Why do we have douchebags?

[dstebbins]

There's a lot of atrocious traits of human beings that are explicable when you consider the fact that they made sense long ago, and those traits have simply become obsolete because civilization progresses faster than evolution does.

 

For example, Mankind loves violence. There's even a sporting organization nowadays that simply just puts martial arts experts against each other, simply just to beat the crap out of each other. It's called "UFC." However, this trait of humanity makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because, in the days of Cavemen, it was a "kill or be killed" world, so it makes sense that natural selection would give a survival advantage to people who enjoyed that sort of thing.

 

But then we have the douchebags, the jerkwads, the Internet trolls, who seem to just derive pleasure from annoying or upsetting others. Not even physically injuring them, but get under their skin. And that's... amusing to them for some reason.

 

What the hell kind of survival advantage could possibly be bequeathed to those kinds of people?!!!

 

And there's enough people like this to suggest that it's more than just a recessive trait; it's very clearly a trait of humanity as a whole, which means that, like the love of violence, there's probably an evolutionary reason behind it. So... what IS that evolutionary reason?

[SeriousBug]

Perhaps it increases the chance of survival, since what it does is:
1- Making us push ourselves further to fight these, making us get stronger (other than challenging ourselves, there is not much challenge encountered in life, thanks to technology)
2- Making us more selfish, allowing us to do anything necessary for our survival.

[EdEarl]

In every population are survivors and douchebags. In general, which do females choose and which do not they not? (rhetorical)

[michel123456]

There is no reason in evolution, there is randomness.

[swansont]

There is no reason in evolution, there is randomness.

 

There is also selection, so you can rephrase the question as asking if this is a trait being selected for, and why, or why it isn't being selected against.

[michel123456]

Since it has not been selected (erased)yet then either it is a strong trait either it is not a trait at all, i.e. it is completely unconcerned to evolution.

[swansont]

Since it has not been selected (erased)yet then either it is a strong trait either it is not a trait at all, i.e. it is completely unconcerned to evolution.

 

That would be a neutral trait, which is not the same as not being a trait.

[michel123456]

That would be a neutral trait, which is not the same as not being a trait.

I don't know if behaviours are traits.

for example having the right hand constantly raised with a gun is a behaviour, it is not a trait as evolution is concerned.

[overtone]

If we take specific examples of douchebags such as Kenneth Lay or Lloyd Blankfein or Newt Gingrich or Andrew Breitbart (refer to interviews and biographies if you doubt the assignation of the label) we confront the fact of great rewards accruing to their behaviors.

 

"Nice guys finish last" is not generally true, but "douchebags often finish first " is undeniable given appropriate circumstances.

[jp255]

It's also very important to consider sexual selection. OP seems to have not considered the possibility of sexual selection.

 

My overall opinion is that there are many possible explanations, and that many of those explanations are as unsupported as each other.

 

 

What the hell kind of survival advantage could possibly be bequeathed to those kinds of people?!!!

And there's enough people like this to suggest that it's more than just a recessive trait; it's very clearly a trait of humanity as a whole, which means that, like the love of violence, there's probably an evolutionary reason behind it. So... what IS that evolutionary reason?

You can't see how violence can potentially be a successful strategy? like rape?

 

There is no reason in evolution, there is randomness.

 

Since it has not been selected (erased)yet then either it is a strong trait either it is not a trait at all, i.e. it is completely unconcerned to evolution.

how does evolution become unconcerned with a trait then?

 

Evolution is not concerned with anything. Genetic drift (the randomness you were talking of) is an important contributor to the progression of allele frequency change and evolution on the whole, so neutral traits shouldn't be neglected. Also, the term neutral is somewhat confusing as a neutral trait today might be an individuals saving grace tomorrow (environment change).

 

I don't know if behaviours are traits.
for example having the right hand constantly raised with a gun is a behaviour, it is not a trait as evolution is concerned.

 

I don't know if evolutionary biologists consider behaviours to be traits or not. I would imagine it is a matter of definition. Though I myself consider them to be traits, or at least as a phenotype. Imo, behaviours can still be described in the same way any other traits can and it is useful to consider them as traits.

 

You seem to have answered your own question? My educated guess would describe the behaviour you detailed as a neutral trait. Would you describe the act of having sex as not a trait michel?

Edited June 2, 2013 by jp255

[swansont]

I don't know if behaviours are traits.

for example having the right hand constantly raised with a gun is a behaviour, it is not a trait as evolution is concerned.

 

I wouldn't call that a behavior, in the context of this discussion. Aggressiveness is a behavior. Raising your hand with a gun in it is a specific action.

 

Do you want to argue that aggressiveness has no genetic component to it? Having said that, it's true that the OP does not actually make the case of how douchebaggery is genetic.

[Phi for All]

From my experience, douchebaggery is often used successfully to make other people look bad by annoying them to the point of flipping out. It's like the kid in school who flicked your ear and caused YOU to make a huge scene while he looks on innocently shrugging.

 

It could be a very efficient way to expend a little energy to get an enemy/opponent/rival to expend a LOT of energy in retaliation. I'm reminded of the 9/11 attacks and the global military response (after the initial attack, a few video tapes kept alive a multi-trillion dollar retaliation). Maybe it's a holdover from pack hunting tactics, nipping at hamstrings while your opponent has to wheel and charge you to get you to stop. Wears him out with minimal effort from you.

[jp255]

I wouldn't call that a behavior, in the context of this discussion. Aggressiveness is a behavior. Raising your hand with a gun in it is a specific action.

 

Do you want to argue that aggressiveness has no genetic component to it? Having said that, it's true that the OP does not actually make the case of how douchebaggery is genetic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21761238

 

This study reports heritability for violent crimes (convicted offenses I believe) in a Swedih population, and the authors note the results are similar to those obtained from a twin study using self-reported antisocial behaviour. It seems likely that genetics does contribute to the variance observed in antisocial behaviour.

 

I guess it is fair to assume that genetics probably contributes to individual differences that concern douchebaggery related behaviour.

Edited June 3, 2013 by jp255

[overtone]

 

I guess it is fair to assume that genetics probably contributes to
individual differences that concern douchebaggery related behaviour

In the US as well as many other places, childhood exposure to heavy metals (especially, lead) is strongly correlated with antisocial behavior in early adulthood.

 

We would expect some genetically governed variation in heavy metal uptake and metabolism among humans, which would by that correlation then create a genetic correlation with antisocial behavior in adults among any population in which heavy metal exposure was a common factor.

 

Just another potential route to genetic correlations with douchebaggery - many are possible.

[SamBridge]

Ultimately the answer to this is residual actions from evolution. It happened to be that in order to certain animals to survive they needed to be particularly aggressive or hostile to have a better chance of fending off others. Some of it however is involved with culture. Most people are not born extremely violent, but they can be turned that was as a result of their environment.