Society
In this post I’m bringing together some diverse psychological research. The idea I want to support is that human beings have strong and predictable reactions to power and weakness. Each of these videos alone makes an interesting (and often disturbing) point but together they show what happens to people given “the upper hand” and some of what happens to the people they hold it over. It’s important to me as a foundation for some of the next ideas I’m going to be laying out. This is difficult collection. They are worse together than alone. It feels like a damning indictment of the human race but I’m not looking to scold so much as to understand . The important thing is establishing a clear picture of our native relationship to power and privilege. I think of this post a bit like evidence before the court. I’m going to cite this post in later articles.
There are fascinating and dark things here, but many of these videos are too long for casual viewing. The exception might be the last one, “Money on the mind” which is also very interesting and much cheerier than the rest.
Stanford prison experiment
Blue eyes brown eyes
Every human blends a wide range of psychological variables. Each variable in this list is a spectrum and everyone is somewhere on each spectrum in this list. I don’t think this is some complete list, just some that I was mulling over. And they don’t follow some meaningful rule concerning their position to the left or right. I mean for example that “daring” and “submissive” are not in any sense related because they both appear on the right. There may be some overlap between some of these characteristics that could justify a connection but it’s imperfect and I’m not intending that meaning. I also don’t think that good is on one side and bad on the other.
Every trait on this list is a spectrum.
It seems human groups naturally create a spread of these traits because I can’t think of any culture outside of science fiction where there is a real uniformity of these characteristics.
The old sci-fi tradition often portrayed a trait as a species. Remember Star Trek? Vulcans, Klingons and Romulans, Ferengi? Each of these takes all the variables for a self and mashes them through a single psychological template.
Imagine how profound (and awful) the effect would be on a culture if they exclusively doubled down on the most extreme range of the traits above. In theory, you could have an entire population very unbalanced in a certain direction. But it never seems to work out that way, does it? Perhaps the whole thing is absolutely random but there could be within us a sort of community algorithm to keep a healthy range of steady but flexible groups. Some flexibility in the system would allow different tribes to investigate the effects of leaning more this way or more that way as a group. I don’t mean the tribe would look at it that way, just that cultural differences would naturally emphasize different traits and there could be an impact on survival as a result.
There are also structural, age-based ranges for a number of important psychological factors concerning the community’s ability to preserve it’s form but also change if it needs to.
- The very young imprint the culture, taking it at face value.
- The young adult/teenager range is the most progressive, the most likely to question things being this way. It’s a cultural version of questioning your own parents.
- Families, mated and settled are the meat in the sandwich. They essentially express and live the culture in a moderate conservative way. Naturally, they tend to embrace it but the cracks and stressors show up here too. In worrying about their own children they worry about all children and what world they will live in. Again, this tends toward conservatism but enough worry can turn this.
- The old of course tend to be convinced that everything is going terribly wrong and we ought to back the hell up. They are the paragons of cultural retention.
These behaviors are emergent from the developmental moment of each but across a culture the impact is factorial.
I think this is rather like the age-based division of labor in insect hives. We have a non-random, predictable political range (“tension force” if you read my other stuff on conservative/progressive). I suspect evolution is a little bottom heavy with more people in the conservative mode but always with enough wild-ass adventurous and rebellious types to keep stirring the pot.
I have a half-assed thought that neuro-atypicals such as Autism spectrum and ADHD people may figure in population dynamics as a necessary element. Autistic people famously helping to advance technology with their obsessive interests and keen observations and ADHD people (I like to think) because their restless love of novelty may contribute in its own way.
I also believe that high functioning psychopaths and narcissists have a place. Their utter lack of concern with others and cold desire to get all the goodies CAN act as an organizing mechanism creating political or religious movements or starting big businesses, etc. Someone sufficiently convinced of their right to rule over others can collect followers like a magnet collects iron filings.
