Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb hierarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the hierarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the hierarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes, there is a level of social freedom in anonymity.

A pluralist society will necessarily have specialisations, and some people will have aptitudes in especially influential specialist areas. And, of course, some will have extraordinary qualities.

If humanity could have done better, it would have done so. Humans are not very good at accepting their limitations, with some even denying death, let alone the limits of our perceptions. Sometimes, it's an advantage to not notice one's limits and press on with indefatigable optimism. That lack of self awareness can also lead to self loathing (either personally and/or misanthropy) and damaging behaviour to self and others.

I find it interesting that human history has been replete with leaders who could variably be described as brutal, corrupt, sadistic, nepotistic, dishonest, narcissistic and even downright psychotic. Yet these have lead us from grass huts to space stations, or at least progress happened despite the drag factor of poor leadership. Often leaders will take credit for the good work of their underlings, while they themselves have been a self-indulgent liability.

All of this may shake up with the advent of AI. When AI systems can be found to lead corporations better than humans, and this seems likely given the extreme complexity of the modern world, then those being out-competed will want their own "Execubots". If corporations are being lead at a higher level than achieved by just humans, then the question will come regarding national leadership. Populist political leaders can cause much damage with short-term thinking, poorly thought-out policies, "magic bullet solutions" and favouring political success over the wellbeing of the nation.

Interesting times.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending!

[MAYA EL]

Any two people will form hierarchies in capability and expertise. And so they should.
The trick is to realise that expertise in one area might give you authority in that area, it should not give you power over the other person who may well have expertise in another areas.

The most successful hunter/gatherer societies express this dynamic with horizontal structures, and zonal and modal powers. Specialisms are encouraged.
As societies have grown in size the greedy and power hungry have managed to push their power across generations so that hereditary power has been formed. This is a mistake, but avoidable.

Quite true about hereditary powers. It is wrong (can be right when the right person is in the place even though he/she came to that position with heredity) and should be avoided.

People can always consult specialists in various fields. But in today's world it is not either simple or free. So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

And how would that be possible without a alpha emerging from the pack?

Even if everybody agrees to play along then who's idea was that? Because technically there the boss because everyone is doing what they said

And then when someone plays the game wrong who will put them in their place ? Because that person will be the boss

Or if no one knows what to do then someone has an idea and others like that idea and agree with it, now they are the boss


I just can't see mammals of any kind living in groups of more then 1 and not forming a system consisting of alpha and betas

[LuckyR]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending!

Exactly. So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

[Sy Borg]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending! 😉

Exactly. So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I did the same. After much trial, and just as much error, I found that I most enjoyed white collar technical roles. As a rule, I found people at the lower and mid rungs to be more honest, trustworthy and interesting than senior managers. One needs to be prepared to play hardball at the upper echelons. If I'd somehow received a Peter Principle promotion to management, I would have soon been chewed up and spat out.

A pluralist society in action. I'm okay with the upper echelons being paid more. Management (at least good management) is hard, the skills needed are relatively uncommon and the roles tend to demand much of a person's time, heart and soul. Of course, the balance has famously gone out of whack, with outrageous inequality that can only lead to instability, but nature tends to restore balance in the end. "Restore balance", of course, is a euphemism for a rapid acceleration in the death rate.

Oh well.

[Pattern-chaser]

...I found that I most enjoyed white collar technical roles. As a rule, I found people at the lower and mid rungs to be more honest, trustworthy and interesting than senior managers. One needs to be prepared to play hardball at the upper echelons. ... Management (at least good management) is hard, the skills needed are relatively uncommon and the roles tend to demand much of a person's time, heart and soul.

In theory, you are quite correct. In practice, in the real world, I wonder if you are? In my experience, managers are duplicitous and ignorant, in general. Yes, proper management is a difficult and demanding job, requiring skills that few have. But managers get paid the most, as we all know, so the greediest of us make our way into management even though we have none of the necessary skills. These 'managers', who form the vast majority, substitute the necessary skills with simple bullying. Management by fear is almost universal, sadly.

[Pattern-chaser]

So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I liked to DO and to DECIDE, but not to manage or supervise other humans. The former is because I loved my vocation — software design and architecture — and the latter because I am an appalling people-person, and placing me in charge of others is unfair to all, including me. Once I had become senior enough, I arranged to be given full technical responsibility for our software and its design, implementation, and testing. I did this alongside a Team Leader, who managed the Team (including me) excellently, so that I could concentrate on what *I* did best.

