The Psychology Of Aggression By John Lennon

Sigmund Freud(1915), also developed a theory of aggression asserted that aggression arose when the ego-instincts, or the ego’s struggle for self-preservation, are impeded. He said: “The ego hates, abhors and pursues with the intent to destroy all objects which is a source of pain” (Freud, 1915).

Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.

If violence can never be legitimized, then why does it exist with such prominence? Thomas Hobbs believed that humans live in a perpetual state of war, ?a Bellum ominium contra omnes, a ?war of all against all? (Candelaria 907).? Humans are naturally violent. Freud agreed with Hobbes, believing that aggression is a natural human instinct. Fear and desire motivate mankind to violence. Freud also believed that violence would naturally beget violence. Because all humans fear death, when threatened they will turn to aggression to protect themselves. These dim views of the human condition show violence to be intrinsic in our

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

Social Psychological Theories of Aggression Social learning theorists propose that behaviour, such as aggression is learnt through observation, imitation and behaviour shaping. This behaviour is learnt automatically through observation of male and female role models, for example parents, peers and media characters. Whether or not this behaviour is imitated depends on the type of reinforcement that the role model receives. Vicarious reinforcement involves the outcome of a role models behaviour, for example if a child observes a parent acting aggressively and receiving positive rewards for they are more like to be imitate this behaviour in the future, than they would be if the role model

Violence is not always the answer to the world’s problems, but it is a great way bring attention to the cause of the problem. Peaceful negotiations is the only way to ensure that the aggressors and opposition both come to an agreement about the best outcome of their situation. Violence creates hate and hate in turn leads to more violence in the long-run thus continuing humanities cycle of self

In this TEDTalk, Steven Pinker introduced an interesting trend in societal violence. The talk began by presenting fax that showed a dramatic decrease in the amount of violent crime beginning as far back as the earliest human hunter-gatherers. In many places during that time period, the chances of dying at the hands of another human were as high is sixty percent. Although the media and people tend to believe we are living in a time of extreme violence, we are actually living during one of the most peaceful times in human history. Even though the 20th Century witnessed tragedies such as the Holocaust, Rwanda, Stalin’s mass executions, and two World Wars, the chances of a human by violent means was less than three percent.

It is said that up to thirty thousand men may have died at the battle of Hastings, a conflict that occurred almost one thousand years ago. World War II, which lasted less than seven years, has been estimated to be responsible for up to forty million deaths. Thus, many people often ask the question why? Why does such conflict occur? Who or what is responsible? The culprit does not hide nor has it escaped scrutiny and blame. It comes in many shapes and sizes, faces and places. It is called violence and the potential for it resides in every single person on this earth. Whose violence conquers all? It is hard to measure the significance of violence, especially when it can cause so much destruction and death as well as stimulation. However,

Violence is defined as a behavior involving physical or mental force intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone. In the words of Zak Ibrahim, peace is defined as the proliferation or the increase in the existence of Justice. But where does love fit in to these conversations? Violence cannot necessarily transform into love, but the presence of it is surely important. Violence involving our most loved ones, helps us find love and compassion in the toughest of situations, and leads us toward paths of peace. In this essay, examples will be drawn from Zak Ibrahim 's keynote presentation, The Road by Cormac McCarthy, Beautiful Boy; a film directed by Shawn Ku, and Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

Are humans inherently violent is a question that has been asked throughout history. Its existence started with the wars, the murders, the attempted genocide and the countless acts of violence and death portrayed in written and spoken history. Human’s inability to understand our own nature is what drives this question and many like it. They want to know what drives them, as an individual, as a society and as a race. Humans wish to know what needs are the most important, what needs are unnecessary, what needs are actually wants, what needs aren’t part of nature but what is given through nurture and so on. These questions allow for humans to better understand their own mind and body. The question really being asked is why do I do the things I do? This question leads to the creation of other questions about human action, thought process and the follow through measure. In wondering about violence, there is a distinctive fear that humans are inherently bad, which is what violence is considered to be. There is a great deal of evidence for both sides, though most historical and older scientific evidence supports the yes sides of the argument. While the no side is more often than not portrayed by newer evidence given in studies, psychological data and observations of the human race. This evidence allows for humans to make arbitrary conclusions about human nature, it does not necessarily make a solid factual statement. It all depends on one’s own interpretation.

Violence is an issue in human nature. Everyone has their own definition and their own interpretations of violence. The big question is if the world is still growing in its violent nature, or is it finally reaching its solemn, peaceful generation. The evolution of violence has grown in many different paths from survival of the fittest, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Steven Pinker’s article “Violence Vanquished,” he explains how the world is entering an era of peace because we do not deal with the same violence our ancestors did in the past. That is true. We abolished slavery, stopped brutal wars, and revolutionized with strategies such as commerce. Pinker analyzes his arguments very well, but negates common issues of violence that we still

In the article “Why The World Is More Peaceful”, the author, Steven Pinker (2012), argues that, over hundreds of years, violence has declined around the world. He claims that government, commerce, and literacy have encouraged people to restrain their violent impulses, empathize with others, and use reason to solve problems. This article was first published in the journal Current History. It is a continuation of an argument Pinker made in his book The Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011). The article is directed toward a general but educated audience. Although Pinker’s article is relevant and logical, many of the author’s arguments are not supported with adequate

The history of human nature has been bloody, painful, and even destructive. Nonetheless, before understanding their environments humans used to kill each other based on their own mindset on the ideal of violence, and what it actually meant. Pinker describes narratives of violent acts from the past, that today are foreign to us. He gives us a tour of the historical human violence and how the violence in human nature has changed throughout time. The main idea from Pinker’s book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature ', is “for all the dangers we face today, the dangers of yesterday were even worse.” He provides its readers with explicit violent stories beginning from 8000 BCE to now, and describes how violence has evolved from a blood lost to more of a peaceful existence.

Violence is something that will always be there, whether it be right up in your face, on a battlefield, or creeping in the darkness, sowing the seeds of despair and resentment in humanity’s hearts, forever changing the landscape of your life to come. Violence has vigorously torn apart relationships that have lasted centuries, all because of a single gunshot, which has led to massive bloodshed, and the loss of many loved ones. Violence is a part of a cycle that is necessary in life, but would rather be avoided, which is why I am here, to help diminish that cycle of hatred, through the power of prevention through education, and self control.

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s