Our Predicament, Ourselves: Culture
The most meaningful things in people’s lives are non-physical: Home, Love, Family, Country & Culture. It’s a common, clichéd thought that human cultural comfort zones mean nothing in raw nature, isolated on a desert island, etc. with the implicit idea that they never meant anything in the first place since they don’t function while clinging to a flotation ring mid-ocean. It simply means that without the context of other human beings, the abstract human operational matrix collapses. It only operates on the shoulders of the collective. This is no different than a tiger alone in a zoo, losing “the meaning” of his system, or an ant without her hive, having no role anywhere. Tigers, ants, and humans are all-natural and are all equally expressing nature from within their correct context.
Cultures start with small communities, deeply intermarried and inter-related. They aligned their behavioral styles as all people do, giving and taking cues, mirroring and mutually attuning their similarities and preferences into a group personal style. A culture grows up around them, a community “self-ness”, hard to pigeonhole but instantly recognizable to those who share it. Like all emergent things, it opens upward, from below. That culture then reinforces itself as the medium of reality itself for the next generation and the next and the next. Within any culture, sexual selection will reflect cultural styles, biologically reinforcing those traits and values. That culture becomes a nutritious growth medium for people who fit the template and a harsh desert for those that don’t. This is the way nature and nurture work seamlessly together, creating a people and their culture.
The cultural matrix actively weaves a future consistent with the past. Continuity is survival.
Culture is the identity and reality box around us. If you scooped up everybody in Mexico and Sweden and swapped them into each other’s countries, instantly the state called Mexico would be acting like Sweden and the one called Sweden would be acting like Mexico. Culture is the shared operating system of a discrete, particular population.
And this is where xenophobia arises. That culture, that community is a body. It is a self, made of humans, as bee colonies are made of bees and as animal bodies are made of cells. Just like beehives and cellular colonies, there is a Self/Non-Self border and things recognized as non-self are excluded and attacked.
Culture = Self.
Non-Self equals danger to self. Xenophobia, bigotry, is a natural if unpleasant, gear of the human-machine. It is about preserving self as understood by the agents present on the scene. And within every culture, this “hackles up” response is in play and expressed as a range of “appropriate” levels of response. An individual who is an extreme bigot defines one end of the range, and a “celebrate diversity” person is at the other. The density and intensity of each type and the range in between is the immune system for that culture fighting against change from outside. Every occurrence of racism and bigotry is essentially an immune system response. But so are acts of acceptance and tolerance, both are aspects of one system. The system is amoral. It is neither right nor wrong. It simply is. It is a filtration system that is supposed to keep out bad things and allow through good things. And because this human trait is global we can say it is part of the Human Operating System.
Consider this immune system of cultural self:
- War: The “angried up”, activated cultural immune system in wartime, when the enemy is demonized. We use words and pictures that are comparable on our level to the chemical signals hive insects generate to become worked up and furious enough, so as to go to war. Words and symbols are the pheromones and chemical triggers of humanity.
- Authoritarian purity oppression: Cultural purges based on a scaled-up sensitivity to how completely each individual reflects a “pure” image of the cultural ideal. Purity madness is like autoimmune disorders, like an allergy attacking normal tissue after deciding it doesn’t pass the test for self. Familiar examples are America during McCarthyism, the Chinese “cultural revolution”, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the French revolution and of course the perennial favorites, Nazis.
- Racial and cultural outsiders: Individuals of disliked subgroups in a culture often create a more culturally acceptable facade though a kind of mimicry: think of “passing for white”, of homosexuals closeting themselves and Greenberg becoming “Green”. This is an attempt to elude the virtual “white blood cells” of the surrounding culture’s immune system.
This isn’t an attempt to justify “racism”, on the horrible off chance that it appears that way, it’s an attempt to understand it. It is an innate part of the human operating system, its roots are sunk irretrievably into the existence of culture itself. You don’t have a culture without it.
Sometimes a tautology is true: Cultures defend themselves because we are the kind of animal that builds cultures that defend themselves.
