10 ms·

No I don't think this is true. Hierarchies are heavily part of human behavior. The concept of leaders and rank is so ingrained in behavior it's hard to think i

No I don't think this is true. Hierarchies are heavily part of human behavior. The concept of leaders and rank is so ingrained in behavior it's hard to think it didn't exist even in hunter and gatherer societies. Right now we have enough wealth such that everyone can live comfortably. But a lot of people still fight tooth and nail in the rat race all for what? For wealth partly but mostly for Rank. The higher your rank the better it's a huge driving force emotionally... especially for men. Desire for high rank is an inborn biological instinct. This is confirmed in psychology across all cultures. All men are emotionally more satisfied the higher their rank. For women it's also a huge driving force for mate selection. Women marry up. They have a strong desire to marry the highest ranking man. I would imagine in hunter and gather societies rank is maintained by two things. Brute force and social proof. Bigger men have more brute force to maintain leadership (hence why a lot of women are attracted to height) and social proof and respect insures that other men trust you and are more likely to listen to you. That being said coercion to build things like pyramids or grand multi-year projects of vast scale requires someone to own wealth. This type of serfdom like heirarchy is much stronger then the hierarchies that existed in hunterer gatherer societies. Definitely more stable since wages and survival required someone to stay at their hierarchical post. Either way hierarchies DID exist in hunter gatherer societies. It's just the tribe leader doesn't have enough power to coerce all men into building a pyramid. That being said I believe the article is disputing this part of what I'm saying but I don't think hierarchies are disputed.

moloch-hai 4y ago
Hierarchies are not, in fact, "heavily part of human behavior". They appear in certain circumstances, and dissipate when the circumstances do. G&W point out that we are brainwashed otherwise. I see it as a case of learned helplessness. It is deeply evident that big construction projects have often not required hierarchy beyond deference to an architect. The architect need have no coercive authority over anybody for this to work.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Our ape cousins are hierarchical. Are there example of human tribes that have no hierarchy?
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    There have been myriad societies that consciously chose to dispense with hierarchy, others where hierarchy applied only to one sphere (e.g. religion) and nowhere else, ones where different hierarchies applied in different spheres, and many where hierarchy comes and goes, with no continuity with previous hierarchies. To be human is to have the power to consciously choose behavior.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      I think those societies are rare and observations of those societies are inaccurate. There must be hierarchies in those societies, it's just misreported. More evidence of the relationship between hierarchy and biology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXxKBiidbeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXxKBiidbeo Serotonin is the biological chemical that is linked with hierarchy in biology and we are awashed in it.
      - mcswell 4y ago
        This sort of argument--that those reports must be inaccurate, because--well, I'm not sure why you you think these reports are inaccurate, except that you think they must be. And that's not a reason. I'm also pretty sure any linkage of serotonin to hierarchy is unproven.
        fckgnad 4y ago
        >This sort of argument--that those reports must be inaccurate, because--well, I'm not sure why you you think these reports are inaccurate, except that you think they must be. And that's not a reason. It's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead and not just with her. It's more prevalent in anthropology then in other sciences. This is just an educated guess. If you provide actual sources I can verify what the academic community thinks of these reports or findings, and really that's the only best available metric I can go off of. >I'm also pretty sure any linkage of serotonin to hierarchy is unproven. Science cannot prove anything. Be very careful with your language. Especially in the social sciences where things are less quantitative... proof is fundamentally impossible. There is only evidence in favor of and evidence against. Evidence in favor of serotonin and hierarchy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Ziomkiewicz-2/publication/310586509_Serotonin_and_Dominance/links/5a9ec355a6fdcc22e2cb3a14/Serotonin-and-Dominance.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Ziomkiewicz-2/publ... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959438810001261 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09594...
- fckgnad 4y ago
