What's left

[Alastair McGowan]

Hi

 

I have been following your conversation on individuation, and have something to add.

 

The Sufi’s believe that by the ‘end times’ eight out of ten people will still be children – failing to mature and develop a sufficient degree of individuation from social forces. They developed these ideas in the context of violent social repression in the middle ages, but born of millenia of middle-east culture including the christian experiences (they believe that JC was one of them trying to get people to wake up and self-actualise).

 

If the Sufi’s are correct and only two out of ten do become self-actualised then what does this tell us about individuation? Is it social factors that inhibit the other eight out of ten? But look at human-scale pre-industrial cultures with flat hierarchies and you still see few becoming self-actualised. Could the social pressure to conform be an innate process that is (as an evolutionary strange-attractor) very difficult if not impossible to break?

 

Alastair

[Bob Thompson]

Alastair McGowan wrote:

Could the social pressure to conform be an innate process that is (as an evolutionary strange-attractor) very difficult if not impossible to break?

I had to look up "strange-attractor." The mathematical concept of an "attractor" might be an apt way of looking at it. This somehow reminded me of a theory I once concocted about conformity, which I haven't thought about for some time. I used to think that conformity was simply an outcome of the constant reinforcement of such, which would be the simplest explanation for it -- but that's because I had a particular ideal -- namely, that everyone was capable of self-actualization. I abandoned that ideal, because I have no evidence for it. My thinking was that conformity becomes automatic because it is so rigorously and constantly enforced by myriad cues on a daily basis, and was simply a product of the instinct of self-preservation. Think back to grade school. It seemed to me that during childhood, conformity was constantly rewarded, and nonconformity constantly punished, by students and teachers alike. Over time, you're just whipped into line by this barrage of rewards and punishments, until it becomes automatic. I suppose that is the simplest explanation, but I don't know anything about other possible explanations.

 

[Chris]

On Nov 13, 3:44 pm, Bob Thompson <thompbob...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> My thinking was that conformity becomes automatic because it
> is so rigorously and constantly enforced by myriad cues on a
> daily basis, and was simply a product of the instinct of self-
> preservation. Think back to grade school. It seemed to me that
> during childhood, conformity was constantly rewarded, and
> nonconformity constantly punished, by students and teachers
> alike. Over time, you're just whipped into line by this barrage of
> rewards and punishments, until it becomes automatic. I suppose
> that is the simplest explanation, but I don't know anything about
> other possible explanations.

I recall someone writing that conformity among the higher
educated is a result of a longer training period.
On a longer timeframe, there's an evolutionary aspect: early
hominids would have lived in small tribes. They didn't have
great reasoning and debating skills so they'd generally do
things en masse or according to ritual, i.e. tried and trusted
routines. Only the leader would develop an individual mindset,
and to challenge him was an onerous undertaking. That's the
environment where the group instincts would have been
ingrained.

[Chris]

Here is some of Freud's input on the matter:

"There is, of course, no place for the beginnings of totemism in
Darwin’s primal horde. All that we find there is a violent and
jealous father who keeps all the females for himself and drives
away his sons as they grow up. This earliest state of society has
never been an object of observation. The most primitive kind of
organization that we actually come across -- and one that is in
force to this day in certain tribes -- consists of bands of males;
these bands are composed of members with equal rights and are
subject to the restrictions of the totemic system, including
inheritance through the mother. Can this form of organization
have developed out of the other one? and if so along what lines?

"If we call the celebration of the totem meal to our help, we shall
be able to find an answer. One day the brothers who had been
driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so
made an end of the patriarchal horde. United, they had the courage
to do and succeeded in doing what would have been impossible
for them individually."

http://preview.tinyurl.com/totemandtaboo

After that, so the theory goes, came some stable forms of matriarchal
societies. It's all very Oedipal, as is a lot of authoritarian
theory.

[Alastair McGowan]

Has anyone else read the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, or Derrick Jensen
(deep ecology; anarcho-primitivism) or Jared Diamond on civilisation. They
seem to give a meta-view to the problem noted by Freud.

From the above literature the main premise is that civilisation (Quinn's
'takers') is based fundamentally on violence whereas other forms of society
are not predicated on violence. "It is the unmentionable reality of
civilisation that it depends on fighting." (Lacey and Danziger, 1999).

Given this premise it is easier to see how authority and hierarchy become a
way for the individual to protect himself from the inherent violence of
'civilised' society and from being trampled to the bottom of the pile (I say
'himself' because patriarchy seems to be connected with the problem).

Furthermore, I have developed an idea that external authority (as opposed to
Ken Wilber's concept of inner authority) is closely associated with
something I call cultural post traumatic stress disorder or CPTSD: The more
developed and hence more extended the hierarchy in a society the more
implicitly authority is required to maintain it and - you guessed it - the
more anxiety depression and unhappiness results (see the happy planet
index). In other words civilisation causes the fragmentation of normal
social relationships and drives populations to CPTSD.

It's striking to me how closely post traumatic stress (PTSD) resembles the
'fear' of those who have high authoritarian personality. Perhaps AP is both
a result of civilisation in susceptible ('weak') people and an evolutionary
dynamic for managing the abnormal social relationships that develop within
society?

