job is honest and useful.
I don’t mean anything dishonest but something created out of the ever increase complexity of our world.
I mean my job is information and paper shuffling and serves very little purpose and isn’t fulfilling.
You wonder if people just feel lost and even more so if you are a people connected to the land and a more primitive way of living

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

I suppose you lose purpose and hope and then end up not caring and use something be it violence or getting high to feel or not feel something.

Does sport partly fill that need?

I imagine so and perhaps even video games.
I was thinking about how people feel about their job, do they think their job is honest and useful.
I don’t mean anything dishonest but something created out of the ever increase complexity of our world.
I mean my job is information and paper shuffling and serves very little purpose and isn’t fulfilling.
You wonder if people just feel lost and even more so if you are a people connected to the land and a more primitive way of living

I’m OCD and had a job which required those traits. Management were very happy with the job I did & rewarded me quite well for the effort. I didn’t tell them that I had a compulsion to keep all the ducks in a row.

All of that moll depends on the combat style and mechanisms. It changes by time and society. Some like the Native American wars was called a deadly game of tag where killing the enemy was not even the main intent. Maori battles whilst deadly more more solitary brawls, leadership consisted mainly of bringing the two sides together, there was no direction of wings or flanks. I saw PNG mentioned earlier, there combat was mostly non deadly, a gathering together and posturing and some spears or arrows exchanged until the first few injuries.

Conflict occurred in smaller bands usually for a specific purpose, grab some horses or stores, or women and children for slaves or to increase the tribe.

The greater non western battles consisted of battles of champions, the ultimate champion being the king or senior representative, once that person was defeated the battle was considered one, this is the closest to the outcome of western mechanised and total war.

Having mentioned total war it should be noted that tribal wars could be considered the most total of wars and result in defeat of entire societies. If two tribes have only 4 men each in the prime of fighting life, a battle may result in half of your fighting “population” being killed and then the odds are very much changed, and now the weakened tribe is at a severe disadvantage.

The potential destruction of a tribe with the loss of just a few lives might be why early tribal wars are by modern standards so benign.

Fighting battles in hand-to-hand combat with the intention of killing as many of your opponents as possible seems to have been invented by the ancient Greeks.

party_pants said:

Fighting battles in hand-to-hand combat with the intention of killing as many of your opponents as possible seems to have been invented by the ancient Greeks.

To me that seems like a battle,of champions approach but where the champions were more toward the rear and moving flanks etc. if you killed the king everyone got to go home but first you had to reach the king. Other battles of champions approach was the minimal direction to get to the scene of battle, once battle was engaged the king was pretty forward (with his crowd of champions) and not directing as much.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

Fighting battles in hand-to-hand combat with the intention of killing as many of your opponents as possible seems to have been invented by the ancient Greeks.

To me that seems like a battle,of champions approach but where the champions were more toward the rear and moving flanks etc. if you killed the king everyone got to go home but first you had to reach the king. Other battles of champions approach was the minimal direction to get to the scene of battle, once battle was engaged the king was pretty forward (with his crowd of champions) and not directing as much.

I have a book on it at home, warfare through history and the psychology behind it.

But I’d have to find it and re-read it first.

AwesomeO said:

All of that moll depends on the combat style and mechanisms. It changes by time and society. Some like the Native American wars was called a deadly game of tag where killing the enemy was not even the main intent. Maori battles whilst deadly more more solitary brawls, leadership consisted mainly of bringing the two sides together, there was no direction of wings or flanks. I saw PNG mentioned earlier, there combat was mostly non deadly, a gathering together and posturing and some spears or arrows exchanged until the first few injuries.

Conflict occurred in smaller bands usually for a specific purpose, grab some horses or stores, or women and children for slaves or to increase the tribe.

The greater non western battles consisted of battles of champions, the ultimate champion being the king or senior representative, once that person was defeated the battle was considered one, this is the closest to the outcome of western mechanised and total war.

Having mentioned total war it should be noted that tribal wars could be considered the most total of wars and result in defeat of entire societies. If two tribes have only 4 men each in the prime of fighting life, a battle may result in half of your fighting “population” being killed and then the odds are very much changed, and now the weakened tribe is at a severe disadvantage.

The potential destruction of a tribe with the loss of just a few lives might be why early tribal wars are by modern standards so benign.

> Some like the Native American wars was called a deadly game of tag where killing the enemy was not even the main intent

IIRC, called “Running brave”. That’s a good observation.

I have read that when two Aboriginal tribes came together they would throw spears at one another. Provided all the spears were safely dodged, this was the standard prelude to a peaceful meeting. On two occasions where someone was injured, the détente was stopped immediately. At at least one initiation ceremony, an adult warrior was called on to throw three spears at each initiate, and successfully deflecting the spears with the tiny shield was expected, and a prerequisite to initiation into manhood.

You can see how wars grew in size and fierceness, but simultaneously became less common, as the stone age gave way progressively to the bronze, iron age, city states, musket age, machine gun age, tank age, bomber age.

> I ought mention boredom, you can thank dickens for that word perhaps. Bored humans, how much trouble are they?

Ah yes, good question. Boredom is a double edged sword.

Thelwell drew a brilliant cartoon “bored ponies develop troublesome vices”, and the same is true of humans. On the other hand, I have heard the term “divine boredom” used, boredom frees the mind from the bottom level of Maslow, allowing time for esoteric pursuits.