  >Hierarchies are not, in fact, "heavily part of human behavior". They appear in certain circumstances, and dissipate when the circumstances do. G&W point out that we are brainwashed otherwise. I see it as a case of learned helplessness. No. G&W is wrong and misinformed on this matter. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ypVbUBEZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ypVbUBEZHg I realize Jordan Peterson is controversial but what he talks about here is factual. Hierarchies are not only observed in modern human societies but in ALL primate societies. From gorillas to chimpanzees. The idea that humans are an exception is very unlikely and categorically False.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Jordan Peterson can choose his examples as cleverly as he likes to advance his biases to uncritical listeners.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      Right this is a possibility. More likely though is that he's in a school of thought and you are in another school of thought because Jordan Peterson Clearly isn't the only academic who believes this. Most schools of thought have valid arguments. I have presented evidence for my school of thought. If we are being truly unbiased here, you will note you have not presented any evidence to forward your argument. At most you have told me about a person who agrees with you but no real evidence that is in favor of your argument and you have attacked my evidence as false (a statement with also no evidence). If you were truly unbiased and If I was more biased then you then you should have noted this deficiency. The most unbiased and logical way to rectify this situation involves two possibilities: Present evidence so we can continue the discussion. Or make a statement about how it's not worth your time or some other excuse and the conversation ends with me presenting evidence and you presenting none.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        The topic is a book called "The Dawn of Everything". Not reading the book, and then insisting that all the examples presented in the 692-page book do not exist, is not a good look.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
You need to read "The Dawn of Everything". Really.
- fckgnad 4y ago
  Why? because what I'm saying here is completely opposite of what that book proposes?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Because the point of DoE is to provide evidence that everything you're claiming as "natural" and "just what is" is, in fact, not so.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      So yes. I was right. everything I'm claiming is opposite of what the book proposes. Perhaps I'll read it. I will say that what I'm "claiming" is what's claimed by academia. It's the status quo. If DoE doesn't agree then I don't think it's widely regarded as good by academia.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Its authors are (were, in Graeber's case) two academics. 1/3 of the pages are references and footnotes should you want to dig deeper. Also, "academia" does not speak with one voice on the matters covered in the book.
        fckgnad 4y ago
        Thanks. You convinced me. I will read.
        fckgnad 4y ago
        The forward of the book stated this about one of the authors: "He was an activist and public intellectual of international repute who tried to live his ideas about social justice" I worry that this book may be under the same light as creationism. An attempt to retrofit evidence such that it forms an awkward scaffold that maintains an existing belief about social justice. The authors clearly have a bias against the academic status quo the same way a Christiaan has a bias against the same thing. Clearly modern anthropology does run against the grain of what a lot of social justice warriors claim to be true about human nature, so such a hesitation is not out of place. Nevertheless, a social justice background does not necessarily preclude someone away from unbiased analysis. I will read.
kybernetikos 4y ago
> Hierarchies are heavily part of human behavior. I think the tendency to follow is part of human behavior. The tendency to fight against others telling you what to do is also heavily a part of human behavior. We clearly have both aspects to our nature from a very early age. There's a lot beyond the tendency to follow that I think of when I read the word 'hierarchies', so it's not clear how strong a claim you intend to make here. > The concept of leaders and rank is so ingrained in behavior it's hard to think it didn't exist even in hunter and gatherer societies. Rank, leadership and authority are different things. I've read accounts of rank and leadership without authority, of leadership without rank, of rank without either leadership or authority, of authority without rank (when executing the decisions of a tribal council), etc. It is indeed hard to imagine that any society didn't have acknowledgement of expertise or impartiality and a measure of deference to it in its own sphere (therefore leaders), and even in a 'egalitarian' society there would be differences in wealth, family size, influence (and therefore 'rank'). But that doesn't necessarily mean a full throated 'hierarchy', at least as I would use the word.