Alastair

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 16/11/2008
> 10:04

[Chris]

On Nov 16, 6:13 pm, "Alastair McGowan" wrote:
>
> It's striking to me how closely post traumatic stress
> (PTSD) resembles the 'fear' of those who have high
> authoritarian personality. Perhaps AP is both a result
> of civilisation in susceptible ('weak') people and an
> evolutionary dynamic for managing the abnormal social
> relationships that develop within society?

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder

PTSD: Diagnosis

C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the
trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things even related
to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions
that trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms fear
of losing control)
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty
falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance)

Anger at the constant suppression ; avoidance in looking at
the causes for fear of crumbling one's own constructs.
Certainly some parallels.

Crumbled constructs would probably be good -- provided
with the tools to rebuild the self.

Freud is critical of modern civilization but moreso of ancient
ones:

"If civilization imposes such great sacrifices not only
on man's sexuality, but also on his aggressivity, we are
in a better position to understand why it is so hard for
him to feel happy in it. Primitive man was actually better
off, because his drives were not restricted. Yet this was
counterbalanced by the fact that he had little certainty
of enjoying this good fortune for long. Civilized man has
traded in a portion of his chances of happiness for a certain
measure of security. But let us not forget that in the
primeval family only its head could give full rein to his
drives; its other members lived in slavish suppression.
In that primal period of civilization, the contrast between
a minority who enjoyed the advantages of civilization
and a majority who were robbed of those advantages was,
therefore, carried to extremes." (Civilization and Its
Discontents, Ch. 5, 1930)

[rosenhw]

Psychology in one aspect or another ties these concepts together.
For decades that was my mindset. However:

Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to condense
the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--Aggression, Submission or
hierarchy, and Conventionalism. These traits are expressed consistently
in the findings of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.

It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits arise naturally
in Darwin's evolution:

Aggressiveness effectively secured resources and mates for
either gender, and survival or their genes was more common than
not.

Hierarchical submissives allowed aggressives to direct them
in gaining resources and mates so they too survived. The
herding instinct comes to mind here as well. And so does
pack hunting which many animals and humans do so well.

Conventionalism amounts to going along with what works for
survival. Sleeping in a cave with a fire at the mouth allowed
the venturesome to survive in otherwise hostile regions.
Copying tool use and weaponry had similar effects, particularly
in prehistory. Doing what one had to do to stay alive, left its
mark in gene survival rates. And here we are today, with genes
ill-suited for civilization. Not entirely, for genes for altruism,
parenting, and herding survived by successfully opposing
aggression, and these too led to survival.

The first two traits we share with most of the animal world.
The third may be more uniquely human.

To me the evidence is compelling, but perhaps not to the radical
fringes of the APs who are the main problems in today's world.
It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also known
as the narcissistic personality, who is the main danger--to all
of us.

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left

[Chris]

On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>
> Altemeyer reoriented my thinking when he was able to
> condense the AP into just three, most-basic, traits--
> Aggression, Submission or hierarchy, and Conventionalism.
> These traits are expressed consistently in the findings
> of Adorno, Milgram, and Zimbardo.
>
> It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
> arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
>

> ...

>
> It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also
> known as the narcissistic personality, who is the main
> danger--to all of us.

The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
and RWA. You can read their finding here:-

Social Dominance, p. 74 : http://preview.tinyurl.com/5oywcy

It's a fine point though, e.g. intra-group aggression vs.
inter-group aggression (SDO).

I'll get back to you on Hare's definition of psychopathy later.
I'm dubious about the links to narcissism, but the use of the
term seems to vary.

[rosenhw]

Thanks a bunch Chris

I will get to this book soon. I realize the three personalities differ in detail.
But all three involve the kinds of behavior that bedevils the rest of us. It
is these behaviors I am concerned about. Deductive research rarely explains
more than 30% or so of the total variance, and can be as low as 4% and
still be "significant." For this reason it rarely can prove much of anything to
the degree needed. It can illustrate what is likely the irrelevant issues. For
these statements, I am coming from the statistics employed, the best we
have, are simply not definitive enough for real guidance.

My current take is that no matter how one defines these syndromes, together
they account for most of the violence we suffer. We need to study that 1-4%,
depending on who is writing about them, to make effective progress. Even
that won't be easy, statistical precision being what it is. Hare, Frank and Stout
have written about this angle. What they say supports the take I make. For sure
the ending story will not be simple--if we ever get to see it.

What is it in their genomes (nature) and upbringing (nurture) that makes the
"radical APa" behave as they do? Answer this in even an incomplete way
analytically, and we can start making progress. At least that is my hope and
expectation.

Our prison population of violent offenders could be an excellent, ready-made,
cohort in terms of behavior patterns. The basic independent variables of nature
and nurture correlated with degrees and types of violence could be a starting
experimental plan. Factor Analysis could provide some guidance, after
a year or two of grouping for the right vocabulary and definitions perhaps.

Thanks again for your effort.. I look forward to filling out my library.

