Hierarchy is "hard-wired" into Human Brains

[JazzRemington]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=4712859&page=1

Basically, they did experiments and found that there are parts of the brain that activate when one is presented with a social hierarchy of some part. The article does mention that this does not mean that such parts of the brain create social hierarchies (i.e. that they aren't engraved in our brains) but rather the particular parts of the brain only respond or interpret social hierarchies.

[MarxSchmarx]

And remember, boys and girls, just because hierarchy might be "hardwired in" (more like accommodated by) our brains, doesn't mean it's OK.;)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Looks like the human brain just defeated the Left forever.

I'll take care of the press release. :crying:

[Holden Caulfield]

hierachy can work in communism, when i want something done like plumbing i would submit authority to a plumber, when he needs some glasses made i can do that for him and he will submit to my authority,

it can be ok, cant it?

[RedAnarchist]

The study was done by the US National Institute of Mental Health, which is part of the American Department of Health, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

[piet11111]

if i kick someone in the teeth i am sure that would trigger a neurological response.
i doubt that means that someone is liking it.

[Cult of Reason]

I am sure it must be neurotypicals only. :glare:

[Luís Henrique]

Beethoven was a better musician than Franz Léhar. Einstein was a more important scientist than Priestley. Pelé played football better than Gascoigne. Boris Spassky was a better chess player than Marshall. Etc.

This is not going to end with communism. I don't see the problem, as long as those who belong in the bottom of those hierarchies aren't denied the same life standard as those who are on the top.

Luís Henrique

[Kronos]

I didn't read the article yet but I think I can explain the point in very simple terms. If through inheritance, certain anatomical structures in the brain are passed down, those structures would be the result of evolutionary developments which occurred through generations of conditioning by hierarchical exposure. In the first couple years of life, the child is subjected to the hierarchy of the parents, and he literally evolves, neurologically, to incorporate certain senses of anticipation and expectation in parallel to his behavior. For example, the child wants a toy, but cannot have it unless he does a chore. The reward of getting the toy produces consonant feelings of pleasure, so the child adapts to the condition of submitting to the authority of the parent who demands he does a chore first. In this sense the brain adapts itself to the hierarchical structures to maintain a kind of chemical/hormonal stasis or equilibrium. A "cost/benefit" system refines itself, through experiencing similar, routine contexts of perform/reward, and the child becomes a "social" creature capable and willing to cooperate with others. He becomes civilized, rather than an unsympathetic machine.

As far as "hardwired" is concerned, I don't think it is that clear. Much of the conditioning occurs through nurturing rather than instinct, if you want to call it that. There are many variables involved in the context of developing habitual responses to any given circumstance. For example, that same child could refuse to do the chore and get his jollies some other way.

Anyway, I don't think hierarchies are bad things in human culture. People are not "equal", and have talents others people do not have. Society should be arranged around who has what talent, so that production is the most efficient.

[Severian]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=4712859&page=1

Basically, they did experiments and found that there are parts of the brain that activate when one is presented with a social hierarchy of some part. The article does mention that this does not mean that such parts of the brain create social hierarchies (i.e. that they aren't engraved in our brains) but rather the particular parts of the brain only respond or interpret social hierarchies.

So in other words, the study does not in fact mean that social hierarchy is hard-wired into the human brain.

Rather that the human brain is capable of functioning in social hierarchies. Which we already know, because we do that every day!

The article says: " if you've ever watched a group of dogs interact, you'll see that they have a social order,There's a "top dog" that's in charge, and the others know their place. "

Yes, humans as animals do have animal-type social hierarchy behavior.

Class society is something else. Bill Gates is not at the top of class society because he's good at threat displays or fighting. If he went to a public high school he probably would've been near the bottom of its dominance hierarchy.

I'd say this article is a good idea of the kind of crap science reporting, and sometimes crap pseudo-science studies, that are generated to justify the status quo.

Preconceptions are passed off as conclusions, and untestable "just so stories" are passed off as scientific theories.

In this case I don't know if it's the researcher's fault or the just the reporters'. There's definitely a lot of bad science reporting out there, since the reporters don't know much about science.

I'd suggest that anyone wanting to post a media article about a study or scientific finding try to search up the highest-quality media article you can. Google News is a good tool for this, and the New York Times is one of the better publications at science reporting. Also anything specializing in science reporting.

