Who Is IOZ?: Northern Blights

Friday, August 05, 2011

Northern Blights

Hey, IOZ, whatabout that dude who shot them kids in Norselvania?

Well, before you pathologize him, consider how readily states turn to violence in order to alter the governments of other nations. He attacked the futureleader summercamp for the country's ruling party; the USBritainFrance are bombing Ghaddafi's children. Is the individual uniquely deranged? Only in his hopes of success? Is it insane to imagine that a lone gunman can overthrow the government of Norway? Um, lemme ask it to yinz comme ça: is it insane to imagine that the United States Military can install a Westward-looking system of state capitalism in Afghanistan? Yo--the objection to the purported utopian vision of anarchy is that all the depredations of the state are merely recapitulations of the inherently brutal and violent nature of man. I say to you it is not so. Many creatures are violent, even among their own kind; but almost none are so meaninglessly, so fruitlessly so. It is not the state which recapitulates the viciousness of man in his state of nature, but man who recapitulates the depredations of the the state.

88 comments:

Leonard said...: is it insane to imagine that the United States Military can install a Westward-looking system of state capitalism in Afghanistan?

Of course not. The installation of functional (and even profitable) colonial regimes happened all the time throughout history, up to the 20th century. Indeed, the US military has done so itself, as recently as 1898. (Arguably, 1945 counts too.); 2:58 PM
Paul Alexander said...: He was obviously upset with American foreign policy, but in an inverse way than most. He didn't think there were enough ragheads being killed, so he decided to do his part. He's a hero!

And I thought it was determined that you can't have meaning without God? Besides paychecks and being hungry.; 2:59 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: yer gonna make some ersatz critic of anarchism have a brain cramp!; 3:02 PM
Alan said...: One of the more striking tropes in 1491 is that whenever the Europeans had the Indians on the ropes, the Europeans happily slaughtered every man, woman, and child they could get their hands on, whereas the Indians didn’t take similar opportunities.

When reading the book, I couldn’t figure it out. Why didn’t the Indians commit genocide? Was it really a European invention? If so, why? For all my liberalarts education, I couldn’t really believe it could be whiteness… could it?

I think you’ve found a better answer.; 3:05 PM
mistah charley, ph.d. said...: defense attorney IOZ, i believe your argument should prevail; the depraved murderer should be acquitted. as has been so often said, compared to what?

-- and after acquittal, released to a spontaneously self-organized crowd of relatives of the victims; 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree so long as we define the State as serving around 200 satanists who are constantly checking the bottoms of their shoes for debris.

(So then . . . it would be Norway doing a maximum of 14 years?); 3:08 PM
Aaron Em said...: Rousseau would love the everloving shit out of you, but I've had enough. You were better before you came back.; 3:42 PM
Paul Alexander said...: No, not you Aaron Em!; 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks2xh8Tv3Cw; 4:16 PM
Cüneyt said...: Abuse, murder, and assumption of force. He was a pretender to a throne. Fuck him.

And Leonard, you're a fucking clown. If you think America's trying anywhere near as hard to install a friendly regime as we did in previous iterations of empire, you are quite frankly insane, and not in some Foucault-ian spectrum of mental function.

We're trying to do it on the cheap, and with minimal risk. It'll fail. The resumption of direct empire will have to wait.

Let me say it--the Ottomans were motherfuckers, but they held that empire shit together for 500 fucking years. America is going the way of the Mongols. Flash in the fucking pan; in a hundred years, do you think the Vietnamese, for one, will even put us in the same category?; 4:21 PM
Paul Alexander said...: I've looked at the advance stats and you'd be surprised at where the current empire ranks. In fact, on a per minute basis it actually out performs the Ottomans in WARP. It's ranked ninth all time with the Roman, Persian and Alec Empire making up the top 3.; 4:31 PM
Cüneyt said...: Nice!; 4:41 PM
Leonard said...: Cüneyt, of course I don't think America is trying. I was asserting that it was not insane to think America could -- "could", of course, only a sense. That there used to be an America which could. Current America cannot, or to be more precise, will not. We don't have the will to directly rule foreigners.

Be that as it may, the mere fact that there used to be an America that could makes it quite non-insane to think that America might.; 5:40 PM
McDuff said...: the objection to the purported utopian vision of anarchy is that all the depredations of the state are merely recapitulations of the inherently brutal and violent nature of man. I say to you it is not so. Many creatures are violent, even among their own kind; but almost none are so meaninglessly, so fruitlessly so.