Harry

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left

[Bob Thompson]

You guys know way more about this than I do, so this is interesting for me, and I'm trying to get up to speed a little bit on this area of research. Evolutionary psychology seems a pretty speculative area at this point in time. What I'm wondering is, how could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved, or what their social structure was? There's a huge gap between now and then. Even studying modern primitive tribes wouldn't necessarily tell us how things worked back then. I don't doubt that the instinct of aggression would have played a role in natural selection. But mammals generally don't engage in violence with their own species unless they have a compelling reason, usually competition for turf, mates, whatever. It seems that for most species, aggression usually isn't triggered until it's needed, and avoided whenever possible, because it's risky. Population density in a particular region would be a dominant factor in how much conflict would actually occur, hence how much natural selection would actually result in a trend toward more aggressive specimens. My impression is that population density wasn't that much of a concern for early man, correct me if I'm wrong. Of course the instinct would always be there if needed. But it's a precarious thing to speculate about how these early people in the wild would have organized themselves, and how they behaved; particularly viewed through the lens of the current human experience, in which population density and competition for resources is often a concern; not to mention that modern man seems to invent a lot of reasons for killing each other, not really related to survival at all. I guess I need to see more evidence that primitives 100,000 years or so in the past were so violent, as seems to be presented. Couldn't one just as easily speculate that the advent of civilization resulted in an increase in violent behavior of the species?

[bluepilgrim]

Blue}
Some of this is talked about in the videos at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark   -- a rather good conference. One area of research in the brain, both in humans and other species, including areas linked to behaviors and neurochemicals, and some extrapolations done with that information.

[Bob Thompson]

I guess it's gonna take awhile to sort this out. I found one guy who has distilled what I'd rather believe for the most part, if I was still capable of believing what I'd prefer to be the truth, which I'm not:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/02/28.html

Since he was so quick to dismiss Pinker's book, that might be an excellent starting point for me. I guess what this inquiry boils down to, for my obscure, ineffectual little life, is deciding whether the species is worth attempting to salvage. At this point in time I see no reason for optimism. The main objective of Pinker's book seems to be to destroy three gigantic illusions about human nature that still drive much of man's attempt to grapple with understanding himself: the blank slate, the noble savage, and the ghost in the machine. I'm long past the point of believing any of that crap, but examining the evidence amassed against it might be helpful.

[bluepilgrim]

I avoid 'believing' anything (it only makes me more prone to error), but I do have some opinions. One is that much of violence is the result of self-fulfilling prophesy. In fact, so is much of many things. Peace and violence may well be largely bistable, each bringing on more of the same, especially taking child rearing practices based on parents' world views into account. I respect Pinker for his intellect and work, but I never did take him as being a great source of truth as regards his conclusions, biases, and context. I wonder about J.R.R. Tolkien's world, with men orcs and elves, (guess who the authoritarians are) and wonder if half the humans have now been largely mixed so they are half-orcs and the others half elves -- seems as good an explanation for many things as long as we are doomed to invent abstract explanations (especially concerning "human nature").  I think I have met people who are more orc than human -- many of them politicians. (But even the 'good guys' in Tolkien are rather authoritarian and warlike -- probably the Manachean Christian influence.) Maybe we are nearing the end of the Third Age (the age of men)? This is an advantage of not believing things -- all sorts of metaphors and narratives become available.

One of the videos in that same Candles in the Dark conference (this is your brain on money sessions) is of Zimbardo talking about his new book on time frames, which also seems like a useful narrative (things like delayed gratification and thinking ahead). Maybe this, and authoritarianism, has a large genetic predispositional component. A thing to keep in mind, however, is that, apparently, we evolved to eat, reproduce, and not step into holes in the ground or bump into trees, not to manage large cooperative societies or understand the universe -- our biology works against that and we have to find ways to compensate for it, and include those into our cultures.


At 16:10 11/20/2008, you wrote:
Bob Thompson}

[Bob Thompson]

Yeah, Zimbardo's discovery does seem pretty darn significant, since the results of the experiment turned out to be such an accurate predictor of adult behavior. I saw his book on that in the psychology section of the bookstore the other day, but it didn't occur to me to buy it. The video was kind of a frustrating source for the information, since he was obviously flustered at having someone nagging him about going over his time limit, and started skipping stuff in the presentation... there's that "time" thing again.

[bluepilgrim]

There's a bit more at his web site  http://www.thetimeparadox.com/

[Chris]

On Nov 18, 11:12 pm, bluepilgrim <bluepilg...@grics.net> wrote:
> Blue}
> Some of this is talked about in the videos at
> http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark

> -- a rather good conference. ...

You have reminded me to drop in this half hour radio programme:-

Solomon Asch - Conformity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/mindchangers1.shtml

I though it was pretty good.

[Chris]

On Nov 17, 9:30 pm, Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems logical to me that each of these basic traits
> > arise naturally in Darwin's evolution:
>

> The dynamics of Darwinian aggression are covered well by
> social dominance theory. Its authors, Sidanius and Pratto,
> find distinctions between social dominance orientation (SDO)
> and RWA. You can read their finding here:-
>
> Social Dominance, p. 74 : http://preview.tinyurl.com/5oywcy
>
> It's a fine point though, e.g. intra-group aggression vs.
> inter-group aggression (SDO).

Actually, what they wrote was somewhat different:

"Conceptually, authoritarianism concerns submission to the
authority of the ingroup, whereas social dominance orientation
(SDO) concerns attitudes towards hierarchical relationships
between groups."

