5 ms·

To be functional in an inherently dysfunctional system that is the nature of hierarchical society. It is made for certain personalities to thrive at the cost of

by x5n1 11y ago

To be functional in an inherently dysfunctional system that is the nature of hierarchical society. It is made for certain personalities to thrive at the cost of others who may or may not be economically as important, but then why should personality and behavior be judged by the economic and social ability of an individual, but that's what psychology is really for... for enforcing, disciplining and punishing people that don't conform to the economic or social norms, who are therefore not functional in conventional settings. Who are hunter gatherers by their nature and not corporate drones, for instance.

tossaway1 11y ago
Even hunter gatherer societies had social structure and norms. And in those societies people far outside the norm were probably treated much worse than they are in today's society.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Nothing as it is today. If you could hunt or gather you had a place. And you were related to everyone in your tribe by blood. So it is a similar relationship to the one that you have with your family or extended family. So yes to an extent you are right, but at the same time the social cohesion was much greater. In modern society if you are out you are out, you have no recourse at all. Hunter gatherer societies probably not as much. But I am sure if you did certain things in some of those groups that were out of the social norm they would kill you. But lots of things that you would get in trouble for today would not raise a brow in their societies. There are lots of trivial things that you can get in trouble for in mass societies that are of no concern to someone living in a tribal setting today for instance.
  - CJefferson 11y ago
    I suspect (I don't have evidence I will admit, I'd be interested in any real evidence that exists!) that you have far too rosy a view of hunter / gather lifestyle. Mostly, it was more important for people to follow the rules, or people die. You (for example) couldn't keep quiet when you had to (while hunting, or hiding)? Food would escape, people would die. You felt some days you couldn't face going outside to hunt or gather? There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again.
    - adrusi 11y ago
      Hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian than today's, this much is agreed upon by the anthropological community. It's just a result of small group size and homogeneity, along with a lack of specialization. What you're talking about is real, that if you couldn't fit into the norms of the group you would be shunned. Typically you wouldn't have trouble fitting into those rules, because they would have been all you were ever exposed to. You would have no reason to ever doubt them. Some people would be better than others at various tasks, for example, keeping quiet on a hunt, but then they would just do something else. Maybe you're worse than useless on a hunt, but instead you have a good eye and can spot and identify a mushroom better than anyone else. There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again. These small societies were built on reciprocity. In the short term you would be supported by general human goodness. If you simply couldn't contribute to collecting food, there were other things you could do as well. If you were too fond of animals to kill them, you might be coralled into some kind of medicinal role. If you were afraid to leave the settlement, you might find yourself weaving ropes, or maybe building weapons, fixing roofs.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      That's incorrect. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distribution_Among_Hunter-Gatherers_in_Northern_Siberia_Tests_of_Evolutionary_Hypotheses_Invited_Session_New_Research_in_the_Evolutionary_Ecology_of_Food_Transfer https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distr... Societies which operate purely on self-interest tend to be very bad at survival. Altruism and compromise are essential for evolutionary success.
    - joshmarlow 11y ago
      Not directly to your point, but I feel it's relevant: there's a hypothesis that ADHD is a remnant feature (not a bug!) from hunter-gatherer times. So actually the hyperfocus of ADHD would actually make quiet hunting easier (if that's what the hunter is hyperfocused on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis
mtbcoder 11y ago
> but that's what psychology is really for... for enforcing, disciplining and punishing people that don't conform to the economic or social norms... This is quite fallacious. You are essentially describing fundamental peer/societal pressures, not psychology, in some sophomoric attempt at wit. There are individuals who truly suffer from deep psychosis and other troubling issues. Let's not be so callous with our broad brush strokes.
- x5n1 11y ago
  > There are individuals who truly suffer from deep psychosis and other troubling issues. Let's not be so callous with our broad brush strokes. As Foucault pointed out (and even Sapolsky) these people used to have a job, we called them Oracles or Shaman or Prophets. Instead Psychologists and Psychiatry either wishes to fix them when in many cases they can't be "fixed", by giving them drugs to mess with their already fragile minds or through other means and therapies. Where the humane thing would be to simply give them autonomy and some sort of social way of acquiring food and resources. Many of their problems are caused by the inability of society to accommodate things which are not machines, for instance anxiety problems and depression caused by interaction with the economy itself. We have a a whole set of treatments to make them conform. Rather than accepting them for who they are, and giving them some sort of role to play. Because as I said they are not good corporate drones that follow the logic of production and consumption in the modern economy. If they wish to have any sort of autonomy they must do it through the economy, which has made making a living as a quack more and more difficult through this sort of societal logic. Sure there are minor and major ailments, but don't go around telling me treatment for those ailments is not inspired by making people into tools that are then asked to perform on command. If anything your attempt is sophomoric and completely tone deaf to the larger picture of how these systems fit into our society and what they actually say about it, rather than just trying to "help", it's trying to make them into tools that can be economically exploited so that they are integrated into the system in a very specific, ordered, logical way. Just like religion was trying to "help" those that could not properly be possessed by imaginary things and mental illness. This attempts to do the opposite for those that fit into the mentally-ill religious category. Oh how things change.
conceit 11y ago
If you talk about illness, it's not about importance, it's about detriment. It's a matter of perspective and an agent can only consider one perspective. Altruism can impose unsolvable constraints on that perspective. You can't say in the same paragraph that a system is dysfunctional and that the personalities thrive, who enforce the system. One functioning part of the system is enforcing the convention. A dysfunctional system is an oxymoron. Enforcing altruism is a different matter. Altruism is inhibited by differing conventions, that preclude cooperation.

