Is hierarchy natural among humans? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13869105
CounterChaos wrote:This is true for the Philippines as well. So, I think what we have here is a mixture of both - on both sides of the world. It is very rare to find a "pure" Filipino. Chinese/Indians/Americans/Spanish/Japanese it is all mixed here. Chinese culture is very influential here as well as Spanish culture all wrapped up in American culture........ :D Yet traditional Filipino style hierarchy still exists among them all. Great respect is given to elders.


Yes, there is a mix of liberal and traditional factors pretty much everywhere in the world. And that includes hierarchies. But, in the Old World, ethnic-based traditional human relations predominate.

And all peoples are mixed, by the way. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnic group. But the difference is the age of the ethnic groups that compose the mainstream. For example, it is true that there are lots of Spanish, Indian, Chinese and Japanese blood flowing on Filipino veins. But those contributions were assimilated. They didn't add to each other on a melting pot, so the old ethnic groups, who were thousands of years old, remained existing. The same is valid, for example, for Russians. Russians were originally Slavs, but lots of Turkic, Baltic, Uralic and Caucasian peoples were assimilated into the Russian culture, contributing to it. But the Russian culture itself is the same, it simply suffered additions.

If you take Mexico, the US, Brazil, Australia, Jamaica etc, that is not the case. All those peoples were formed by the interaction (a melting pot) of several different cultures. They are roughly 500 years old. some are even younger than that. So, as there is no Brazilian or American ethnic group yet, social relations here (in the New World) are not really ethnic-based.

See this map, for instance:
Image

I would certainly change the colors of Paraguay, Madagascar, South Africa, Mauritania, the UK and India. But other than that, it is a good example of what I mean. The concept of a nation in the Old World is ethnic-based. In the New World, there is a more liberal view that the nation is formed by groups of people who have chosen to become part of it. So immigration is normally not a problem in the Americas, but, in the Old World, it normally generates lots of ethnic tension between the main national ethnic group and those immigrant minorities.
#13869333
You are like an Encyclopedia Britannica Smertios..... :D Where do you get all this information at friend? It doesn't matter - this has been a real good thread about hierarchy and I have learned and enjoyed it a lot.
#13871341
Before spamming the thread with unnecessary details, Smeritos wrote:why would the human society be non-natural but non-human societies (a pack of wolves, for example), be considered a purely natural phenomenon?


The problem with all the information you provide after this question is that ... none of it answers this question.

Packs of wolves have existed for survival reasons since the species evolved. This is the ideal size of a group for raising young. Humans lived in ideal-for-raising-young peer clusters for their entire existence except for the last 10,000 years or so in which we have created abstract numerical units for abstract economic purposes. Pretty well all other mammals of our type still live in peer cluster groups like we did for the vast majority of our existence as homo sapien sapien.

I would also posit that "society" is an experiment that has failed dramatically and with great regularity. And I am adding that hierarchies may be partially responsible. All human hierarchies. Since the neolithic age.

Why? Because hierarchy-based societies create obedient but powerful adults who can't take responsibility for their own actions and recklessly destroy the earth with their toys - spoiled idiots in a box of gasoline.

So I am suggesting that hierarchies - as in social hierarchies - are unnatural, and possibly fatal.

**posts colorful maps, charts, graphs, and a thesis on the molecular structure of peer clusters**
#13871491
QatzelOk wrote:quote="Before spamming the thread with unnecessary details, Smeritos"


¬¬'
The correct procedure, if you think I was spamming (i.e. breaking Rule 9), is to make a complaint in the basement, and see the mods not grant your request, since I wasn't spamming at all...

The problem with all the information you provide after this question is that ... none of it answers this question.

Packs of wolves have existed for survival reasons since the species evolved. This is the ideal size of a group for raising young. Humans lived in ideal-for-raising-young peer clusters for their entire existence except for the last 10,000 years or so in which we have created abstract numerical units for abstract economic purposes. Pretty well all other mammals of our type still live in peer cluster groups like we did for the vast majority of our existence as homo sapien sapien.


