Evolutionary theories of violent conflict, bellicosity and radicalization (original) (raw)

Evolutionary Psychology and Warfare

SAGE Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 2020

The scientific study of the evolution of human coalitional aggression has exploded over the last three decades. In four parts, I explore and integrate many of the useful frameworks that have emerged to describe and explain the human practice of intergroup violence. First, we have a clearer understanding of the general conditions required for the evolution of adaptations for coalitional aggression. Second, given an understanding of these conditions, we can more usefully examine the historic and prehistoric record for evidence of the existence of these conditions. Third, I explore and integrate current lab and field evidence for psychological adaptations for coalitional aggression. This section reveals a core dynamic underlying all forms of coalitional aggression: the form of intergroup engagement is functionally linked with the emergent patterns of intragroup dynamics. In other words, how we fight “abroad” determines how we cooperate “at home,” and vice versa. I examine five areas of inquiry that suggest special design for coalitional aggression. These are: the collective action problem of coordinated violence; parochial altruism; attacker-defender asymmetries; leader-follower dynamics; sex differences in the costs and benefits of violence. Fourth, and to conclude, I offer speculation on the historical emergence of modern human warfare. I do not use “coalitional aggression” and “warfare” interchangeably; rather, evolved psychological adaptations for small-scale coalitional aggression are what make the historical emergence of large-scale human warfare possible.

Warfare, genocide, and ethnic conflict a Darwinian approach.pdf

As the 21st century dawns, I reflect on the history of humankind with growing concern about the need to understand the underlying biological and cultural roots of ethnic conflict and warfare. In the many studies of human conflict, innate biological predispositions have been neglected. This article is the third part of a series of seminars for medical residents at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas (see http://adarwinstudygroup.org/). The series starts with in-depth coverage of Darwinian natural and sexual selection, with examples from the domestication of animals and plants and the crisis of antibiotic resistance. The series strives to show how biology has been neglected in the study of the we-they orientation of human behavior, with its devastating consequences. The subject material is profoundly disturbing, as it looks at "human nature" and contrasts the "dark side" of human behavior with the opposite, profoundly caring and loving side.

The evolution of war: Theory and controversy

International Theory, 2016

The use of evolutionary theory for explaining human warfare is an expanding area of inquiry, but it remains obstructed by two important hurdles. One is that there is ambiguity about how to build an evolutionary theory of human warfare. The second is that there is ambiguity about how to interpret existing evidence relating to the evolution of warfare. This paper addresses these problems, first by outlining an evolutionary theory of human warfare, and second by investigating the veracity of four common claims made against the use of evolutionary theory for explaining warfare. These claims are: (1) ancestral warfare was not frequent or intense enough to have selected for psychological adaptations in humans for warfare; (2) the existence of peaceful societies falsifies the claim that humans possess adaptations for fighting; (3) if psychological adaptations for warfare exist, then war is an inevitable and universal component of the human condition; (4) modern warfare and international politics is so qualitatively different from ancestral politics that any adaptations for the latter are inoperative or irrelevant today. By outlining an evolutionary theory of war and clarifying key misunderstandings regarding this approach, international relations scholars are better positioned to understand, engage, and contribute to emerging scholarship on human warfare across the social and evolutionary sciences.

Terrorism - lessons from natural and human co-evolutionary arms races

2015

Introduction: Why take a co-evolutionary perspective on terrorism and counterterrorism? The potential for violent, destructive and threatening behaviour against fellow humans seems to be inherent in our psychological and anatomical nature (the latter arguably evidenced by special adaptations of our fists, and fist-resistant faces (Morgan and Carrier, 2013; Carrier and Morgan, 2014)). This is true whether that behaviour concerns an argument over an insult, careless driving, domestic relations, religious beliefs and practices, or who governs Eastern Ukraine. The kinds of tactics and strategies classed, at times, as acts of terrorism, fall within this set. Fortunately equally inherent in us are cooperation, empathy and altruism, although in a conflict these can be selectively applied to one's own side, even by terrorists. As chapter x notes (Ekblom, Sidebottom and Wortley), we can look to our evolutionary origins to help understand, and hopefully to influence, what turns us-as individuals and groups-on and off violent conflict, who we target, over what moral/political causes and under what circumstances. This is the domain of beliefs, identities, ideologies and motivation. But we can also take another perspective, which is how conflicts tactically and strategically unfold, and how this process can be influenced for the differential benefit of the 'good side'. The 'how' essentially concerns the process of adaptation, whereby organisms as individuals, groups or species change over some relevant timescale to become better fitted to survival, flourishing and reproduction in their habitual environment. Adaptation for potentially violent and destructive conflict such as carrying out terrorism or defending against it is the core concern of this chapter, although adaptation for cooperation and straightforward foraging with or without violence also play a part. The aim of the chapter as a whole is to explore the lessons for counter-terrorism from evolutionary studies of adaptation in both human and natural domains. This is partly to come up with some practical suggestions at tactical and strategic levels; but partly also to foster a distinctive and, I will argue, promising way of thinking among policymakers, security services, engineers, planners and designers. From bacteria to buffalo, conflict is an ecological fact of life. In most animals conflict is driven by scarcity of resources such as food and living space, or mating opportunities, and can range from tussles over food, say, to outright predation, where the conflict is over the fleshly assets of the prey. In humans, conflict extends to cover purely culturally-mediated

Waging Terror: Psychological Motivation In Cultural Violence and Peacemaking

papers.ssrn.com

This chapter examines the psychological factors that serve as catalysts to the cycle of terrorist and extreme counterterrorist violence from the perspective of terror management theory (TMT). After reviewing research relevant to these ideas, we then discuss potential ways to defuse the conflict and promote more peaceful intergroup relations.

Military conflict and terrorism: General psychology informs international relations

Review of General Psychology, 2003

Several experiments, focusing on decisions made by young, voting-age citizens of the United States about how to respond to incidents of international conflict, are summarized. Participants recommended measured reactions to an initial attack. Repeated attacks led to escalated reaction, however, eventually matching or exceeding the conflict level of the attack itself. If a peace treaty between contending nations was in place, women were more forgiving of an attack, and men were more aggressive. There was little overall difference in reactions to terrorist versus military attacks. Participants responded with a higher level of conflict to terrorist attacks on military than on cultural-educational targets.

The Evolutionary Psychology of War: Offense and Defense in the Adapted Mind

Evolutionary Psychology, 2017

The study of warfare from an evolutionary perspective has expanded rapidly over the last couple of decades. However, it has tended to focus on the ancestral origins, prevalence, and instruments of war rather than adaptationist analyses of its underlying psychology. I argue that our evolved coalitional psychology may contain a set of distinct evolved heuristics designed specifically for offensive and defensive coalitional aggression. Data from two survey experiments are presented, in which subjects were given scenarios depicting offensive or defensive aggression and were told to make decisions, for example, regarding their willingness to participate in the conflict, their opinions of others who did not choose to participate, and their expectations benefit. The results indicate that humans do indeed distinguish readily between these two domains and that their willingness to participate, as well as their emotional responses toward others, is highly contingent upon this informational cue in adaptively relevant ways. In addition, and consistent with parental investment theory, data reveal a range of sex differences in attitudes toward coalitional aggression in the two conflict domains. Beyond the study of warfare, this project has implications for our understanding of the relationship between individual behavior and group dynamics, as well as for our understanding of the mechanisms by which the psychological framing of political events can lead to important social outcomes.