6 ms·

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 tha

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...
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Almost every single group I've been part of had leaders. They may have been elected by the group, or more often, appointed elsewhere. The ones that don't have leadership tend to be temporary and disorganized. In situations where this is less temporary, leaders often emerge naturally, as that's how humans typically organize themselves. We have conscious choice, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that we're part of larger systems that we only have some influence over. It also doesn't change the fact that conscious choice is somewhat biologically driven.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      How many of these groups were of people who did not grow up with fixed hierarchies, and so had developed organizational skills that did not rely on one? A hierarchy is the laziest choice among ways to organize.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        Hierarchies are places where one relies on many. That is the point of a hierarchy... so that a few can control and rely on many. It is the most unfair way to organize.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is thus very, very convenient for the few that people are conditioned from childhood to believe it is the only way to organize, and announce it freely in print.
        fckgnad 4y ago
        A child is well aware of the parent-child hierarchy that is more or less universal across all modern cultures. You've been conditioned by this book to follow a fringe belief.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        [flagged]
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  The vast majority of modern forager groups are generally considered "egalitarian" and the traditional narrative is that virtually all human societies before the neolithic were relatively egalitarian. That's not to say that they're perfectly egalitarian (it's a spectrum after all), but it's the word you'll find if you open any introductory anthropology textbook that discusses the subject.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Tribes still have leaders, elders, priests and what not. Similar to how apes have alpha males and females with a pecking order. Members of the group have a certain status in the hierarchy, even if resource access is mostly egalitarian. But what happens when you start having a bunch of tribes living nearby on a regular basis? Then you have emergent leadership across tribes. It could be by force or democracy or by whatever means. But human civilization is an emergent phenomenon once you have dense enough populations regularly living in a region.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      That is the doctrine we are taught, anyway.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        But what does a doctrine widely taught have anything to do with whether it's true or false? Clearly you think it's false but do you have evidence? Please present evidence if you do. Examples in biology, similar species or specific civilizations function as good evidence.
      - goatlover 4y ago
        You think the existence tribal leaders, elders, priests and alpha males/females are "doctrine"? Because I'm pretty sure those are factual observations. Maybe you mean to argue they are not necessary or always present in humans or apes. Fine, present evidence this is so and the frequency of such exceptions.
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.

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...
- goatlover 4y ago
  Almost every single group I've been part of had leaders. They may have been elected by the group, or more often, appointed elsewhere. The ones that don't have leadership tend to be temporary and disorganized. In situations where this is less temporary, leaders often emerge naturally, as that's how humans typically organize themselves. We have conscious choice, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that we're part of larger systems that we only have some influence over. It also doesn't change the fact that conscious choice is somewhat biologically driven.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    How many of these groups were of people who did not grow up with fixed hierarchies, and so had developed organizational skills that did not rely on one? A hierarchy is the laziest choice among ways to organize.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      Hierarchies are places where one relies on many. That is the point of a hierarchy... so that a few can control and rely on many. It is the most unfair way to organize.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        It is thus very, very convenient for the few that people are conditioned from childhood to believe it is the only way to organize, and announce it freely in print.
        fckgnad 4y ago
        A child is well aware of the parent-child hierarchy that is more or less universal across all modern cultures. You've been conditioned by this book to follow a fringe belief.
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        [flagged]
AlotOfReading 4y ago
The vast majority of modern forager groups are generally considered "egalitarian" and the traditional narrative is that virtually all human societies before the neolithic were relatively egalitarian. That's not to say that they're perfectly egalitarian (it's a spectrum after all), but it's the word you'll find if you open any introductory anthropology textbook that discusses the subject.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Tribes still have leaders, elders, priests and what not. Similar to how apes have alpha males and females with a pecking order. Members of the group have a certain status in the hierarchy, even if resource access is mostly egalitarian. But what happens when you start having a bunch of tribes living nearby on a regular basis? Then you have emergent leadership across tribes. It could be by force or democracy or by whatever means. But human civilization is an emergent phenomenon once you have dense enough populations regularly living in a region.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    That is the doctrine we are taught, anyway.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      But what does a doctrine widely taught have anything to do with whether it's true or false? Clearly you think it's false but do you have evidence? Please present evidence if you do. Examples in biology, similar species or specific civilizations function as good evidence.
    - goatlover 4y ago
      You think the existence tribal leaders, elders, priests and alpha males/females are "doctrine"? Because I'm pretty sure those are factual observations. Maybe you mean to argue they are not necessary or always present in humans or apes. Fine, present evidence this is so and the frequency of such exceptions.

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.