This is rather incorrect. Packs of wolves have existed for survival reasons since the species appeared, true, but so have human beings. There is no archeological evidence that humans have ever been a non-social species.

Peer cluster groups never really existed is several mammal species. Jaguars, for example, are quite individualistic. Humans, on the other hand, have not been unsocial at any point. Apart from obvious political forms of organization, the human society never changed much. There is no evidence that there has ever been a hierarchy-less human group in history. Go back to my example with students and a school assignment and you will see the explanation on why.

I would also posit that "society" is an experiment that has failed dramatically and with great regularity. And I am adding that hierarchies may be partially responsible. All human hierarchies. Since the neolithic age.


If that were true, we'd have archeological evidence that humans once lived on an individualistic non-social basis, which simply is not the case.

Why? Because hierarchy-based societies create obedient but powerful adults who can't take responsibility for their own actions and recklessly destroy the earth with their toys - spoiled idiots in a box of gasoline.


Obedience is a very important characteristic of human power relations. You certainly won't take responsibility for a mistake on the last resort basis, since your direct superior will always be blamed. He, on the other hand, will probably punish you, since his superior would have punished him for your mistake. So I have to disagree with you completely. Hierarchy is precisely what makes everyone take responsibility for their actions. On both an individual and social level, as the leader will always be blamed for his group being dysfunctional.

So I am suggesting that hierarchies - as in social hierarchies - are unnatural, and possibly fatal.


And, like I am saying, there is absolutely nothing unnatural about hierarchies. Whether they are fatal or not is a matter of opinion though. The hierarchy-based human society has never disappeared because of that. In fact, it has been growing. I doubt it will ever disappear...
#13871655
Smertios wrote:If that were true, we'd have archeological evidence that humans once lived on an individualistic non-social basis, which simply is not the case.

That's correct. But we DO have archeological evidence that humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years in peer clusters - which is what I wrote. :lol:

If you could read a bit more thoroughly, you wouldn't have to write so much.
#13872554
QatzelOk wrote:That's correct. But we DO have archeological evidence that humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years in peer clusters - which is what I wrote. :lol:


No, there isn't... I mean, do you have any sources for this so called evidence? Peer clusters would require a hierarchy-less society, by the definition of peer. You ignored all my examples (probably on purpose) that show hierarchies appear spontaneously in every human group (go back to the students and the project, for example). Even a family is hierarchical. Parents have authority over their children. A group composed only of peers would require all people to be equal, which is simply not true.

So sorry to say, but no, there is no evidence of peer clusters at all. Even isolated indigenous communities hidden in the Brazilian Amazon have a traditional hierarchy in place, with elders and warriors on top...

QatzelOk wrote:If you could read a bit more thoroughly, you wouldn't have to write so much.


Ad-homs... gotta love them ;)
#13872666
Smertios wrote:Even a family is hierarchical. Parents have authority over their children.

This was explained on page 1.

Have a read to see what other people have already written please.
#13872797
QatzelOk wrote:This was explained on page 1.

Have a read to see what other people have already written please.


I'm still waiting for the so called archeological evidence that humans once lived in peer clusters...

And by the way, re-read page 1. There is absolutely nothing about that at all there... Please stop inventing stuff and reply to the issues I have brought up... Especially the archeological evidence that you claim to exist, supporting your views...
#14726455
@ all
Smertios wrote:Leaders always appear spontaneously, no matter how much one tries to avoid it. The action of trying to avoid it itself creates a hierarchy, since one person is trying to control the social relations.

If we can become a non-hierarchical society in the future? Certainly, but it will require a major evolutionary shift, that will get rid of the biological characteristic itself. We are social animals because, a long time ago, nature selected those individuals who were social, since they were better prepared than non-social ones. And our society is hierarchical simply because, at some point, nature selected those groups that were hierarchical, considering they had an advantage over the non-hierarchical ones. For that to change, the environment itself needs to change, so it becomes more advantageous not to have an hierarchy. I don't see that happening anytime soon...

