Why does mankind crave violence so much?

[dstebbins]

War

City riots

Video games

television

martial arts

 

Since the beginning of recorded history (and maybe before that; we don't know), mankind has craved violence. Television and video games show that violence doesn't need a motive, that people are naturally motivated to commit, or spectate, acts of violence, not out of the dreams of power, money, or territory, but simply by nature of the violence itself.

 

This is likely because of adrenaline. However, adrenaline is supposed to be a survival hormone. If it's designed to help you survive, then how come it feels so good that people will hurle themselves into life-threatening situations, or initiate violence against someone or something else, just to experience adrenaline? Shouldn't adrenaline be an unpleasurable sensation, like that of pain? Shouldn't it be one where you'd want to get out of the danger as quickly as possible just so the adrenaline would stop? Why does adrenaline feel so good?

 

For example, sex feels good because that's how we reproduce, which is necessary for the survival of the human race.

Pain feels bad because it's designed to tell you that something is wrong, and that you need to correct it.

Thirst and hunger are unpleasurable sensations that are designed to tell you that you're dehydrated and/or lacking nutrition.

Why is adrenaline the only sensation that seems to do the exact opposite of what it's designed for?

 

Instead of investing taxpayer money trying to find out why most rats' eyes are black, maybe we should invest our scientific research money into finding out the cause of mankind's lust for bloodshed, so that maybe, just maybe, we can treat the problem at its source, and THEN, we'll have peace on earth!

 

Any thoughts?

[RyanJ]

There are lots of views on the matter.

 

Some people think that we are genetically disposed to be that way - such that "survival of the strongest". I'm sure that could be true on some level but most of society discourages it and thus it is suppressed in most people, most of the time.

 

That brings us to another point, the extreme violence in some people could be an inherent flaw. Studies on murderess for example have found that some of them essentially have no conscience.

 

This is the type of topic that could be debated over for the next hundred years

[dstebbins]

Most people who commit acts of violence without motivation are merely seeking a thrill, aka an adrenaline rush.

 

But why does adrenaline feel good, when it's designed to get us out of danger, not make us want to put ourselves in danger?

[RyanJ]

Most people who commit acts of violence without motivation are merely seeking a thrill, aka an adrenaline rush.

 

But why does adrenaline feel good, when it's designed to get us out of danger, not make us want to put ourselves in danger?

 

Actually... most crimes are commuted because of greed, not for thrill. While is is true that, say, teens may get a thrill from shoplifting I have never read any research that suggests that is the primary motivation for most crimes.

 

Adrenaline doesn't know the difference. Our body makes it when we are scared, in danger and in several situations - it's goal is to help us better deal with dangerous or unexpected situations, regardless of whether the person caused the situation or not.

[dstebbins]

Actually... most crimes are commuted because of greed, not for thrill. While is is true that, say, teens may get a thrill from shoplifting I have never read any research that suggests that is the primary motivation for most crimes.

 

Adrenaline doesn't know the difference. Our body makes it when we are scared, in danger and in several situations - it's goal is to help us better deal with dangerous or unexpected situations, regardless of whether the person caused the situation or not.

 

Most people who commit acts of violence without motivation are merely seeking a thrill, aka an adrenaline rush.

 

...

[RyanJ]

You asked why it feels good - simply put it's because the body triggers it regardless of the situation. And as adrenaline isn't aware of the circumstances why would it feel different because we caused it than if we didn't?

[dstebbins]

simply put it's because the body triggers it regardless of the situation. And as adrenaline isn't aware of the circumstances why would it feel different because we caused it than if we didn't?

That doesn't explain why it feels good. When we aren't in danger (whether we put ourselves in danger, or whether danger finds us), shouldn't it feel bad? Just as how our knee feels the same way if a hammer is taken to it, whether we bash our own knee with the hammer, or whether someone else is trying to mug is, it still hurts like hell, right?

 

The keyword here is, why does it feel good?!

[RyanJ]

Why? Euphoria is one of the side effects of it. As to why, I guess it's because when you are in danger you could well be hurt. If you're hurt then that pain could get in the way of you escaping so it's best to replace it with euphoria.

 

By helping you endure potential pain it would give you a better chance of escaping - don't you agree?

