Good Lord. Not fully convincing. Not nearly, I do like the way in which authority and the adoption of absurd beliefs work together. And why trying to change somebody' allegiance to a charismer might be strengthened by going after shared absurd beliefs.
Nick On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 5:32 AM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: > I agree that the hype in conservative news sources about great CEOs is an > example of the Great Man theory. The hype about AI godfathers is an example > too. Nevertheless I still believe that authoritarian organization is the > rule in social systems. In almost all companies and corporations the CEO > has the last word, in armies the general at the top, in families > traditionally the father. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory > > In hierarchies there are two ends of a spectrum: at the one end we have an > authoritarian system and a top-down hierarchy where people at the bottom > are doing what the leader at the top wants. At the other end we have a > democratic system and a bottom-up hierarchy where elected people at the top > are doing what the people at the bottom want. In between are authoritarian > systems that pretend to democratic, and democratic system that have > authoritarian tendencies. > > An example of the spectrum would be a Navy vessel vs a pirate ship in the > 18th century. Mutiny is one form of transition between the two types. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_18th-century_piracy > > Another example is the Catholic church vs protestantism. In the Catholic > church officials are appointed from the top, in protestant culture they are > elected. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism > > The question why people are shifting from one form of organization to > another is intriguing. I am not sure if we have clear answers to this > interesting question. Nick argued that "groups capable of shifting to an > authoritarian organization in response to a perceived existential threat > survived in greater numbers than those that didn't" but this argument alone > is not fully convincing, or is it? > > > -J. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: glen <geprope...@gmail.com> > Date: 10/18/24 9:47 PM (GMT+01:00) > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On Evolutionary Atavism > > I can't help but feel that the sentiment that authoritarian organization > is the rule is an example of (or sibling to) the Great Man theory. > Ultimately, it's something akin to a psychological investment in teleology > - which I'm using to mean when the appearance of purposeful behavior is > often treated as an indicator that processes do have purpose (as opposed to > teleonomy - where processes merely seem to have purpose, behave as if they > have purpose, or perhaps purpose is emergent). But it's not merely the > attribution of purpose, but also the attribution of unity or fusion into a > bounded whole. > > I'd challenge anyone to present an organized system that is *actually* > unified in this way. Even political systems we name and accept as > authoritarian, are not completely fused, atomic, centralized. The extent to > which the nominal leader is actually the leader is a graded extent, never > perfect. Each particular authoritarian system will be more or less > authoritarian than another. And, worse, each particular system will be more > authoritarian in some dimensions and less in others. > > So if I read this generously, what I hear is that we're very used to ... > comfortable with ... the attribution of leader-controlled organization, as > in corporations with chief executives, etc. And we're less used to ... > facile with ... comfortable with ... distributed organization and > quantifying the extent to which organization is centralized or distributed. > > If I read it less generously, it sounds like reification - pretending like > some illusory property is actual. > > On 10/17/24 10:21, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > Interesting thoughts. The use of "atavism" in the context of social > systems is interesting, but it is not new. Joseph Schumpeter has used the > term atavism to explain the outbreak of World War I > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism > > > > > > I believe authoritarian organization is not the exception, it is the > rule. A pecking order or "dominance hierarchy" is the most common order in > social groups and almost all organizations, corporations and companies. > Even among chickens in farms or apes in zoos. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy > > > > > > The opposite of authoritarian organization is an egalitarian society > where everybody is equal. In his book "Warlike and Peaceful Societies", > Agner Fogar agues that people tend to prefer one of these two types > depending on the situation. His regality theory says "people will show a > psychological preference for a strong leader and strict discipline if they > live in a society full of conflict and danger, while people in a peaceful > and safe environment will prefer an egalitarian and tolerant culture" > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regality_theory > > > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > Inters-------- Original message -------- > > From: thompnicks...@gmail.com > > Date: 10/17/24 12:08 AM (GMT+01:00) > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > > Subject: [FRIAM] On Evolutionary Atavism > > > > On Evolutionary Atavism > > > > My so-called mind is still churning from our conversation about > evolutionary atavism, the idea that current behavioral systems may be > ill-suited to contemporary circumstances. As an evolutionary psychologist > I should be for it; however, as a survivor of the instinct wars of the > 1950’s, I should be against it. Where am I? > > > > The problem with evolutionary atavism arises when people start > attributing any necessity to it. Natural selection would not be possible > if organisms did not offer up structures and behaviors that are > maladapted. Evolution could not have occurred if organisms did not respond > to these maladaptations with adaptive changes. Evolution is a dynamic > between change and stability and the interesting question is why some > things change while others don’t, and why some changes occur more rapidly > than others. Asserting that some things are the same as they were a million > years ago because they didn’t happen to change is just silly. > > > > Still, evolutionary atavism does play a role in my thinking. Let’s work > an example together and see what that role is and whether it is justified. > I listened with guilty pleasure to Obama’s address ridiculing MAGA > thinking. My pleasure was guilty because I thought his speech would make > Trump more likely to win the election. This conclusion arose from an > evolutionary hypothesis about the origins of charisma. The logic, such as > it is, goes like this. > > > > 1. *The modern human species arose 160kyrs ago from a very small number > of small groups. *That the human species passed through a severe bottleneck > at it inception is probably true; that it was composed of small group at > that time is a plausible surmise.** > > 2. *Those groups were engaged in intense competition at the bottleneck. > *This statement is reasonable but not supported by any data I can think of. > ** > > 3. *Therefore, they survived or failed as groups. *Again, merely > plausible.** > > 4. *Those /groups/ survived that were capable of rapid concerted > action. *This is based on the idea that in emergencies it is most important > for every to do some thing, rather than for them to wait and work out the > best thing to do.**Barely plausible. Not even clear how one would go about > researching it. ** > > 5. *Groups capable of shifting to an authoritarian organization in > response to a perceived existential threat survived in greater numbers than > those that didn’t.* > > 6. *Humans, therefore, are inclined to put their faith in a single > person when they perceive an existential threat. *Let’s call this the > “Charismer Response”** > > 7. *The person most likely to be selected for this role is apparently > single-minded and decisive. *This gives us the characteristics of a > *Charismer*, ** > > 8. *Charismees relinquish their capacity for independent rational > thought in favor of the Charismer’s decision-making. * > > 9. *Charismees receive benefits from the group in proportion to their > demonstrations of surrender of rationality.* > > 10. *Charismees demostrate their surrender by the repetition of o or > more flagrantly irrational beliefs. (virgi birth, stole election , etc.)* > > 11. *Challenges to these beliefs only increase charismees allegiance to > the group* > > 12. *Therefore, Obama should have kept his smarty-pants mouth shut. * > > > > You all ca*n* evaluate the heuristic, rationality, a*n*d probability of > this argument. I am going to stop *n*ow because my keyboard has stopped > reliably producing “*n’s” * ad is drivig me uts. At best, I think > evolutionary atavism is a source of plausible hypotheses about why > organisms are not adapted to their current circumstances. See some of you > tomorrow. > > > > Sicerely, > > > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University nthomp...@clarku.edu https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