Is hierarchy natural among humans? Apparently Qatzelok indeed asks whether the tendency towards a hierarchy is formed in an evolutionary process. Otherwise he would not have made the reference to ants. Darwin and his evolution theory seem to be a hot topic on PoFo. To be honest, she is not really my thing, since evolution theories are in general rather speculative and controversial.

Evidently, it can not be denied that humans are social beings, who prefer to unite in groups. The membership of groups have many advantages for individuals. Incidentally, even here the thesis of natural selection is speculative, for humans are more than merely apes. Human social behaviour may be partly learned. Personally I prefer the sociological approach of group dynamics instead of evolution theory. She is less humiliating than the human concept of leading alpha males, and probably more versatile. Trust me.

According to the sociologists groups set goals, and they try to realize their goals by means of collective actions. It is obvious that those activities require a coordination. It appears that often the central control is the most efficient coordination, especially for simple or repetitive tasks. Thus it is logical that a single person or a committee is put in charge. Incidentally, complex tasks are performed most efficiently by flat (horizontal) organizations, with little hierarchy. In other words, the organizational structure depends indeed on the environment. In fact, nowadays many hierarchies are replaced by networks. They are just more flexible. This has already started in the late sixties of the last century, when the Fordist era came to an end.
#14728149
Smertios wrote:Defining wat is natural and what isn't is not an easy task.

The First Nations used to tell us that a bridge falling over a river is a natural bridge. Anything else isn't. It's hard for text-marinated moderns to define any of their words (Bill Clinton's "what does be mean?" comes to mind) because there is usually an economic interest in skewed definitions of all previously invented words.

All social relations are, therefore, natural. Friendship is natural. Love and marriage are natural. Mourning a relative is natural. The relationship between worker and client is natural.

Marriage is a long-term contract that was designed to allow children to be fed up until the age of 18. This had to be invented because agriculture killed natural child-care which was tribal (collective) and not monogamous-couple based. Monogamy is highly unnatural for human males and this causes great stress in their lives. An entire industry (prostitution) has grown up around the unnaturalness of marital fidelity. And whores are typically considered low-down on the social hierarchy because of this.


And our society is naturally hierarchical as well. A good example to understand this is the following: imagine a classroom, 30 students and 1 teacher. the teacher assigns a project to be realized in groups of 5. He does not indicate a leader to the project or to each group (though he could). And the students themselves do not elect one either. I can guarantee you that leaders will arise in every group! And completely naturally.

You are confusing a "naturally-occuring response to a heavily contrived situation" (classroom activities are pre-meditated and have an agenda) with natural human behavior. The classroom is a very fake environment. Classroom activities are fabricated to elicit certain responses, and the classroom itself is both competitive and text-based.

Stegerwald wrote:Evidently, it can not be denied that humans are social beings, who prefer to unite in groups.

Yes, but since most humans have lost their natural social orders and natural settings, their current behavior (socializing) is a result of the fakeness. Modern social behavior is a reaction to an illness (modern life) rather than a healthy, instinctive sociality.

If you've ever felt awkward as a work colleague kissed the boss's ass at a social function, you were actually noticing how much hierarchy contaminates natural socializing.
#14728949
@ Qatzelok
Qatzelok wrote:Yes, but since most humans have lost their natural social orders and natural settings, their current behavior (socializing) is a result of the fakeness. Modern social behavior is a reaction to an illness (modern life) rather than a healthy, instinctive sociality.

If you've ever felt awkward as a work colleague kissed the boss's ass at a social function, you were actually noticing how much hierarchy contaminates natural socializing.

Thanks for your perseverance and resumption of the discussion. Firstly, remember that sometimes a hierarchy may fail to appear. Think about a feast or a group of people watching the TV. Even the classroom project of Smertios may well be completed without the emergence of a leader. Believe me.

Group dynamics provides for interesting insights with regard to this topic. It states that the leader is required for the organization and coordination of the group activities. In general the leader and the group members interact in an atmosphere of mutual dependency. The leader must always fear attacks by competitors, within or outside the group. Therefore he must serve the interests of the group, among others by enhancing the performance of the group. He must satisfy the expectations of the group! This implies that he must understand the group culture and values, and be involved. Leadership is an interpersonal exchange.