[Rende]

How we can communicate and understand each other even if we are not living a life that knows anything other than what is it, well, it's a nature process that lets us do this, so if nature is evolving, then humans could evolve to some states of better understanding and a different approach to life.

Its selectivity means that if humans decided slower, they would comprehend more, but by nature, faster deciding is dangerous to the slow decider. So something of a defense mechanism doesn't let us decide slowly and have a more complete insight.

[Sy Borg]

...I found that I most enjoyed white collar technical roles. As a rule, I found people at the lower and mid rungs to be more honest, trustworthy and interesting than senior managers. One needs to be prepared to play hardball at the upper echelons. ... Management (at least good management) is hard, the skills needed are relatively uncommon and the roles tend to demand much of a person's time, heart and soul.

In theory, you are quite correct. In practice, in the real world, I wonder if you are? In my experience, managers are duplicitous and ignorant, in general. Yes, proper management is a difficult and demanding job, requiring skills that few have. But managers get paid the most, as we all know, so the greediest of us make our way into management even though we have none of the necessary skills. These 'managers', who form the vast majority, substitute the necessary skills with simple bullying. Management by fear is almost universal, sadly.

Like anything, there's a range. Some managers are brilliant and steely-nerved and some are shysters or victims of the Peter Principle. Whatever, hierarchies inevitably form. Any attempt at a level playing field will inevitably degrade and skew.

The hard part is keeping power in check, preventing it from dominating unsustainably. An as-yet unsolved problem.

[LuckyR]

So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I liked to DO and to DECIDE, but not to manage or supervise other humans. The former is because I loved my vocation — software design and architecture — and the latter because I am an appalling people-person, and placing me in charge of others is unfair to all, including me. Once I had become senior enough, I arranged to be given full technical responsibility for our software and its design, implementation, and testing. I did this alongside a Team Leader, who managed the Team (including me) excellently, so that I could concentrate on what *I* did best.

Win/win. Congrats... But the Team Leader made more than you, right?

[Pattern-chaser]

So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I liked to DO and to DECIDE, but not to manage or supervise other humans. The former is because I loved my vocation — software design and architecture — and the latter because I am an appalling people-person, and placing me in charge of others is unfair to all, including me. Once I had become senior enough, I arranged to be given full technical responsibility for our software and its design, implementation, and testing. I did this alongside a Team Leader, who managed the Team (including me) excellently, so that I could concentrate on what *I* did best.

Win/win. Congrats... But the Team Leader made more than you, right?

In our case, the TL made much the same as me, but in general, I think your assumption is correct.

[Sushan]

So, does that mean that the majority still wish to have vertical hierarchies, and because of that it is difficult to have large communities and groups that despise kings and bosses (or even leaders)? Or is it impossible to avoid the civilization structure when money is involved in any society?

I think MOST people are not aware of the dynamics, and tend to accept the status quo. Thinking about alternatives, and becoming aware that they might actually have a choice in the fundamental way their society is run is hard on the mond. Most people tend to take the easy route.
IN the UK we've just had the third PM of the year elected. Boris was the most dishonorable, cheating, lying, cad to have ever say in no.10, yet rather than actually follow the news people wanted him back. Repeating the phrase "Bring Back Boris" is a lot easier than taking the trouble to follow the news of his various misdemeanours and accept the truth about just how crap the political system is in the UK.

We only see what happens in UK through international news, and we only get the real picture from an insider like you. I am not sure about your country, but in mine majority of people just have predetermined favourations towards politicians. And some times they almost worship them (It is really embarrassing to see). So political literacy, rational decisions, and rational voting are just words for them.

And where is your country?

It is Sri lanka.

And since this is a quite delayed response from my end, I would like to say (and I am happy about that) that people have changed (or at least the younger generations who have gained right to vote are emerging and we see a difference in them) and have started questioning the politicians who were considered an entity above the common humans, the politicians too have started to understand that they are only government servants and nothing much. We are yet to see any drastic changes, but the sprouts of change are visible everywhere.

[Sushan]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb hierarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the hierarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the hierarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes, there is a level of social freedom in anonymity.

