Animal fighting behaviour and what it could mean for us

[Crimson Phoenix]

Have you read Konrad Lorentz' work on animal behaviour? IMHO, these are mandatory reads for any MA...but anyway, here's my start for a discussion.
In one part of his work, he points out how Deers fight...they have huge deerhorns (eventhough obviously they do not do bagua). It's a powerful weapon...one swing of the neck could kill a large animal. YET, they only use them during ritual combats between deers, for territory or mating issues. By "ritual", I mean fights happening to determine a social leader (either territorial, reproductive etc...) between members of the same species, with a low risk of death (sometimes they stay entangled). NEVER do they use them while fighting for survival against another animal. Instead, they bite, and use their powerful hooves.
What it could mean for us human animals? First that there are two types of fights: the ritual, and the survival fights. Second, that the weapons and behaviour involved in these fights are different.
The ritual fight is the usual "who's the alpha male in here" or "why you look at my girl like that" fight. During a ritual fight, you can get a good beat up, broken nose or ribs, but your life isn't in real danger...Lorentz pointed out that ritual fights are almost exclusively involving clenched fists, and hypothesized that indeed clenched fists behaviours were designed to minimize lethal injuries to the member of your species. Also, during a ritual fight, center of gravity goes up, with prominent torso and spread arms (in a fashion of looking more impressive...doesn't it remind you of gorillas??). Also, adrenalin is the main behavioral hormone secretion. You might be able to talk your way out of it, or by adopting a submission behavior (you won, you're the best, I'm nobody, blah blah).
However, during survival fights it is much different (and humans being the superpredator, they are the only known species that gets engaged into survival fights AMONG themselves, as other animals have submission behaviors that inhibit any further harm from the attacker of their specie). Noradrenalin pumps and tightens your eye pupil (adrenalin widens it, making the stare more impressive), center of gravity goes down (much like a predator preparing to jump on its prey). Hands stay open, or in the form of claws. There won't be any inhibition or taboo target from the attacker in this situation: he'll biten, claw, spit, hit anywhere without second thoughts. Also, you can't talk someone out of this state, his intellect isn't in control anyway.
This is for the facts, and the wonderful insights that it opens...
One can hypothesize even more: all serious styles of gong fu use open hands techniques, some exclusively (in white crane, when the fist is clenched it is in phoenix eye for example, not the plain fist, except for training issues...the rest of the time it's open hand). Is it because of this functional difference between survival and ritual? Most styles stress low crouched postures...once again, is it because of this difference and what different behaviours noradrenalin and adrenalin generate?
The same goes for animal mindset, a statement that most of the time is accompanied by something along "rage is to be replaced by cold determination" (extreme yang should be abolished and replaced by wuji).
What are your thoughts on that?
And why the hell you still haven't bought Lorentz' books??
And do you all know how good it is to post while listening to Ruff Endz???

[No_Know]

Survival fights of Humans: against attack with blunt weapon; against attack with sharp weapon; against attack with bladed weapon; against attack no appearant weapon (merely~hands feet body...)?

The observation is leading if there is a mix of attack types or if weapons and empty hands is not equal sample.

Taint: survival fight is not equal as ritual fight might be considered. Intenet is different. There might be less to no clinching of hands (into fists) in Survival because one (who is defending; or was attacked) does not want to fight.

Taint: ritual fight, deer--Since their standing in their society is dependant on Their antlers (appearance, health...) The might not use them in throat cutting type attacks because of risk of damage to what they are measured by in thier community.
....Example The President of the United States or any politition gets angry towards a person saying untrue or not nice things. If the politician goes for bodily harm to mouthy person, said politician damages their position in the public opinion. For the deer it's horn. For politicians it's dignity~. Some-such perhaps.

You mentioned books. Perhaps this perspective and observations the enthuse you so much address if talking about Humam versus Humam, Human versus animal (type is significant), animal (type is significant) versus Human, whether the Human fightings has any weapon...whether the deer were survival fighting deer when they seldom if ever used their antler. Whether the deer used non antler attacks against non-deer...

What you present seems cute but not definitive. I don't intend to read any of the boks of the person you mention. Time management and the such. I hope theres more of these interesting observations for you as you read all Lorentz's writings.

"And do you all know how good it is to post while listening to Ruff Endz???"

Hopefully I No_Know such satisfaction. Good though that you have it.


Very good

[Braden]

I'm not sure, and indeed couldn't track of, all of the inferences CP was making, but his basic premise is reasonably well-established by a number of branches of science.

