http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,335949,00.html

[Philip Dei]

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[Firstjois]

Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred into
our beastie past. Darn those chimps!

Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend 75%
of their lives outside the troop? The best way to protect the
babies is to remove them from harm's way. Males dominate
because the females aren't there enough to take over the run
the troop properly?

You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right, Philip?

Jois

[Ejudy]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<szZ59.187684$vg.8298462@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> :
>
>Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred into
>our beastie past. Darn those chimps!
>

I'd say violence in general.

>Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend 75%
>of their lives outside the troop? The best way to protect the
>babies is to remove them from harm's way. Males dominate
>because the females aren't there enough to take over the run
>the troop properly?
>
>You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
>Philip?

Please don't accuse phil of anything negative here. He has
seen his own share of the worst and women aren't the only
folks deserving compassion. We are ALL in this world
together.... Forget the gender war if you want to solve it, i
suppose. He posted it for very good reason as it is rather
shockingly amazing and totally new information. And there we
have a tool of wood instead of rock so as to keep "the
controlled territory" from getting too badly damaged........

Gee whiz, that article hurts alot to read.

ejudy

[Philip Dei]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:48:08 GMT, "firstjois"
<firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred into
>our beastie past. Darn those chimps!
>
>Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend 75%
>of their lives outside the troop? The best way to protect the
>babies is to remove them from harm's way. Males dominate
>because the females aren't there enough to take over the run
>the troop properly?
>
>You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
>Philip?

I thought E.J. might like it.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[Philip Dei]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 01:48:08 GMT, "firstjois"
<firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred into
>our beastie past. Darn those chimps!
>
>Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend 75%
>of their lives outside the troop? The best way to protect the
>babies is to remove them from harm's way. Males dominate
>because the females aren't there enough to take over the run
>the troop properly?
>
>You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
>Philip?

But I think you missed the point; however, these are the most
'selected' wood implements so far and what are they used for.
Violence not Craft.

We can create 2 theories here.

1. That large tool use evolved from violent behavior

2. That chimps never humanized because they directed wood
'selection' toward violence and not craft.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[Whitedog]

On 12 Aug 2002 20:21:39 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

>"firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote in article
><szZ59.187684$vg.8298462@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> :
>>
>>Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred into
>>our beastie past. Darn those chimps!
>>
>
>I'd say violence in general.
>
>
>>Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend 75%
>>of their lives outside the troop? The best way to protect
>>the babies is to remove them from harm's way. Males dominate
>>because the females aren't there enough to take over the run
>>the troop properly?
>>
>>You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
>>Philip?
>
>Please don't accuse phil of anything negative here. He has
>seen his own share of the worst and women aren't the only
>folks deserving compassion. We are ALL in this world
>together.... Forget the gender war if you want to solve it, i
>suppose. He posted it for very good reason as it is rather
>shockingly amazing and totally new information. And there we
>have a tool of wood instead of rock so as to keep "the
>controlled territory" from getting too badly damaged........
>
>Gee whiz, that article hurts alot to read.

It appears that Richard Wrangham (the guy in the photo) has
co-written a book called "Demonic Males", a title which
appears self explanatory when you read this article! I had a
quick look for reviews and it seems he's thinking that the
more varied diet of bonobos meant that there was less need to
forage in small groups, leading to the females bonding to
protect each other from aggressive males.In turn, the more
aggressive male traits were selected out, leading to the more
peaceful bonobo societies today. As we are not either chimp or
bonobo but share some traits with both, perhaps there's less
to this than that article implies! There is also the distict
possibility that the behaviour witnessed was aberrant and
unprecedented, that wouldn't sell so many books though ;-)

Regards

Brent Taylor ...... Whitedog:
[whitedog_o_hound@hotREMOVEBLINKERSmail.com

[Ejudy]

