Why We Fight

by Mike Martin

Why are we willing to die for our countries? How can ideology persuade someone to blow themselves up?

When we go to war, morality, religion and ideology often take the blame. But Mike Martin boldly argues that the opposite is true: rather than driving violence, these things help to reduce it. While we resort to ideas and values to justify or interpret warfare, something else is really propelling us towards conflict: our subconscious desires, shaped by millions of years of evolution.

Why We Fight will change the way we think about both violence and ourselves.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, War, History, Military Fiction, Sociology, Science

227 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 3, 2018

Reviews

[Lorna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, although it was more scientific/psychological than I would maybe have liked - a lot on evolutionary psychology etc. Would maybe have like to have seen the theories put forward evidenced in actual conflicts .. for example. Has given me some food for thought though.

[Abduco Chimpo · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is quite an interesting book which is very intriguing with its detail, yet sometimes falls short. Whilst I have a few criticisms of the book itself, I must say that it is well researched and Mike Martins writting style is most enjoyable to read. The book starts out with basic evolution theory, which provides the foundations to the rest of the story. Where it gets interesting is when he talks about our innate human drive for fame, power, and sexual partners ect; he extends his research by comparing it to societies and their violence when allowing polygymous vs monogomous relationships. Also his writtings on oxytocin throughout the book were extremely interesting especially when he linked it to other hormonal recepters such as testosterone and what role it plays for in/out groups and collective thinking, subconscious and belonging theories. I found this quite fascinating, especially the part where he links suicide bombing motives going against many human desires. Where I think the book fell short is in the links to religion. He spends the entire 3/4 of the book talking about what I previously described (he references Thomas Hobbes who I disagree with), yet only gives small adresses to how religion goes entirely against this. He mentions its about in-group and belonging but he never explains why this is so powerfull. How does feeling belonged to a group somehow trump our entire competitive desire and hormonal system? I also think by him saying that religion is often the cause of war isnt entirely true, it is much more complex than that (especially in the modern age), and to criticise without explaining a this layered topic makes it feels like more of a personal opinion than facts. Additionally, his commentary on why people believe in the 'supernatural' is in my opinion incorrect. He says people want to belong to a group so are drawn to religion, therefore athiest ideals make the most sense because its more 'natural for our desires'. the final part of the text that I disagree with him in is in the conclusion where he tries to give his opinion on how to reduce violence with the five group problem. This fundamentally can't work in a world, at least western world where globalisation is happening and various cultures and ethnic groups are entering a country. The government can't really appeal to everyone, and if they do, people would lose there sense of belonging and culture, and as is said in the book, this isn't a good thing. All said, this book is still a great read, I learnt much and it helps you think freely about how different societies opperate around the world today and have in the past. Apart from the negatives I described, I feel like the book lets you create or reinforce your own ideals with the information he provides.

[Eliise Klaos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Huvitav, aga keeruline raamat, lõpp laks kohe eriti keeruliseks… rahuldas veidi mu uudishimu ja tahet mõista sõdimise põhjusi.

Kokkuvõttev katkend : “Inimesed sõdivad staatuse ja kuuluvuse pärast. Nad teevad seda sellepärast, et evolutsiooniliselt tagavad need kaks asja kõige kindiamalt ellujaamise ja paljunemise. Staatus kui suhteline koht hierarhias võrreldes teistega aitab inimesel leida paremaid seksuaalpartnereid, hankida ressursse ja kontrollida teisi. Ja sellepärast inimesed sõdivadki. “

[Evan Micheals · Rating 5 out of 5]

I heard Mike Martin speaking on the Art of Manliness Podcast and found him compelling at looking at the psychological reasons why people fight. In this book I found an excellent description of evolutionary psychology, that explains why we are the way we are. He show a good understanding of the neuropsychology behind human motivation.

Martin’s thesis is that we have evolved to meet the 5 challenges of group living

“Identity: who is in the group, and who enjoys the benefits of group membership.

Hierarchy: how it works, and who is in charge.

Trade: what constitutes fair trade between individuals in the group.

Disease: the rules to be applied in order to minimise disease stemming from higher densities.

Punishment: whom the group is allowed to punish, and how much, if they break the rules” (p 87-88).

Martin explains that we have evolved “social emotions help with others like hierarchy (pride), trade (anger), disease (disgust), and punishment (vengeance) (p 88) to respond to the challenges of group living. The larger the groups, the more people who could respond to these challenges were favoured with resources. He is able to show an understanding of the endocrinological roles of hormones on our neurological structures. He correctly identifies oxytocin, not as the ‘love’ hormone, but as the hormone of groupishness “because of the nature of the oxytocin mechanism’s evolution, there cannot be in-group love without out-group hatred” (p 89).

I have read this statistic regarding male evolutionary success in a number of other books: “the most famous example, 8 per cent of men who currently live in the area of Asia between the Pacific Ocean and the Caspian Sea have been shown to be descended from one man who lived approximately 1000 years ago: Genghis Khan” (p 63). Martin is able to articulate an understanding of mating strategies in the mating market if fertile women are seen as a resource to be competed for.