Consequentially, almost all models of leadership assume that the leader must be both task-oriented and relations-oriented. He must motivate and communicate. Evidently, the need for a hierarchy depends on the environment of the group. For instance, when in a situation of crisis the time for consultation is insufficient, the leader must decide on his own. On the other hand, in normal situations the leader is obliged to listen to his group. The freedom of leaders is really quite limited.

Note that it has advantages to be a member of groups. Firstly, the organization in groups is essential for exercising power, on other groups and on the society as a whole. And groups tend to make better decisions than individuals. Secondly, groups enhance the individual performance. They facilitate personal learning. They offer security and social contacts. And groups contribute to the personal identity of their members. Of course this identity benefits from an excellent group performance, perhaps due to the qualities of the leader.

You may be suspicious, when a work colleague kisses the boss's ass at a social function. However, he may truly adore her. Or perhaps he is discussing business, testing the water. He may ask her for advice. Etcetera.
#14728955
It's the "bucket of crabs" phenomenon, when one crab tries to get out the other pulls it back in. Most people will try to undermine each other and play king of the hill even at no benefit to themselves and sometimes even when they're aware of detrimental effects. The best theory I recall coming across is that social standing is taken as hierarchical and finite, so if someone has X social esteem it means you have less of it yourself. Whether this is true on a case by case basis doesn't seem to be relevant, some people just don't like it when someone else tries to climb out of the bucket.
#14729030
This is true for the Philippines as well. So, I think what we have here is a mixture of both - on both sides of the world. It is very rare to find a "pure" Filipino.


The Filipinos are a mixture of various ethnic groups such as the Moro and 15% of them also belong to Haplogroup R1b inherited from the Spanish colonists. People from Melanesia, a region in the South Pacific encompassing Papua New Guinea and surrounding islands, may also carry genetic evidence of a previously unknown extinct hominid species (Bohlender et al. 2016), most probably Homo Floresiensis or Java Man. A hierarchical society is a necessary condition for a civilisation and without the hierarchical structure of ancient Egyptian society, the ancient Egyptians could not have built pyramids. In the social pyramid of ancient Egypt the pharaoh and those associated with divinity were at the top, and servants and slaves made up the bottom.

Image
#14729797
Stegerwald wrote:@ QatzelokGroup dynamics provides for interesting insights with regard to this topic. It states that the leader is required for the organization and coordination of the group activities.

The way humans respond to fabricated social situations (and most of our relationships are fabricated for abstract purposes, mostly to concentrate income in a few hands) doesn't "prove" that hierarchy is natural or unnatural. It only demonstrates how our particular species responds to certain stimula. Like how a dog responds to treats and punishments. That's about all it proves. That we can be domesticated like dogs.

My question is whether this is natural. Not whether dogs will bark if you push a sharp object into their tail, but whether their domestication was a positive thing, or one that will eventually lead to our/their/everyone's extinction. Or misery.

Note that it has advantages to be a member of groups.

Mafias have demonstrated the (short-term) advantages of living according to a fabricated social order, and so have multinational corporations. They learned to "communicate" through a fabricated vocabulary, and to sneakily assume a double (or even triple) identity with different PR for each "other" that they come into contact it.

Are mafias a good thing in the long-term? These entities really "invented" social hierarchy, and they use it primarily to enrich beyond belief a tyrannical "godfather." That the model for our fabricated associations with other people in a modern society.

Is it natural? Do other species have arbitrarily selected mafias or do they act like one species divided into geographical bands? The second answer is the correct one for apes and monkeys. They live, like humans did for a million years, in geographically-determined extended-families. Not in social cliques who wrote books about how great their ancestors were and then collect a tribute from other members of their species.

You may be suspicious, when a work colleague kisses the boss's ass at a social function. However, he may truly adore her. Or perhaps he is discussing business, testing the water. He may ask her for advice. Etcetera.