Not to harsh too much on the "no the savages really were pretty noble" vibe going on here, but the quod is not really demonstrandum here. There are many ways in which our particular primate species is unique in the animal kingdom. It's neither unreasonable nor entirely without evidential basis to suggest that a tendency towards psychopathy is one of our more cuddly and loveable characteristics.

Plus, yannow, while you can take homo sapiens out of the state and still have it remain as a whole, you cannot really remove individuals entirely from the trappings of society, with all the "I'm bigger than you"-ing and the "we don't like those folks"-ing that seems to be phenotypical. And once we're there, I'm afraid we've already established what kind of woman we are and are merely negotiating over the price.; 5:49 PM
John Emerson said...: If an individual acts like a sovereign nature it's normally either a crime, often a capital crime, or else evidence of insanity.

This particular paradox is an unexceptional, garden-variety, dime-a-dozen paradox, but it gets libertarians and anarchists all excited.; 6:15 PM
John Emerson said...: Fuck. "Nation".; 6:16 PM
John Emerson said...: Actually, thinking that you are The State is like thinking that you are God, a kind of usurpation and misunderstanding of your place in the world.

Unless you are Genghis Khan, who believed more or less that right up into his sixties and was never disabused of the notion.; 6:19 PM
Paul Alexander said...: Well color me Mongol!; 6:43 PM
IOZ said...: There are many ways in which our particular primate species is unique in the animal kingdom.

There are not. There may be none. From tool use to distinct subculture to, increasingly, complex language; we turn out, simply, to be just animals.; 7:08 PM
McDuff said...: "Just animals" is a rather broad category that contains a number of interesting subgroups, any number of whom have properties that are unique AS WELL AS all the properties they share with other animals.

Besides which, it is not like "many creatures are violent, but none are as violent as us" quite leads on to the "therefore this violence is caused by something extrinsic to the human phenotype" conclusion you're looking to draw from it. It leads rather more neatly to "we are the most violent of all the primate species", to be fair.

I think if you're floating the hypothesis that we are not, as a species, inclined towards creating large hierarchical social structures and the associated mythologies which sustain them, it's at least somewhat incumbent upon you to explain how come we seem to do it *all the damn time*. We seem to be pretty bad at not doing it, in fact.

I mean, let's run the hypothetical machine a little here. Say you did take some perfectly normal "just animals" like the common or jungle chimpanzee, and via some mechanism you shoved an extra 600ccs of neural matter into its skull and kept selecting for the kind of patterns within that matter which made organising in bigger groups for the purposes of survival easier, including various behaviours like "listening to what the monkey in charge says" and "susceptibility to peer pressure." Then let's just say that said increase in brain matter came along with an increase in complexity that made everyone just that little bit crazy and prone to hallucinatory experiences, possibly as a side effect of selecting for the kind of abstract thinking which took tool use from the level of "I can hit that person with that rock" to I can convert this thing into another thing and use that thing to launch lots of rocks at lots of people". Personally, I'm disinclined to discount the possibility that running that particular simulation forward 50,000 years doesn't inevitably end up with something that looks like the Catholic Church and something else that looks like the bombing of Nagasaki, all achieved via a series of baby steps that seemed like a good idea at the time.

Of course we're "just animals". But we're animals *with nukes*. Having unique properties does not mean we are all Jesus' precious little snowflakes. It just means the forces of evolution made some little changes and ran with them without concern for the future rights of the dispossessed.; 8:02 PM
Leonard said...: There are not.

There are. We are unique in having a social conscience. Or to put it another way, all animals ('cept 98% of us) are psychopaths.

Oh yeah, and: complex language. Written symbolic manipulation. Porn. Other animals wank, but only we have achieved superior wankage via tools and symbols. We're really quite advanced; 8:21 PM
Leonard said...: Argh -- 'cept 2%.; 8:21 PM
Jack Crow said...: Leonard,

I'm not sure what "social conscience" means, since you use it without enough context to provide definition. But: there are certainly any number of animals which demonstrate sociability, altruism and perhaps even emotional loyalty.