seemysig@notmail.com (Whitedog) wrote in article
<3d593302.23342433@News.CIS.DFN.DE> :
>On 12 Aug 2002 20:21:39 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com
>(ejudy) wrote:
>
>>"firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote in article
>><szZ59.187684$vg.8298462@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> :
>>>
>>>Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred
>>>into our
beastie
>>>past. Darn those chimps!
>>>
>>
>>I'd say violence in general.
>>
>>
>>>Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to
>>>spend 75% of
their lives
>>>outside the troop? The best way to protect the babies is
>>>to remove
them
>>>from harm's way. Males dominate because the females
>>>aren't there
enough to
>>>take over the run the troop properly?
>>>
>>>You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
>>>Philip?
>>
>>Please don't accuse phil of anything negative here. He has
>>seen his own share of the worst and women aren't the only
>>folks deserving compassion. We are ALL in this world
>>together.... Forget the gender war if you want to solve it,
>>i suppose. He posted it for very good reason as it is rather
>>shockingly amazing
and
>>totally new information. And there we have a tool of wood
>>instead of rock so as to keep "the controlled territory"
>>from getting too badly damaged........
>>
>>Gee whiz, that article hurts alot to read.
>
>It appears that Richard Wrangham (the guy in the photo) has
co-written
>a book called "Demonic Males", a title which appears self
>explanatory when you read this article! I had a quick look
>for reviews and it seems he's thinking that the more varied
>diet of bonobos meant that there was less need to forage in
>small groups, leading to the females bonding to protect each
>other from aggressive males.In turn, the more aggressive male
>traits were selected out, leading to the more
peaceful
>bonobo societies today. As we are not either chimp or bonobo
>but share some traits with both, perhaps there's less to this
>than that article implies! There is also the distict
>possibility that the behaviour witnessed
was
>aberrant and unprecedented, that wouldn't sell so many books
>though ;-)
>
>Regards
>
>Brent Taylor .......

WHITEdog how did you read my mind?? I was writing a post and
canned it cause it was so awkward but then you come out and
addressed the stuff i was trying to get at. So thanks. Maybe
internet goes beyond regular everyday surface
world...ooooOOOOOoooeeeeooooCLINK! (sound of alien ships
linking on dark side of planet Razzzz).

The other thing i was thinking is that maybe in all
populations we have the extremes at each end of the potential
behavioral repertuoire (sp)(ie., chemically neurotransmitter
dependent no doubt) and if environmental factors line up like
the planets then you get excesses which may enter populations
as learnable behaviors. And maybe humans and hominids have
more potential behaviors than just about any other creatures
out there simply because our brain is wired to interface with
the mulifaceted environment by behaviorally learning stuff
instead of plowing along at the slower innate behavior pace or
even the geologically paced physical adaptation pace that most
other mammals seem to. I mean we just are not crocadiles
right?? ;-) Now see how awkward and wordy and that's why this
one belongs crumpled in the trash yet again. Neurotransmitters
ew boy! Give it to Harry and he can simply it all down to
about three words ;-)))

Thanks, ej;-)

p.s. yeah that account really gets our human blood boiling eh?
Probably i am especially suceptible considering as a
young child i was under duress in a foreign country all
alone quite often so i was a bit wired to be extra wild.
Made me an ussually good karate star with extra fast
reflexes but also i think it fit into the PTSD catagory
till i thought about it a while. Ok....hehehe.... i
couldn't have sat still and watched the chimp wielding
the club, IOW. So i am a hotwired female primate in my
own respect perhaps.

[Whitedog]

On 13 Aug 2002 10:08:44 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

>>>Gee whiz, that article hurts alot to read.
>>
>>It appears that Richard Wrangham (the guy in the photo) has
>co-written
>>a book called "Demonic Males", a title which appears self
>>explanatory when you read this article! I had a quick look
>>for reviews and it seems he's thinking that the more varied
>>diet of bonobos meant that there was less need to forage in
>>small groups, leading to the females bonding to protect each
>>other from aggressive males.In turn, the more aggressive
>>male traits were selected out, leading to the more
>peaceful
>>bonobo societies today. As we are not either chimp or bonobo
>>but share some traits with both, perhaps there's less to
>>this than that article implies! There is also the distict
>>possibility that the behaviour witnessed
>was
>>aberrant and unprecedented, that wouldn't sell so many books
>>though ;-)
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Brent Taylor .......
>
>WHITEdog how did you read my mind?? I was writing a post and
>canned it cause it was so awkward but then you come out and
>addressed the stuff i was trying to get at. So thanks. Maybe
>internet goes beyond regular everyday surface
>world...ooooOOOOOoooeeeeooooCLINK! (sound of alien ships
>linking on dark side of planet Razzzz).
>
>The other thing i was thinking is that maybe in all
>populations we have the extremes at each end of the potential
>behavioral repertuoire (sp)

Only a unwanted 'u' sneaked in there!

>(ie., chemically neurotransmitter dependent no doubt) and if
> environmental factors line up like the planets then you
> get excesses which may enter populations as learnable
> behaviors.

