5 ms·

That was a really good analysis on why people are diagnosed, but I would like to take a guess at why people want to diagnose their fellow man as such. First, I

That was a really good analysis on why people are diagnosed, but I would like to take a guess at why people want to diagnose their fellow man as such. First, I'm no psychologist or historian, so feel free to disregard everything that follows...this is just a hypothesis. I've noticed (but I'm probably far from the first) that every seemingly "modern" human behavior can be traced back to a handful of primitive instincts or tribal behaviors (fear, greed, prejudice, etc.). So my guess would be that diagnosing someone as mentally ill because they act anti-authoritarian comes from the tribal instinct that allowed, or even required, all humans to work together without questioning their orders. It was necessary to hunting, protecting the tribe, etc. that everyone act as one. Not acting as one would cause the hunt to fail or the tribe to lose a battle, either way they would die. It's the same way that packs of animals like wolves behave. Shun the outlier because he could put all our lives at stake. So expanding on this theory, maybe the reason we as humans act this way is because our cousin species died out because they didn't act as one. Perhaps those other semi-human species that died out were more independently-minded, but for the first few hundred thousand years that was a negative thing that led to natural selection filtering them out? I guess I get this idea from Seth Godin's talk about "Quieting the lizard brain." Pretty interesting, if anyone is interested: http://vimeo.com/5895898 http://vimeo.com/5895898

StavrosK 15y ago
The assumption there is that not blindly following orders is bad for the group. That's clearly false when the orders are bad for the group.
- srl 15y ago
  Not so clearly after all. The harm caused by the orders may well be less than the harm caused to the social structures in the group by one or two people disobeying - or by everyone disobeying, and the group needing to somehow select a new authoritarian figure (which usually gets nasty).
  - frankydp 15y ago
    Also known as war. Which one could argue is not good for the species statically speaking. Nicholas Wade also addressed part of this issue in The Faith Instinct. He postulated that religion as a whole was the translation of our hereditary pack instinct following consciousnesses evolution and that conformity was rewarded over time with a bigger stronger more aligned pack and more babies or more DNA in the pool. It could be argued that the non-conformist is rewarded in the opposite, through persecution by the pack and a smaller group of mates. But, of course great change requires great sacrifice and cost.
    - firefoxman1 15y ago
      Thanks for the info on The Faith Instinct. I knew I couldn't have been the first to suggest this idea. Another idea I might add to my original thought would be people's fear of change. I would guess that goes back to before the days of agriculture, where you had to move with your food source. Any change could be dire to you tribe's survival. Change in food source means learning new land, hunting techniques, poisonous plants, etc. So I think that anyone challenging authority is also challenging the status quo and is seen as one that wants to bring about change. The primitive (lizard) brain cares about two things: survival and reproduction. Change threatened survival in the past, and that fear is still with us, causing us to condemn the changers. People who are in a position to prevent social change (like, say, a psychologist) will do anything in their power to feed that fear of change because they like the way things are. "Things right now are the way they are supposed to be," their lizard brain tells them. And so they close the minds of individuals who might have otherwise had a great impact on society. What gets me is how people never learn. Socrates was condemned and executed for questioning religious and governmental authority. Soon after the Greeks regretted it and erected statues in his honor, yet that same mistake of casting out the independent minds is made every generation. Sad, really.
      - syawaworht 15y ago
        Humans don't learn because of our short lifespans. If humans from ancient Greece were still alive, we might have learned something. But our short lifespan is also a boon in many other ways.
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
  It's not clear cut at all. It’s acknowledged that in business, a quick, fairly good decision usually beats a slow but perfect evaluation of the evidence. In a war situation it's even worse - if the group is under attack, any plan is a better defence than an internal argument. So there is strong selection for obedience.
neilk 15y ago
I know you put heavy caveats on this, but really, it's not worth your time to speculate about how neolithic people were organized and then draw conclusions. Unless your goal is to reveal your own prejudices (which invariably happens when people imagine primordial worlds). In any case, where do the orders come from? Even in your wolf pack example, the alpha wolf is occasionally challenged by others, and sometimes loses. In my experience, it's pretty common for great leaders to have questioned authority in their youth. Leaders are self-directed, look out for their own interests, gather their own information, and trust in their own judgments. How could they not come into conflict with authority? Perhaps I am falling into the same naturalistic fallacy here, but as far as I can tell, it's normal and good for people to test authority on a regular basis.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  "In my experience, it's pretty common for great leaders to have questioned authority in their youth. Leaders are self-directed, look out for their own interests, gather their own information, and trust in their own judgments. How could they not come into conflict with authority?" Yeah, I completely agree with that. I think you and I are on the same side of the argument here. Yeah, it's normal and definitely good, but I was just taking a stab at why people resist the anti-authoritarians. I'm not saying their resistance is good; quite the opposite. It just slows the advancement of society. I guess the only data I have to back my random hypothesis is the video I linked to. But wouldn't you agree that pretty much all of our behaviors can be seen in other species? We as humans just like to pretend we're above instincts, but our instincts just hide themselves behind emotions and such.