I mean, fuck, elephants mourn.; 10:06 PM
McDuff said...: Leonard, which 2% of people are not psychopaths, in this intriguing (albeit somewhat evidence-light) new model you present to us?; 10:44 PM
demize! said...: Ravens have culture. They not only use tools, they fashion tools, modify existing tools and teach their use to the young and other Ravens.; 11:36 PM
Professor Coldheart said...: Ravens have culture.

whoo! Ravens, baby! 9/11 CHANGES EVERYTHING.; 11:41 PM
Justin said...: We are all psychopaths. I mean, I just spent ten years or so working pretty damn hard to support a system that I knew was oppressive, abusive, and actively bombing the shit out of a bunch of people all over the world. Almost every day, at least 8 hours a day, a few all nighters. I worked my ass off to do my own part in keeping this system of brutality and exploitation in tact. Not only that, but I chose to do so in high tech industries, which are some of the most actively destructive industries, environmentally speaking, that are around. Totally psychotic behavior on my part.; 3:43 AM
Justin said...: I think if you're floating the hypothesis that we are not, as a species, inclined towards creating large hierarchical social structures and the associated mythologies which sustain them, it's at least somewhat incumbent upon you to explain how come we seem to do it *all the damn time*. We seem to be pretty bad at not doing it, in fact.

Screw the hypothesis. Check out a time line of known civilization vs. how long humans have been around. We are the exception.

In any event, here is what I think happened. The civilized mode of operation is genocide. Where they encounter people living in an alternative order, they have wiped them out, enslaved them, or assimilated them through colonialism until now all that is left are rigid hiearchies. And we look around and say, it has to be this way because that is how it is everywhere. This is an insidious bug of humanity, and it has replicated itself as the dominant social norm precisely because it is the most vicious, most psychotic of them all. With enough time, it has won out.

That's why the indians lost, for instance. They thought it was enough to show superiority to settle the matter. So when they won a battle, more often than not they would withdraw after securing an advantage. The Europeans, once securing an advantage, would wipe out the Indians down to the last man, woman and child. Of course the Europeans would win eventually, they could lose 50 skirmishes so long as they won once.; 4:58 AM
McDuff said...: Screw the hypothesis. Check out a time line of known civilization vs. how long humans have been around. We are the exception.

Uh, well, by technological capability yes. By inclination? We've had rigid hierarchical structures and mythologies since before we've had *writing*.

This is an insidious bug of humanity, and it has replicated itself as the dominant social norm precisely because it is the most vicious, most psychotic of them all.

There aren't any bugs in the evolutionary process, because there isn't any end game. There's nothing to go wrong because there isn't a right answer.

In any event, I don't see how "as a species, we eradicate all those who are not inclined towards rigid hierarchies and mythologies" is incompatible with "as a species, we have a strong inclination towards creating rigid hierarchies and mythologies." Or are you saying you believe that "social norms" are somehow external to the evolutionary process of human beings and not simply part of our phenotypic behaviour?

Because if you are, I'm going to ask the same question I ask of "there's an external soul" or "the mind and the brain are separate" types. If it's *not* an emergent property of the observable natural phenomena which, by themselves, are perfectly capable of producing these effects, what the fuck is it? Magic? Aliens? The malign influence of evil gods?; 7:11 AM
McDuff said...: Also, just in case any of this starts turning into the "white western culture is a disease that infects otherwise healthy cultures with The State" which it is showing an inclination to do, the historical and independent emergence of kingdoms, empires, and bloody rules of terror is not something which pre-european tribespeople -- yes, even those lovely Native Americans -- were completely unused to. It happened with regularity before we came along and will continue to happen after this latest empire topples over into the sea.; 7:23 AM
mistah charley, ph.d. said...: McDuff - I want to commend your commitment to reasoning from a wide range of phenomena. In particular, it's not just civilized people, or white people, or technologically advanced people, who are nasty sometimes. All of us primates have both divine and demonic tendencies.

I try to snark here in service of truth, justice, and the potentially sentient way. Even when we habitues of IOZ's place annoy each other, at least we can agree that we're better than those fools and assholes OVER THERE.

Wink wink.

May the Creative Forces of the Universe stand beside us, and guide us, through the Night with the Light from Above, metaphorically speaking.; 7:54 AM
Justin said...: " Or are you saying you believe that "social norms" are somehow external to the evolutionary process of human beings and not simply part of our phenotypic behaviour?

That is exactly what I am saying. Insidious bug of humanity says nothing at all about biological evolution. It says something about social norms, and, yes, emergent behaviors.

The rigid hierarchies of civilization was obviously something that happened here too, the Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Olmec, etc. However, those civilizations all collapsed as well, and non-hierarchhical societies existed before, alongside, and after them.; 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I done read empires generally last one revolution of Pluto around the sun... about 240 yrs.or thereabouts.

There is an allegedly deadly biker gang in berlin now called the mongols... one of many i am told. a tattooist recently got chopped up into pieces by someone from that scene, according to my sources: kept out of the papers.; 9:57 AM
McDuff said...: Insidious bug of humanity says nothing at all about biological evolution. It says something about social norms, and, yes, emergent behaviors.

