6 ms·

The idea that people would punish, rather than revere unconventionally generous individuals sounds like the opposite of the "Big man" system, which has been rat

by ehmish 12y ago

The idea that people would punish, rather than revere unconventionally generous individuals sounds like the opposite of the "Big man" system, which has been rather well documented to exist [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28anthropology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_%28anthropology%29

vikp 12y ago
This is interesting. One question and one semi-question: 1. Do "Big Men" first come into any semblance of power through redistribution (I give my food to Tom down the street, now he is my first follower), or does it start some other way (My father is important, therefore I am somewhat important)? 2. I wonder if humans only punish generous behavior in their peers. I assume that leaders have a different standard, as we don't see them as "one of us", and thus we allow them to do things that we would otherwise look down upon.
- ehmish 12y ago
  I don't believe anyone's been present to document the establishing of a "big man" system in these small tribes. But consider the influence of Richard Stallman. If he'd just been some guy writing his manifestos and such, I doubt he'd have much influence. Instead I think his influence came from the software he wrote, and the fact he gave it away for free. My hunch is that the documented phenomena with punishing generous people is a "Sample population = The sort of person who attends a particular university in the United States" sort of issue.
  - npsimons 12y ago
    Picking Stallman seems like a poor choice of example: he's been called a "smelly weirdo" by probably more people he can count, and I'm afraid that arguing it's all down to his politics would just be making excuses.
    - ehmish 12y ago
      He instigated a few reasonably influential movements, I think influential people are maladjusted almost by definition. Whether or not he is universally adored is irrelevant to whether or not he has clout.
- npsimons 12y ago
  Yes, the feeling I got comparing the two articles is that "Big-Man" situations are subtly different from ostracizing of more generous people. For one thing, it sounds like "Big-Men" are more of mediators than actual donors.
  - ehmish 12y ago
    I would say pretty much every exchange is essentially to do with your skill as a mediator, however according to the article there is definitely exchange of material goods.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  2. In the corporate world at least, leaders are usually very encouraging of generosity or high-performance; it benefits their organization, after all. It's punished by peers because leaders encourage it. The peers are all in competition for a scarce resource - the leader's favor - and so when the leader bestows that on one individual for a particular accomplishment or act, that one individual ends up being resented by all their peers. Think back to elementary school where the teacher's pet would get hammered down relentlessly by her schoolmates until she stopped speaking up in class. It's the same dynamic: overperformance leads to the lion's share of the teacher's attention, which makes your peers feel shortchanged, which results in social consequences for the overperformer. This is also behind the conventional wisdom that "You can accomplish a lot in a big company if you don't care who gets the credit." If you overperform but then make everybody else look good, they won't resent you for it, and instead will help you out next time. That results in continued overperformance, as long as you can continue to stomach putting lots of effort in and lots of other folks getting the credit.
jbattle 12y ago
But the Big Man (at least in other contexts) is conventionally generous. Lavishly so, but within conventions that impose, along with the generosity, certain obligations on the recipient.
- ehmish 12y ago
  Good point, I think the obligation side of that may be at play with the "punishing" example. It's possible that the sort of people that were recruited for the study were the kind that resented being obliged to give more than they were already.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Exactly this. The line from Lawrence of Arabia comes to mind: "I am a river to my people." The US equivalents are the mob boss (think of the opening of The Godfather, where Don Corleone hears requests from ordinary citizens) or the political boss dispensing patronage. In both cases, participation in the system of power binds the recipient into the system. Which generally increases the control of the Big Man over a resource stream.

by ehmish 12y ago

vikp 12y ago

This is interesting. One question and one semi-question: 1. Do "Big Men" first come into any semblance of power through redistribution (I give my food to Tom down the street, now he is my first follower), or does it start some other way (My father is important, therefore I am somewhat important)? 2. I wonder if humans only punish generous behavior in their peers. I assume that leaders have a different standard, as we don't see them as "one of us", and thus we allow them to do things that we would otherwise look down upon.

ehmish 12y ago
I don't believe anyone's been present to document the establishing of a "big man" system in these small tribes. But consider the influence of Richard Stallman. If he'd just been some guy writing his manifestos and such, I doubt he'd have much influence. Instead I think his influence came from the software he wrote, and the fact he gave it away for free. My hunch is that the documented phenomena with punishing generous people is a "Sample population = The sort of person who attends a particular university in the United States" sort of issue.
- npsimons 12y ago
  Picking Stallman seems like a poor choice of example: he's been called a "smelly weirdo" by probably more people he can count, and I'm afraid that arguing it's all down to his politics would just be making excuses.
  - ehmish 12y ago
    He instigated a few reasonably influential movements, I think influential people are maladjusted almost by definition. Whether or not he is universally adored is irrelevant to whether or not he has clout.
npsimons 12y ago
Yes, the feeling I got comparing the two articles is that "Big-Man" situations are subtly different from ostracizing of more generous people. For one thing, it sounds like "Big-Men" are more of mediators than actual donors.
- ehmish 12y ago
  I would say pretty much every exchange is essentially to do with your skill as a mediator, however according to the article there is definitely exchange of material goods.
nostrademons 12y ago
2. In the corporate world at least, leaders are usually very encouraging of generosity or high-performance; it benefits their organization, after all. It's punished by peers because leaders encourage it. The peers are all in competition for a scarce resource - the leader's favor - and so when the leader bestows that on one individual for a particular accomplishment or act, that one individual ends up being resented by all their peers. Think back to elementary school where the teacher's pet would get hammered down relentlessly by her schoolmates until she stopped speaking up in class. It's the same dynamic: overperformance leads to the lion's share of the teacher's attention, which makes your peers feel shortchanged, which results in social consequences for the overperformer. This is also behind the conventional wisdom that "You can accomplish a lot in a big company if you don't care who gets the credit." If you overperform but then make everybody else look good, they won't resent you for it, and instead will help you out next time. That results in continued overperformance, as long as you can continue to stomach putting lots of effort in and lots of other folks getting the credit.

jbattle 12y ago

But the Big Man (at least in other contexts) is conventionally generous. Lavishly so, but within conventions that impose, along with the generosity, certain obligations on the recipient.

ehmish 12y ago
Good point, I think the obligation side of that may be at play with the "punishing" example. It's possible that the sort of people that were recruited for the study were the kind that resented being obliged to give more than they were already.
wpietri 12y ago
Exactly this. The line from Lawrence of Arabia comes to mind: "I am a river to my people." The US equivalents are the mob boss (think of the opening of The Godfather, where Don Corleone hears requests from ordinary citizens) or the political boss dispensing patronage. In both cases, participation in the system of power binds the recipient into the system. Which generally increases the control of the Big Man over a resource stream.