I don't feel suspicious when this happens. I feel dirty. Like I will have to become a whore as well if I want to succeed in this kind of fake hierarchy-driven society.
#14729939
@ Hong Wu
Hong Wu wrote:It's the "bucket of crabs" phenomenon, when one crab tries to get out the other pulls it back in. Most people will try to undermine each other and play king of the hill even at no benefit to themselves and sometimes even when they're aware of detrimental effects. The best theory I recall coming across is that social standing is taken as hierarchical and finite, so if someone has X social esteem it means you have less of it yourself. Whether this is true on a case by case basis doesn't seem to be relevant, some people just don't like it when someone else tries to climb out of the bucket.

Is this your own experience? Yes, people are often indignant about incidents, that happen to them. They may become more relaxed, when they truly understand human nature. Group dynamics is complicated, but it is also rather predictable, and often it is benign and beneficial. The group has its own code of conduct, and social pressure is applied to the group members in order to adhere to these rules. This furthers the coherence of the group, and thus the mutual cooperation. On the other hand, there is always some competition, because each member wants to distinguish herself from the collective. Besides, people have the right to undermine you, as long as their behaviour is legal. In this way the qualities of each member are highlighted and can be used to the full. In particular, a leader can be selected, who according to the majority of the members is the best coordinator for the group activities (here, noemon). The group as a whole benefits from the best choice. Such social processes are both effective and justified. Of course it is frustrating for those who do not reach the most rewarding positions, but it would be pitiable to experience this set-back as a source of alienation.
#14729941
Stegerwald wrote:@ Hong Wu

Is this your own experience? Yes, people are often indignant about incidents, that happen to them. They may become more relaxed, when they truly understand human nature. Group dynamics is complicated, but it is also rather predictable, and often it is benign and beneficial. The group has its own code of conduct, and social pressure is applied to the group members in order to adhere to these rules. This furthers the coherence of the group, and thus the mutual cooperation. On the other hand, there is always some competition, because each member wants to distinguish herself from the collective. Besides, people have the right to undermine you, as long as their behaviour is legal. In this way the qualities of each member are highlighted and can be used to the full. In particular, a leader can be selected, who according to the majority of the members is the best coordinator for the group activities (here, noemon). The group as a whole benefits from the best choice. Such social processes are both effective and justified. Of course it is frustrating for those who do not reach the most rewarding positions, but it would be pitiable to experience this set-back as a source of alienation.

It's been my experience sometimes. You seem to be short changing the fact that the ways in which people might try to undermine each other are often illegal or harmful. It isn't done out of a conscious desire to help the group, although that may sometimes happen, it is done out of individual desires.

So, to give someone a hard time because you think they might be faking it, that makes sense. But more often people want to steal things from each other for their individual benefit. Testing people is only necessary in circumstances where duplicity or taking credit for other's work is possible in the first place. I imagine that ideally, there would be no such opportunities which would mean there would be few legitimate circumstances to try and bring someone else down.
#14729942
Stegerwald wrote:@ Hong Wu

Is this your own experience? Yes, people are often indignant about incidents, that happen to them. They may become more relaxed, when they truly understand human nature. Group dynamics is complicated, but it is also rather predictable, and often it is benign and beneficial. The group has its own code of conduct, and social pressure is applied to the group members in order to adhere to these rules. This furthers the coherence of the group, and thus the mutual cooperation. On the other hand, there is always some competition, because each member wants to distinguish herself from the collective. Besides, people have the right to undermine you, as long as their behaviour is legal. In this way the qualities of each member are highlighted and can be used to the full. In particular, a leader can be selected, who according to the majority of the members is the best coordinator for the group activities (here, noemon). The group as a whole benefits from the best choice. Such social processes are both effective and justified. Of course it is frustrating for those who do not reach the most rewarding positions, but it would be pitiable to experience this set-back as a source of alienation.