It's so difficult to really explain aberrant behaviour, even
more so in a species that's close to us, but not us. But
you're right, there are likely to be odd colours at both ends
of the behavioral spectrum, and some may eventually turn out
to be a guiding light, who knows?

>And maybe humans and hominids have more potential behaviors
>than just about any other creatures out there simply because
>our brain is wired to interface with the mulifaceted
>environment by behaviorally learning stuff instead of plowing
>along at the slower innate behavior pace or even the
>geologically paced physical adaptation pace that most other
>mammals seem to.

Hmm, maybe this is one for the psycho-biologists and those who
poke around the old stewpot of biochem looking for the meaty
bits! The learning mechanism has too many gears to reliably
pull apart and then expect to work once reassembled I reckon.
Whatever conclusions I reach are bound to be crushed by the
next amazing thing I see or read, the only thing I know for
certain is that nature is brim full of suprises and what we
see are only what slops over the rim...

>I mean we just are not crocadiles right?? ;-)

Too right we're not, and look how their behaviour has shocked
us; crocs are the pea-brained dinosaurs we were taught about
in school right?

>Now see how awkward and wordy and that's why this one belongs
>crumpled in the trash yet again. Neurotransmitters ew boy!
>Give it to Harry and he can simply it all down to about three
>words ;-)))

Hey, I understood what you meant from the start!
>
>Thanks, ej;-)
>
>p.s. yeah that account really gets our human blood
> boiling eh?

I'm not sure how I felt reading that, I once found myself (on
holiday in Africa) shouting at a little Senegalese boy for
beating a puppy for his own entertainment. Afterwards I
realised I was pushing my European values onto a small boy who
probably never understood why I was doing it. The adults
around him just watched me and didn't intervene but I suspect
they couldn't understand me either, after all they were quite
content to beat small children for the most minor indiscretion
and puppy battering wasn't one of them apparently.

>Probably i am especially suceptible considering as a young
>child i was under duress in a foreign country all alone quite
>often so i was a bit wired to be extra wild. Made me an
>ussually good karate star with extra fast reflexes but also i
>think it fit into the PTSD catagory till i thought about it a
>while. Ok....hehehe.... i couldn't have sat still and watched
>the chimp wielding the club, IOW. So i am a hotwired female
>primate in my own respect perhaps.

I'm sure our sense of "fair play" exists to some extent in
chimps, clearly it isn't so developed but they do intervene in
disputes; the goals are the same in the end.

Regards

Brent Taylor ...... Whitedog:
[whitedog_o_hound@hotREMOVEBLINKERSmail.com

[Lorenzo L.]