There are indeed two entirely distinct and independant neural circuits associated with aggressive behavior, whose activity relates appropriately to two very different and characteristic physical responses. They are usually described as the inter- and intra-species circuits. For intra- and inter-, the circumstances usually don't matter - type of animal, armed/unarmed, seeming intent, etc, this categorization is consistent.

The intra-species is generally characterized by an overall heightened level of arousal, with everything that entails. It is generally believed that the kind of human intra-species attacks we might associate with serial killers and the like are associated with this neural circuit. Some theorists have claimed that for reasons of abnormal neural structure, serial killers require this extraodinarily high level of neural activation to feel, as other's feel - normal. Others align it simply with the normal-neural-structure idea of high arousal -> reward circuits -> gratification, along the same fashion as our 'normal' motivations are set neurally (and the same fashion used in opiate use, felt in sexual gratification, used to make us eat and drink, etc).

The inter-species, conversely, is associated with very low, generally, levels of arousal.

I'm not sure where or how it's been indicated that humans do, and/or that they're the only ones, to exhibit the intra-species reaction to inter-species aggression. Indeed, most (all?) of the sorts of human aggression I have seen have been characterized by the expected intra-species response. Perhaps for brief moments in war this is not true? I would not know.

[Crimson Phoenix]

No_Know, some okuden (hidden teachings) of karate say in substance: consider the opponents' limbs like blades...some other okudens even say "blocks shouldn't be used" (these two are strikingly in agreement). So weapons or not, at a high level in karate (what okuden is about), doesn't seem to play a difference, because you'll deal with the art of fighting the same way whether they are here or not. Also, in France many recorded duels were with free choice of weapons, from sticks to two hand swords, and both opponent usually chose different weapons...a famous fighter, Jarnac (who gave his name to a "sucker" fencing technique), said in substance after his xth won duel for life "so you think I have time to train in all these weapons? No, good Lord, I just train things I can use with all weapons".
This sentence might be of critical importance when we deal with survival combat.
For survival fighting, weapon or not, sunshine or not, doesn't matter: your life is in danger, you keep it or lose it. It doesn't matter how you do it, you either succeed or fail, the rest is not in the equation.
As for your comments about the deer prestige, I don't think deer ever cared about it. Else they'd realize how low-key it is to just poop around and **** on every bush. They use their antlers in a violent fashion in ritual fights between males. They are indeed more likely to break this way than if they used it against non-deers. The few deaths happening during such fights result when both get entangled and can't free themselves. The rest of the time the loser knows he lost and knows how to perform the submission ritual to escape further harm. One thing that humans often don't know or do improperly...There IS a meaning to the fact that they do not use it against predators, but rather use them against their own species. Believe it or not. Also, one thing that seems to elude you: prestige doesn't stand when your life is at stake. It's very useful to have intact antlers (god, I can't use my antlers against that human and his dogs, I'm going to break it!) when you're dead...do what it takes to survive first, you'll think about the rest when you're safe. And that strikingly goes along with human self-defense and jail issues too.
Well, just tell nobel prize K Lorentz, founder of modern ethology and even ethnology, that his ideas (and findings) are cute...and yes, I also hope strongly there will be more interesting observations...and please, manage your time well and don't even try to read his books. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

[Crimson Phoenix]

Great Braden, that's the kind of discussion/precision I'm waiting for. I don't care about silly "does the deer has a knife or not" suppositions, I'm asking you all what kind of bells such ideas ring in you...
Maybe I should state that I claim NOTHING, I'm just a researcher on the martial path and hence has to keep my mind open. However here and there I stumble across things that make me go hhhhhmmmmmmmmm...I'm not a reference or an expert, I'm just throwing ideas and findings in to get a good discussion from other open-minded and honest posters, to get as many different opinions, experiences and sensibilities in play.
Hopefully we can all benefit from a good brainstorm. The important thing is not to set what is true and what is not (who are we to do that anyway?), it is to think and diligently look further, keeping an empty cup...

[{i^(]

Mr. Lorentz's work is indeed classic, but there are some flaws to it (as there is in anything).

He does aver that ritualistic fighting does not -generally- result in death, but he seems to not recognize that ritualistic behaviors can and do get there, esp. when compared to other research in the field of animal behaviors.

For instance, we have the reports of J. Goodall, who reported on the killing and eating of a gorilla infant by leading females of a group. The infant had been the offspring of the leading male (naturally) and the females, presumably, did not countenance leaving it alive. It's mother was the lowest status female in the group, and she had foregone foraging in order to protect it.

Next, we have reports on the behaviors of rats- taken from their nest, scrubbed thoroughly to remove scent, and returned, the other rats will tear it to pieces. If you take rats from other nests and throw them all into a 'mixed setting', they will also kill each other to establish dominance.