A pluralist society will necessarily have specialisations, and some people will have aptitudes in especially influential specialist areas. And, of course, some will have extraordinary qualities.

If humanity could have done better, it would have done so. Humans are not very good at accepting their limitations, with some even denying death, let alone the limits of our perceptions. Sometimes, it's an advantage to not notice one's limits and press on with indefatigable optimism. That lack of self awareness can also lead to self loathing (either personally and/or misanthropy) and damaging behaviour to self and others.

I find it interesting that human history has been replete with leaders who could variably be described as brutal, corrupt, sadistic, nepotistic, dishonest, narcissistic and even downright psychotic. Yet these have lead us from grass huts to space stations, or at least progress happened despite the drag factor of poor leadership. Often leaders will take credit for the good work of their underlings, while they themselves have been a self-indulgent liability.

All of this may shake up with the advent of AI. When AI systems can be found to lead corporations better than humans, and this seems likely given the extreme complexity of the modern world, then those being out-competed will want their own "Execubots". If corporations are being lead at a higher level than achieved by just humans, then the question will come regarding national leadership. Populist political leaders can cause much damage with short-term thinking, poorly thought-out policies, "magic bullet solutions" and favouring political success over the wellbeing of the nation.

Interesting times.

I am not certain whether you are speaking about either leaders or bosses. Usually leaders lead and not think about the credit or fame. I believe that leaders are not made, but are born. Yes, it is true the historians have given all the credit to those who were in power, but I think it is unfair to simply simply decorate all of those leaders with negative adjectives and put them in the same box.

When thinking about AI, I believe AI is much away from general intelligence which is necessary to assume a leading role. Yes, they can do the logical reasoning and give outcomes really fast compared to humans. But that is what they are capable at the moment, and will remain so for quite some time. So I think 'executive bots' won't be a thing that we will see in near future, although the growth of AI is quite rapid.

[Sushan]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending!

Some love to work (and learn) and some love to get work done from others. And there are people who are clever enough to do one of these, and there are some who are clever in both fields. But when it comes to personal preferences, as you said, yes, there are people who simply love what they do and the opportunities that it offers for learning and growth.

It simply applies to myself as well. If I simply let, I will be taken up in the hierarchy with time, and it will definitely drag me away from my primary role and take me towards administration, which I simply don't like due to personal preferences. But I must admit that there are occasions that I think 'I could have done this better if I were up in the hierarchy and had adequate authoritative powers'.

[Sushan]

Any two people will form hierarchies in capability and expertise. And so they should.
The trick is to realise that expertise in one area might give you authority in that area, it should not give you power over the other person who may well have expertise in another areas.

The most successful hunter/gatherer societies express this dynamic with horizontal structures, and zonal and modal powers. Specialisms are encouraged.
As societies have grown in size the greedy and power hungry have managed to push their power across generations so that hereditary power has been formed. This is a mistake, but avoidable.

Quite true about hereditary powers. It is wrong (can be right when the right person is in the place even though he/she came to that position with heredity) and should be avoided.

People can always consult specialists in various fields. But in today's world it is not either simple or free. So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

And how would that be possible without a alpha emerging from the pack?

Even if everybody agrees to play along then who's idea was that? Because technically there the boss because everyone is doing what they said

And then when someone plays the game wrong who will put them in their place ? Because that person will be the boss

Or if no one knows what to do then someone has an idea and others like that idea and agree with it, now they are the boss


I just can't see mammals of any kind living in groups of more then 1 and not forming a system consisting of alpha and betas

First of all, scientifically speaking, the concept of Alphas and Betas cannot be simply applied to humans and human societies because humans are much more complex and did not simply be an alpha or a beta. Yes, there are natural leaders and natural subordinates, but that does not mean that a subordinate will assume a leading role when the necessity arises.

Secondly, having a great idea won't make someone the boss of a group. Yes, they will be admired for their great idea, but their ideas won't always be the best and 'agreeable to all' ideas unless the others are literally dumb.

Thirdly, a single human cannot be put in charge to correct another human being or 'put them in their place when they play the game wrong'. That is why such systems were taken out of practice and currently we are having legal systems rather than kings and queens.

Yes, we form systems when we are together. But that is really complex than a mere bunch of alphas and betas.