ejudy wrote:
>
> seemysig@notmail.com (Whitedog) wrote in article
> <3d593302.23342433@News.CIS.DFN.DE> :
> >On 12 Aug 2002 20:21:39 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com
> >(ejudy) wrote:
> >
> >>"firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> >><szZ59.187684$vg.8298462@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> :
> >>>
> >>>Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred
> >>>into our
> beastie
> >>>past. Darn those chimps!
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'd say violence in general.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend
> >>>75% of
> their lives
> >>>outside the troop? The best way to protect the babies is
> >>>to remove
> them
> >>>from harm's way. Males dominate because the females
> >>>aren't there
> enough to
> >>>take over the run the troop properly?
> >>>
> >>>You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
> >>>Philip?
> >>
> >>Please don't accuse phil of anything negative here. He has
> >>seen his own share of the worst and women aren't the only
> >>folks deserving compassion. We are ALL in this world
> >>together.... Forget the gender war if you want to solve
> >>it, i suppose. He posted it for very good reason as it is
> >>rather shockingly amazing
> and
> >>totally new information. And there we have a tool of wood
> >>instead of rock so as to keep "the controlled territory"
> >>from getting too badly damaged........
> >>
> >>Gee whiz, that article hurts alot to read.
> >
> >It appears that Richard Wrangham (the guy in the photo) has
> co-written
> >a book called "Demonic Males", a title which appears self
> >explanatory when you read this article! I had a quick
> >look for reviews and it seems he's thinking that the more
> >varied diet of bonobos meant that there was less need to
> >forage in small groups, leading to the females bonding to
> >protect each other from aggressive males.In turn, the
> >more aggressive male traits were selected out, leading to
> >the more
> peaceful
> >bonobo societies today. As we are not either chimp or
> >bonobo but share some traits with both, perhaps there's
> >less to this than that article implies! There is also the
> >distict possibility that the behaviour witnessed
> was
> >aberrant and unprecedented, that wouldn't sell so many
> >books though ;-)
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Brent Taylor .......
>
> WHITEdog how did you read my mind?? I was writing a post and
> canned it cause it was so awkward but then you come out and
> addressed the stuff i was trying to get at. So thanks. Maybe
> internet goes beyond regular everyday surface
> world...ooooOOOOOoooeeeeooooCLINK! (sound of alien ships
> linking on dark side of planet Razzzz).
>
> The other thing i was thinking is that maybe in all
> populations we have the extremes at each end of the
> potential behavioral repertuoire (sp)(ie., chemically
> neurotransmitter dependent no doubt) and if environmental
> factors line up like the planets then you get excesses
> which may enter populations as learnable behaviors. And
> maybe humans and hominids have more potential behaviors
> than just about any other creatures out there simply
> because our brain is wired to interface with the
> mulifaceted environment by behaviorally learning stuff
> instead of plowing along at the slower innate behavior pace
> or even the geologically paced physical adaptation pace
> that most other mammals seem to. I mean we just are not
> crocadiles right?? ;-) Now see how awkward and wordy and
> that's why this one belongs crumpled in the trash yet
> again. Neurotransmitters ew boy! Give it to Harry and he
> can simply it all down to about three words ;-)))
>
> Thanks, ej;-)
>
> p.s. yeah that account really gets our human blood boiling
> eh? Probably i am especially suceptible considering as
> a young child i was under duress in a foreign country
> all alone quite often so i was a bit wired to be extra
> wild. Made me an ussually good karate star with extra
> fast reflexes but also i think it fit into the PTSD
> catagory till i thought about it a while.
> Ok....hehehe.... i couldn't have sat still and watched
> the chimp wielding the club, IOW. So i am a hotwired
> female primate in my own respect perhaps.

XENA RULES!

[Deowll]

"ejudy" <ejudy@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:46e43451.0208121921.512e335@posting.google.com...
> "firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <szZ59.187684$vg.8298462@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> :
> >
> >Well, now we know that violence towards females is bred
> >into our beastie past. Darn those chimps!
> >
>
> I'd say violence in general.
>
>
> >Aren't female chimps the ones that are supposed to spend
> >75% of their
lives
> >outside the troop? The best way to protect the babies is to
> >remove them from harm's way. Males dominate because the
> >females aren't there enough
to
> >take over the run the troop properly?
> >
> >You knew some of us would just *love* this bit, right,
> >Philip?
>
> Please don't accuse phil of anything negative here. He has
> seen his own share of the worst and women aren't the only
> folks deserving compassion. We are ALL in this world
> together.... Forget the gender war if you want to solve it,
> i suppose. He posted it for very good reason as it is rather
> shockingly amazing and totally new information. And there we
> have a tool of wood instead of rock so as to keep "the
> controlled territory" from getting too badly damaged........
>
> Gee whiz, that article hurts alot to read.
>
> ejudy

The bonabo, Oh grep! My spell checker doesn't have the word.
Pigmy Chimps seem to be much more inclined to make love and
not war. The difference was claimed to be due to the absence
of bigger apes allowing them to forage on the ground and the
females to stay together and support each other rather than
being off alone up a tree.

Regular chimps are much more violent. Males may beat up on the
females but I think I've read that they kill one third of all
the males.

[Philip Dei]

On 13 Aug 2002 10:08:44 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

Not demonic males again.

Hey remember your freind, whats her face.

Email account is blocked on return mail only persons who
register with DNApaleoAnth @ att dot net will be given access.
DNApaleoAnth is for registration only.

[Ejudy]

Philip wrote:

~AND~ (harumph! cough, cough, wheez, wheez, thunk!)

>
>Not demonic males again.
>
>Hey remember your freind, whats her face.
>
>Email account is blocked on return mail only persons who
>register with DNA@ att dot net will be given access.

Yer probably having demonic fearful delusions yerself if yer
bringing up the devil's name and (cough, cough, whoa! what
intestinal pain all of a sudden...) calling her? _my_ "freind"
as a little flame torching on the side for entertainment, eh?

