3 ms·

> "comes with cost" The point is the cost. There is a cost. If you are hungry and living on the margin, then the cost could be great enough you will die, then

> "comes with cost" The point is the cost. There is a cost. If you are hungry and living on the margin, then the cost could be great enough you will die, then that behavior gets weeded out. If you are already high status enough to not worry about the cost, then you have enough resources, and 'higher' status. Think you are still thinking about the modern age, can you get a minimum wage job and completely ignore everyone and still survive? Maybe. Is that living? It is only a recent development where there are plentiful resources where this is possible. There is some arguments that people have made, that the modern glut of resources does lead to behaviors like this, because there are no longer the consequences of dying.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I guess I don't understand what you are saying. anti social humans and animals exits, but the behavior comes at a cost. It seems like you were saying that it is impossible to ignore social hierarchy and status, which simply isn't true. >can you get a minimum wage job and completely ignore everyone and still survive? Maybe. Is that living? By definition, yes, living is living. There are lots of assholes in this world, and they don't drop dead from ignoring social hierarchy. >Someone has to already be high status, or somehow independently wealthy, to even have the opportunity to ignore others. This ability to ignore others is an indicator of already being high status By your definition, the bum yelling at people on the street must be high status. Terrorists and criminals must also have high status, because they too chose to ignore social power structures. These are extreme examples obviously. To read these comments, you think it would be impossible to go through life ignoring social status when in fact it's commonly done. You can make it pretty far in life by simply treating people with human decency, but not granting special defference to people with social power. Ignoring social hierarchy doesn't mean you have to punch your boss or a police officer in the face, it means treating them like you would any other person
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Guess we need to re-set and go back to what the article is about. That over millennia -> humans have evolved -> that humans live in groups -> and group cooperation leads to better survival as a whole -> within groups there are hierarchies in the form of status -> higher status typically means more access to resources and mating -> typically the higher the status the more you don't have to care about others with lower status. But, also, the GROUP has a lot of control and feedback. If one dominant high status leader, turns into a bully, and irritates and pisses of enough members of the group, then the entire group can collectively take action and kill/banish/etc.. the bad leader. So there are competing drives. The group can turn on bad actors. But also there is a fight for dominance in the group. So over thousands of years, the behavior of humans has evolved, and tended towards more egalitarian societies. It appears from your response, that you are viewing this through the lens of the modern world were we have fluid groups, resources, modern weapons, etc.. Which all tilt the balance of what is possible. The modern world then is different from how we evolved, but our evolution still built into us, the idea of status and egalitarianism. To the point that it is possible to go through life ignoring social status, it is not common and is so wrong I think what is actually happening is you are not aware when it is happening to you and thus think it is not occurring. Especially since "Treating people with common decency" is the actual point, that is an evolved behavior based on status in a group.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >It appears from your response, that you are viewing this through the lens of the modern world were we have fluid groups, resources, modern weapons, etc.. Which all tilt the balance of what is possible. The modern world then is different from how we evolved, but our evolution still built into us, the idea of status and egalitarianism. I understand the historic difference, but my point is that people are making conclusions of what behavior is and is not possbile TODAY, in the modern world, which I think is erroneous. >To the point that it is possible to go through life ignoring social status, it is not common and is so wrong I think what is actually happening is you are not aware when it is happening to you and thus think it is not occurring. Especially since "Treating people with common decency" is the actual point, that is an evolved behavior based on status in a group. The position that I am disagreeing with is that modifed behavior in response to social status is not abosulte. It is likely evolutionarily and socially encouraged, but not deterministically impossible to avoid. Individuals can and do show a wide range in how much they modify their behavior based on the social status of others. Some individuals are flatterers, kiss-asses, and subservient. Some individuals do not modify their behavior based on social status. Treating people with common decency, is not an evolved behavior or necessarily dependent on status. It isn't universal behavior, and highly dependendent on individual choice and conditioning. It is reductionist and detached from reality to think people must act a certian way because of their status or that of others. All you have to do is look around at the real world and see a wide variety of behavious to disprove such bold claim. Not all low status people act the same, not all high status people act the same, and the degree to which they change their behavior based on the status of others varry wildly from individual to individual. To say that nobody can resist modifying their behavior based on the status of the person they are interacting is simply incorrect.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I see, you are taking a more 'we decide our own responses' view than I was. That we can decide not to respond to status. I am coming from more deterministic view. That all of the examples you gave are some form of response to status, even decency. The brain evolved with some group behaviors built into the architecture, but it is also very adaptable. All of the huge variety of behaviors you are outlining as choices (ass kisser, flatter...all), I am saying are pre-determined through evolution, and the environment the brain was raised in (culture, nature, etc..). In todays world there are too many variables to make 100% predictions, so it looks chaotic and like there are choices. It is super complex to map out those responses, because the brain as system is modifiable, and todays world inputs a lot of seemingly random variables. I'd say all behavior, status, or decency, is programmed by evolution, as we evolved to live in groups. Because, where else would it have come from? But, the brain is also adaptable, so this 'pre-programming' isn't an easy black/white formula. Re-reading your note. I think what you said here "likely evolutionarily and socially encouraged, but not deterministically" is it. We are agreeing, but on a sliding scale on one variable 'status'. I'm saying it is a stronger variable than you are. But now we are splitting hairs. This is typically what I come back to, eventually we will boil down human responses to some chemistry and neuroscience. And then we'll know, but until then we are coming up with these 'speculative' models to see what fits. Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. Schopenhauer

