Gwen_Isilith wrote on September 17, 2021 at 12:12 AM

Reply to comment by !deleted31467 in Question from an anonymous redditor by ziq

The idea that all anti-social behavior is learned I find very disagreeable. Nor only from my own experience being an anti-social person and partaking in anti-social actions but also more generalized examples, for example the text "Murder of The Civilized" discusses Travis the Chimp, who I would describe as anti-social but to my knowledge did not learn this behavior anywhere.

[deleted] wrote on September 17, 2021 at 12:15 AM (edited on September 17, 2021 at 12:21 AM)

Gwen_Isilith wrote on September 17, 2021 at 12:22 AM

Travis the Chimps behavior is near identical to that of Adam Lanza (Lanza actually drew upon Travis's actions to inspire his own) and I would even go so far as to say that it is possible Kazynski's psychological thesis apply not only to Lanza but to Travis. I don't really buy into the distinction between humans and not-humans though.

[deleted] wrote on September 17, 2021 at 12:26 AM (edited on September 17, 2021 at 12:29 AM)

Gwen_Isilith wrote on September 17, 2021 at 12:56 AM

I agree the living conditions had a tremendous impact, this to me seems to be Kazynski's thesis- industrial society being the living condition of the modern psyche. However while I agree that there are differences between animals (there is difference in all things which to me is what makes them the same) I disagree with the weight you attribute to that difference, especially between humans and non-humans.

I would say especially that the difference that is attributed to humans to distinguish themselves from non-humans is often a difference in form not function. A common example being the capacity for elephants to express themselves through art and even apes to express themselves through sign language. But even beyond that I think it is misguided to, for example, privelege the expression of humans through speech but not acknowledge the complexity of emotion expressed for example by dogs or cats which humans often have complex emotional relationships with.

Even further, trying to distinguish between human expression/intelligence and non-human expression attempts to monolithize human behavior in such a way that is often used to dehumanize marginalized humans. Especially the question of expression/intelligence is often used to erase the differences in these regards of disabled/neurodivergent humans. So with all of this I think it is impossible, except in an idealized manner, to distinguish between the whole of human experience and the whole of non-human experience.