OK. But where do they emerge *from*? The ground? The sky? Messages from beyond this veil of tears? Or, y'know, the collective behaviour of a large group of biological organisms?

Or are you disagreeing with M.IOZ here in suggesting that homo sapiens is, in fact, unique in being the only creature on the face of the planet which cannot find a genetic component to its behavioural patterns? That all social interaction between this species of apes emerges ex nihilo, imprinted on the brain from the outside by mysterious "social norms" which have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the component human beings in a society?

And where is the society that is non-hierarchical that we have such massive evidence exists? Ancient Native American Tribes, long may their fetishisation by white people remain profitable, weren't non-hierarchical. Nor are any of the more nature-bound tribes I can think of off the top of my head. Everyone ends up with *at least* a boss man, a gender/age caste split enforcing behavioural norms, and a system of passing along local mythologies and taboos. Where are these non-hierarchies, and furthermore *who told us they were non-hierarchical*?; 11:56 AM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: We are unique in having a social conscience.

step away from your reflection, narcissus, and observe the animals who share the planet with your beautiful self.; 12:07 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: Hey McDuff:

I like the no bs cut o' your jib. You got a blog? The profile linked to your name is private.; 1:17 PM
McDuff said...: Used to, don't really do much like that no more. No fucker read it and I am nothing if not an unfortunate confluence of narcissism and laziness.; 1:53 PM
Justin said...: And where is the society that is non-hierarchical that we have such massive evidence exists? Ancient Native American Tribes, long may their fetishisation by white people remain profitable, weren't non-hierarchical. Nor are any of the more nature-bound tribes I can think of off the top of my head. Everyone ends up with *at least* a boss man, a gender/age caste split enforcing behavioural norms, and a system of passing along local mythologies and taboos. Where are these non-hierarchies, and furthermore *who told us they were non-hierarchical*?

Commanches, for one. Maybe if you spend less time looking into your navel you might see some evidence, its not hard to find. Get a library card, read some archealogy.

Or are you disagreeing with M.IOZ here in suggesting that homo sapiens is, in fact, unique in being the only creature on the face of the planet which cannot find a genetic component to its behavioural patterns?

I am sorry, I didn't realize we located the hierarchy and friend genes. I retract everything.

GATTACA!; 2:04 PM
Justin said...: For those to lazy to Google Commanche, here is Wikipedia:

Social order
Comanche groups did not have a single acknowledged leader. Instead, a small number of generally recognized leaders acted as counsel and advisors to the group as a whole. These included the "peace chief," the members of the council, and the "war chief."
The peace chief was usually an older individual, who could bring his experience to the task of advising. There was no formal inauguration or election to the position, it was one of general consensus.
The council made decisions about where the band should hunt, whether they should war against their enemies, and whether to ally themselves with other bands. Any member could speak at council meetings, but the older men usually did most of the talking.
In times of war, the band selected a war chief. To be chosen for this position, a man had to prove he was a brave fighter. He also had to have the respect of all the other warriors in the band. While the band was at war, the war chief was in charge, and all the warriors had to obey him. After the conflict was over, however, the war chief's authority ended.
The Comanche men did most of the hunting and all of the fighting in the wars. They learned how to ride horses when they were young and were eager to prove themselves in battle. On the plains, Comanche women carried out the demanding tasks of cooking, skinning animals, setting up camp, rearing children, and transporting household goods.; 2:23 PM
McDuff said...: Five seconds of googling the Wikipedias proves that you and I have an entirely different conception of "non-hierarchical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche#Social_order

"Comanche groups did not have a single acknowledged leader. Instead, a small number of generally recognized leaders acted as counsel and advisors to the group as a whole."

That'll be your boss man. Or boss men. W/evs.

"The Comanche men did most of the hunting and all of the fighting in the wars. They learned how to ride horses when they were young and were eager to prove themselves in battle. On the plains, Comanche women carried out the demanding tasks of cooking, skinning animals, setting up camp, rearing children, and transporting household goods."

That'll be your gender-based caste system enforcing behavioural norms, not to mention your common-and-garden masculine warmongering. And I betcha several shiny trinkets that if I read any further I could find some kind of mechanism for the passing on of shared mythologies and taboos as well.

What, precisely, do you think a fucking hierarchy is?

I mean, yeah OK Wikipedia is lies etc. But so are books, etc, so come on, lay it on me why this council of older men does not constitute a "hierarchy".