So the dynamics of aggression may be common to both theories,
although I recall a pertinent comment posted to this group by
Donald Stahl back on June 10th:

'... aggression within a tribe or pack promotes production
of healthy specimens more likely to survive to reproduce.
Aggression between tribes promotes dispersal of the species
over the globe.'

(At which point he recommends Lorenz' Foundations of Ethology.
This may be of interest to Bob in answering his question: "how

could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved,

or what their social structure was?" I haven't read it myself.)

[rosenhw]

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left

> Sent: 23 Nov '08 19:14
>
SNIP

>
> (At which point he recommends Lorenz' Foundations of Ethology.
> This may be of interest to Bob in answering his question: "how
> could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved,
> or what their social structure was?"  I haven't read it myself.)

Of course there can be no way to know how early man behaved.
But the aggression / submission paring is observed in species with
which we have concestors. Whether inherited or a later re-evolution,
it makes no difference to the fact that most of humanity is AP.
Our problems come not so much from the APs as from the extremes
APs who gain inordinate power and are without empathy or
conscience if Martha Stout is to be believed. The AP
is not democratic by nature, and this compounds our problems.

But the APs are mostly good people, accountants, doctors, airline
pilots are prime examples. Never mind that they can make life
miserable for others. Never mind that they often act like sheep in
the voting booth.

[Donald Stahl]

> > (At which point he recommends Lorenz' Foundations of Ethology.
> > This may be of interest to Bob in answering his question: "how
> > could Freud or anyone else possibly know how early man behaved,
> > or what their social structure was?"  I haven't read it myself.)
>
> Of course there can be no way to know how early man behaved.
> But the aggression / submission paring is observed in species with
> which we have concestors. Whether inherited or a later re-evolution,
> it makes no difference to the fact that most of humanity is AP.
 
 

This is an assertion which certainly gives pause. May I ask what its basis
is? Certainly nothing in Altemeyer suggests this.  

 
 
> Our problems come not so much from the APs as from the extremes
> APs who gain inordinate power and are without empathy or
> conscience if Martha Stout is to be believed.
 
 

May I also ask where Martha Stout makes this assertion, and what the grounds
are for it? Authoritarian personality is a trait, not a diagnosis of sociopathy.

 
 
>The AP
> is not democratic by nature, and this compounds our problems.
>
> But the APs are mostly good people, accountants, doctors, airline
> pilots are prime examples. Never mind that they can make life
> miserable for others. Never mind that they often act like sheep in
> the voting booth.

Donald E. Stahl
12079 Pattern Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63138-1938
USA
tel: 314-567-8845 
http://9-11.meetup.com/4/
 
"And people don't care. They look out the window, they see the sun shining, they. . . "it's not affecting my life." And they just press on. They just go on, aloof, like they don't, you know, that's all they care about is what's going on in their immediate, in their immediate world. They're not conscious of what's really going on, their neighbors, their, their, the world, for that matter. I just hope there's hope for mankind. I hope there's a disease." ----First Responder Kevin McPadden, in the video The Elephant in the Room
 
""I believe, in short, in the ultimate victory of truth. I know
that this sounds rather pompous, but I honestly do think it
is the most likely thing to happen."
---Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, pp. 287f.

Magna est veritas, et praevalebit.

> From: ros...@amargosa.net
> To: theautho...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:47:49 +0000
>
>
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> > Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left
> > Sent: 23 Nov '08 19:14
> >
> SNIP
> >
>

---

Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.

[Chris]

On Nov 16, 9:12 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>
>

> It is the sociopath, also known as the psychopath, also known as
> the narcissistic personality, who is the main danger--to all of us.

I've just been checking Adorno's thoughts on this. He made some
distinctions between the orthodox authoritarian type and the 'tough
guy'/psychopath, although both are high scorers. Both APs?

On page 5 of Types and Syndromes: http://tinyurl.com/6k85wx

"A rough characterization of the several types [of syndromes found
among high scorers on the F-Scale] ... The Authoritarian type is
governed by the superego and has continuously to contend with
strong and highly ambivalent id tendencies. He is driven by the fear
of being weak. In the Tough Guy the repressed id tendencies gain
the upper hand, but in a stunted and destructive form."

And on page 10, regarding the psychopath:

"'This type has arisen with the increased insecurity of post-war
existence. He is convinced that what matters is not life but chance.
He is nihilistic, not out of a "drive for destruction" but because he
is indifferent to individual existence. ...'

"... Subjects of this type do not have as much rigidity as do those
who exhibit the orthodox "Authoritarian" syndrome.

"The extreme representative of this syndrome is the "Tough Guy,"
in psychiatric terminology the "Psychopath.""

[rosenhw]

Thanks Chris

Yes, there are fine distinctions. What I am looking for here are the
types sharing aggression, hierarchy, and conventionalism. These
traits are sufficient to explain our violent sides as arising from
our endowed instincts, or genetics. The "SPN" types seem to be
primary instigators of large-scale violence. And they can be known
by their early-life behavior. Instead of channeling them in safe
directions after recognition, we hide from their signals to our later
regret. "W" is just the most recent example; the costs he incurred
are too huge to ignore. At least so it seems to me.