[Dean]

I didn't read the article yet but I think I can explain the point in very simple terms. If through inheritance, certain anatomical structures in the brain are passed down, those structures would be the result of evolutionary developments which occurred through generations of conditioning by hierarchical exposure. In the first couple years of life, the child is subjected to the hierarchy of the parents, and he literally evolves, neurologically, to incorporate certain senses of anticipation and expectation in parallel to his behavior. For example, the child wants a toy, but cannot have it unless he does a chore. The reward of getting the toy produces consonant feelings of pleasure, so the child adapts to the condition of submitting to the authority of the parent who demands he does a chore first. In this sense the brain adapts itself to the hierarchical structures to maintain a kind of chemical/hormonal stasis or equilibrium. A "cost/benefit" system refines itself, through experiencing similar, routine contexts of perform/reward, and the child becomes a "social" creature capable and willing to cooperate with others. He becomes civilized, rather than an unsympathetic machine.

As far as "hardwired" is concerned, I don't think it is that clear. Much of the conditioning occurs through nurturing rather than instinct, if you want to call it that. There are many variables involved in the context of developing habitual responses to any given circumstance. For example, that same child could refuse to do the chore and get his jollies some other way.

Anyway, I don't think hierarchies are bad things in human culture. People are not "equal", and have talents others people do not have. Society should be arranged around who has what talent, so that production is the most efficient.

A good point. The "hard-wired" portion of the brain could actually be a portion of the brain which refers to value judgements and social organization, or liberty, or any number of things. It is a consequence of a hierarchal society that the brain adapts to such conditions, and so to that the firing of neurons in a specific portion of the brain can characterize reference to such hierarchies - regardless of the predisposition one's brain might have to such stimuli. The only disposition that wouldn't respond is one of indifference - neural firing which relates to hierarchal social existence can be just as much a negative response as it can be positive.

In short, plenty of theoretical arguments fit the mold for what the brain is really responding to, and the study doesn't show in any way that the brain is naturally for - or against - social hierarchy.

[JazzRemington]

So in other words, the study does not in fact mean that social hierarchy is hard-wired into the human brain.

Rather that the human brain is capable of functioning in social hierarchies. Which we already know, because we do that every day!

The article says: " if you've ever watched a group of dogs interact, you'll see that they have a social order,There's a "top dog" that's in charge, and the others know their place. "

Yes, humans as animals do have animal-type social hierarchy behavior.

Class society is something else. Bill Gates is not at the top of class society because he's good at threat displays or fighting. If he went to a public high school he probably would've been near the bottom of its dominance hierarchy.

I'd say this article is a good idea of the kind of crap science reporting, and sometimes crap pseudo-science studies, that are generated to justify the status quo.

Preconceptions are passed off as conclusions, and untestable "just so stories" are passed off as scientific theories.

In this case I don't know if it's the researcher's fault or the just the reporters'. There's definitely a lot of bad science reporting out there, since the reporters don't know much about science.

I'd suggest that anyone wanting to post a media article about a study or scientific finding try to search up the highest-quality media article you can. Google News is a good tool for this, and the New York Times is one of the better publications at science reporting. Also anything specializing in science reporting.

I think they mean that there are specific regions of the brain that respond to hierarchical positions, which technically does seem to imply that at least responding to hierarchy is hard-wired. But as I said, and I think you're getting at, I am lead to believe that this is because we are taught to respond to hierarchies. I wonder, if possible, what would happen if they did the experiment on people who weren't taught to respond to hierarchy.

But I think the people who did this experiment were Social Psychologists, who seem to be notorious for conducting experiments for things that we already kind of know.

[BobKKKindle$]

hierachy can work in communism, when i want something done like plumbing i would submit authority to a plumber, when he needs some glasses made i can do that for him and he will submit to my authority,

This is not the same as hierarchy. Hierarchy is generally understood as a system of power relations, under which a social group (for example, the managerial staff of a workplace environment) is able to control the behavior of others, through a range of methods, including physical coercion, or the threat of penalties. What you describe (clearly derived from Bakunin's description of "authority") is simply making use of someone's technical expertise, which does not require the exercise of power.

The experiment does not show that we are naturally suited to hierarchy, only that a hierarchical dynamic can stimulate activity in a certain area in the brain, in the same way that taking ecstasy stimulates the release of dopamine.


If through inheritance, certain anatomical structures in the brain are passed down, those structures would be the result of evolutionary developments which occurred through generations of conditioning by hierarchical exposure.

Evolutionary Biologists reject the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (characteristics which emerge during the lifetime of an organism) and instead argue that genes are the primary means by which natural selection occurs. Your theory is not based on genes, and so does not serve as a credible explanation for hierarchy.