I am sorry, I didn't realize we located the hierarchy and friend genes.

Let me put it to you thus: if you knew anything about genetics whatsoever you would realise that saying this sentence would reveal you as someone who knew fuck all about the subject.

As it is, let me just slap the question on you one more time. If "social norms" do not emerge from the biological creatures who make up said society, from where do they emerge? If it's extrinsic to the human phenotype, where's it from?; 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: If Bream playin Bach don't soothe yer tortured soul, nothin will

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spUT-2tU2Yk; 2:30 PM
Justin said...: McDuff,
Let say you and I were to cook a meal together. As I am a terrible cook, but really good at following directions, I cede the leadership role to you while cooking. Is that a hierarchy? Let's say that during the cooking you suggest that I put my head in the oven to test the temperature, I tell you to fuck off.

You come at me with a knife until I comply, now we have a hierarchy as I mean it.

Your question is that yes, social norms emerge from our individual interactions. I do not think this has anything to do with genetics, that is all I meant. But, I don't know why it matters to pinpoint their locus. I mean, in so far as I can understand social etiquette, I don't have to know why I understand social etiquette to either adhere to it or violate it.; 2:51 PM
Justin said...: In other words, in working together we have leadership. Some of us are fit to lead in some tasks more so than others. Role playing dependent upon social context is not rigid hierarchy as I understand it. Status hiearchy enforced by the threat or actualization of violence is.; 2:53 PM
Justin said...: In the commanche example, the role of leadership was based on respect and only contigent on the leaders ability to win the trust of others to follow them. People can and did stop listening to them, or go their own way quite freely. In other words, if you proved to be the best chef, you were trusted to cook until you poisoned someone, and you weren't given the best cut of meat, or assumed to be an expert on anything other than what you proved good at.

Sorry for the robo posts, doing this in between sets.; 2:56 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: Justin:

If you have ever participated in a non-hierarchical organization, you know that the earned trust of others is but one reason that people in such organizations hold power. I'd want to know a bit more about internal Comanche politics before signing up.

Also, since you have suggested that examples of societies that don't conform to McDuff's more deterministic view are plentiful, wouldn't it be prudent to find one that, first of all, doesn't have a 'War Chief' and is not so rigidly sex-stratified?; 3:19 PM
Inkberrow said...: "Many creatures are violent, even among their own kind; but almost none are so meaninglessly, so fruitlessly so".

Setting aside the anthropocentric question-begging here, I'd suggest that Nature's Creatures of almost all shapes and sizes engage in violence for the same reason the proverbial dog licks his 'nads. Furthermore, that tendency to violence expands to fill any container.

Speaking of small containers, I personally like the choice of Comanches as the Noble Savage/Furry Creatures touchstone, because they were notably violent aggressors and expansionists at the expense of other Amerindians.; 3:51 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: behavior is not genetically enforced, let alone determined.

shit, what a bunch of crap!

prove the causation, asserters; 3:52 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: Yeah. I have to go with Inkberrow here, sadly.

I think admonishing lazy people to Google Comanche is one of the more entertaining examples of self petard-hoisting I've seen and I say this as a Justin fan.

I mean, Justin, first of all , the Comanche sucked and two, it calls into question the suggestion that you have done a lot of reading on the numerousness of dreamy non-coercive, non-violent native societies. Seems to me if you weren't just winging it yourself, you'd have gone for a better example.

Look, anyone trying to put fact meat on IOZ's throwaway post here is just giving an object lesson in how unelected hierarchies work.; 4:12 PM
Justin said...: I had to google petard.

Ok, self-awareness can be a curse, if I am coming off like a dick to someone who likes me, then I should change tacks. So let me back up a second, sometimes snarky smart ass blehgy discussions can go astray in unintended ways.

I think the big misunderstanding here is what we mean by status hierarchies. I threw up the comanche because I happen to be reading about them right now, not winging it.

By status hiearchy, I mean that there are differences in worth and status that are enforced by violence are threats of violence. For example, if I threaten to kill the president, that is a far more serious crime than threatening to kill a poor, black yute. Additionally, there are differences in material wealth. Like some of us have scraps, some of us have yachts and planes.

Extend this globally. As U.S. citizens, we have far more rights and privilege than an Iraqi or Syrian, and this is enforced by a global military empire.

I don't think that within a social group, different roles and leadership in various social contexts counts as hiearchies. Like the commanche war chiefs did not get the best cuts of meat, they did not have sexual priority, they did not have built in material wealth disparities, and their leadership extended only as far as people listened to them in times of war. One of the vexing problems for the whites to understand was that their treaties with the commanche were meaningless because one war chief only spoke for the people following him at that time. There was no commanche nation with a hiearchy of leadership.