[dstebbins]

Why? Euphoria is one of the side effects of it. As to why, I guess it's because when you are in danger you could well be hurt. If you're hurt then that pain could get in the way of you escaping so it's best to replace it with euphoria.

 

By helping you endure potential pain it would give you a better chance of escaping - don't you agree?

 

But by doing that, you're essentially comparing adrenaline rushes to masochism.

 

We don't take a hammer and bash in our own skulls, just because we like the way it feels. We don't stop eating food because we like the feeling in our stomachs of being hungry. We don't refrain from sex because it hurts to have sex (there are many reasons to be abstinent, but physical discomfort is not one of them).

 

Shouldn't adrenaline be similar? Shouldn't it be one of discomfort? Sort of like how, if we're shot in the arm, we go to the hospital and get it taken out ASAP, just so the pain will subside. If we're hungry, we try and eat something, just so that the hunger will go away.

 

Shouldn't we get ourselves out of harms' way, just so that we don't have to feel the adrenaline anymore?

 

It's my hypothesis that, if we can find the cause of adrenaline's pleasurable feeling, it would provide a hot lead towards signficantly reducing crime, for obvious reasons.

[RyanJ]

We don't take a hammer and bash in our own skulls, just because we like the way it feels. We don't stop eating food because we like the feeling in our stomachs of being hungry. We don't refrain from sex because it hurts to have sex (there are many reasons to be abstinent, but physical discomfort is not one of them).[/quote}

 

That's a totally different issue. Sometimes risks are required in order to survive and prosper. Those who are willing to climb a tree (and possibly being killed in the process) would be rewarded if they can get food while others who refuse to climb cannot. That is one possible source for such a reaction to adrenaline.

 

Shouldn't adrenaline be similar? Shouldn't it be one of discomfort? Sort of like how, if we're shot in the arm, we go to the hospital and get it taken out ASAP, just so the pain will subside. If we're hungry, we try and eat something, just so that the hunger will go away.

 

Shouldn't we get ourselves out of harms' way, just so that we don't have to feel the adrenaline anymore?

 

Adrenaline is meant to stop you getting out of danger, not to prevent you getting into danger or discomfort in the first place. That is why we perceive danger and try to avoid it - comparing adrenaline to not eating is like comparing two totally different things. It just doesn't work to compare then because they are from different causes.

 

It's my hypethesis that, if we can find the cause of adrenaline's pleasurable feeling, it would provide a hot lead towards signficantly reducing crime, for obvious reasons.

 

I doubt it will work because, as I have said above, it's meant to get us out of danger, not prevent us getting into it in the first place.

[JillSwift]

It's unwise to think that any part of this universe should "make sense".

The human psyche is a cobbled together mess of various evolutionarily formed mechanisms. There is little hope that the end result will appear to be "logical" by any stretch. It just has to work "well enough".

 

I'm an advocate of establishing a phenomenon before explaining it. What makes you think humans crave violence? I know we are able to be, and are violent, but is there really evidence that humans - speaking as a whole here - actually crave it?

[foodchain]

That doesn't explain why it feels good. When we aren't in danger (whether we put ourselves in danger, or whether danger finds us), shouldn't it feel bad? Just as how our knee feels the same way if a hammer is taken to it, whether we bash our own knee with the hammer, or whether someone else is trying to mug is, it still hurts like hell, right?

 

The keyword here is, why does it feel good?!

 

Adrenaline does not always feel good, and you are probably mixing up other chemicals, and along with that I think the brain can be on more then one at a time.

[DrP]

I think we crave peace and quite. Sometimes violence is the only way to achieve it though!

[tar]

dstebbins,

 

I don't know that you can separate out adrenaline from the other chemicals that are released in complex situations.

 

For instance, there are, I would imagine "reward" chemicals that are released in our brain, when we are "successful". Otherwise, why do humans enjoy completing things, winning, controlling the situation, gaining knowledge, leveling the picture frame hanging on the wall, and such.

 

Personally, I do not like the feeling of Adrenaline. I usually seek to "avoid" its production. To me, it is my body's way of getting me ready for trouble and getting me out of danger more successfully.

 

This summer, I went on a carnival ride with my wife, where we sat in a two person swing suspended by chains, that lifted us up 30 feet in the air, and swung us around the center post. I sat motionless, checking that my momentum was properly checked against the seat, telling myself I was safe, and "it would be over" and no action on my part was required or wise. I fought my adrenline, did not enjoy it, and waited for it to subside and felt very good to be slowed, and lowered back to the safety of the ground. My wife on the other hand was "woooing" and smiling and enjoying the "rush".