Harry
roadtopeace.org

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left

[Chris]

On Nov 29, 9:18 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, there are fine distinctions. What I am looking for here are

> the types sharing aggression, hierarchy, and conventionalism. ...

I'll pursue the topic of aggression a bit later. For now, here are
some notes on DSM cluster B.

> The "SPN" types ...

>>> the sociopath... the psychopath... the narcissistic personality

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder


Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder
defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as "a
pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of
empathy."

DSM-IV divides personality disorders into three clusters based on
symptom similarities. This clustering categorizes the Narcissistic
personality disorder as a cluster B personality disorder, those
personality disorders having in common an excessive sense of self
importance. Also in that cluster are the Borderline personality
disorder, the Histrionic personality disorder and the Antisocial
personality disorder.


Hare's Psychopathy Checklist (1991) found the following:

http://tinyurl.com/psychopathychecklist


Correlations Between Prototypicality Ratings of DSM-III Disorders
and Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) Scores


PCL Scores
DSM-III
prototypicality ratings Total Factor 1 Factor 2


Histrionic .33 .37 .27

Narcissistic .39 .49 .24

Antisocial .71 .40 .83


This tells me psychopathy is more about antisocial personality
disorder than narcissism.

[rosenhw]

Thanks Chris

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left

[Chris]

On Nov 30, 9:09 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
> Thanks Chris
>
>
> >  -------Original Message-------
> >  From: Chris <tilt...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>
> >  Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: What's left
> >  Sent: 30 Nov '08 10:53
>
> >  On Nov 29, 9:18 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:
>
> >  > Yes, there are fine distinctions. What I am looking for here are
> >  > the types sharing aggression, hierarchy, and conventionalism. ...
>

> >  I'll pursue the topic of aggression a bit later.  ...

Preliminary items about aggression:

(Hobbes, Rousseau -- pretty much the same in the end)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026823.800-how-warfare-shaped-human-evolution.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ft5nv/Natural_World_Clever_Monkeys/

[Chris]

In further consideration of "the types sharing aggression, hierarchy,
and conventionalism", the resort to aggression can be explained by
a lack of integration and superficiality of civilized behaviours,
which simultaneously explain rigidity and conventionalism.

The basic mode of human aggression - which may be contrasted with
more deliberative, instrumental aggression - is normally held in check
by the inhibitory social instincts, reinforced by civilized culture.

Among humans, the inhibitory social instincts are not as strong as
amongst the naturally more formidably equipped creatures such as
tigers, who need strong instincts to prevent them killing their fellow
tigers. Human fists are not as deadly as claws and sharp teeth.

"No selection pressure arose in the prehistory of mankind to breed
[such] inhibitory mechanisms..." Lorenz - http://tinyurl.com/8sob2n

So humans rely on civilized culture to instill social behaviour. Like
language this is cultural, not instinctive, and just as poor language
impairs comprehension so too can poorly taught civilized values fail
to curb wild aggression.

If civilized values are not understood and integrated by the learning
individual, they are held in a fragmented and superficial manner,
which can easily fail. Even while it stands it impairs quality of
life by obstructing self-understanding and causing rigidity.

Such rigidity can be understood in accordance with the basic
authoritarian model, or via Alford's sophisticated view on narcissism
in which the fragmented psyche perceives its narcissistic wound (by
self-comparison against others more able or wholesome), and shores
up its self-image by identification with a power base.

On Nov 29, 9:18 pm, "rosenhw" <rose...@amargosa.net> wrote:

> Thanks Chris
>
> [...] What I am looking for here are the types sharing aggression,

> hierarchy, and conventionalism. These traits are sufficient to
> explain our violent sides as arising from our endowed instincts,

> or genetics. ...

[Alastair McGowan]

With regard to the way that civilisation interacts with aggression I am not
sure that 'humans rely on civilized culture to instill social behaviour'.

We know that remaining hunter-gatherer and pastoral societies manage
aggression no worse than do civilised societies. Yet there is a difference
between civilised societies and the former categories. Civilised societies,
societies that have highly extended hierarchical structure, highly
diversified division of labour, and often highly abstract socio-economic
processes, tend to be mediated by abstract methods of control such as
ideology. This is the process of alienation that Marx referred to.

Civilised societies, through their abstractedness and broad ecological
disconnectedness, may be able to reduce aggression by ideology and social
conditioning, but instinctual drives bubble below the surface. This may be
why the politically astute know that feeding mouths helps them to keep
control. When people are hungry they revolt against the conditioning, reject
the ieologies, and all manner of violence erupts - from gangs on the streets
to warfare. A question rises as to whether this violence incivilisation is
of a different degree to that experienced

A further problem with civilisation is that its cities require every
increasing importation of resources - this leads to territorial disputes
between nations - land grabbing warfare or its more subtle 'globalised
economics' to me no more than a euphemism for theft under threat of war.

I posit that civilised societies may have evolved personality traits
including authoritarianism, that amplify instinctual drives. We know that
business leaders (ie, capitalism from the agricultural revolution 10000
years ago to the present) are more likely to be psychopathic than the
average, so too with politicians.

