Animal fighting behaviour and what it could mean for us

[Braden]

No-Know

I'm not sure I'm following.

"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-."

Looking at the actual observations, aggressive behavior against the foreign percieved group follows the model for intra- behaviors. There was never a reason to believe humans ever were an exception to the intra-model.

"Survival is ritual in some cases to at least some cases of Humans. Survival can occure by..."

These are good examples of when survival and ritual cross, and perhaps why these were poor names for the two sets of behaviors!

Crimson Pheonix

"I didn't intend this thread to become a modern neurology discussion. What I intented originally is to drop some theories, from serious scientists"

Neurology doesn't count as serious science theories?

"why would you want to adopt low stances when everyone feels it's easier to be high"

I wouldn't. The behaviors associated with ritual/intra-species aggression are 'designed' to do two things - i) convey submissive/dominant posturing, ii) protect vital areas (in rats: face of attacker, back of defender). I'm not sure what characterizes, universally, the survival/inter-species behaviors, but it's not clear, or at least unestablished, that lowering of gravity is universal among them (submissive animals in ritual behavior certainly lower their gravity quite dramatically, for example).

"why some serious styles say 'blocks shouldn't be used'"

I don't think any style suggests an absence of handwork which provides defense. Variations upon what this defense entails are the variations by which we distintinguish different martial styles (in other words, it's not indicative of anything to notice there are different approaches here). If it's a timing, rather than technique issue, the idea of 'blocks shouldn't be used' means one doesn't fight with a block-strike-block-strike perfect tempo. Rather, one simply moves, which is the attack/defense. The reason for this is simply that it's the only thing that works. To para-phrase Erle Montaigue, "Just blocking someone is like saying, 'Hey, swing at me again!'" which isn't the message you want to be sending. More to the point, this kind of 'synchrony of action' or 'blurred timing' is not characteristic of one of ritual/survival, intra-/inter-species aggression. Watch, for example, a pack of scavengers around a carcass; the 'synchrony of action' is utterly beautiful/baffling. A dominant animal will lurch forward with a snarl simultaneous to the submissive animal lurching back with a crouch and snarling yelp - the action isn't "one, two!" it's "onnnnnnee" (to paraphrase my instructor). It's important to note here that even the "defending" or submissive animal in a ritual/intra- confrontation will be attacking/defending simultaneously.

"why hitting with open hands"

Again, we can expect variation in the perferred method of holding the hands among martial styles, void of any ethological concerns. Again, it seems like open hands is characteristic of the submissive side of ritualistic/intra- aggressive behavior, so it's unclear at this point as to how valid it is to associate it directly with survival/inter-species behaviors.

"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"

And in other systems, his theories don't remain functional. Which is why it's important to understand their failings so that you don't use them to uphold faulty conclusions in areas where they don't function. Questioning Lorentz based on more recent findings is this exact process. Anyway, you can't ask for a discussion where we all agree!

"I'm already aware there are many highly educated and intelligent posters here...so let's keep it martial, and not just debate about pure scientific theories"

I'm a little confused by this attitude.

[MA fanatic]

Why copy animals? That's a question I had on my mind for years. We are not tigers, eagles, leapards, snakes, and praying mantises. Why not develope our own natural way of moving instead of pretending we have claws, fangs, and power of animals.
MA fanatic

[{i^(]

Okay, CP- working on it! Do you do an animal style, by curiosity?

MAF- some styles do, of course, at least by form names. Perhaps the closest to us being monkey styles- but even there, it's dodgy, you are correct. Maybe it is done because it is so surprising? Not the usual thing.

I was hunting down photographs of ****fighting, to see what these stances are....I figured that would be ritual, or survival, whatever. Not many on the net that aren't PETA-oriented. Here's one:http://www.simnet.is/tf3mm/images/****fight01.jpg

{what in the world? the verdammt censor censored the url! substitute the correct word for it: C 0 C K }

Yep, low body carriage. It's possible that the creators of our styles were intently watching such fights like that in order to 'pick up tips', much like the supposed story that monks imitated their mental/meditative aspects (I think thats wrong, BTW. Wishful/fanciful thinking.).

Still giving it all some thought. I have to paint a foyer today, so I'll get back to ya's. Any good links for Lorenz? There's alot to wade through and my memory for some details is poor.