Having said that, this is not a sucky example because the commanche suck. The discussion, in my view, was whether there were any examples of societies not based on hierarchy. Not if we find them good or bad by contemporary standards.

Having said that, there are other examples. Again, look at the timeline of human history. Civilizations of hiearchies are a blip, the rest is what we call prehistory, or blank spots in what we do know. (For instance, when an empire seems to vanish, I think we can assume that people were still around doing something even if they weren't constructing temples and maintaining hiearchies of commoner, priests, military, political structures.) But if we are going to say that the only non-hierarchical society is one in which there are no gender roles, no leadership, no social structure at all, then yes, I will concede the point.; 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Amy Goodman would never hurt anyone! Asshole.; 4:52 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: I think the origin of violent behavior in people is somewhat beside the point, since IOZ cops to people being violent on their own. Isn't the point that, while individuals may have murder in them, the dude in Norselvania and his crimes were very much a product of the state. I can't really argue with that, though I am not sure I find a lot of significance in it either.; 4:57 PM
McDuff said...: Let say you and I were to cook a meal together. As I am a terrible cook, but really good at following directions, I cede the leadership role to you while cooking. Is that a hierarchy?

Yes.

You come at me with a knife until I comply, now we have a hierarchy as I mean it.

Let's say you don't do as I say. That's cool. You just can't come in my kitchen. Also, my kitchen is the only way to get food. Also, all your friends are in my kitchen and they tell you not to cause trouble because this is the way things just are. Also they all think I'm a nice guy and that you're just being a troublemaker. You want to be a troublemaker? Or do you want some food?

Fuckin who needs knives, dude? Have you been paying ANY ATTENTION? Like, EVER?

I don't think that within a social group, different roles and leadership in various social contexts counts as hiearchies.

Well, sure, OK, let's redefine the word to mean what you want it to mean, then you're totally right.

One of the vexing problems for the whites to understand was that their treaties with the commanche were meaningless because one war chief only spoke for the people following him at that time. There was no commanche nation with a hiearchy of leadership.

Yeah, the whites are having that problem over in Afghanistan right now. I bet that means they don't have a hierarchical society too, right?

You reckon that all the Commanche women did all the grunt work because they independently came to the conclusion that that was just the best way? Or do you suppose that there was maybe some way of expressing disapproval of people who didn't fall into their culturally mandated roles? What do you think is more likely?; 7:18 PM
McDuff said...: behavior is not genetically enforced, let alone determined.

shit, what a bunch of crap!

prove the causation, asserters

If you're talking to me, I'm going to lay down as evidence the lack of universities that teach beavers how to build dams, birds how to build nests and ants how to build anthills.

Those extra CCs of brain meat give us a degree of freedom within the trackways laid down by genetics which birds and beavers don't necessarily have. But the basic frameworks of understanding and socialisation are pretty hardwired, dude.; 7:26 PM
Justin said...: Mcduff,
I am not creating my own definition of hierarchy as it is meant in anarchist argument. I did some more research for you

This is a nice article that has references to non-hierarchical societies beyond the commanche

I don't really know how to respond to what I take to mean your idea that leadership roles in specific contexts is tantamount to status hiearchies. If your problem is with expertise, meaning differences in ability, knowledge and skill across various activities, then yeah, I am pretty sure that no society has ever existed without expertise.; 7:35 PM
Freddy el Desfibradddor said...: What happened to Foodie Friday?; 7:42 PM
Justin said...: "Let's say you don't do as I say. That's cool. You just can't come in my kitchen."
Ok, so far we have a voluntary system of free association, no hierarchy.

Also, my kitchen is the only way to get food.
Ok, how is this possible? You asked me if I am paying attention ever, well, if your kitchen is the only way to get food then how do you enforce that monopoly if not at knife point?

Also, all your friends are in my kitchen and they tell you not to cause trouble because this is the way things just are. Also they all think I'm a nice guy and that you're just being a troublemaker. You want to be a troublemaker? Or do you want some food?
Sounds like a status hierarchy with you at the top and a gang of enforcers. Ok, well, so long as I am free to leave and go do my own thing, then I suppose its all right if you want to live that way.