 

My daughter, after witnessing my "heroics", and knowing I do not enjoy such rides, asked me why I went on it. Don't really remember exactly how I responded to that question, but it was obvious I was not going to put myself in a similar situation, on purpose, any time soon. We laughed at me a bit, and proceeded to enjoy the sights and sounds and smells of the carnival.

 

There is to me, an equally important investigation we should make into the chemicals that are rewarding us, during a "controlled" adrenaline rush.

 

Nervousness and excitement are probably closely related chemically, the "fear" component is most likely present in both. The control of our fear is probably involved in why certain people enjoy the rush of adrenaline.

 

But I like to advocate against us trying to control other's minds with chemicals. Sure it can be done, but it is complex, and what shuts down or accelerates one chemical chain, will disturb its role in both the intended brain function, and all the other brain functions that chain is involved in.

 

And so, if adrenaline is involved in human's interaction with the world, so be it. We would not be us, without it. We have developed ways to control it, and use it to our advantage. Both on a personal and interpersonal, societal level.

 

Consider how our "drives" have been channeled when we engage in sports. We compete against a foe, fully engaging our bodies and brains, and all the associated chemicals, and nobody dies (if all goes according to plan.)

 

I would not be surprised to hear somebody who has just skydived, say "I never felt so alive!)

 

Regards, TAR

[Sayonara]

It's my hypothesis that, if we can find the cause of adrenaline's pleasurable feeling, it would provide a hot lead towards signficantly reducing crime, for obvious reasons.

Before that hypothesis has any value, you need to actually show that a significant portion of crime is caused by the "pleasurable feeling" that adrenaline causes.

You have not done this, and since the vast majority of crime is acquisitive I'm going to go ahead and suggest that one can't.

[dr.syntax]

War

City riots

Video games

television

martial arts

 

Since the beginning of recorded history (and maybe before that; we don't know), mankind has craved violence. Television and video games show that violence doesn't need a motive, that people are naturally motivated to commit, or spectate, acts of violence, not out of the dreams of power, money, or territory, but simply by nature of the violence itself.

 

This is likely because of adrenaline. However, adrenaline is supposed to be a survival hormone. If it's designed to help you survive, then how come it feels so good that people will hurle themselves into life-threatening situations, or initiate violence against someone or something else, just to experience adrenaline? Shouldn't adrenaline be an unpleasurable sensation, like that of pain? Shouldn't it be one where you'd want to get out of the danger as quickly as possible just so the adrenaline would stop? Why does adrenaline feel so good?

 

For example, sex feels good because that's how we reproduce, which is necessary for the survival of the human race.

Pain feels bad because it's designed to tell you that something is wrong, and that you need to correct it.

Thirst and hunger are unpleasurable sensations that are designed to tell you that you're dehydrated and/or lacking nutrition.

Why is adrenaline the only sensation that seems to do the exact opposite of what it's designed for?

 

Instead of investing taxpayer money trying to find out why most rats' eyes are black, maybe we should invest our scientific research money into finding out the cause of mankind's lust for bloodshed, so that maybe, just maybe, we can treat the problem at its source, and THEN, we'll have peace on earth!

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

REPLY: I do not believe there is a NATURAL desire for violence. I believe the vast majority of people now alive and those that fill our history books were at least moderately and with many, severely neurotic. This almost universal neurosis is caused by inadequate parental practices that are to a large degree accepted as " normal ". The true needs of infants and young children are rarely met in today`s World or that of the past.

I will give an example of a place and time in history that was not full of a bunch of screwball neurotics. That place and time is: Pre-Columbian Hispaniola. That island is now divided into the two Nations: The Dominican Republic and Haiti and lies a short distance east of Cuba.

These people lived a war free lifestyle with no police and such until Columbus and the Spanish arrived on the scene and soon put an end to their pleasant lifestyle and eventually an end to their existence. Columbus himself wrote rather extensively about what wonderful people they were,peaceful and free. Things such as nudity was what was normal for these beautiful people. A very short discussion of these people is available at : [ http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/100.html ] for those interested.