Next, we have the behaviors of barnyard chickens. The pecking order (which I believe he studied) can and does result in death, but only over time due to neglect. Then another is selected, in turn.

And lastly, the statement that humans are the only species to engage in survival fights among themselves is naive. I'm sure you remember ant wars from your childhood? The same occurs throughout the insect world, and continues to include chimpanzees, baboons, etc., provided the 'enemies' are from outside groups. And they kill, generally, for the right to mate, esp. when taking down the alpha male, which is usually followed by killing all infant offspring then mounting the females. Very 'Genghis', that. This is why it is never a good idea to take these kind of fights lightly- they get out of hand.

Comparing these activities to humans is a little awkward, however. Gang warfare is certainly territorial (maybe even business related) but frequently turns deadly. Further, we have media that tends to lower our inhibitions to violence. And anyhow, who's to say we go by instinct at any point?

[Braden]

I don't think the two sorts of aggressive behavior are related, in an absolute sense, to mortality. There is evidence that intra-species/ritualistic aggression is accompanied by behavior which reduces mortality, but it still certainly happens.

One of the points I was trying to get across in my post is that you can't decide an aggresive behavior is inter-species/survival just because it's to the death. To use the examples you used, gang warface seems to be of the intra-species/ritualistic type behavior. As does barnyard chicken pecking orders, chimp and baboon warring and caste fighting. Ants? I'm not sure; I'm not sure if insect neurobiology is really comparable. The various offspring-killing behaviors? Now that is a really interesting example.

Was Lorentz, et al aware of the neurobiology of inter- and intra-species aggression when they formulated this theory? I dunno. Were they? Surely the two concepts are describing the same phenomenon though.

[Crimson Phoenix]

Braden, I believe neurology wasn't at that state yet when Lorentz did his work.
Survival vs Ritual is like Internal vs External: it's a convenient paradigm to explain things, but the deeper you analyze, you more exceptions you see...yet, it's a god paradigm.
I agree with Braden that you can't really decide if it's ritual or survival by the outcome of death...I guess many fights in bars ended with unintended death, whereas a predator that finds too strong a prey might just interrupt and move on.
As for the offsprings killings, it's indeed very interesting and it is the main point where you see that ritual/survival is too simple a model to apply all the time. Presumably there are mixtures of both too...
Most of the time, offspring killing is just a drive to place your own genetic patrimony in the better position...a lioness who milks here lil' lions can't ovulate, so a male will kill them in order to fecundate the lioness and get his own offsprings...it's not really nice, but at least it has an evolutionary explanation, it's not killing for the sake of it.
I don't think comparing animal behaviours to human behaviour is awkward at all...we ARE animals, we just have the unique ability to wrap things up with intellectual concepts like morals and ideals to forget our true nature and think we're so above the rest.
There are many wars in animals...but only human seems to be able to take pleasure in the act of killing, without any real need or evolutionary advantage, just killing for the sake of it...

[{i^(]

I could be mistaken (I will look it up) but I believe that Lorentz was an animal behaviorist. You're coming at it from neurobiology, so that alters the POV, naturally.

Lorentz was looking for generally applicable 'laws', and in that he made progress- he was one of the first to really do it. That there are conflicting tales shouldn't detract from that, after all, he started the ball rolling in this direction. My problem is the usual 'how applicable is an animal model?' one, esp. when regarding complex SOCIAL behaviors. For the most part, they are, but consciousness becomes a confound.

OT- Braden: take a look here: http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/philosophy_...nd_psychology/

[Braden]

CP: "Survival vs Ritual is like Internal vs External: it's a convenient paradigm to explain things, but the deeper you analyze, you more exceptions you see"

Perhaps. I was adding that there are two definite and distinct neural pathways (and thus physical behavior sets) which characterize two different kinds of aggresion, as described.

{^ "You're coming at it from neurobiology, so that alters the POV, naturally."

Point of view, yes. But, object? Behavioural neuroscience is as inspired by behavioural observations as by physiological techniques. There's enough parallels here to believe the b.neurosci. topic and the ethology topic are one and the same.

I'll check the link when I have a mo; thanks.

[{i^(]

I wasn't going to post again today, but this topic is too interesting. *sigh*

Certainly, B. Neurosci. sheds great light on these matters. Not dismissing anything.

I've been repeating the same misspelling from the initial post: "Lorenz" not Lorentz. No problem.

I think what annoys me is the statement that humans have a kind of lock on war as an activity. I do not believe that we do, firstly, and I do not believe it helps to think so, secondly.