But, and here is the but, hierarchy civilization is not satisfied with this and will come hunt me down, or try to deprive me of food forcibly. This is not hypothetical, this is how colonialism and capitalism work. This is what it means to privatize rain water in the third world. Or to patent rice, to sue farmers for stealing rice if they try to keep their seed for next year rather than buy it from Monsanto. To replace the farms in China with factories. Ok, that is the status hierarchies refusing to allow alternatives.

Returning to my example, this is not how the commanche worked. If you were a war chief and others lost confidence in you, they simply stopped following you and you lost your authority. They did not have underlings that enforced dissenters to tow the line. Anyway, I think you are very mistaken in what is meant by hierarchy in the context of this discussion. I haven't read everything on the subject, but I have never heard anyone anywhere suggest that just because working together requires leadership roles depending on expertise is a hiearchy. Hierarchy is an arrangement where status, wealth, etc. are at the top, and decision making flows down from there, and resistance to that decision making is met with force. Like the U.S. military.; 7:51 PM
McDuff said...: Justin I think you're fundamentally delusional.

If you think that any homo sapiens give status on a strict "expertise" based system that is free of corruption by base concerns like sex and strength then I can only conclude that you were brought up by some form of gel-based aliens in a featureless cave on another world altogether.

Fuck, dude, have you ever seen a *family*? Or another mammal? How inhumanly do the people in these non-hierarchical societies have to behave before we reach the obvious conclusion -- that they are robot replacements put here by alien overlords as some kind of experiment to fuck with us?

And why are you incapable of seeing the massive gender disparity as relevant, by the way? Just because the women weren't relegated into servitude by a literal bloke with a literal knife you don't see it as being hierarchical? What the actual fuck?; 7:56 PM
McDuff said...: Ok, how is this possible? You asked me if I am paying attention ever, well, if your kitchen is the only way to get food then how do you enforce that monopoly if not at knife point?

Oh I can think of several ways. It might be that there's lots of food out there but it's all heathen food that will send you to hell. It might be that it's hard to get without a team. It might be that you're not actually strong enough to get it yourself. Your obsession with knives is wearying, and utterly naive.

Sounds like a status hierarchy with you at the top and a gang of enforcers.

Sounds like you never did what your grandma told you to do when you were 12. Oh don't be silly, of course you did, it's just that doesn't count because it's only a mechanism of passing on moral codes and values and patterns of acceptable social behaviour. It's not a hierarchy of authority unless your grandma threatened you with a knife. Right?; 8:01 PM
Justin said...: I might be delusional, but that is a separate issue. I have already given you an example of just what you are saying is impossible. I have also found a link for you that references other societies that functioned the same way. On the one hand, we have your assumption of what must be impossible, rooted in some sense of immutable behavioral evolution and genetics. On the other hand, we have examples disproving your assumption. I must be delusional.

Anyway, the gender disparity does not strike me as relevant because riding around and being responsible for fighting wars and killing 3000 pound buffaloes does not strike me as some kind of higher or dominant role as the woman. Both had difficult jobs. Women were not the property of men, they did not have to do what they were told. They were not abused or treated like chattel. The fuck is that gender roles, just like differing roles within a specific context, does not strike me as hierarchical. Now, I could be wrong about the treatment of women in that society. Granting that point, however, the rest of what I am saying stands. They did not have anyone who enforced a hierarchical order outside of the family unit. Yes, I am sure parents disciplined their kids in the sense that for some time early in their lives, the adults assumed agency for the youngins. The gender disparity I am not seeing is because I am not sharing your assumptions. Riding around killing buffalo was pretty hard work, I am guessing that it was the domain of men because they were stronger, not because men were considered better.; 8:07 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: "What happened to Foodie Friday?"

Justin refused to put his head in the oven.; 8:09 PM
Justin said...: Oh I can think of several ways. It might be that there's lots of food out there but it's all heathen food that will send you to hell. It might be that it's hard to get without a team. It might be that you're not actually strong enough to get it yourself. Your obsession with knives is wearying, and utterly naive.

Okay Dude. I can see you don't want to be cheered up here. Come on Donny, let's go get us a lane.; 8:10 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: Justin, I don't require that the Comanche be as purely non-hierarchical as McDuff wants them before he will budge. I agree with you on a lot of what you're saying.

Still, I don't find it particularly cheering that an ostensibly egalitarian non-hierarchical society spent a lot of its time killing, torturing, raping and robbing other people. At first glance, it seems like an argument against the view that the state is the fundamental problem.; 8:25 PM
McDuff said...: Or how about we just leave the metaphor aside? By "kitchen" I mean "tribe" and by "not get any food I mean "bring shame on your family".