There are other societies described by different sailors accounts of thier adventures in the polynesian Islands. Such accounts include reports of many sailors deserting their ships to take up life with these natives. One of the main attractions was these different native groups casual and fun loving attitudes toward sex. Promiscuity was not looked down on. Sex was/is one of life`s greatest pleasures and these peoples saw no reason not to explore it as much they felt like it.

Non-neurotic people have their infantile needs fulfilled and don`t become violence prone brutes. Dr.Arthur Janov and Dr. Aletha Solter,and many others discuss all this in detail, if you wish to look into it more for yourselves. Primal Therapy are key words to use in doing web searches about all this.

Tragically, for the vast majority of peoples throughout history, they were compelled to produce entire cultures devoted to a significant degree ,to producing men violent enough to at least try and defend the group,tribe,City State, Nation they were members of. Ancient Greece and the Romans, the Vikings, Britain,France,Germany,Japan, the USA and on and on. History is replete with wars and events that illustrate this point.

My point in all this is: that it is not human nature to embrace or in someway enjoy real violence.

Speak to some of the men who have been involved in battles where they knew there was a very good chance they themselves would die. That was not some one sided affair where the outcome was all but assured in their favor. There are some who I have met and discussed such events with who I do believe got some big thrill out of it all. That is up until the time they themselves sustained a severe injury. Lost a leg or an arm. Were horribly disfigured in some way. Try telling someone who has lost an arm or a leg:" That which doesn`t kill you, makes you stronger". I have heard that stupid phrase bandied about by people who have never suffered anything I would call a severe injury. They may have been hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but the injury was not the type that cripples or disfigures them for the rest of their life.

It`s all one big ugly lie. This idealization of violence that gets so very,very well promoted in the movies and on television. I wish some hollywood types and the others this produce this LYING SHIT, the writers,actors, and producer of this lying propaganda ,would be forced to be one of those horribly crippled by war for at least a month or so.The ones who actually fought these battles are largely ignored and the actors who played the roles are the ones who are looked up to as the real heroes . How screwball can a World get ?

I can`t think of one of the current crop of TOUGH GUY actors who ever bothered to join the Army or Marine Corps,Navy or Air Force,or the Coast guard. Not one.

War is not as much fun as it is cracked up to be in the movies. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited November 2, 2009 by dr.syntax

[toastywombel]

Nature is often violent, Man is often violent. Simple enough.

[dr.syntax]

But by doing that, you're essentially comparing adrenaline rushes to masochism.

 

We don't take a hammer and bash in our own skulls, just because we like the way it feels. We don't stop eating food because we like the feeling in our stomachs of being hungry. We don't refrain from sex because it hurts to have sex (there are many reasons to be abstinent, but physical discomfort is not one of them).

 

Shouldn't adrenaline be similar? Shouldn't it be one of discomfort? Sort of like how, if we're shot in the arm, we go to the hospital and get it taken out ASAP, just so the pain will subside. If we're hungry, we try and eat something, just so that the hunger will go away.

 

Shouldn't we get ourselves out of harms' way, just so that we don't have to feel the adrenaline anymore?

 

It's my hypothesis that, if we can find the cause of adrenaline's pleasurable feeling, it would provide a hot lead towards significantly reducing crime, for obvious reasons.

 

 

REPLY: I think my goal in this important discussion is at least simmular to yours. That is to find ways to reduce and hopefully someday eliminate mankind`s propensity for self destructive behavior.

I do not believe it is NATURAL,or genetically based. I can think of no other species,not one,that has any history ever observed of any of it`s members risking their lives for the fun of it, adrenaline rush, whatever one chooses to call it. Do they at times fight amongst each other ? Yes, but always for an evolutionarily sound reason, such as: mating rights,establishing dominance,expanding or defending territory. Things like that. These sort of events usually do not result in the death of any of the participants and sometimes they do. But these sorts of violent behaviors always have a purpose and are never done for the fun of it. Not truly life threatening behaviors for the thrill of it.

I think there are two reasons this sort of behavior is exhibited by some significant minority of people in our species and that one is the result of the other.