These groups in civilised society (often dynastic due to the ability to
hoard material resources and build alliances of control, and increase power
over generations), these are the ones who tend to control and manipulate
well (see definition of psychopathy), we vote for politicians who do this
because they are good at it, corporations and military promote people who
are good at it, and those people benefit most from the processes of
civilisation. They cannot easily be deposed by the young bucks of the tribe.


An evolution may have occurred within civilisation, an evolution of state or
trait personality drives towards excessive control and manipulation of
excessive hierarchies. You then have a large mass of society who have no
control over their society, their social sustenance, and they get upset.
This increased distinction between haves and have nots cannot contune for
ever without changing the psychology of individuals within civilised
societies.

I have found no cross-cultural research on authoritarianism, psychopathy,
autism, and narcissitic personality types between kinds of society, it would
be very insteresting to see such. A question that arises: Do hunter-gatherer
societies have lesser scores on these personalities (traits) than civilised
societies?

Alastair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: theautho...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:theautho...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: 30 December 2008 12:42
> To: The Authoritarians

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1868 - Release Date:
> 29/12/2008 10:48

[rosenhw]

Thanks Kris

Is it OK if I use this on roadtopeace.org?

Harry

> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>

[Chris]

That's ok by me.

[Chris]

On Dec 30 2008, 1:33 pm, Alastair McGowan wrote:
>
> With regard to the way that civilisation interacts with
> aggression I am not sure that 'humans rely on civilized culture
> to instill social behaviour'.
>
> We know that remaining hunter-gatherer and pastoral societies
> manage aggression no worse than do civilised societies. Yet
> there is a difference between civilised societies and the former
> categories. Civilised societies, societies that have highly
> extended hierarchical structure, highly diversified division of
> labour, and often highly abstract socio-economic processes,
> tend to be mediated by abstract methods of control such as
> ideology. This is the process of alienation that Marx referred to.

This reminds me of something Alford wrote in "Narcissism:
Socrates, the Frankfurt School, and Psychoanalytic Theory",
1988, pages 105-106:

"Dialectic of Enlightenment was written during World War II
and published in 1947. It seeks to explain how fascism could
develop within a nation that was apparently the embodiment of
the Enlightenment. There must be something terribly shallow
and vulnerable about Enlightenment ideals, Horkheimer and
Adorno suggest, if they could be displaced so easily by the
myths of national socialism. Horkheimer and Adorno trace this
vulnerability back to a flaw at the core of Western reason itself.
The flaw is that Western reason is unable to carve out a midpoint
between idealism and materialism. Reason and its objects are
divided into two spheres. Ideals, values, ethics, and so forth are
removed to the abstract realm of the intellect and the spirit,
where, like religion, which is an instance of these ideals, they are
applauded in the abstract. However, precisely because they
come to be seen as an expression of our higher selves, they are
split off from everyday life ... Reason comes to be defined in
terms of a single task: prediction and control of the given."

I.e. as instrumental reason.

> Civilised societies, through their abstractedness and broad
> ecological disconnectedness, may be able to reduce aggression
> by ideology and social conditioning, but instinctual drives
> bubble below the surface.

It seems Horkheimer and Adorno's method was to address and
remedy the "abstractedness and broad ecological
disconnectedness".

[Chris]

On Dec 30 2008, 1:33 pm, Alastair McGowan wrote:
>

> Civilised societies, through their abstractedness and broad
> ecological disconnectedness, may be able to reduce aggression
> by ideology and social conditioning, but instinctual drives
> bubble below the surface. This may be why the politically
> astute know that feeding mouths helps them to keep
> control. When people are hungry they revolt against the

> conditioning, reject the ideologies, and all manner of violence

> erupts - from gangs on the streets to warfare. A question rises

> as to whether this violence in civilisation is of a different

> degree to that experienced
>
> A further problem with civilisation is that its cities require
> every increasing importation of resources - this leads to
> territorial disputes between nations - land grabbing warfare or
> its more subtle 'globalised economics' to me no more than a
> euphemism for theft under threat of war.
>
> I posit that civilised societies may have evolved personality
> traits including authoritarianism, that amplify instinctual
> drives.

I would say modern societies have acquired a reasoning
disability that has fostered authoritarianism and amplified
instinctual drives (of the wild variety).

Perhaps it has even been encouraged. "A really good education
makes kids subversive. That's why so little really good education
goes on." (Chris Satullo, Inquirer columnist)

Resource competition doesn't help; economic surplus doesn't
seem to either:

"Societies producing substantial and stable economic surplus …
are also those that have arbitrary-set systems of social hierarchy.
Because of economic surplus, not all adults need to devote most
of their time to food procurement and survival. Certain males
are then freed to specialize in the arts of coercion (e.g.
warlordism, policing) or spiritual and intellectual sophistry."
(Sidanius & Pratto, Social Dominance, 1999, page 35)

[Chris]

On Dec 30 2008, 1:33 pm, Alastair McGowan wrote:
>

> An evolution may have occurred within civilisation, an
> evolution of state or trait personality drives towards excessive
> control and manipulation of excessive hierarchies.

Certainly a reasoning deficit could evolve culturally, with some
circumstances more likely to encourage it than others.