moloch-hai 4y ago

Hierarchies are not, in fact, "heavily part of human behavior". They appear in certain circumstances, and dissipate when the circumstances do. G&W point out that we are brainwashed otherwise. I see it as a case of learned helplessness. It is deeply evident that big construction projects have often not required hierarchy beyond deference to an architect. The architect need have no coercive authority over anybody for this to work.

goatlover 4y ago
Our ape cousins are hierarchical. Are there example of human tribes that have no hierarchy?
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  There have been myriad societies that consciously chose to dispense with hierarchy, others where hierarchy applied only to one sphere (e.g. religion) and nowhere else, ones where different hierarchies applied in different spheres, and many where hierarchy comes and goes, with no continuity with previous hierarchies. To be human is to have the power to consciously choose behavior.
  - fckgnad 4y ago
    I think those societies are rare and observations of those societies are inaccurate. There must be hierarchies in those societies, it's just misreported. More evidence of the relationship between hierarchy and biology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXxKBiidbeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXxKBiidbeo Serotonin is the biological chemical that is linked with hierarchy in biology and we are awashed in it.
    - mcswell 4y ago
      This sort of argument--that those reports must be inaccurate, because--well, I'm not sure why you you think these reports are inaccurate, except that you think they must be. And that's not a reason. I'm also pretty sure any linkage of serotonin to hierarchy is unproven.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        >This sort of argument--that those reports must be inaccurate, because--well, I'm not sure why you you think these reports are inaccurate, except that you think they must be. And that's not a reason. It's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead and not just with her. It's more prevalent in anthropology then in other sciences. This is just an educated guess. If you provide actual sources I can verify what the academic community thinks of these reports or findings, and really that's the only best available metric I can go off of. >I'm also pretty sure any linkage of serotonin to hierarchy is unproven. Science cannot prove anything. Be very careful with your language. Especially in the social sciences where things are less quantitative... proof is fundamentally impossible. There is only evidence in favor of and evidence against. Evidence in favor of serotonin and hierarchy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Ziomkiewicz-2/publication/310586509_Serotonin_and_Dominance/links/5a9ec355a6fdcc22e2cb3a14/Serotonin-and-Dominance.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Ziomkiewicz-2/publ... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959438810001261 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09594...
fckgnad 4y ago
>Hierarchies are not, in fact, "heavily part of human behavior". They appear in certain circumstances, and dissipate when the circumstances do. G&W point out that we are brainwashed otherwise. I see it as a case of learned helplessness. No. G&W is wrong and misinformed on this matter. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ypVbUBEZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ypVbUBEZHg I realize Jordan Peterson is controversial but what he talks about here is factual. Hierarchies are not only observed in modern human societies but in ALL primate societies. From gorillas to chimpanzees. The idea that humans are an exception is very unlikely and categorically False.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Jordan Peterson can choose his examples as cleverly as he likes to advance his biases to uncritical listeners.
  - fckgnad 4y ago
    Right this is a possibility. More likely though is that he's in a school of thought and you are in another school of thought because Jordan Peterson Clearly isn't the only academic who believes this. Most schools of thought have valid arguments. I have presented evidence for my school of thought. If we are being truly unbiased here, you will note you have not presented any evidence to forward your argument. At most you have told me about a person who agrees with you but no real evidence that is in favor of your argument and you have attacked my evidence as false (a statement with also no evidence). If you were truly unbiased and If I was more biased then you then you should have noted this deficiency. The most unbiased and logical way to rectify this situation involves two possibilities: Present evidence so we can continue the discussion. Or make a statement about how it's not worth your time or some other excuse and the conversation ends with me presenting evidence and you presenting none.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      The topic is a book called "The Dawn of Everything". Not reading the book, and then insisting that all the examples presented in the 692-page book do not exist, is not a good look.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

You need to read "The Dawn of Everything". Really.

fckgnad 4y ago
Why? because what I'm saying here is completely opposite of what that book proposes?
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Because the point of DoE is to provide evidence that everything you're claiming as "natural" and "just what is" is, in fact, not so.
  - fckgnad 4y ago
    So yes. I was right. everything I'm claiming is opposite of what the book proposes. Perhaps I'll read it. I will say that what I'm "claiming" is what's claimed by academia. It's the status quo. If DoE doesn't agree then I don't think it's widely regarded as good by academia.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Its authors are (were, in Graeber's case) two academics. 1/3 of the pages are references and footnotes should you want to dig deeper. Also, "academia" does not speak with one voice on the matters covered in the book.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        Thanks. You convinced me. I will read.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        The forward of the book stated this about one of the authors: "He was an activist and public intellectual of international repute who tried to live his ideas about social justice" I worry that this book may be under the same light as creationism. An attempt to retrofit evidence such that it forms an awkward scaffold that maintains an existing belief about social justice. The authors clearly have a bias against the academic status quo the same way a Christiaan has a bias against the same thing. Clearly modern anthropology does run against the grain of what a lot of social justice warriors claim to be true about human nature, so such a hesitation is not out of place. Nevertheless, a social justice background does not necessarily preclude someone away from unbiased analysis. I will read.

kybernetikos 4y ago

> Hierarchies are heavily part of human behavior. I think the tendency to follow is part of human behavior. The tendency to fight against others telling you what to do is also heavily a part of human behavior. We clearly have both aspects to our nature from a very early age. There's a lot beyond the tendency to follow that I think of when I read the word 'hierarchies', so it's not clear how strong a claim you intend to make here. > The concept of leaders and rank is so ingrained in behavior it's hard to think it didn't exist even in hunter and gatherer societies. Rank, leadership and authority are different things. I've read accounts of rank and leadership without authority, of leadership without rank, of rank without either leadership or authority, of authority without rank (when executing the decisions of a tribal council), etc. It is indeed hard to imagine that any society didn't have acknowledgement of expertise or impartiality and a measure of deference to it in its own sphere (therefore leaders), and even in a 'egalitarian' society there would be differences in wealth, family size, influence (and therefore 'rank'). But that doesn't necessarily mean a full throated 'hierarchy', at least as I would use the word.