Throughout recorded history mankind has organized itself into groups : clans,tribes,city states,nations and such. What I am discussing here I will call:Cultural evolution. I know I did not coin that phrase. Anyway, in this cultural evolution a sort of natural selection is at work. Those that succeed and propagate do so. A fierce at times competition between the different groups. The groups grew in size and the wars and technologies used to fight them advanced. One of the the successful traits that emerged in this mix of events was the advent of the warrior culture. The dedication the different groups put into creating the best warriors. The methods of training children and young men in particular to develope the necessary skills to be be a good warrior: Strength,courage,fortitude,endurance,loyalty,fidelity. The ability to endure pain,the ability to face extreme danger and fight no matter how fearsome the enemy confronting you or the sheer numbers of foes when vastly outnumbered and to have the ability to stand and fight when stuck in such situations.And the discipline required to manage coordinated manuevers. All these things and more go into making a good warrior or soldier.

Now I will come to my second point in all this. This cultural evolution is the direct cause of much of the mental illness,neurosis that permeates mankind. The Idealization of these traits of warriorism, and the embracement of them by the different groups, that successfully competed against the different groups in this cultural competition.

Those qualities that competed most successfully in this deadly cultural competition are the very qualities that have led to the almost universal neurosis of our species.

Those peaceful Indian tribes that met Columbus on the Island of Hispaniola did not stand a chance against the Spaniards that invaded their Island.

These warrior traits do not come naturally or instinctually. Anyone who has gone through a modern day boot camp can attest to the many times they had to do many,many things they did not feel like doing. The desire to defend one`s self may, but all the crap you endure day in and day out for months on end do not.

Parental treatment of infants and young children is all a part of this cultural war that has been ongoing and endless. A child`s natural need to cry as a way of healing the pains and such all children absorb is denied them. They are trained not to cry. Who among you was NEVER TOLD to quit being a CRYBABY ? This suppressed pain is what is at the heart of neurosis. You end up living in a state of perpetually suppressing pain.

People find many ways of coping with suppressed pain: drugs [ legal prescribed ones or those that are illegal ]. Alcohol,television,obsessive eating, and on and on. This also of course includes THRILL SEEKING AND ADRENALINE RUSHES. Anything and everything our minds can devise to keep all this buried hurt and other feelings we were forced to train ourselves not to feel. There is an answer to all this and it is called PRIMAL THERAPY. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited November 2, 2009 by dr.syntax
wording

[iNow]

There is an answer to all this and it is called PRIMAL THERAPY. ...Dr.Syntax

Oh, would you please stop with this? It doesn't work. It's been rejected by the psychological community, and it hardly applies to the subject of the thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why does mankind crave violence so much?

War

City riots

Video games

television

martial arts

 

I think that mankind actually hates violence for the most part. Each of the things you mention can have different motivations.

 

War: War can be due to greed, hatred, or compassion (liberating people from a tyrant). War heroes take up violence on our behalf, so we don't have to.

 

City riots: people sometimes feel the need to make demands. If asking nicely doesn't work, violence sometimes does. If people enjoyed violence, rioting would make no sense since that would be like giving presents to the people you don't like.

 

Video Games and Television: The perception of danger releases adrenaline, which some people enjoy. It also makes things interesting because people pay attention to danger. Because we put ourselves in the shoes of the characters in danger, we can feel danger while not actually putting ourselves in any danger. For this purpose, dare-devil stunts would work as well as violence, but can be harder to put into a storyline.

Note also that mammals have an intrinsic play instinct, which can be play violence but can prepare them for hunting or fighting for mates.

 

Martial Arts: As a sport, it is less violent than football, in my experience. Especially if the focus is on technique rather than sparring. Sparring is kind of like a video game in that it is play fighting (more or less, depending on the rules). Not to many people enjoy an actual fight, since they can get quite hurt during one.

 

Real fights: Some people stir up fights. This can be due to dominance behavior (testosterone being key here) where their opponent refuses to submit. I think only people who tend to win would enjoy fighting, since it minimizes their chance of being hurt. There's also status, honor, altruism, and other reasons for people to fight.

 

I think it boils down to: adrenaline rush, dominance/status, greed, or hatred. Any propensity to violence IMO is due to these motives, and possibly others, not an intrinsic desire for violence.

 

This is likely because of adrenaline. However, adrenaline is supposed to be a survival hormone. If it's designed to help you survive, then how come it feels so good that people will hurle themselves into life-threatening situations, or initiate violence against someone or something else, just to experience adrenaline? Shouldn't adrenaline be an unpleasurable sensation, like that of pain? Shouldn't it be one where you'd want to get out of the danger as quickly as possible just so the adrenaline would stop? Why does adrenaline feel so good?

