Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

[Doktor Howl]

So, any workable model for any large social structure, be it economics, politics, religion, what have you, should take into account:

1) different solutions for different problems
2) instability via complexity
3) alpha leader behaviors


So far, so good?

Yeah, that's about right.  The point that will be made in #2 (which, of course, comes after #3  ) is that our culture has reached its complexity limit, that no current models other than oligarchy or autocracy can even pretend to function in a post-republic period, and that given that, we are going to have to figure out how to get by - and even have a good time - in the mess that is on our doorstep.

However, it's impossible to have that discussion until people face some unpleasant facts about monkeys, how they operate, and what that will do to their pet theories.  In short, if a robust system becomes bogged down by complexity, replacing it with a less robust system isn't going to work...Note that oligarchies and autocracies are robust as hell for a limited period of time.  They look appealing as hell, when things are confusing.  What they give you, though, can be amply demonstrated by the Peron government of Argentina (to include the flash in the pan dictators that came between them and the republic that preceded their autocratic phase).

More about this tomorrow or Friday.  I'm a little too hot under the collar right now.

[LMNO]

Ok, now I'm curious how this is gonna be resolved.


LMNO
-needles and pins.

[Jasper]

Having read the OP, I am now extremely intrigued by Dok's #2.

Jokes aside, I plan to actually reread and attempt to learn in a permanent way, the content of the OP, so that I can actually bring it up and discuss it IRL with people.

[Doktor Howl]

Having read the OP, I am now extremely intrigued by Dok's #2.

Jokes aside, I plan to actually reread and attempt to learn in a permanent way, the content of the OP, so that I can actually bring it up and discuss it IRL with people.

#2 will be preceded by 1.5 (on the same day, maybe in the same thread), in which I will be creating a glossary, since one is evidently needed.  The English language has become too fucking malleable.  This should be fixed by stuffing live badgers down the pants of people who make up new words for old concepts, and who use words utterly incorrectly to score a point (for example, calling illegal immigration an "invasion" to justify military action).  Give them a pant load of claws and teeth.  That'll cure them.  Bastards.

[LMNO]

This just in!
Badgers have invaded my pance!
  \

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, there appears to be two stages of building complexity:

Stage 1 is the amout of entities involved in the system.  3 people pooling profits in a communal way works.  As you add more people, the complexity increases until a point is reached where communal sharing is no longer the best method.

Stage 2, by what I gleaned from Dok saying "Global economies and near-instant (or in the case of the Romans, paralyzingly slow) communications seem to be part of the problem," seems to be to be speed of communication.  That is, when communication is slow it necessasarily limits

Perhaps there is only one stage of building complexity, which is the amount of people involved.  Increases in technology and communication speeds make it possible for more people to become involved.  If it takes 3 months to send a message, then only a few people can make decisions or affect the process.  If it takes 3 seconds, then far more people can be involved.

So, a population of 300,000 with slow communication may have the same level of complexity as a population of 300, but as soon as you add fast communication, the complexity skyrockets.


Am I babbling, or does this fit?

I think there's multiple causes of complexity, but most of them are only significant in the minds of the population.  For example, the internet has allowed vast amounts of uncontrolled communication to take place.  Since humans are geared to a pack mentality, the idea that no alpha is in control of that communication bothers people a great deal.  Rather than deal with the situation internally or externally, they simply throw up their hands about it...but continue to worry, on a level that they don't even conscioulsy recognize.

Consider:  The forum Nazis we've run into at places like Deathbylollipops and CoG are obsessed with making everyone post in the same manner they do, in agreement with the ideas they are comfortable with, or they ban them.  This is an effort to impose the pack mentality on what they see as uncontrolled - and thus wrong - information.  Rather than process the information, or even - especially - allow "their people" to see/process it, they eliminate it.

Other examples would be globalization of the economy (we can't even predict or control our own economy, let alone a global one), or even arranging that everyone has access to vital services (hence the uproar over healthcare).  Far easier, instead, to listen to a demagogue with easy answers than to think things through on your own, given that each of these issues bothers the hell out of people, and there is literally no end to the issues.    

So, there should be a general point where an idea like "three people pool resources" turns into "alpha controls pack".

Can a point be identified where this occurs?

For most things, at 8 people, as far as I can see (anecdotal, personal observation of work crews and cabals, here.  I once saw a study that reached the same conclusion, but as I can't remember who did it - or even if it was peer reviewed - I'm just going to rest on observation).

But the fact remains that it DOES occur, and it doesn't take many people for the first level of alphas to form... As there are several levels, from the supervisor at your job, to the CEO, to various levels of political leaders.

Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.

That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.

Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?

[LMNO]

I would suggest that Obama is not the Alpha that controls the society...

[Doktor Howl]

Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.

That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.

Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?

Whether or not he would be an alpha in most societies is pretty much irrelevant, because the fact is, he's in our society, and he is an alpha...In fact, on the political side, he is the king-hell granddaddy alpha.

And no, I think that humans are happy with an apha, and they're not really all that concerned with how he is picked.  Arthur wasn't just valuable when there were Saxons to whack over the head, he - or rather the position - was even more important afterward.  Humans - at least the vast majority of them - NEED an alpha, whether real or imaginated, temporal or ideological.  Even you.  It's in the wiring.

[Doktor Howl]

I would suggest that Obama is not the Alpha that controls the society...

There isn't ONE who does.  There are dozens, probably hundreds.  The system is far too complicated for a single alpha to control, under the current scheme.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think this entire thread is going to wind up being pointless if people don't stop getting hung up on the (probably false) notion that there's a solution to this problem. If I understand the point so far, it's building to a conclusion of how to have your fun in spite of being confronted with an unsolvable problem.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.

