The last section dealing with authoritarianism brought to mind Paradise Lost.
Would we rather rule in hell, a violent state with the chance to enslave/be enslaved, or serve in heaven, the peaceful state of being content with the wife of your youth?
The communist party advertises egalitarianism to the masses, but the ruthless know that they will become true alphas. Thus they will do whatever it takes to erect the workers’ paradise - with themselves in “temporary” control.
Constitutional democracy says that each can rest under his own vine and his own fig tree - as long as he keeps his rifle handy and his powder dry. The ruthless will, of course, try to gain control. But faced with a multitude of independent, powerful and free individuals the ruthless will have very small fiefdoms.
Thank you for this superb summary, it's fascinating. I remember studying an anthropology module at University in 2008, and this was exactly what I would've liked to have learned. Instead then they spent 3 months of lectures meta-analysing if anyone could even accurately assess another culture due to subjectivity and bias, and this is what I had to write essays on. If I'd had you leading class then, maybe I'd have followed a different career path.
A Marx scholar told me some time ago that at the end of his life, Marx had assembled 800 pages of notes from reading contemporary studies of "primitive socieities." Reportedly he was grappling with your conclusion.
My own take is that communism works very well at the squad or platoon level, but beyond a company-sized element (Dunbar's number) it becomes quite difficult to ensure uniformity (i,e, equality) of equipment, kit, etc without hierarchies.
Island societies and hamlets can succeed as communisms because they are small. Aristotle knew of examples. Beyond this scale, however, inequality is inevitable, and new social adaptations become necessary.
Great post, really well-researched and stated. I think this serves as a sort-of left-wing counterpart to Hanania's "Why Do I Hate Pronouns More Than Genocide?" essay. As a left-winger, I can say that inequality bothers me on a human level, and I think it is a driving force towards a variety of left-wing politics.
I'd push back on your last section. Communist regimes failed to put in place a system to realize humans' egalitarian instincts. But that egalitarian desire is reflected in all kinds of political philosophies - American democracy, founded on a disdain for monarchy. Social democracy (even in America, universal schooling, social security, and Medicare aren't going anywhere). Modern conservatism draws a lot of its energy from a disdain of a cultural, educational elite. Much of your (well-deserved) success stems from America's love of a "started from the bottom" story, which I think speaks to our aversion to a class hierarchy.
"We humans are innately attracted to political “deals” that allege to free us from domination and exploitation. Such a deal is naturally attractive, because we are inclined to resent authority."
I see political philosophy as a debate over the best "deal," that can provide technological progress and frees us from domination and exploitation.
This was a really interesting post! I think these perspectives need to be incorporated into more contemporary psychology research. I especially liked the coda linking these findings with the persistent interest in Marxism among some part of the population.
Two thoughts:
1. The idea that we have competing motivations for sex that always leave people somewhat unsatisfied reminds me of Freud's claims that civilization always leaves people's ids at least somewhat unfulfilled, which is an ongoing source of human distress.
2. I don't follow the claims about strong vs. weak situations and the Big Five. The two traits that are recovered in natural language studies resemble Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, so Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness are all missing. You made the case that there are strong situational presses for C and A, and that would suggest that there should be less variability in those traits, which in turn would make it less likely to recover those traits in lexical studies. But those are the traits recovered in those studies. I guess I have always assumed that N and O at least are missing in these studies and C and A are found because people have fewer opportunities to display N- and O-relevant behavior and more opportunities to display C- and A-relevant behavior. Does that make sense?
My perspective on the answer to the perplexing question on the reason for the astounding success of the Great Experiment is that it had supported a pursuit of human hierarchy based primarily on the demonstrated skills and outcomes for productivity. The pursuit of self interest benefiting the whole because that pursuit was directed to activities that both benefited the individual AND the whole.
My perspective for why the Great Experiment is now failing is that we have drifted from this and more often award hierarchical power to those lacking demonstrated skills and outcomes for productivity.
The egalitarians exploit the failures to blame the previous when it is their non-productive pursuit of hierarchical power that has caused the failure.
Tocqueville and others were perplexed by the chaotic scene of America that resulted in so much success and progress. I think this has been the missing point of that assessment. It is largely hidden in the deeper analysis... but maybe the most important part. A market-based system of laws where hierarchical pursuit and achievement was based primarily on demonstrated ability to produce and thus being open to every man, apposed to any other hierarchy control that would tend to block and lock out people lacking connections regardless of their ability to contribute to a productive society.