If I was philosophizing here, this big juicy tautology would make my ideas cancel each other out. But this isn’t philosophy, this is simply observing the species strategy of the human race, which has many, many parallels throughout nature. Is this scientific? No, not really, because it can’t be tested. Among other things, because you could not find a control group that would behave DIFFERENTLY.
Consider the profound NEED of people to fit within the “old shoe”comfort of their own culture: That every individual of an immigrant group to the United States lands here like a molecule of water and instantly seeks to be absorbed into the larger droplet of its own kind. There is a “surface tension” around a culture, a membrane of likeness that filters out strangers and limits blending. We often blame the larger culture for its hostility to strangers as the force that drives the creation of “Chinatown”, “little Italy” “the ex-pat community”,”the Jewish quarter” “the African American neighborhood”. Naturally, the surrounding culture plays a push-back part in this but its actions just mirror the drive in the hearts of every member of all of these communities to be HOME. To be in the comfort of their own. And if any of these cultures was suddenly the larger, surrounding one, it would be just as much the dominant filter against outsiders, against change.
Racism was a useful term during the historical civil rights era as a large part of the cultural body demanded a kinder and fairer system. And it worked in several ways, forcing more fairness at large and shaming the most virulent racists into watching their language in public and the less obvious ones into an unusual “reverse” instance of the cultural mimicry way of blending in described above. Now some people who had never felt “outside” before had to “pass for nice” in order to stay inside. But I really think we need to examine the word racism and decide whether it serves our purposes and fits a hole in the puzzle. Scientists agree that race is a concept without foundation. There is no race, just various densities of genes being expressed by the descendants of earlier inhabitants. beyond that, the differences are about culture.
Not all culture exists as one homogeneous bubble enclosing all the members of a group. There are often building block sub-cultures cultures within the larger culture. At times they get along and work together at other times they fission and the bubble breaks, like the north-south civil war divide. Consider that poisonous split and how the repairs that followed made only a weak cobbled together join that today is very fragile. The big, ugly, and loose Frankenstein sutures holding that wound together seem to impede the natural motion of both northern and southern cultures. It’s more like two prisoners cuffed together.
Consider the carving up of tribes and nation-states in ways that lead to perpetual wars because an artificial border was drawn through a culture cutting in half or forcing it to mix with another. When European leaders drew those famous “lines in the sand” for their own convenience a hundred years ago forcing middle eastern tribal communities into artificial states filled with tribes they hated, I doubt they would expect to find that the entire world would be suffering from that decision today. But that is how important this is.
In different places, people naturally express different degrees of aggressiveness concerning what constitutes not-self. And as the world grows more populated and complex and mobile this question grows likewise, more complex. We have to become more intelligent about what constitutes important non-self danger and what is something different, yet acceptable. Within a culture, each edge of the non-self sensitivity scale thinks it is correct but at the macro level it’s simply the outside edge of the algorithm: “How open is this hive to outsiders?”
And to different degrees, cultures behave competitively, seeking to establish dominance over the other corporate beings. As usual, Nazism raises its hand to answer as an example. This was a truly virulent culture, acting as a body to literally erase all not-self from existence. Genghis Khan was another kind of virulence, a fast-moving cultural plague of violent unification.
Each group of human beings together will self organize a social matrix within a cultural framework. This is the reason that worldwide “traditional family values” is a strong meme, it’s about strong building blocks making a strong whole. It’s about guaranteeing a stable, recognizably consistent culture in the future.
I heard someone talking about the enormous range of human cultures and I thought: Looked at from our level with our human brain, cultures can seem very different. In fact, the differences are almost all that we DO notice. From the Macroscopic level, all these different cultures display a relatively similar structure and nature. If we are a hive species (and yes we are) you could expect to find meaningful correspondences between us and other creatures who live in hives. For example, ants have absolutely predictable castes: “Queen”(ovary), soldiers, workers (including sub-types like building and repair, larva care, food gathering, etc.) and princesses and drones.