This is a good post, although I disagree with most of it. I would also point out that "rights" don't actually exist. A right is merely an idea that makes a law easier to understand. For example, people have a "right" to not be assaulted, but someone could assault you tomorrow. They would get punished for it but there is nothing outside of the law which makes the "right" active. Rights are an imaginary construct.

The west has gotten crazy because people have begun to think that rights are things which actually exist and then they base arguments off of them, as you did here. They don't exist. As such, no one has a right to undermine me. I also don't have a right to not be undermined. Let's not talk about rights. It prevents rational discussion.
#14731076
@ QatzelOk
Qatzelok wrote:The way humans respond to fabricated social situations (and most of our relationships are fabricated for abstract purposes, mostly to concentrate income in a few hands) doesn't "prove" that hierarchy is natural or unnatural. It only demonstrates how our particular species responds to certain stimula. Like how a dog responds to treats and punishments. That's about all it proves. That we can be domesticated like dogs.

My question is whether this is natural. Not whether dogs will bark if you push a sharp object into their tail, but whether their domestication was a positive thing, or one that will eventually lead to our/their/everyone's extinction. Or misery.

Some people love to have a dog in the house, others keep them out. However, it is true that the human brain consists of an old (primitive) part and a new part. But since the new part always interferes, we are more than merely apes. My impression is that at the moment, in spite of all universal wisdom, little is known about the true human nature. The searchers for optimal policies are doomed to grope their way in the dark. However, it is possible to formulate some principles. The policy must further the personal wellbeing and self-realization. All persons must be able to follow their vocation. This requires a certain degree of personal autonomy, namely optimal freedom, not maximal freedom.
Qatzelok wrote:Mafias have demonstrated the (short-term) advantages of living according to a fabricated social order, and so have multinational corporations. They learned to "communicate" through a fabricated vocabulary, and to sneakily assume a double (or even triple) identity with different PR for each "other" that they come into contact it.

Are mafias a good thing in the long-term? These entities really "invented" social hierarchy, and they use it primarily to enrich beyond belief a tyrannical "godfather." That the model for our fabricated associations with other people in a modern society.

Mixed identities may help to stimulate the social interaction, since they take into consideration the situation. For instance, during a burial you do not ask the widow for the $50 the deceased owes you. They are not a bad thing, once you are aware that they exist. A crucial aspect of groups is that they increase the personal performance of each member. A growing production provides for the means, that may facilitate the self-realization. In general, efficiency is a prerequisite for the maximal self-realization.

Often coordination helps to enhance the performance of the group. The coordinator is a leader. It is quite usual, that the group members delegate a part of their power to the leader, since they benefit from this. In this way the leader is indeed powerful, but only with the approval of the group. In other words, power is essentially exerted by groups, not by individuals.
#14738720
@ ThirdTerm
ThirdTerm wrote:A hierarchical society is a necessary condition for a civilisation and without the hierarchical structure of ancient Egyptian society, the ancient Egyptians could not have built pyramids. In the social pyramid of ancient Egypt the pharaoh and those associated with divinity were at the top, and servants and slaves made up the bottom.

The state has the monopoly to force his citizens to comply with his laws. The sovereign rules the state. Nowadays the sovereign is the people (the citizens), who delegate their authority to the democratic parliament. The state is actually a reciprocal circle, since all citizens are equal for the law. This construction is commonly symbolized by the social contract, that is signed by all citizens. Thus citizenship is a free choice and devoid of any hierarchy. It looks like a sand-glass, where the citizens are both the top (sovereign) and the bottom (subjects by free choice). That is to say, it is a system with feed-back.

Reciprocal circles are poor production units, in particular when the products are exchanged on free markets. For the competition on the markets commands an effective production. In general the hierarchy is the most productive organization, because the wage workers can be managed by means of rewards and punishments. Equally important is that markets are volatile, and thus require prompt decisions. Therefore the production unit must be a command structure, with a centralized leadership. However, note that the authority of the management is limited. Too much coercion will elicit sabotage or a strike.

The economic hierarchy may cause some human alienation, but she is compensated by the reciprocity at the social and political level.

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]