> It’s not so much that humans love equality. It’s that we resent being subordinated. Humans tend to have a hair trigger sensitivity to being put down.
On one hand the article says this only for the men in these tribes. Then it's said for humanity as a whole. It would be interesting if women have the same preference. This is because even if a woman is in a subordinate position she will reproduce. This is not the same for men. Women being in the dominant role does not guarantee them greater fitness. I suspect the relation is reversed. Do you know of any studies that have investigated these connections?
Where do tribes like the Mongols fit in here? They were hierarchical and had khans. They were nomadic pastoralists so weren’t exactly hunter-gatherers so perhaps the article doesn’t apply to them?
Really great post, Rob. Would you consider compiling a reading list by topic (e.g., anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, etc) for someone wanting to learn more about human nature?
I believe that no matter how this shakes out it will be part of the story of human behavior, because anything this widespread has to have considerable reward mechanisms for tribes that employ it, and a genetic foundation that at least easily permits this, even if it does not dictate it.
However, I think it is dangerous to generalise from what current H-G's do to what they must have done in earlier times. The situations are not the same, because most of humanity is not H-G and the rest of us take up the best real estate. That lifestyle is practiced by those who have been pushed to the margins, know they will never be able to expand territory much nor become comfortably prosperous. There were pre-European contact tribes in the Pacific Northwest, for example, that had found very comfortable niches without much population pressure and were quite hierarchical even though they were hunter-gatherers. What we are seeing now may be the strategy that humans use when pushed to the wall long enough to build their culture around it.
This goes well with Robin Hanson's chapter in the Elephant in the Brain on the origins and purpose of laughter. A spontaneous utterance to signal that you are ok, seems like it is a signal both to others and yourself. And it also explains my own common tic of smiling when nervous. I never contemplated the psychological roots and its depth in history.
Thanks Rob, this is an excellent summary. I’ve been working my way through Boehm's book somewhat slowly and was wondering if I’d lost some of the threads.
Rob Henderson does it again. Fabulous article. I watched many of these dynamics play out recently on my condo board.
The last section dealing with authoritarianism brought to mind Paradise Lost.
Would we rather rule in hell, a violent state with the chance to enslave/be enslaved, or serve in heaven, the peaceful state of being content with the wife of your youth?
The communist party advertises egalitarianism to the masses, but the ruthless know that they will become true alphas. Thus they will do whatever it takes to erect the workers’ paradise - with themselves in “temporary” control.
Constitutional democracy says that each can rest under his own vine and his own fig tree - as long as he keeps his rifle handy and his powder dry. The ruthless will, of course, try to gain control. But faced with a multitude of independent, powerful and free individuals the ruthless will have very small fiefdoms.
Thank you for this superb summary, it's fascinating. I remember studying an anthropology module at University in 2008, and this was exactly what I would've liked to have learned. Instead then they spent 3 months of lectures meta-analysing if anyone could even accurately assess another culture due to subjectivity and bias, and this is what I had to write essays on. If I'd had you leading class then, maybe I'd have followed a different career path.
A Marx scholar told me some time ago that at the end of his life, Marx had assembled 800 pages of notes from reading contemporary studies of "primitive socieities." Reportedly he was grappling with your conclusion.
My own take is that communism works very well at the squad or platoon level, but beyond a company-sized element (Dunbar's number) it becomes quite difficult to ensure uniformity (i,e, equality) of equipment, kit, etc without hierarchies.
Island societies and hamlets can succeed as communisms because they are small. Aristotle knew of examples. Beyond this scale, however, inequality is inevitable, and new social adaptations become necessary.
Great post, really well-researched and stated. I think this serves as a sort-of left-wing counterpart to Hanania's "Why Do I Hate Pronouns More Than Genocide?" essay. As a left-winger, I can say that inequality bothers me on a human level, and I think it is a driving force towards a variety of left-wing politics.
I'd push back on your last section. Communist regimes failed to put in place a system to realize humans' egalitarian instincts. But that egalitarian desire is reflected in all kinds of political philosophies - American democracy, founded on a disdain for monarchy. Social democracy (even in America, universal schooling, social security, and Medicare aren't going anywhere). Modern conservatism draws a lot of its energy from a disdain of a cultural, educational elite. Much of your (well-deserved) success stems from America's love of a "started from the bottom" story, which I think speaks to our aversion to a class hierarchy.
