Any time we’re talking about human behavior, I ask myself a simple question: Why were we designed this way in the first place?
Young men often seem wired to focus on the immediate challenge rather than the long-term consequences. From a modern perspective, that can appear irrational. But viewed through the lens of history, it may have served an important purpose.
For most of human existence, tribes and families survived because some young men were willing to act immediately, fight fiercely, and risk everything to protect their group. The warrior who carefully calculated every possible consequence might not have been the one who saved the village.
We are here, at least in part, because those traits existed.
The problem is that civilization changes the equation. The instincts remain, but the environment changes. Civilization acts as a governor. It teaches restraint, perspective, and judgment. Good parenting serves much the same purpose.
Girls often seem to acquire some of these skills earlier. Their ability to think ahead, manage emotions, and focus on consequences frequently develops before it does in boys. That can make them natural teachers of the very lessons that later save lives.
The goal isn’t to eliminate the engine. The goal is to install the brakes.
Perhaps that’s why the old lessons mattered so much. They weren’t trying to eliminate aggression. They were trying to teach wisdom to outrank aggression.
I realize that’s a simplified explanation, but I suspect there is more than a little truth in it.
This is all so true. But in addition it is a problem of human growth and development. Girls brains reach maturity faster than boys. Their pre-frontal lobes get wired up to their frontal lobe much earlier, usually by the time they are ready to leave high school. This is the part of the brain that activates all the things you mention in your offering.
Boys don’t wire up their prefrontal lobes until 5 to 10 years later, some never do. That is the problem. It’s a hard thing to manage. On sight mature adult supervision of young men is critical. Look to the military for examples. Even the smallest units have a leader who is just a little older and experienced. Those few years make all the difference. )
(Doesnt always work.). It’s part if the human condition.
Let's break it down a bit differently. An opinion is just that, what somebody else thinks about something. We all have them. Some are based on evidence, most on hearsay. Political opinions are a classical example. Look at the expressed opinions about any politician. Most of us don't personally know any politicians. We see them on television, hear about them from the evening news but we don't know them personally, don't see them in the morning after a sleepless night, don't have lunch with them, don't sit down and exchange ideas with them. Why, we should be asking, do I take another's statement about a politician as having any validity? More importantly, is it worth fighting another over an opinion about a politician? Or fighting over another's opinion about anything? Not really. Opinions aren't worth the effort. Do I believe I can force another to think the way I do? Will fighting another person compel them to think as I do? The obvious answer is "no"! Also, I might get hurt, seriously. Of course we're talking about human nature here. That's not a valid personal excuse, however.
Great comments.
Any time we’re talking about human behavior, I ask myself a simple question: Why were we designed this way in the first place?
Young men often seem wired to focus on the immediate challenge rather than the long-term consequences. From a modern perspective, that can appear irrational. But viewed through the lens of history, it may have served an important purpose.
For most of human existence, tribes and families survived because some young men were willing to act immediately, fight fiercely, and risk everything to protect their group. The warrior who carefully calculated every possible consequence might not have been the one who saved the village.
We are here, at least in part, because those traits existed.
The problem is that civilization changes the equation. The instincts remain, but the environment changes. Civilization acts as a governor. It teaches restraint, perspective, and judgment. Good parenting serves much the same purpose.
Girls often seem to acquire some of these skills earlier. Their ability to think ahead, manage emotions, and focus on consequences frequently develops before it does in boys. That can make them natural teachers of the very lessons that later save lives.
The goal isn’t to eliminate the engine. The goal is to install the brakes.
Perhaps that’s why the old lessons mattered so much. They weren’t trying to eliminate aggression. They were trying to teach wisdom to outrank aggression.
I realize that’s a simplified explanation, but I suspect there is more than a little truth in it.
Proverbs 15: 1,2 4
A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
The tongue of the wise enhances knowledge,
but the mouths of fools spout stupidity.
A healing tongue is a tree of life,
but a perverse tongue shatters the spirit.
I will not attempt to improve on the words from the Bible. These ideas are spot on. Thanks. Also an important part of civilization.
This is all so true. But in addition it is a problem of human growth and development. Girls brains reach maturity faster than boys. Their pre-frontal lobes get wired up to their frontal lobe much earlier, usually by the time they are ready to leave high school. This is the part of the brain that activates all the things you mention in your offering.
Boys don’t wire up their prefrontal lobes until 5 to 10 years later, some never do. That is the problem. It’s a hard thing to manage. On sight mature adult supervision of young men is critical. Look to the military for examples. Even the smallest units have a leader who is just a little older and experienced. Those few years make all the difference. )
(Doesnt always work.). It’s part if the human condition.
Let's break it down a bit differently. An opinion is just that, what somebody else thinks about something. We all have them. Some are based on evidence, most on hearsay. Political opinions are a classical example. Look at the expressed opinions about any politician. Most of us don't personally know any politicians. We see them on television, hear about them from the evening news but we don't know them personally, don't see them in the morning after a sleepless night, don't have lunch with them, don't sit down and exchange ideas with them. Why, we should be asking, do I take another's statement about a politician as having any validity? More importantly, is it worth fighting another over an opinion about a politician? Or fighting over another's opinion about anything? Not really. Opinions aren't worth the effort. Do I believe I can force another to think the way I do? Will fighting another person compel them to think as I do? The obvious answer is "no"! Also, I might get hurt, seriously. Of course we're talking about human nature here. That's not a valid personal excuse, however.