There are corresponding roles found in all human cultures of a comparable scale.
- Leader & Senators
- Aristocracy/captains of industry
- Papa/priest/clergy
- Warrior caste: Generals & Soldiers
- Workers/ peasants/ serfs
- Age extremes – the elderly and the young and their caregivers
The intensity and size of these roles can be turned up or down in importance and sometimes the leader may be a Pope or General and the senators can be soldiers or clergy (or captains of industry). Or the leader may be virtually all-powerful with a rubber stamp senate or the leader may be a simple counterbalance to the senate. But these core elements are in the DNA of all comparably leveled cultures. The fact that past a certain population density these structures ALWAYS occur is a red flag. This is part of who humans are. This is something we create without even seeing our personal role.
The differences between cultures are almost thematic: A question of different dominant notes such as religion, money, or military; authority or autonomy. Since cultures are composite individuals, these themes are their individual strategies competing for power. It as if a hundred massive giants were encamped on the earth, uneasily watching their neighbors and negotiating with the subtlety of a playground mob.
Nothing I’ve described is my philosophy or my politics, nothing is about how I want things to be. I am advocating understanding our natural behavior. Natural doesn’t mean good, it means demonstrably obvious: Factual. Our automatic behaviors are as natural as bird’s nests. They are evolution’s answer for preserving and maintaining our species and they are a deadly trap endangering our future. I believe the only way out is the way through and the only way through is the pathway of truth. Everything else dead ends in falsehood. Until we understand how our species works we will never pull the right handle when trying to correct our course.
If Human ethology is to do us any good it mustn’t be enslaved to the demands of any particular culture, it must throw light on all of us and consider standards of common accountability for human behavior. It must be a liberating perspective that holds on to compassion and humor. We must grow wise, sophisticated and patient. We must outgrow our weaknesses. We have long miles to go with everything at stake.
Both parties are amalgams of various groups whose support they must retain to win an election.
Prior to Reagan the two parties both held a large moderate middle where people might usually vote one way, but decide in this case to vote for the other party.
I believe attribution should go to Business Insider for these but I’m not certain if they generated them or just republished them. I think this is a nice summary of how and why human decision making sucks elephant butt. If you can remember these and filter your own thoughts for signs of them when they pop up you’ll develop better arguments and be a little more honest with yourself too. It’s not easy. From one angle it’s like a list things politicians do consciously and otherwise, often successfully.
I also find them interesting as a sociobiological thing, this is a list of mind behaviors that evolved with us and have stood the test of time. Somehow or other they may have held some survival or success value. Many feel like something I can see being either advantageous to the individual getting what they want or as socially unifying (and possibly dumb) behaviors. The rest are mostly stubbornness and wishful thinking.
About Guns:
- When NRA types say: “Let’s not politicize this tragedy” they are proactively politicizing it.
- Claiming that talk of gun control or of better access to mental health care is “politicizing” this tragedy is like saying that common sense fire prevention is politicizing arson.
- How about this? To own a handgun you have to be licensed DMV style and test every few years. To own more than one gun or more assault-style guns you have to be part of an actual “well-regulated militia.” (with no actual police powers) this would be framed as a quasi Switzerland “Homeland defense” style group. In reality, it would probably function as more of a natural disaster response style group but it would give the gun guys a civic investment and a sense of pride while also making sure that some thoughtful eyes are on these weapon owners at regular intervals.
- I was just watching a Ken Burns documentary on the old west and you know who had really restrictive gun control? Frontier towns — places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge.
- Gun sales have surged following the Sandy Hook massacre. I realize these people don’t wish to emulate the murderer but I’m damned if I can think of much about this more depressing than that it should actually inspire a sales “boom” for gun companies. It means that as a result of the shootings there are people in gun business saying “Wow! This is going great!”
