Search

This cross-cultural study compares two different explanations of male initiation ceremonies: John Whiting and colleagues' theory that initiation rites function to resolve psychological conflict and Melvin Ember's theory that male initiation ceremonies provide basic army training in nonstate societies. Although bivariate results suggest support for John Whiting's, but not Ember's, theory, a reconsideration of Beatrice Whiting's theorizing about the importance of cultural setting suggested to the authors that psychological conflict might more strongly predict male initiation in the presence of the following catalysts: nonmatrilocal residence, nonstate political organization, and warfare. The ability to predict male initiation ceremonies is strikingly improved when these catalysts are considered.

The motives that drive people to inflict punishment on others and the psychological justification used by them to explain their behavior later are explored. Retribution and utility are two broad justifications for the use of punishment, which is a common and inescapable aspect of daily life.

THE SOURCE: 'Preachers Who Are Not Believers' by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, in Evolutionary Psychology, March 2010. GENERATIONS OF QUESTIONING churchgoers have struggled to accept the teachings of [...]