What's a plausible evolutionary justification for . . .

[Borodog]

Revenge? Or more precisely, the desire for revenge?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Revenge? Or more precisely, the desire for revenge?


[/ QUOTE ]If you don't seek revenge, other people will think you are soft, and try to take advantage of you. Thus if you don't want to be continually thwarting attacks you should seek revenge.

[ QUOTE ]
Revenge? Or more precisely, the desire for revenge?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're interested in a concrete approach to such things, you might be interested in looking up the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and evolutionary approaches to it. Reciprocity is a powerful strategy and a desire for revenge implements one half of that.

[Darryl_P]

The "tit for tat" strategy won a computer game theory tournament in 1981 and since then it has been shown to apply to animal behavior. A discussion of some evolutionary aspects can be found here

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Revenge? Or more precisely, the desire for revenge?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your tribe, and so your associated gene pool, is more likely to continue if you make a stand and punish the other tribe that attacked you rather than do nothing and encourage them to finish your gene pool off?

A perhaps naive stab at one possible mechanism!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The "tit for tat" strategy won a computer game theory tournament in 1981 and since then it has been shown to apply to animal behavior. A discussion of some evolutionary aspects can be found here

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantastic article. Exactly the thing I was looking for.

Thanks!

[benkahuna]

Peaceful, even mutually benefitial coexistence is great, but when your community (genetic similarities with others) is threatened, you need to take measures to combat the threat.

The iterated prisoner's dilemma shows that the desire for revenge leads to an understanding of reciprocity and the realization of the need for a sort of governing body. Eventually man learned that instead of revenge, a government should be in charge of punishment (not until much, much later). Clearly, this is more advantageous to the species than constant struggle without reprieve.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The iterated prisoner's dilemma shows that the desire for revenge leads to an understanding of reciprocity and the realization of the need for a sort of governing body. Eventually man learned that instead of revenge, a government should be in charge of punishment (not until much, much later). Clearly, this is more advantageous to the species than constant struggle without reprieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on how the IPD shows the need for government? I don't see it.

"Can you expand on how the IPD shows the need for government? I don't see it."

I shouldn't have used the word government. That is more of a social development. What I meant was just some kind of code or agreement between people to keep order. It would stem from the need to survive as a people - to keep everyone from killing each other. I imagine that as man's brain developed beyond animals', he began to discover the advantages of reciprocity, and the "optimum equilibrium" the website mentions. Government, morality, and all that other stuff came way later.

Keep in mind that I haven't answered your original question. I've only offered a theory as to how revenge affected the evolution of man, not a justification for revenge.