StavrosK 15y ago

The assumption there is that not blindly following orders is bad for the group. That's clearly false when the orders are bad for the group.

srl 15y ago
Not so clearly after all. The harm caused by the orders may well be less than the harm caused to the social structures in the group by one or two people disobeying - or by everyone disobeying, and the group needing to somehow select a new authoritarian figure (which usually gets nasty).
- frankydp 15y ago
  Also known as war. Which one could argue is not good for the species statically speaking. Nicholas Wade also addressed part of this issue in The Faith Instinct. He postulated that religion as a whole was the translation of our hereditary pack instinct following consciousnesses evolution and that conformity was rewarded over time with a bigger stronger more aligned pack and more babies or more DNA in the pool. It could be argued that the non-conformist is rewarded in the opposite, through persecution by the pack and a smaller group of mates. But, of course great change requires great sacrifice and cost.
  - firefoxman1 15y ago
    Thanks for the info on The Faith Instinct. I knew I couldn't have been the first to suggest this idea. Another idea I might add to my original thought would be people's fear of change. I would guess that goes back to before the days of agriculture, where you had to move with your food source. Any change could be dire to you tribe's survival. Change in food source means learning new land, hunting techniques, poisonous plants, etc. So I think that anyone challenging authority is also challenging the status quo and is seen as one that wants to bring about change. The primitive (lizard) brain cares about two things: survival and reproduction. Change threatened survival in the past, and that fear is still with us, causing us to condemn the changers. People who are in a position to prevent social change (like, say, a psychologist) will do anything in their power to feed that fear of change because they like the way things are. "Things right now are the way they are supposed to be," their lizard brain tells them. And so they close the minds of individuals who might have otherwise had a great impact on society. What gets me is how people never learn. Socrates was condemned and executed for questioning religious and governmental authority. Soon after the Greeks regretted it and erected statues in his honor, yet that same mistake of casting out the independent minds is made every generation. Sad, really.
    - syawaworht 15y ago
      Humans don't learn because of our short lifespans. If humans from ancient Greece were still alive, we might have learned something. But our short lifespan is also a boon in many other ways.
SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
It's not clear cut at all. It’s acknowledged that in business, a quick, fairly good decision usually beats a slow but perfect evaluation of the evidence. In a war situation it's even worse - if the group is under attack, any plan is a better defence than an internal argument. So there is strong selection for obedience.

neilk 15y ago

I know you put heavy caveats on this, but really, it's not worth your time to speculate about how neolithic people were organized and then draw conclusions. Unless your goal is to reveal your own prejudices (which invariably happens when people imagine primordial worlds). In any case, where do the orders come from? Even in your wolf pack example, the alpha wolf is occasionally challenged by others, and sometimes loses. In my experience, it's pretty common for great leaders to have questioned authority in their youth. Leaders are self-directed, look out for their own interests, gather their own information, and trust in their own judgments. How could they not come into conflict with authority? Perhaps I am falling into the same naturalistic fallacy here, but as far as I can tell, it's normal and good for people to test authority on a regular basis.

firefoxman1 15y ago
"In my experience, it's pretty common for great leaders to have questioned authority in their youth. Leaders are self-directed, look out for their own interests, gather their own information, and trust in their own judgments. How could they not come into conflict with authority?" Yeah, I completely agree with that. I think you and I are on the same side of the argument here. Yeah, it's normal and definitely good, but I was just taking a stab at why people resist the anti-authoritarians. I'm not saying their resistance is good; quite the opposite. It just slows the advancement of society. I guess the only data I have to back my random hypothesis is the video I linked to. But wouldn't you agree that pretty much all of our behaviors can be seen in other species? We as humans just like to pretend we're above instincts, but our instincts just hide themselves behind emotions and such.