 

I think it is largely due to the play instinct. We play to learn to deal with real danger, by simulating a danger in a safe environment. As for people who put themselves in real danger, this could be due to a misjudgment of the danger, or for status. How many people do dangerous things only when others are looking?

[foodchain]

I think that mankind actually hates violence for the most part. Each of the things you mention can have different motivations.

 

War: War can be due to greed, hatred, or compassion (liberating people from a tyrant). War heroes take up violence on our behalf, so we don't have to.

 

City riots: people sometimes feel the need to make demands. If asking nicely doesn't work, violence sometimes does. If people enjoyed violence, rioting would make no sense since that would be like giving presents to the people you don't like.

 

Video Games and Television: The perception of danger releases adrenaline, which some people enjoy. It also makes things interesting because people pay attention to danger. Because we put ourselves in the shoes of the characters in danger, we can feel danger while not actually putting ourselves in any danger. For this purpose, dare-devil stunts would work as well as violence, but can be harder to put into a storyline.

Note also that mammals have an intrinsic play instinct, which can be play violence but can prepare them for hunting or fighting for mates.

 

Martial Arts: As a sport, it is less violent than football, in my experience. Especially if the focus is on technique rather than sparring. Sparring is kind of like a video game in that it is play fighting (more or less, depending on the rules). Not to many people enjoy an actual fight, since they can get quite hurt during one.

 

Real fights: Some people stir up fights. This can be due to dominance behavior (testosterone being key here) where their opponent refuses to submit. I think only people who tend to win would enjoy fighting, since it minimizes their chance of being hurt. There's also status, honor, altruism, and other reasons for people to fight.

 

I think it boils down to: adrenaline rush, dominance/status, greed, or hatred. Any propensity to violence IMO is due to these motives, and possibly others, not an intrinsic desire for violence.

 

 

 

I think it is largely due to the play instinct. We play to learn to deal with real danger, by simulating a danger in a safe environment. As for people who put themselves in real danger, this could be due to a misjudgment of the danger, or for status. How many people do dangerous things only when others are looking?

 

adrenaline by itself has been around for a long time in biological systems. Violence with people I would have to agree happens for lots of reasons though, and I would not simply state that it's all a product of adrenaline. Then again you have law on many different levels, or various form of social organization. You can have law that covers a certain group and excludes others, such as American law is not German law. Then of course you can have ideaological based violence, violence from poverty. Is suicide considererd a violent crime by anyone?

 

I think a lot of it comes down to unknowns. I mean we say we are different from animals in that we can choose, but obviously that has limits plus a biological basis. So who is to say how people would be depending on envronment, would any of the modern stuff in the world be the way it is for instance without the written word, not just the spoken?

 

So in short, I do agree that violence has many causes. What I wont agree to is saying its heavily dependent on how you grow up. I mean if that was the case being born into violence should as a constant guarantee the same.

[dr.syntax]

That doesn't explain why it feels good. When we aren't in danger (whether we put ourselves in danger, or whether danger finds us), shouldn't it feel bad? Just as how our knee feels the same way if a hammer is taken to it, whether we bash our own knee with the hammer, or whether someone else is trying to mug is, it still hurts like hell, right?

 

The keyword here is, why does it feel good?!

 

 

Reply:Well,the whole purpose of adrenaline and it`s accompanying cortisol is to prepare the body for fight or flight, so it would make sense that this would include toning down your sensitivity to pain. So in a way it would be like alcohol or some other drug that numbs ones awareness of pain. I believe most people are neurotic to one degree or another, which to me means they live in a perpetual state of having to suppress pain. Therefore any thing that helps suppress pain feels better. The same reason people drink and take drugs.And adrenaline and cortisol are powerful hormones that help suppress pain along with energizing the body so there you have it. ...Dr.Syntax

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh, would you please stop with this? It doesn't work. It's been rejected by the psychological community, and it hardly applies to the subject of the thread.

