Talk:On Aggression

Avoid weasel words

it is generally accepted that Lorenz' scientific methodology was marred by his personal views on how society should be like.

What's the source for that? It sounds like weasel words to me, even though it may be true. 82.139.47.117 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: to whatever extent it may be further weasel-worded to seem true, it is not an encyclopedic statement but an prejudicial assumption framed in casual terms. Athaenara (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You realized that this opens the door wide for all those people who want to see Creationism portrayed as a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory? the former is a nice lil story, the latter is supported by an ever-growing mountain of real-world data. Same here: Lorenz' general theory of aggression is a nice lil story, whereas that it cannot be verified by field data or experiments is a cold hard fact. Unpleasant to some, but fact nonetheless. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided examples about outdated ideas on aggression in this book. I also omitted the part about general agreement on how he was influenced by ideas in the surrounding society and so on. Who isn't? Besides being formulated with weasel words, you can read all about in the article about Konrad Lorenz. --Uncas 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not ideas are outdated, the job of an encyclopedia article is simply to describe what they are. Opinions belong at the end, if at all, rather than being framed as the main point of an article. Athaenara (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it important to point out that serious students of animal behavior have found no evidence for the "hydraulic" model of aggression, either in humans or other animals? This is an accurate account of what Lorenz said, but what Lorenz said is basically wrong. Other articles cite this book and entry as authoritative on the topic of aggression, but it's not. I think L's wrongness needs to be mentioned. Eperotao 14:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "[T]he job of an encyclopedia article is simply to describe what they are" - in this case, biased nonsense that has been refuted over and over again. It is not an opinion. Lorenz was not a social scientist; in his field, a clear line between fact and fiction, between true and false can be drawn based on the scientific method, and Lorenz' output, especially regarding human behavior, is utterly lacking in scientific rigor. Were it not so, where are the experiments reproducing his data? He himself had a nasty habit not to provide data and not to conduct experiments to back up his claims. The scientific community of his age, for whatever reason, had an equally nasty habit to believe claims that sounded plausible enough even if no data was provided in support. As Mark Chu-Carroll once said, "The worst math is no math at all".

By today's standards, Lorenz would never have received the Nobel for a science. Too many claims, too little empiricism. The man was too damn fond of a good just-so story for his own good. His writing was very good though, dashing and captivating. And I think this is the basic issue here. His aptitude as a writer makes people overlook the fact that he did a major disservice to the "hard" sciences (as opposed to sciences in general, where his observational approach certainly deserves much praise), and that's why he is not usually discussed at length in biology textbooks today. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right?

"Additionally, the book addresses behavior in humans, including discussion of a "hydraulic" model of emotional or instinctive pressures and their release, shared by Freud, and the abnormality of intraspecies violence and killing. His 'hydraulic' model, of aggression as a force that builds relentlessly without cause unless released, remains less popular than a model in which aggression is a response to frustrated desires and aims[citation needed]."

Something seems fishy in that interpretation, citation super extra double needed!

Also by "His" I don't understand if they mean Freud or Lorenz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.162.103 (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]