[No_Know]

MAFanatic, because the animals were the local Schols. Humans by design didn't particularly have significantly offensive natural tools o our bodies. no claws strong as bear or wild cat. No teeth that are effective as a primary attack. So having no skill~ Humans reasoned they do good at staying alive or no one wins against them or they seem to survive... How? So, claws fangs, certain types of attack with their natural boy weapons...Mine aren't strong as theirs this broken stick looks like a fang. I can hold it, I have a fang...Oofff [got attacked]. [Hit attacker with pointy stick (holdable fang)It stopped attackeng. It stopped breathing. I have a way to survive...

By mimicing animals Humans end-up with machines that dig like animals but larger scale, business practices, No mercy/Strike fast strike hard...Self-defense tactics: be aware of your surroundings, if you don't look like a victim you are less likely to become one...

Crimson Phoenix: Low is to say I see you comming and I am less of a target because I know that you are there and were going to attack. I can attack too, so back off.

Think of their arms like blades from the Okuden~ You can't tell who trained their arms tough like stone ro if the have spikes or blades along their arms. so don't block hit them without blocking and risking getting hurt by their traps tricks devices or good training. Hitting and not getting hit are the points. So do these.

I might presume...

[No_Know]

Braden,

...Without looking back I presumed inter- like internet was going outside. Intra- like intranet was staying inside.

I thought when I posted that that it was being considered that Humas did not match the model because they attack violently other Humans. My post was to suggest that Humans do not violate the model because Humans do not see one race they see divisions which makes other Humans in different categories percieved as a whole other animal.

[Braden]

"...I presumed inter- like internet was going outside. Intra- like intranet was staying inside..."

That's right.

"I thought when I posted that that it was being considered that Humas did not match the model because they attack violently other Humans."

Why would this make them not match the model?

[No_Know]

I thought that the model was virtually no killing within a species by that species.

[Braden]

I'm not sure where you got that impression.

From my first post on the topic, where the intra- nomenclature was introduced:

"The intra-species [aggression] 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..."

Followed by a discussion of some aspects of the mechanics behind this biological mechanism and the behavior which results from it.

[No_Know]

Naming a group of Humans (and the like) indicated to me exceptiopn. That these were special cases. As they kill other Humans I got the impression that the model was Humans are considered as a rule, not violent to Humans.

[Braden]

Ah, I see...

No, that's not what the model says at all. It's based off of neurophysiological records and behavioral observations, and they've found there's two quite distinct types of aggression behavior, in terms of the brain circuit involved, so where it is in our genes, and then, the host of physical responses associated with the behavior. Moreover, that one of these behaviors occurs during violence within one's species; and the other, without. That's it, that's the model.

I brought it up because it related to a previous model, based only on behavioral observations, which similarly indicated two distinct kinds of aggressive behaviors, calling them ritual and survival, based on ideas as to what social situations they are used in. Based on the description, it sounded very much like the set of physical responses subsumed in one models 'ritual aggression' was the same as those subsumed by what the other model called the 'intra-species aggression.' And, the same for the other type of behavior.

I brought up serial killers because there was an implication in the original post that 'ritual' aggression is somehow less serious; that real killers use the 'survival' aggression behaviours. I only meant to bring up some examples, and perhaps discuss them a little, of how this may be incorrect. Specifically, serial killers I assumed everyone would believe are quite serious and lethal kinds of attackers, yet they activate the 'ritual' type behaviors when they attack.

One of the specifics/pecularities of the intra-species (or ritual, if I'm correct in assuming they describe the same thing) is that it results in widescale activation of the brain, including the centers responsable for motivation. There is an old theory that introverts have high general brain activation, so try to avoid stimulation to feel normal; whereas extroverts have low general brain activation, so try to get lots of stimulation to feel normal. I'm not sure how reasonable this is, but a similar mode of thought has been applied to the serial killer issue; suggesting serial killers, psychopaths, and such need the extraordinary high activation resulting from ritual type aggression to feel normal; in a perversion of the same ideas as introverted/extroverted. Also, or instead of, perhaps - some people have suggested the association with the motivation centers give the serial killer or psychopath pleasure or motivation to commit these acts, like a heroin user or having sex. These were just musings.

I'm sorry for the confusion.