[hilalvx]

Apologizes if this isn't the right place to post this.

Question : Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that intergroup hostility (and even
warfare) may stem from in-group/out-group bias. What might be the limitations of
this argument when considering warfare? Make a list of competing hypotheses that
might be used to explain warfare. How might we test between these alternative
hypotheses?


My answer (excuse the typos and bad english)

When considering warfare some of the limitations that can be is that war will always be there. Men just love war too much. It's a fact that people didn't want to own up to but has history has reflected back our tendencies, there is no denying it.

Nations and governments usually cause wars. Not common people. In fact the populace is always against it. The too old and the too young oppose it. I don't think any competing hypothesis can do better then the fact that men love to engage in war. Ironically once they've had a taste of it they either end up wanting nothing to do with it or become addicted to it forever. Once they've had the taste of the forbidden fruit that is all they want then.