The Warrior Gene

didn't know where to put this but i found it slightly interesting:

the warrior gene

Boys who have a so-called "warrior gene" are more likely to join gangs and also more likely to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, a new study finds.

"While gangs typically have been regarded as a sociological phenomenon, our investigation shows that variants of a specific MAOA gene, known as a 'low-activity 3-repeat allele,' play a significant role," said biosocial criminologist Kevin M. Beaver of Florida State University.

i remember as a young boy it only seemed natural to get with your pals, put on your dad's old army gear, grab a toy gun, and storm the neighbor's yard like it was normandy.

it seems that some of us are programmed form birth to have an affinity for war games, weaponry, and conflict resolution. violent behavior wouldn't exactly be a "product of society" if it's hardwired. we need very little encouragement. society would then seem to be the product of a violent nature...

insight, intel and opinion welcome.

[edit on 6/6/2009 by gravykraken]

[edit on 6/6/2009 by gravykraken]

Humans are too weak individually to have evolved as individuals. Instead we evolved as societies, interweavings of various useful talents.

Some people are born with a tendency to violence, some to be peacemakers, some explorers, inventers, builders, healers, teachers, raisers of children, musicians, story-tellers...

All these skills have been needed in society for aeons and they still are.

We need to each learn to value each other and share our knowledge and abilities.

The Nature of Things

Two monks were washing their bowls in the river when they noticed a scorpion that was drowning. One monk immediately scooped it up and set it upon the bank. In the process he was stung. He went back to washing his bowl and again the scorpion fell in. The monk saved the scorpion and was again stung. The other monk asked him, "Friend, why do you continue to save the scorpion when you know it's nature is to sting?"

"Because," the monk replied, "to save it is my nature."

I'm not real convinced by the study, and I don't like the name of the gene.

A "warrior" is someone who's successful in conflict. Highly aggressive people often are ultimately UNsuccessful because they take far too many risks and make too many enemies.

I also think that the study completely ignores social pressure. As I understand it, kids often join gangs because they're afraid of being beaten up by other kids. Social pressure, economic pressure, and mob hysteria have been fingered as causes in cases where a mob in the neighborhood suddenly decides to hunt down members of a rival tribe that's lived among them or near them in peace.

Originally posted by Byrd
I'm not real convinced by the study, and I don't like the name of the gene.

A "warrior" is someone who's successful in conflict. Highly aggressive people often are ultimately UNsuccessful because they take far too many risks and make too many enemies.

I also think that the study completely ignores social pressure. As I understand it, kids often join gangs because they're afraid of being beaten up by other kids. Social pressure, economic pressure, and mob hysteria have been fingered as causes in cases where a mob in the neighborhood suddenly decides to hunt down members of a rival tribe that's lived among them or near them in peace.

I wouldn't say succesful. In battle someone loses but both are warriors. I have felt that this gene is a reality for years. There is always the human factor that may interfere with this but I truly believe that this is very possible.
Humans have done battle since the beginning of time. The ones born to do battle will find some way to release that aggression. There are lots of situations where someone is being beaten or worse and others just standing around or ignore it. But in many situations there is at least one person who wil come to their rescue. Now being raised properly probably plays into this and feeling it was the right thing to do, but, that person has an overwhelming feeling of having to to help. It is just a gut reaction.
I believe this is where many soldiers and police officers get their bravery. I also believe that may athletes share this gene, and use the sport to satisfy the need to do battle.

reply to post by Byrd


Byrd, I'm more inclined to agree with you on this. Those who are relatively unrestrained and naturally aggressive generally have short life spans.

The most successful warriors are some of the most unassuming men you'll ever meet. They have the "monster" but even they don't know it until battle and the "monster" inside manifests itself.

These highly successful warriors are not of an aggressive nature, yet benefit from a total conversion of sorts - just as long as action is required. It only lasts for the duration of the combat.

I noted that among the self-promoting "badasses," when the shooting started, they were suddenly scarce. And meanwhile, that quiet little guy who never gave anyone a moment's trouble was suddenly a TIGER.

Aggressive behavior and success in combat are almost mutually exclusive.

Must be a law somewhere.

Originally posted by Kailassa

The Nature of Things

Two monks were washing their bowls in the river when they noticed a scorpion that was drowning. One monk immediately scooped it up and set it upon the bank. In the process he was stung. He went back to washing his bowl and again the scorpion fell in. The monk saved the scorpion and was again stung. The other monk asked him, "Friend, why do you continue to save the scorpion when you know it's nature is to sting?"

"Because," the monk replied, "to save it is my nature."

Funny, one time, I got bit by an ant, took it off my leg and the poor critter landed in the water, got it out of the water and put it somewhere else safe.

Going back the OP. I doubt that is a warrior gene. Warriors are supposed to be courageous and honorable individuals. Relying in the security of weapons, a group, and the logic of violence I think that's cowardice, they have the coward genes, lol!!!!