[bluepilgrim]

Compare the Marxist theory of overproduction (see
http://www.marxmail.org/faq/overproduction.htm
for example). In a capitalist society,
overproduction inevitably leads class warfare,
mal-distribution of wealth (and power), and
boom/bust cycles. In capitalism, economic
surplus is gobbled up by the those who own the
capital and means of production while the workers
get exploited and laid off in the pursuit of
profits. The workers lose power not just because
some people are freed specialize in the arts of
coercion but because they become redundant as
efficiency is increased through new technology
and exploitation resulting from competition.
Capitalism, in this way, is inherently authoritarian.

At 16:22 1/4/2009, you wrote:

>On Dec 30 2008, 1:33 pm, Alastair McGowan wrote:

[...]

[Alastair McGowan]

> I would say modern societies have acquired a reasoning
> disability that has fostered authoritarianism and amplified
> instinctual drives (of the wild variety).
>
> Perhaps it has even been encouraged. "A really good education
> makes kids subversive. That's why so little really good education
> goes on." (Chris Satullo, Inquirer columnist)
>
> Resource competition doesn't help; economic surplus doesn't
> seem to either:
>

> "Societies producing substantial and stable economic surplus .

> are also those that have arbitrary-set systems of social hierarchy.
> Because of economic surplus, not all adults need to devote most
> of their time to food procurement and survival. Certain males
> are then freed to specialize in the arts of coercion (e.g.
> warlordism, policing) or spiritual and intellectual sophistry."
> (Sidanius & Pratto, Social Dominance, 1999, page 35)

You seem to have discovered the kinds of argument that exemplify a
perspective which brought me to Altemeyer's work - one that is understood by
so many but seldom explicitly articulated: Authoritarianism and aggression
seem to be as much social constructs as they are innate - and it seems
likely that there is an evolutionary interaction between nature and nurture
on this one as there is in so much of human behaviour.

I offer another area of insight that supports this view: I came to the area
of authoritarianism via cognitive psychology (my phd). In short, functional
consciousness (what we might call instrumental reason) appears to be highly
interwoven with and perhaps interdependent upon literate culture and
thinking. We find it very hard to escape from thinking about the world other
than through a classical-hierarchical-control mental structure which is
imposed through words - literatism; Received Wisdom. The Sufis have
recognised this for a thousand years and their mystic forbears - perhaps
since the beginning of civilisation structures. The Sufis have a spiritual
overview of mind-controlling religions - their view is an anarchistic
inner-authority vision independent of literate language: The Feminine
Principle. This seems to be why they have always worked underground and
anonymously and in code, as they continue to do. See Idries Shah, The Sufis.
Their view on hierarchical civilisation is expressed very well by Daniel
Quinn in his novel Ishmael (he has also come to the same point
independently).

The literate culture that drives 'civ' and authoritarian thinking is almost
orthogonal to direct perception and real experience. This is (IMHO) why
direct perception enhancing drugs (LSD, mushrooms, cannabis, and other
structure fragmenting psychoactives) are so distrusted and feared by
authoritarians - they are subversive to control thinking. The inner
authority that they nurture is subversive to imposed external authority that
hierarchical culture (civilisation) needs. For a critique of
civilisation-hierarchy structure see Derrick Jensen (e.g. Endgame: The
Problem of Civilisation). Power and control through external authority needs
hierarchy. Anything else (inner authority) is subversive and will be stamped
out ruthlessly, through education, through law and concepts of criminality -
unless as you point out, if the person is of the class 'one of us' and
'worthy of responsibility' in which case they may be admitted to the club of
'illuminati' and given a good education and good social positions where they
may be given the keys of control. Anyone else gets the brainwashing we so
foten see instead of education and empowerment. That brainwashing prepares a
person for a lifetime of brainwashing through the media filter of culture.

There is a light at the end of this story though: Mass peer to peer
communication. Can you see the possibilities?

Alastair

[rosenhw]

If we mean social evolution, the development of the many economic, governance, religious, and etc differences may
be that speciation process. Will only the fittest societies survive? Will they be the ones who manage the mix of the
above to best advantage? Given that humanity can now extinguish itself, but no all life, will peaceful coexistence ever
happen? Will the most adaptable survive as Darwin would have it? Or will it be something else? Is peaceful
coexistence even a possible goal?

Harry


> -------Original Message-------
> From: Chris <til...@windmills.freeserve.co.uk>

> Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: Civilization, hunter-gatherer, and pastoral societies
> Sent: 04 Jan '09 18:09
>
>
> On Dec 30 2008, 1:33 pm, Alastair McGowan wrote:
> >

[Chris]

On Dec 30 2008, 12:42 pm, Chris wrote:
>
> Among humans, the inhibitory social instincts are not as strong
> as amongst the naturally more formidably equipped creatures
> such as tigers, who need strong instincts to prevent them
> killing their fellow tigers. Human fists are not as deadly as
> claws and sharp teeth.
>
> "No selection pressure arose in the prehistory of mankind to
> breed [such] inhibitory mechanisms..." Lorenz -
> http://tinyurl.com/8sob2n
>

> So humans rely on civilized culture to instil social behaviour.