"We humans are innately attracted to political “deals” that allege to free us from domination and exploitation. Such a deal is naturally attractive, because we are inclined to resent authority."
I see political philosophy as a debate over the best "deal," that can provide technological progress and frees us from domination and exploitation.
This was a really interesting post! I think these perspectives need to be incorporated into more contemporary psychology research. I especially liked the coda linking these findings with the persistent interest in Marxism among some part of the population.
Two thoughts:
1. The idea that we have competing motivations for sex that always leave people somewhat unsatisfied reminds me of Freud's claims that civilization always leaves people's ids at least somewhat unfulfilled, which is an ongoing source of human distress.
2. I don't follow the claims about strong vs. weak situations and the Big Five. The two traits that are recovered in natural language studies resemble Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, so Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness are all missing. You made the case that there are strong situational presses for C and A, and that would suggest that there should be less variability in those traits, which in turn would make it less likely to recover those traits in lexical studies. But those are the traits recovered in those studies. I guess I have always assumed that N and O at least are missing in these studies and C and A are found because people have fewer opportunities to display N- and O-relevant behavior and more opportunities to display C- and A-relevant behavior. Does that make sense?
My perspective on the answer to the perplexing question on the reason for the astounding success of the Great Experiment is that it had supported a pursuit of human hierarchy based primarily on the demonstrated skills and outcomes for productivity. The pursuit of self interest benefiting the whole because that pursuit was directed to activities that both benefited the individual AND the whole.
My perspective for why the Great Experiment is now failing is that we have drifted from this and more often award hierarchical power to those lacking demonstrated skills and outcomes for productivity.
The egalitarians exploit the failures to blame the previous when it is their non-productive pursuit of hierarchical power that has caused the failure.
Tocqueville and others were perplexed by the chaotic scene of America that resulted in so much success and progress. I think this has been the missing point of that assessment. It is largely hidden in the deeper analysis... but maybe the most important part. A market-based system of laws where hierarchical pursuit and achievement was based primarily on demonstrated ability to produce and thus being open to every man, apposed to any other hierarchy control that would tend to block and lock out people lacking connections regardless of their ability to contribute to a productive society.
> It’s not so much that humans love equality. It’s that we resent being subordinated. Humans tend to have a hair trigger sensitivity to being put down.
On one hand the article says this only for the men in these tribes. Then it's said for humanity as a whole. It would be interesting if women have the same preference. This is because even if a woman is in a subordinate position she will reproduce. This is not the same for men. Women being in the dominant role does not guarantee them greater fitness. I suspect the relation is reversed. Do you know of any studies that have investigated these connections?
Would be fascinating to see how this analysis would pertain to matriarchal societies - though they are/were relatively few and far between.
Where do tribes like the Mongols fit in here? They were hierarchical and had khans. They were nomadic pastoralists so weren’t exactly hunter-gatherers so perhaps the article doesn’t apply to them?
Fascinating.
Really great post, Rob. Would you consider compiling a reading list by topic (e.g., anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, etc) for someone wanting to learn more about human nature?
Bravo
I believe that no matter how this shakes out it will be part of the story of human behavior, because anything this widespread has to have considerable reward mechanisms for tribes that employ it, and a genetic foundation that at least easily permits this, even if it does not dictate it.
However, I think it is dangerous to generalise from what current H-G's do to what they must have done in earlier times. The situations are not the same, because most of humanity is not H-G and the rest of us take up the best real estate. That lifestyle is practiced by those who have been pushed to the margins, know they will never be able to expand territory much nor become comfortably prosperous. There were pre-European contact tribes in the Pacific Northwest, for example, that had found very comfortable niches without much population pressure and were quite hierarchical even though they were hunter-gatherers. What we are seeing now may be the strategy that humans use when pushed to the wall long enough to build their culture around it.
“People Who Joke Are Not Frightening”
This goes well with Robin Hanson's chapter in the Elephant in the Brain on the origins and purpose of laughter. A spontaneous utterance to signal that you are ok, seems like it is a signal both to others and yourself. And it also explains my own common tic of smiling when nervous. I never contemplated the psychological roots and its depth in history.
Thanks Rob, this is an excellent summary. I’ve been working my way through Boehm's book somewhat slowly and was wondering if I’d lost some of the threads.