I like that Martin quote Jung in peoples development of cognitive disonance in maintaining their groupish beliefs. “People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul – Carl Jung” (p 102). People will be able to believe all sorts of mythology if it is in service of an evolutionary benefit to them in remaining in an ‘in-group’ or lifts them up a social hierarchy of their ‘in group’. Martin looks at the concept of free-will and provides an argument that it does not exist. He affirms my thinking that the frontal cortex role is to come up with post-hoc rationalisations for things we have already decided to do in a deep level of our brain. Mostly we do things for sub-conscious reasons. I still believe we have to act ‘as if’ we are rational and logical beings, but this is an illusion. Our social society does not work if we all act on our ‘Id’. We need the ‘Super Ego’ as well. Balancing between the two makes for all the interest of the Ego.

Martin concluded by giving his thoughts on how violence and war could be prevented. “Prevent told me that the best way to reduce terrorism was to fund local sports clubs and community centres – which foster belonging – rather than ‘criminalising an entire community’” (p 168). I understood that we must foster a pro-social Super Ego. Maybe, especially in the West, we have gotten to far away from groupish values, in favour of the individual. I do like the Naval Ravikant quote “"With my family, I´m a communist. With my close friends, I'm a socialist. At my state level politics, I'm a democrat. Higher levels, I'm a republican. And at the federal level, I'm a libertarian." Those closet to us we should reflect more influence and the lighter the influence the further away the power gets. We need to stop deifying our Presidents and Prime Ministers.

This is the best book I have read in 2023 for it’s clear and practical explanation of the implications of evolutionary psychology. I will be reading Martin’s other and future work.

[Laurence Copeland · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting and thought-provoking view on wars and what cause them. Its starting point is that the things that allow us to be successful in evolutionary terms (i.e to reproduce) can only be provided by social groupings of some kind, which in turn can only offer the security (and in particular the freedom from violence) that we need in order to breed and bring up children if they are able to command loyalty from their membership. That loyalty is demonstrated by members being willing to lay down their lives for the society when it comes into conflict with other societies. At the same time, for Hobbesian reasons, the society needs a high-status leader to maintain order, and he/she accrues status by leadership in war with other societies. From this perspective, larger groupings have less need to test themselves in war (and fewer potential enemies). Equally, the more people are swept into a single entity, the less scope there is for individual interpersonal violence, so from this perspective, the rise of the nation-state was a welcome progression towards a more peaceful world. Likewise, supranational communities like the EU, UN etc or quasi-communities like those based on global religions are to be welcomed.
All of this may sound very surprising, but it does seem to a gret extent to be consistent with the line taken for example by Pinker in "Better Angels....". But it also raises an awful lot of questions.

[Jacob Naur · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't believe no one is apparently reading this. This should have been a bestseller.

If you are dealing with humans in any circumstance ever, you must read this book. Clearly written with no BS the book brings together recent progress in the field of evolutionary biology/psychology, discoveries in brain development and genetics.

That said, Martin ends telling us the reason for islamic terrorism is - basically - racism.

More in line with his own findings, you could argue, that islam and the muslim culture have not solved the 5 problems of any group causing internal unrest and external attacks. These are the reasons given for all other conflicts described in the book. For some reason Martin refuses his own brilliant logic when it comes to muslims.

Mr. Martin: The muslims hated us before they came here and they are all obliged to persecute non-muslims. You blithering idiot. So the Christian communities in Egypt should be more inclusive? Is that it?

On page 223 Mr. Martin turns full Stalin declaring the objective to be less inequality and more respect through enabling "structures". Do tell. What "structures" is to make me have an oxytocin party in my brain, when thinking of female genitalia mutilation?

Good book - such a shame the writer did not read it.

[Thomas Wood · Rating 4 out of 5]

more of an academic essay in style and pretty hard going in the first chapters as I accustomed myself to the terminology used but worth the effort.

A thought provoking discussion of the basic desires and cognitive neuroscience behind civilisation, similar in scope to Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.
definitely not what I was expecting from the title!

[Lloyd Fassett]

5/6/22 Found it through the Wall St. Journal. It sounds really interesting. The author is a U. of Chicago economist and references Kahneman and Nash in his analysis of war

‘Why We Fight’ Review: Give Peace a (Bigger) Chance
An economist’s analysis of armed conflict takes lessons from game theory to discover how to head off wars before they happen.

[Peter Brickwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent review of all current psychological / sociological the theories as applicable to the motivation to fight. I struggled with that a bit but overall it was well worth the work. The idea that we fight for our comrades is a widely held belief that I thought was not much of a revelation. But perhaps I missed something. Well worth reading.

[Stefi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Huvitav ja mõtlemapanev teos, aitab mõista inimloomust ja selle tekkimise põhjuseid. Kohati olid mõtted aga esitatud üsna keeruliselt ja mõnes kohas ma ütleksin, et isegi ebaselgelt. Võibolla ei olnud tõlge kõige täpsem.

[Lukas Vaičiulionis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intresting observations. 3.5/5