[Chom]

I didn't read the article yet but I think I can explain the point in very simple terms. If through inheritance, certain anatomical structures in the brain are passed down, those structures would be the result of evolutionary developments which occurred through generations of conditioning by hierarchical exposure....

and so on; by this you really make a good point, since interneuronal connections endure through experience, so the whole thing makes sense.


Anyway, I don't think hierarchies are bad things in human culture. People are not "equal", and have talents others people do not have. Society should be arranged around who has what talent, so that production is the most efficient.

Ouch... that hurts. Not true however, for too logical reasons. Hierarchy is obviously not to be eliminated in family relations, but humans as such, are equal. You could reduce the question to genetical mutations and disfunctions, but then you would be a simple eugenecist. Productiveness matters at a rate of improving society, not in terms of personal benefit over society's benefit.

[meL_]

Everything in Your too big brain

was put in there.

simple
.

[meL_]

Institutionalized order( top down ) CANT WORK.

ORDER must be from the ground UP.

In the west capitalism created a structure that is ready to fly apart.

The Chinese had better be very careful.

i wonder what Marx said about Anarchist_communism.

i have a feeling that He wasnt a fool.

i live in the USA.. it is great.. BUT ..........standby
:-O

[meL_]

The study was done by the US National Institute of Mental Health, which is part of the American Department of Health, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
GOOD GRIEF !

8,992 POSTS !

Can You NOW say EVERYTHING in one or two posts ?

:w00t:

Che Gueva .. JC .. Gaundhi .. the many others ... it doesnt work

WE havnt noticed.
Central figure authority worship doesnt work.

i believe Marx was technological....from rumors.

WE need a mass Awakening .. the real Rapture_
IT is time.

i am NOT xtian, atheist, or anything else.

i can shock the monkey.. even the QM experts.

SEE it at the other forum.
i am not political.
.

[RebelDog]

Studies like this don't bother me, true or otherwise. Its wrong to think of 'human nature' as being black and white, either 'designed' for living social hierarchies or in horizontal societies without hierarchy. Human nature is more than likely a mixture of responses we can select from to give us the best survival chance depending on the situation. Human nature is like a pack of cards and we play different hands depending on the situation we face, be that competitive society or cooperative society, hierarchical or horizontal. In the piece it says that we act differently to bosses than colleagues, that is true but it is not always with deference and it is clearly a different case when our rulers begin to lose their grip and people no longer see a need to submit to authority. If human nature was black and white we would either always have submission to authority or authority would not exist. Neither of these cases are true and within the confines of what we call human nature lies the potential for both highly authoritarian structures of power and also fully functioning libertarian socialism.

[eyedrop]

Studies like this don't bother me, true or otherwise. Its wrong to think of 'human nature' as being black and white, either 'designed' for living social hierarchies or in horizontal societies without hierarchy. Human nature is more than likely a mixture of responses we can select from to give us the best survival chance depending on the situation. Human nature is like a pack of cards and we play different hands depending on the situation we face, be that competitive society or cooperative society, hierarchical or horizontal. In the piece it says that we act differently to bosses than colleagues, that is true but it is not always with deference and it is clearly a different case when our rulers begin to lose their grip and people no longer see a need to submit to authority. If human nature was black and white we would either always have submission to authority or authority would not exist. Neither of these cases are true and within the confines of what we call human nature lies the potential for both highly authoritarian structures of power and also fully functioning libertarian socialism.


Very good point, never thought of it that way before. But as far as I see it could be possible that the genes could dictate a degree of tendency to submit to authority. Humankind could be more inclined to one side or the other. Nothing counsciousness can't overcome though.

[Anashtih]

I think there's certainly a psychological predisposition to look for a leader, even if it hurts us. That doesn't mean it's psychologically necessitated. An interesting story portraying that side of humanity is Lord of the Flies, by William Golding. Very interesting reading, I'd strongly recommend it.

[sonicbluetm]

reeks of propaganda. although i am sure that hierarchy is somehow integrated into our brain function. it is in some animals. but then again, a sense of fairness is too, particularly in apes.
ever heard of the experiment they did on bonobos where they all received cucumber pieces as food for a while and then they started giving grapes to a selected small group of the overall group? guess what the ones who continued to receive cucumber pieces did? THEY WENT ON STRIKE. they threw down their cucumber pieces and refused to eat, though they would not, with a few exceptions, steal grapes from the others.