That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.

Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?

Whether or not he would be an alpha in most societies is pretty much irrelevant, because the fact is, he's in our society, and he is an alpha...In fact, on the political side, he is the king-hell granddaddy alpha.

And no, I think that humans are happy with an apha, and they're not really all that concerned with how he is picked.  Arthur wasn't just valuable when there were Saxons to whack over the head, he - or rather the position - was even more important afterward.  Humans - at least the vast majority of them - NEED an alpha, whether real or imaginated, temporal or ideological.  Even you.  It's in the wiring.

Sure, I don't debate that point... my question was mostly on how it impacts the system. We're hardwired to have an alpha... but if the alpha doesn't take out the non-alphas that keep barking at him, does the hardwired system still accept him as an alpha? Or is the fact that dissent (other dogs barking and growling) is now accepted, create a diluting effect in the minds of the monkeys?

Art is King cause he'll beat the fuck out of our enemies and any motherfucker that tells him to fuck off.
Obama is President because a small majority of people picked him over McCain and Palin... and he likes to talk with enemies and smile and shake hands and tolerate dissent.

Do you think this difference creates a disconnect in the hard wiring? Or is 'alpha' code for  'I don't care who, someone lead me!'?


EDIT:

IE, if Art were President would we have Teabaggers...since they would presumably get hit in the head with Excalibur... or a .40 calibur ?

Do groups like Teabaggers have a hard wired need for a strong, barking, growling, pooping Alpha?

[Doktor Howl]

I think this entire thread is going to wind up being pointless if people don't stop getting hung up on the (probably false) notion that there's a solution to this problem. If I understand the point so far, it's building to a conclusion of how to have your fun in spite of being confronted with an unsolvable problem.

ECH wins the internet.  Sorry, Freeky. 

However, it's a little more complicated than that, and I'll wind up asking for all manner of input once I post the basic idea.

[Doktor Howl]

Hrmmm, this is a good point. So some forms of government seem to work like this... If there are 8 of you and Arthur is the one that keeps whacking the Romans and Picts on the head with a chunk of sharp metal, well the other seven stick a crown on his head and call him King. However, once we no longer have Romans or Picts as threats, 'Alpha' becomes a weird and unwieldy thing, I think. I mean, I think Obama is a fine President, but I don't think he would be considered an Alpha male in most societies, nor would GWB, or Clinton.... or most of the smarmy senators.

That is, most of these guys don't walk into a room and have people ready to follow their lead until they get the most votes. In tribal systems, often the Alpha Male is the Alpha Male because he acts like one, he leads like one and if some other monkey tries to buck him they have a one on one knock down drag out fight until one of them rolls over. The Alpha male is the leader because he exhibits the qualities of the leader, he can lead and he makes the rest of the tribe follow. Many of our Presidents and other politicans seem capable of getting votes from 51+% of the population, but that doesn't necessarily mean that can lead, or force the followers to follow.

Do you think this shift in how we select our Alphas has a negative effect on the political system?

Whether or not he would be an alpha in most societies is pretty much irrelevant, because the fact is, he's in our society, and he is an alpha...In fact, on the political side, he is the king-hell granddaddy alpha.

And no, I think that humans are happy with an apha, and they're not really all that concerned with how he is picked.  Arthur wasn't just valuable when there were Saxons to whack over the head, he - or rather the position - was even more important afterward.  Humans - at least the vast majority of them - NEED an alpha, whether real or imaginated, temporal or ideological.  Even you.  It's in the wiring.

Sure, I don't debate that point... my question was mostly on how it impacts the system. We're hardwired to have an alpha... but if the alpha doesn't take out the non-alphas that keep barking at him, does the hardwired system still accept him as an alpha? Or is the fact that dissent (other dogs barking and growling) is now accepted, create a diluting effect in the minds of the monkeys?

Art is King cause he'll beat the fuck out of our enemies and any motherfucker that tells him to fuck off.
Obama is President because a small majority of people picked him over McCain and Palin... and he likes to talk with enemies and smile and shake hands and tolerate dissent.

Do you think this difference creates a disconnect in the hard wiring? Or is 'alpha' code for  'I don't care who, someone lead me!'?


EDIT:

IE, if Art were President would we have Teabaggers...since they would presumably get hit in the head with Excalibur... or a .40 calibur ?

Do groups like Teabaggers have a hard wired need for a strong, barking, growling, pooping Alpha?

I think more than a few people have a real problem with an alpha that acts on the idea that a soft word and a sharp knife get you more than bellowing and swinging a club.

These people, as you say, fill the ranks of the teabaggers, and also the American Legion and other "nuke 'em all" clubs.

[Cain]

I would say that is also down to filters and perception.  Because for them, leaders are charismatic Heroic wish-fulfillment props for their shitty lives, they want someone who they can live through vicariously and who can engage in violent and idealist actions so that they stop being Office Slave #32 but instead part of the War on [Something], fighting bravely (on the home front, of course).

You can't do that with someone who engages in diplomacy and keeps their nastier covert actions silent, so those feelings of resentment and anger are transferred onto them as a proximate cause.

[Doktor Howl]

I would say that is also down to filters and perception.  Because for them, leaders are charismatic Heroic wish-fulfillment props for their shitty lives, they want someone who they can live through vicariously and who can engage in violent and idealist actions so that they stop being Office Slave #32 but instead part of the War on [Something], fighting bravely (on the home front, of course).

You can't do that with someone who engages in diplomacy and keeps their nastier covert actions silent, so those feelings of resentment and anger are transferred onto them as a proximate cause.

Right on the money.