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_theoryIn 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_piracyAnother
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/ProtestantismThe 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 <[email protected]> Date:
10/18/24 9:47 PM (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] 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: [email protected]>
Date: 10/17/24 12:08 AM (GMT+01:00)> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group' <[email protected]>> 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 listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe /
Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/