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I guess I don't understand what you are saying. anti social humans and animals exits, but the behavior comes at a cost. It seems like you were saying that it is impossible to ignore social hierarchy and status, which simply isn't true. >can you get a minimum wage job and completely ignore everyone and still survive? Maybe. Is that living? By definition, yes, living is living. There are lots of assholes in this world, and they don't drop dead from ignoring social hierarchy. >Someone has to already be high status, or somehow independently wealthy, to even have the opportunity to ignore others. This ability to ignore others is an indicator of already being high status By your definition, the bum yelling at people on the street must be high status. Terrorists and criminals must also have high status, because they too chose to ignore social power structures. These are extreme examples obviously. To read these comments, you think it would be impossible to go through life ignoring social status when in fact it's commonly done. You can make it pretty far in life by simply treating people with human decency, but not granting special defference to people with social power. Ignoring social hierarchy doesn't mean you have to punch your boss or a police officer in the face, it means treating them like you would any other person

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Guess we need to re-set and go back to what the article is about. That over millennia -> humans have evolved -> that humans live in groups -> and group cooperation leads to better survival as a whole -> within groups there are hierarchies in the form of status -> higher status typically means more access to resources and mating -> typically the higher the status the more you don't have to care about others with lower status. But, also, the GROUP has a lot of control and feedback. If one dominant high status leader, turns into a bully, and irritates and pisses of enough members of the group, then the entire group can collectively take action and kill/banish/etc.. the bad leader. So there are competing drives. The group can turn on bad actors. But also there is a fight for dominance in the group. So over thousands of years, the behavior of humans has evolved, and tended towards more egalitarian societies. It appears from your response, that you are viewing this through the lens of the modern world were we have fluid groups, resources, modern weapons, etc.. Which all tilt the balance of what is possible. The modern world then is different from how we evolved, but our evolution still built into us, the idea of status and egalitarianism. To the point that it is possible to go through life ignoring social status, it is not common and is so wrong I think what is actually happening is you are not aware when it is happening to you and thus think it is not occurring. Especially since "Treating people with common decency" is the actual point, that is an evolved behavior based on status in a group.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >It appears from your response, that you are viewing this through the lens of the modern world were we have fluid groups, resources, modern weapons, etc.. Which all tilt the balance of what is possible. The modern world then is different from how we evolved, but our evolution still built into us, the idea of status and egalitarianism. I understand the historic difference, but my point is that people are making conclusions of what behavior is and is not possbile TODAY, in the modern world, which I think is erroneous. >To the point that it is possible to go through life ignoring social status, it is not common and is so wrong I think what is actually happening is you are not aware when it is happening to you and thus think it is not occurring. Especially since "Treating people with common decency" is the actual point, that is an evolved behavior based on status in a group. The position that I am disagreeing with is that modifed behavior in response to social status is not abosulte. It is likely evolutionarily and socially encouraged, but not deterministically impossible to avoid. Individuals can and do show a wide range in how much they modify their behavior based on the social status of others. Some individuals are flatterers, kiss-asses, and subservient. Some individuals do not modify their behavior based on social status. Treating people with common decency, is not an evolved behavior or necessarily dependent on status. It isn't universal behavior, and highly dependendent on individual choice and conditioning. It is reductionist and detached from reality to think people must act a certian way because of their status or that of others. All you have to do is look around at the real world and see a wide variety of behavious to disprove such bold claim. Not all low status people act the same, not all high status people act the same, and the degree to which they change their behavior based on the status of others varry wildly from individual to individual. To say that nobody can resist modifying their behavior based on the status of the person they are interacting is simply incorrect.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I see, you are taking a more 'we decide our own responses' view than I was. That we can decide not to respond to status. I am coming from more deterministic view. That all of the examples you gave are some form of response to status, even decency. The brain evolved with some group behaviors built into the architecture, but it is also very adaptable. All of the huge variety of behaviors you are outlining as choices (ass kisser, flatter...all), I am saying are pre-determined through evolution, and the environment the brain was raised in (culture, nature, etc..). In todays world there are too many variables to make 100% predictions, so it looks chaotic and like there are choices. It is super complex to map out those responses, because the brain as system is modifiable, and todays world inputs a lot of seemingly random variables. I'd say all behavior, status, or decency, is programmed by evolution, as we evolved to live in groups. Because, where else would it have come from? But, the brain is also adaptable, so this 'pre-programming' isn't an easy black/white formula. Re-reading your note. I think what you said here "likely evolutionarily and socially encouraged, but not deterministically" is it. We are agreeing, but on a sliding scale on one variable 'status'. I'm saying it is a stronger variable than you are. But now we are splitting hairs. This is typically what I come back to, eventually we will boil down human responses to some chemistry and neuroscience. And then we'll know, but until then we are coming up with these 'speculative' models to see what fits. Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. Schopenhauer