[edit on 8-6-2009 by ahnggk]

reply to post by Kailassa


well put. couldn't agree more.

i think the roles may not be stagnant though. society at times places demands on individuals that force a change in role.

reply to post by Byrd


hi Byrd.

i think "warrior" is just being used as a catchall term here. it seems that we are prepared to make the distinction between a "warrior" and a criminal. that being said: i do not equate thugs with warriors.

what the article is saying is that those thugs with this 'warrior gene' are potentially more dangerous. that is not to say that every gangster carries the warrior gene, or that having it makes you a thug.

most anyone can be MADE into a so-called warrior. perhaps some are born that way. agression isn't necessrily a bad thing, especially when it is called for.

the military and police force are far removed from street gangs, but people join them for the same (and other) reasons.

genetics suggest a predispostion toward certain behavior. society imposes it.







[edit on 9/6/2009 by gravykraken]

reply to post by dooper


agression and close quarter combat are tantamount. though the same may not be true for warfare in general. when it is time to act the 'tiger' (good choice of words, btw) is still agressive as all hell. self control may mean the difference between a successful warrior and a dead warrior. (i agree.)

not all warriors are successful. i'd say coming back in one piece is a success.

there is no character or value assigned to the term "warrior". it is a neutral word. one only has to engage in conflict to be described as a warrior by definition.

it is kinda crappy however that it has been associated this way. it would certainly leave a different taste if the article stated that boys with the same gene are just as likely to become a marine, cop, or firefighter.




[edit on 9/6/2009 by gravykraken]

reply to post by ahnggk


cowards do not ready for battle.

they run from it.

reply to post by Daz3d-n-Confus3d


good point, about athletes. i would like to add hunting as a coping tool to satisfy the need to do battle. sports covers the struggle, the need to go agaisnt. hunting allows for the killing.

so you're saying for some it is like a compulsion, an irresistable urge to intervene? the same can be said for the need to destroy as well.

some warriors resolve conflict, some create it.


thanks all, for comments.

Originally posted by gravykraken
reply to post by ahnggk

 

cowards do not ready for battle.

they run from it.

Of course that is correct. The security of numbers of weapons can serve a tactical advantage in battle, that is good if your goal is to win.

But I think the concept of violence is separable. Don't you think it takes more courage to achieve your goals without resorting to using the threat of violence or violence, than achieving it with violence or the threat of violence?

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." - Sun Tzu

Back to topic, I have to say, the 'warrior' gene is a bad gene!

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by gravykraken
reply to post by ahnggk

 

cowards do not ready for battle.

they run from it.

But I think the concept of violence is separable. Don't you think it takes more courage to achieve your goals without resorting to using the threat of violence or violence, than achieving it with violence or the threat of violence?



Back to topic, I have to say, the 'warrior' gene is a bad gene!

That would depend upon the situation. There are times, like it or not, that battle is an only option. If the country you were in was being attacked I believe you would feel differently about the concept of a warrior. I believe that we all have something in us that is an asset to the world we live in. It creates a balance. You can not despise a person because he feels the need to fight in certain situations anymore than you can despise someone for being a peace maker when the time comes to fight. You can only despise him for the way he reacts to a situation. Without morales neither are worth their salt.

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
That would depend upon the situation. There are times, like it or not, that battle is an only option. If the country you were in was being attacked I believe you would feel differently about the concept of a warrior.

When all forms of diplomacy fails, yes, fighting and the inevitable use of violence is a logical action.

So IMO, the warrior gene is good, if that's all your meant to be, to fight. But possibly not recommend, if you are to lead. I'm not saying it's a good gene overall. I'd rather have fighting men who can think before the use of brute force, but if there's a shortage of such, then those with warrior gene may suffice!

So many interesting comments here...

Originally posted by ahnggk
But I think the concept of violence is separable. Don't you think it takes more courage to achieve your goals without resorting to using the threat of violence or violence, than achieving it with violence or the threat of violence?

That, I think, is my original definition; a warrior is someone who has the "courage to act" in a situation where the odds are long and the fight is difficult; the person who can think clearly their way out of something, whether it's living in a bad home situation or fighting fires in a national park ... or combat. Aggression is not really the "courage to act"; it's a more primal force where the person sees only 2 options -- fight or flight -- and sees nothing else.

So I think the researcher's methods need to be looked at closely and the definitions as well.

reply to post by Byrd


I absolutely agree with that statement Byrd. The gang members are not warriors. They are acting under peer pressure or the need to survive. You are correct that there is a big difference between the two.
There have however been many warriors in our history that were not only good at combat but also extremely intelligent.
I do see what you mean about the authors statement and they do need to examine the research again, but I truly believe that there is a gene in all people that determines you traits at conception.