- All the people who hold up second amendment rights furiously, as if they were sacred, never mention second amendment responsibilities. Let’s get THAT talk going.
- The son of the current president of the NRA has served jail time for shooting into the car of another driver during an incident of road rage. This isn’t to call names but it just points out the real nature of the problem: Even the people the NRA sees as “good guys with guns”, the supposed antidote to our dangerous times, are mammals with limited self-control and sanity.
I wish passionately that America would show some common sense with a DMV style registration and testing for gun owners. Of course, the only reason we CAN’T have such an approach is the NRA. Under the guise of representing gun owners, this industry lobby has tied America’s hands behind its back. The only way I can think of to defeat them is ANOTHER gun lobby group which steadfastly refuses any connection to arms manufacturers and does such a good job that they could dissolve NRA membership from within, finally weakening their grip on our collective will.
And an Open Secret
- 55% (17050) were suicides, guns being a fairly certain means. This is tragic but its relationship with guns is somewhat gray, would they be dead without a gun? It cannot be known. This sad situation might be improved by some form of mental health screening for gun owners but ultimately it is more an issue of depression than guns.
- 3% were accidental.
- 2% were considered justifiable or unknown.
- 40% or 12400 of these were murders
Is to create a dynamic tension of necessarily opposing forces.
This tension defines the overall moral character of a place. In balance: Conservatives provide cohesion with tradition, patriotism, following authority, and defense of borders. In balance: Progressives provide introspection, conscience, and doubt. Working together (by working against each other) they create a structure strong enough to hold together but flexible enough to admit change. Meeting in the middle is sort of irrelevant, the goal is achieved through opposition. And if either side has no pushback from the other, it becomes a political autoimmune disorder, digesting itself alive as it strives for purity.
A word for the Progressives: You know at some level that those asshats are holding the line for you, right? They are throwing themselves into battles in faraway places because they will actually do that when it has to be done (as well as when it doesn’t). And they hold down a certain kind of solid decency in a lot of places.
Conservatives are the base note. Conservatives are the ones prepared to homestead on the goddamn prairie all over again if they have to. They are representing the basic voice of humans organizing for survival and fearing change. They like things predictable and familiar and they don’t like all those weirdos they see sniffing around. If humanity was an inchworm they’d be the reluctant back end. If you are picturing a bunch of southern white Americans you aren’t exactly wrong but you aren’t sufficient, either. You must picture this same type in Cameroon, Belarus. Uganda, and Fiji because everybody has them. From where they are sitting most of the world seems to be a bunch of weirdos sniffing around with their funny ways in their dumb clothes. Highly suspicious, I’d say.
And a word for you too, Conservatives: You know that these self-righteous, holier than thou do-gooder jerkoffs are right once in a blue moon, correct? Historically about things like not buying people and how you shouldn’t kill your daughter for being a lesbian (yeah, I heard about that). They may be a bunch of insufferable unrealistic ninnies for thinking that the world could ever really change for the better, but I mean kids think that way, and we always say kids are the hope of the future so maybe…No. Fuck ’em. Progressives are the high hopeful note that may or may not be true…yet. Progressives are a hand feeling around in the dark for a better future. Sometimes injustice will burn down YOUR house if it isn’t fixed and you sure aren’t going to do anything about it.
Anyway, both of you A-Holes, like it or not, actually need each other. Progressives need conservatives so they don’t give away the whole goddamn candy store to them weirdos in stupid clothes who’ve been sniffing around. And conservatives need progressives so the rich people don’t start actually selling them again or making them into soup one of these days.
The good news is, you aren’t supposed to get along, you’re supposed to fight. But you aren’t supposed to kill each other, that would be a great victory akin to the kidneys killing the liver. All you have to do is continue to recognize each other as members of the same community (which would be awesome and perfect if they weren’t around).
You have to fight them and you have to recognize them as part of God’s plan, maybe like dung-beetles.
Meanwhile, you might as well hate each other, you’re both pretty goddamn annoying.