by x5n1 11y ago

tossaway1 11y ago

Even hunter gatherer societies had social structure and norms. And in those societies people far outside the norm were probably treated much worse than they are in today's society.

x5n1 11y ago
Nothing as it is today. If you could hunt or gather you had a place. And you were related to everyone in your tribe by blood. So it is a similar relationship to the one that you have with your family or extended family. So yes to an extent you are right, but at the same time the social cohesion was much greater. In modern society if you are out you are out, you have no recourse at all. Hunter gatherer societies probably not as much. But I am sure if you did certain things in some of those groups that were out of the social norm they would kill you. But lots of things that you would get in trouble for today would not raise a brow in their societies. There are lots of trivial things that you can get in trouble for in mass societies that are of no concern to someone living in a tribal setting today for instance.
- CJefferson 11y ago
  I suspect (I don't have evidence I will admit, I'd be interested in any real evidence that exists!) that you have far too rosy a view of hunter / gather lifestyle. Mostly, it was more important for people to follow the rules, or people die. You (for example) couldn't keep quiet when you had to (while hunting, or hiding)? Food would escape, people would die. You felt some days you couldn't face going outside to hunt or gather? There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    Hunter-gatherer societies were much more egalitarian than today's, this much is agreed upon by the anthropological community. It's just a result of small group size and homogeneity, along with a lack of specialization. What you're talking about is real, that if you couldn't fit into the norms of the group you would be shunned. Typically you wouldn't have trouble fitting into those rules, because they would have been all you were ever exposed to. You would have no reason to ever doubt them. Some people would be better than others at various tasks, for example, keeping quiet on a hunt, but then they would just do something else. Maybe you're worse than useless on a hunt, but instead you have a good eye and can spot and identify a mushroom better than anyone else. There wasn't a safety net for people to keep bringing you food until you felt up to it again. These small societies were built on reciprocity. In the short term you would be supported by general human goodness. If you simply couldn't contribute to collecting food, there were other things you could do as well. If you were too fond of animals to kill them, you might be coralled into some kind of medicinal role. If you were afraid to leave the settlement, you might find yourself weaving ropes, or maybe building weapons, fixing roofs.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    That's incorrect. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distribution_Among_Hunter-Gatherers_in_Northern_Siberia_Tests_of_Evolutionary_Hypotheses_Invited_Session_New_Research_in_the_Evolutionary_Ecology_of_Food_Transfer https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39730301_Food_Distr... Societies which operate purely on self-interest tend to be very bad at survival. Altruism and compromise are essential for evolutionary success.
  - joshmarlow 11y ago
    Not directly to your point, but I feel it's relevant: there's a hypothesis that ADHD is a remnant feature (not a bug!) from hunter-gatherer times. So actually the hyperfocus of ADHD would actually make quiet hunting easier (if that's what the hunter is hyperfocused on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis

mtbcoder 11y ago

> but that's what psychology is really for... for enforcing, disciplining and punishing people that don't conform to the economic or social norms... This is quite fallacious. You are essentially describing fundamental peer/societal pressures, not psychology, in some sophomoric attempt at wit. There are individuals who truly suffer from deep psychosis and other troubling issues. Let's not be so callous with our broad brush strokes.

x5n1 11y ago
> There are individuals who truly suffer from deep psychosis and other troubling issues. Let's not be so callous with our broad brush strokes. As Foucault pointed out (and even Sapolsky) these people used to have a job, we called them Oracles or Shaman or Prophets. Instead Psychologists and Psychiatry either wishes to fix them when in many cases they can't be "fixed", by giving them drugs to mess with their already fragile minds or through other means and therapies. Where the humane thing would be to simply give them autonomy and some sort of social way of acquiring food and resources. Many of their problems are caused by the inability of society to accommodate things which are not machines, for instance anxiety problems and depression caused by interaction with the economy itself. We have a a whole set of treatments to make them conform. Rather than accepting them for who they are, and giving them some sort of role to play. Because as I said they are not good corporate drones that follow the logic of production and consumption in the modern economy. If they wish to have any sort of autonomy they must do it through the economy, which has made making a living as a quack more and more difficult through this sort of societal logic. Sure there are minor and major ailments, but don't go around telling me treatment for those ailments is not inspired by making people into tools that are then asked to perform on command. If anything your attempt is sophomoric and completely tone deaf to the larger picture of how these systems fit into our society and what they actually say about it, rather than just trying to "help", it's trying to make them into tools that can be economically exploited so that they are integrated into the system in a very specific, ordered, logical way. Just like religion was trying to "help" those that could not properly be possessed by imaginary things and mental illness. This attempts to do the opposite for those that fit into the mentally-ill religious category. Oh how things change.

conceit 11y ago

If you talk about illness, it's not about importance, it's about detriment. It's a matter of perspective and an agent can only consider one perspective. Altruism can impose unsolvable constraints on that perspective. You can't say in the same paragraph that a system is dysfunctional and that the personalities thrive, who enforce the system. One functioning part of the system is enforcing the convention. A dysfunctional system is an oxymoron. Enforcing altruism is a different matter. Altruism is inhibited by differing conventions, that preclude cooperation.