 

REPLY: That`s your opinion and to quote or paraphrase you: appeals or references to so called authorities or experts [ the one`s you choose ] prove nothing. If the opinion of authorities and experts was any sort of proof then Darwin and a bunch others were proved wrong in their day for a while until people gradually decided they were in fact correct. Anytime anyone has challenged organized groups guiding principals they always meet strong resistance,natually enough. Have you ever taken a look at his work ? I will argue every point he makes with you point by point and win because he is right. We can do it here in this forum and call them the:Syntax vs iNow debate RE: Primal Therapy. I am sitting here saying it so I guess I`ll have to put up or shut up. Are you interested in such a debate ? ...Dr. Syntax

[iNow]

I will argue every point he makes with you point by point and win because he is right. We can do it here in this forum and call them the:Syntax vs iNow debate RE: Primal Therapy. I am sitting here saying it so I guess I`ll have to put up or shut up. Are you interested in such a debate ? ...Dr. Syntax

 

No, not really, because you'll lose and you'll not even realize it. What I want is for you to stop injecting your pet theory into every damned thread where it is completely and wholly irrelevant and unhelpful. Further, I can't believe you used the Galileo Gambit to argue this garbage. That's like 7 pegs on crackpot bingo.

[dr.syntax]

No, not really, because you'll lose and you'll not even realize it. What I want is for you to stop injecting your pet theory into every damned thread where it is completely and wholly irrelevant and unhelpful. Further, I can't believe you used the Galileo Gambit to argue this garbage. That's like 7 pegs on crackpot bingo.

 

REPLY: I will debate it with you. Anyone can go to: http://www.primaltherapy.com and get a very quick over view of the subject and pursue the subject as thoroughly as you desire there. ...Dr.Syntax

[iNow]

REPLY: I will debate it with you. Anyone can go to: http://www.primaltherapy.com and get a very quick over view of the subject and pursue the subject as thoroughly as you desire there. ...Dr.Syntax

 

I'm responding here, but Request Mod move these posts to their own thread.

 

 

The Five Great Myths of Popular Psychology

Primal therapy instructs clients to discharge their anger associated with painful emotions experienced in infancy, during birth, and even in utero. To do so, clients must yell, shout obscenities, and kick and hit objects (Singer & Lalich, 1996).

 

<...>

 

However, a large body of psychological research demonstrates that expressing anger openly is rarely psychologically helpful in the long-run, although it may make people feel slightly better in the short run. Indeed, in most cases, expressing anger actually results in more, not less, long-term anger, raising serious questions concerning the catharsis hypothesis (Lohr, Olatunji, Baumeister, & Bushman, 2006). In a variety of laboratory studies, participants who engage in verbal, written, or physical anger against an aggressor (for example, in a simulated game involving electric shocks) have been found to experience more hostility than participants who did not (Bushman, 2002; Lewis & Bucher, 1992; Warren & Kurlycheck, 1981).

 

 

Either way, this site takes care of most of the faults:

http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/

 

 

 

[EDIT] Here's more. Thanks to Jackson33 for the wiki link below.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_therapy

Since [the 1970s], primal therapy has fallen into obscurity, in part because Janov never produced the outcomes studies necessary to demonstrate its effectiveness.

 

<...>

 

Primal therapy has not achieved broad acceptance in mainstream psychology.[19][20] It has been frequently criticized as lacking outcome studies to prove its effectiveness.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] It is regarded as one of the least creditable forms of psychotherapy.[19]

 

Primal therapy has sometimes been criticized as shallow, glib, simplistic, or trendy.[29][30][31][32][33] It has also been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to transference.[34][35] It has also been criticized for its claim that adults can recall infantile experiences, which some researchers believe is impossible.[36] It has also been criticized as being dogmatic or overly reductionist. [30][37]

 

<...>

 

In 1996, authors Starker and Pankratz published in Psychological reports a study of 300 randomly-sampled psychologists. Participants were asked for their views about the soundness of methods of mental health treatment. Primal therapy was identified as one of the approaches "most in question as to soundness".[20]

 

<...>

 

Primal therapy is cited in the book The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions. The author claims that all schools of psychotherapy, including primal therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and others, do not have scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond placebo. [42]

 

In the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, Timothy Moore wrote: "Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale." [43]

 

<...>

 

The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) Newsletter listed primal therapy, among other treatments, in the article "Dubious Mental Health."[45]

 

 

Wow... That's A LOT of references in support of the opposition. [/EDIT]

Edited November 3, 2009 by iNow