To explain: perhaps my example of insects was unhelpful, but they are the closest model to densely-packed living arrangements (eg, cities) that we have from that world, so some characterists may apply. May, only, mind you.

Other examples, perhaps, may come from dogs and wolves...?

Anyhow, humans do not have a lock on organized killing of their fellows. Yes, we take it further, with specialized armies, but that is trivial to the point being made. When we exclude ourselves from nature, which is being done when saying that war is uniquely human, we also exclude the possibility of using our minds to alter the basic 'programming' (be that genes/memes, 'instinct', behavior, or what-have-you) that may be revealed by examining these same behaviors in animal societies.

Now, I fully realize that I'm sounding as if I'm contradicting myself, but not entirely: what I argue is that animal models may not apply in all senses, and perhaps esp. neurologically, when arguing a cause for violence. Yes, I admit that sometimes I wouldn't mind hitting someone for B.O., but is that truly equivalent? I don't know.

I don't want to come across as attacking you, CP- I'm not. I respect your views, so I consider them closely.

There is some interesting discussions to be found on this within the work of Howard Bloom, the book being The Lucifer Principle. He has a site at
www.howardbloom.net

Ok, so until next time. I'll get back to more directly looking at the question.

[Braden]

I'm really curious about the statement that humans were the only ones to engage in survival fights among themselves.

I was clumsily trying to voice possibly disagreement with this when I brought up the neurology the stuff... the point being that, in terms of the neurological model, the human-to-human aggression (gangs, wars, murder...) are all actually of the ritual-sort.

So, in this sense, I meant to agree with what {i^( said about man following the same laws as nature.

[Former castleva]

Unique post.
Just wanted to put my few offline cents that Lorentz did good material on dogs.
Some of his views on dogs have been questioned but I´m sure he left a track for the world of them.

[No_Know]

Shade appearance: Blacks, Whites, Redskin, Yellowskinned...

Location: [Country names], [Compus direction], Desert, Medeteranean, Arctic, Antarctic, Island, Mainland, Jungle, Forest, Swamp...

Belief: Wicca, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Voodoo, Hindu, Druid, Celtic, Satanist...

Social status: Upper class (upper, middle, lower); Middle class (upper, middle, lower) Lower~ class ( upper, poor, really po' (so poor couldn't afford the last two letters)); Noble, peasant, royal, surf, gentleperson, trash, independant, bum...

Financial status: rich, poor, wealthy, well-off, neuvo rich(e?), old money, barely-make-ends-meet, no credit card, poor credit, in-debt, bankrupt, Chapter eleven...

There might be a concept that There are a lot of people who do not think of there merely being a Human or one species. But rather as one of the above or their like. Or combinations of those.

If Humans consider others to be in a tolerable classification, their relationship with them is intra-. The difference between tolerable and not to be tolerated-ish can be one classification or factor, plus or minus. The model of Humans being an exception to the intra- model is wrong, given this, as Humans might consider out of their perceived group to be inter-. ~

It seems species can have groups within them selves that are perceived different enough to fight/kill. The smallest of these groups is an individual. Survival is ritual in some cases to at least some cases of Humans. Survival can occure by fending off/defending, challenging, being better at an assigned task-ish or characteristic-ish, intimidating by hurting/maiming (physical or mental (emotional...)) or killing, ensuring the resources will last or thinning the populace to match available resources. Keep a balance of the appeasement of the ruling members of the group, The majority of the populace, and the members of the group that might be followed or listened to.

This seems to range from the ants example to burn the books and shoot the philosophers/thinkers/(artists).

[Crimson Phoenix]

Thanks, don't worry, I do not feel that you are attacking me
Anyway, guys, I think you missed a little bit of my point...I didn't intend this thread to become a modern neurology discussion. What I intented originally is to drop some theories, from serious scientists, that could establish a link with training concepts or fighting strategies of CMA (or TMA in general). In other words, why would you want to adopt low stances when everyone feels it's easier to be high, why some serious styles say "blocks shouldn't be used", why hitting with open hands and not just plain fists, possibly by thinking about some behavioral or etnological theories that would make you go aaahhhhaaaaaaa!!
We all know Newton can't stand the test of modern physics...yet, his theories remain totally functional in many systems...so I do not really want to debate whether Lorentz was right or not, or things like this, rather do something along "in X's work you can find reference to such and such, and interestingly, in TMA you do this and that and in this light it doesn't sound so silly or arbitrary ".
I'm already aware there are many highly educated and intelligent posters here (well, if we weren't we'd do BJJ, right?? LOLOLOLOL just pulling your legs), so let's keep it martial, and not just debate about pure scientific theories....