The way i figure it, whosoevereth mentions ~whoa!be-gone!!!'s~
nameth.....(+++++++++) causes multiple damages upon one
selfeth quite substantial enough to make saideth flame
torching technique extinct within quite amazingly shorteth
time. So there cowboy, go ahead and razzup the evil stuff and
i simply will use my norton device as substitute for a two
finger cross and garlic necklace. Goodluck ;-)))))

hehe- good thinking to put a one way on the old website BEFORE
conjuring by nameth some demonic thingeth so filthy, gooey,
and fouleth of nature.

ej;-)

[Philip Dei]

On 13 Aug 2002 20:53:45 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

>Yer probably having demonic fearful delusions yerself if yer
>bringing up the devil's name and (cough, cough, whoa! what
>intestinal pain all of a sudden...) calling her? _my_
>"freind" as a little flame torching on the side for
>entertainment, eh?

Is that one of thsoe canadian "eh"s?

>The way i figure it, whosoevereth mentions
>~whoa!be-gone!!!'s~ nameth.....(+++++++++) causes multiple
>damages upon one selfeth quite substantial enough to make
>saideth flame torching technique extinct within quite
>amazingly shorteth time.

Art-ly said

>So there cowboy, go ahead and razzup the evil stuff and i
>simply will use my norton device as substitute for a two
>finger cross and garlic necklace. Goodluck ;-)))))

e-gads

>hehe- good thinking to put a one way on the old website
>BEFORE conjuring by nameth some demonic thingeth so filthy,
>gooey, and fouleth of nature.

mis-sed something there.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[Ejudy]

seemysig@notmail.com (Whitedog) wrote:

>
> Hey, I understood what you meant from the start!
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >

Ditto! ~`>*<'~ ej;-)

[Ejudy]

Whitedog wrote:

>
> I'm not sure how I felt reading that, I once found myself
> (on holiday in Africa) shouting at a little Senegalese boy
> for beating a puppy for his own entertainment. Afterwards I
> realised I was pushing my European values onto a small boy
> who probably never understood why I was doing it. The adults
> around him just watched me and didn't intervene but I
> suspect they couldn't understand me either, after all they
> were quite content to beat small children for the most minor
> indiscretion and puppy battering wasn't one of them
> apparently.

Why Senegal? Is it forested?

I saw similar preconceived judgemental attitudes in Egypt over
the children's young mastery of conmanship which almost seems
a test of wits. It irked American women to no end and they
would get all digusted by the conman tricks of the oh-so-cute
little 3rd world kiddies..... I thought they were sort of
bedazzling with their wiley strategies. It was an expected and
condoned behavior to the best of my knowledge which made alot
of sense in context. Reminded me of Mexico.

> >i couldn't have sat still and watched the chimp wielding
> >the club, IOW. So i am a hotwired female primate in my own
> >respect perhaps.
>
> I'm sure our sense of "fair play" exists to some extent in
> chimps, clearly it isn't so developed but they do intervene
> in disputes; the goals are the same in the end.
>
>
There are some interesting angled thoughts on this here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleoanthro/message/3100

ejudy

[Whitedog]

On 15 Aug 2002 02:53:36 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

>Why Senegal? Is it forested?

Well, I went to The Gambia the year before, was immediately
hooked on Africa and wanted to go back before my inoculations
were out of date! Yes there are forests, but many areas are
depleted by humans of course, official estimates are 60,000
hectares per year being burnt to clear for agriculture.Same
old story all over Africa really. Just hope that my 2003 visit
to Tanzania and Zanzibar lives up to expectations (quite apart
from getting married there!)
>
>I saw similar preconceived judgemental attitudes in Egypt
>over the children's young mastery of conmanship which almost
>seems a test of wits. It irked American women to no end and
>they would get all digusted by the conman tricks of the
>oh-so-cute little 3rd world kiddies..... I thought they were
>sort of bedazzling with their wiley strategies. It was an
>expected and condoned behavior to the best of my knowledge
>which made alot of sense in context. Reminded me of Mexico.

Oh yes, personally I can't help admiring the ingenuity of
people but you still feel like strangling them!
>
>
>> >i couldn't have sat still and watched the chimp wielding
>> >the club, IOW. So i am a hotwired female primate in my own
>> >respect perhaps.
>>
>> I'm sure our sense of "fair play" exists to some extent in
>> chimps, clearly it isn't so developed but they do intervene
>> in disputes; the goals are the same in the end.
>>
>>
>There are some interesting angled thoughts on this here:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleoanthro/message/3100

Thanks, I'll take a look.

Regards

Brent Taylor ...... Whitedog:
[whitedog_o_hound@hotREMOVEBLINKERSmail.com