Since the above link to Google Books no longer shows the page in
question the relevant section is quoted below:

"Anthropologists concerned with the habits of Australopithecus
have repeatedly stressed that these hunting progenitors of man
have left humanity with the dangerous heritage of what they
term 'carnivorous mentality'. This statement confuses the
concept of the carnivore and the cannibal which are, to a large
extent, mutually exclusive. One can only deplore the fact that
man has definitely not got a carnivorous mentality! All his
trouble arises from his being a basically harmless, omnivorous
creature, lacking in natural weapons with which to kill big prey,
and, therefore, also devoid of the built-in safety devices which
prevent 'professional' carnivores from abusing their killing power
to destroy fellow-members of their own species. A lion or a wolf
may, on extremely rare occasions, kill another by one angry
stroke, but, as I have already explained in the chapter on
behaviour mechanisms functionally analogous to morality, all
heavily armed carnivores possess sufficiently reliable inhibitions
which prevent the self-destruction of the species.

"In human evolution, no inhibitory mechanisms preventing
sudden manslaughter were necessary, because quick killing was
impossible anyhow; the potential victim had plenty of
opportunity to elicit the pity of the aggressor by submissive
gestures and appeasing attitudes. No selection pressure arose in
the prehistory of mankind to breed inhibitory mechanisms
preventing the killing of conspecifics until, all of a sudden, the
invention of artificial weapons upset the equilibrium of killing
potential and social inhibitions. When it did, man's position was
very nearly that of a dove which, by some unnatural trick of
nature, has suddenly acquired the beak of a raven. One shudders
at the thought of a creature as irascible as all pre-human primates
are swinging a well-sharpened hand-axe. Humanity would
indeed have destroyed itself by its first inventions, were it not
for the very wonderful fact that inventions and responsibility are
both the achievements of the same specifically human faculty of
asking questions."

(Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, 1963, Pages 233-234)

[Henry See]

Thanks for the entire quote.

I see one problem with this idea. It ignores that there are, in fact, a portion of the human population who will never be influenced by the actions described here:

"the potential victim had plenty of opportunity to elicit the pity of the aggressor by submissive gestures and appeasing attitudes"

These are individuals who are carnivores among the omnivores, doves who have indeed grown beaks, but whose beaks are invisible permitting them to pass unnoticed among the rest of the population. Of course, I am referring to the psychopath, a being without conscience. The "submissive gestures and appeasing attitudes" described above will only accentuate the pleasure taken by the psychopath while he toys with his prey.

I think there is a fundamental difference between an act of violence committed in a moment of extreme emotion and the cold and calculated violence of the psychopath, of war, or of the implementation of economic policies that lead to the misery of an entire country's population, the type of policy so well documented in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.

Henry

[Alastair McGowan]

And as we know, psychopaths are over-represented among political and business leaders. These tiers of the extended social hierarchy of civilisation attract this trait probably due to the potential to control, and over the course the development of civilisation it is possible that genetic factors have come into play to entrench this trait in this section of society. Under democracy these social manipulators have plenty of opportunity to dupe electorates in order to attain power and more importantly to mould a social order in which control (implicit violence) is invisible.

 

The Shock Doctrine is just one of the manipulations a psychopathic leadership would use – others are the various subtle messages (only a few are born to have the responsibility of control) and the assumptions they are built upon (e.g. Leviathan), and way back to the classical thinking that reified a sense of the objective (and hence the controllable) into a subjective world in flux. Hence we have a conception of an education system in which self-actualisation is actively expunged in favour of a culture of subservience to others and their ideas, the giants whose shoulders we all stand upon. There is no evidence that a non-hierarchical power based system would have faired any worse than what we have now, there is no evidence that capitalism and ‘the economy’ (whatever that is) have provided any greater benefits than for instance anarcho-syndicalism, and yet we are wedded to the inviolable idea of empire (big is beautiful) supposedly for the benefit of all. Derrick Jensen (e.g. Endgame) explores how the culture of abuse (against people and planet) has grown under civilisation – and how it could be more effectively ameliorated under socieites of localised control where the chief can be more easily deposed by the young bucks, democracy wrestled back from the hands of the authoritarians and psychopaths.

 

Alastair

 

---

From: theautho...@googlegroups.com [mailto:theautho...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Henry See

Sent: 10 January 2009 21:43
To: theautho...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [theauthoritarians] Re: Civilization

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 10/01/2009 18:01

[Chris]

On Jan 11, 9:20 am, Alastair McGowan wrote:

> Hence we have a conception of an education system in which
> self-actualisation is actively expunged in favour of a culture of
> subservience to others and their ideas, the giants whose
> shoulders we all stand upon.

Seems to me authoritarianism is actually the default, and needs
no favouring to manifest. This would be due to the instincts
formed in the primal horde, many thousands of years in the
making.

Chris

[bluepilgrim]

It's parents -- having parents, and grandparents. Authoritarianism is
something for kids to grow out of, and many do not.

[Alastair McGowan]

Authoritarianism as a default would seem to be highly likely.

The real issue to me is a scale problem. In some forms of social
organisation (human scale groups where all can be personally known to all)
authoritarianism seems to be subsumed within the principle of legitimate or
consensual authority. In greater than human scale groups authoritarianism no
longer serves the interest of the group since the authority loses its
'grass-roots' legitimacy.

Alastair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: theautho...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:theautho...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: 11 January 2009 23:28
> To: The Authoritarians

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1887 - Release Date:
> 11/01/2009 17:57