[From: Bruce Nevin (Wed 921216 16:08:13)]
/*****************************************************************************
* [Martin Taylor 921215] *
* *
* Why . . . do most species stop fighting short of lethality, whereas *
* humans are among the very few who don't? The argument from integrating *
* output would seem to suggest that all species should fight to the death *
* in the case of an unresolvable conflict (can't both have this doe). *
* *
* Giving up seems to be the most common way of ending conflicts. One *
* participant "decides" that winning is unlikely, and concedes. Humans *
* are considered wimpish, cowardly, poor specimens, if they follow that *
* sensible rule. I would have thought that if humans have more levels of *
* control systems in their hierarchy, they would be more able to avoid or *
* resolve conflict than would other species; at least a naive application *
* of HPCT would seem to lead to that conclusion. *
*****************************************************************************/
A way to an answer lies I think in someone's (Gary's?) questions
and observations a year or so ago about how a person could ignore
or override perceptions that in imagination anyway result in
intrinsic error. Bill argued then that the image of heroic
resistance to torture is a myth.
If the situation is simply a squabble over who gets to eat or
mate on this occasion, it is easier to back down. If winning on
this occasions constitutes a change or confirmation of desired
status as one perceives that one is perceived by others, it is
harder. It might be unbearable to be thought a coward, or a
traitor, or a wimp, and the imagined consequences of that social
assessment (a sure thing) might outweigh the imagined consequences
physically of getting beat up losing a fight (perhaps perceived
in imagination as not so sure a thing).
The higher levels of the hierarchy have to be there for this.
I think we see a fair amount of this in mammal and primate
societies. But the elaboration of status and of institutionalized
consequences associated with status that we humans have developed
depends I think on language.
Sorry I can't spin that out more clearly. Hope it's enough to
get the point over. Gotta run,
Bruce
bn@bbn.com