Or do honour based societies not also need shame to work?

And my food isn't that bad. You say your way is better? Ok, I'll cut a deal. You keep working my way for a couple of years and when I'm too old, if you've proved yourself according to the rules I laid down, you can get my chef's hat. Sound like a better deal than running off from everything you know and love for the sake of a principle? Sound better than making your mother ashamed of her traitor son?; 8:29 PM
McDuff said...: Oh and well done on the whole "as a man I don't see what the fucking deal is with gender essentialism" line. That is a totally new argument and has never been used to enforce gender-based caste inequality ever in the history of anything.; 8:34 PM
Justin said...: Jung,
They were being invaded by the Spanish, Mexicans, Texans and other conquerers. But yeah, I know what you are saying. In context, I would say from what we know that they were not as bloodthirsty as those they were up against, as evidenced by the fact that the European colonizers eventually wiped them out. They did exactly what you were saying, but they also quite often left many survivors after winning a large battle, and they adopted some of the children of those they killed. Compared to the hierarchical Europeans, they were not nearly as brutal, and their violence should be seen as defensive. (Not purely as such, as they also fought other Indians just as hard)

Anyway, this was not intended to be about the Commanche as such, I just threw them out as a counter example to the notion that no society without rigid hierarchy can exist. There are others. (Again, the anarchist link above references some.) In the long timeline of human existence, I would say this is the norm as evidenced by vast expanses of time that exists in between civilizations.

I would also hazard a guess that most of our everyday experience is living as equals within our social networks. Sometimes, when at work or play, some of us emerge as leaders and are better at some things, but that's as far as it goes - I never felt like I became a lower status for losing a game of chess to any of my friends.

As for McDuff, either he is wrong or I am an idiot who doesn't understand what is commonly meant by hierarchy (or both). I am too close to the matter now to make an objective call, and I don't think we are getting anywhere so I'll stop trying.; 8:35 PM
McDuff said...: I just threw them out as a counter example to the notion that no society without rigid hierarchy can exist.

Who said anything about rigid? Like I said, we've already established what kind of woman you are, now we're just haggling over the price.

There's a reason the first line is free, Justin.; 8:37 PM
Jung the Foreman said...: I guess it's hard to know what's true when you're reading about indigenous people but I have just read a summary of a book about them by one historian that claims any boy that did not want to be a warrior was killed. That's one way of getting consensus, I guess.

No one seems to doubt that they made war all the time and were very accomplished thieves and torturers.

What on earth, Justin, do these people have to teach folks who might be on the fence about anarchism and hierarchies other than that people suck even without explicit status hierarchies.; 8:39 PM
Justin said...: Crap, I have to prove myself a liar so soon.

The gender essentialism is not my line, McDuff. My point is that role differentiation and social hiearchies are not the same thing unless that role differentiation is enforced by violence or the threat of violence. I have no idea what was going on between man and woman then, truly. What is your point, exactly, that unless the men and women in Commanche society equally shared the jobs of hunting, war, and maintaining the teepees then it was not without hierarchy? I mean, fighting buffalo and wars sounds like a shittier job than what the women had.

As far as running off from everything I know and love for a principle, I am actually doing that right now. I am newly homeless and unemployed and intend to remain so because I refuse to contribute to the United States as a productive member of this society. I'll probably even end up in jail at some point. My mother is actually supportive.; 8:42 PM
McDuff said...: I mean, fighting buffalo and wars sounds like a shittier job than what the women had.

Which is why men have to protect women from the onerous dangers of voting or sciencing or engineering or, oh whatever, that is the same line that people always use and that you use it now is kind of silly given that we've already been through all those arguments with the goddamn Suffragettes.

Role differentiation is the root of status differentiation. And while I don't know exactly how the relationship between men and women (rather than MAN and WOMAN, those homogenous and immutable classes, amirite?) worked, since the Commanche gender roles were JUST LIKE the gender roles that societies always split down, I'm going to say that it's incumbent on you to prove that status didn't work the way it works EVERY FUCKING WHERE ELSE.

Or did I miss the bit where gender wasn't used to enforce differences in status clean across the whole globe?

I get that it wasn't your point. You didn't care about it because it's not the kind of authoritarian hierarchy that you believe counts because it doesn't affect the class you identify with. Sorry to have to break it to you.; 9:07 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: I'm going to lay down as evidence the lack of universities that teach beavers how to build dams, birds how to build nests and ants how to build anthills.

not probative. try again - or forum-shop, find a more gullible judge; 12:17 AM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: Or did I miss the bit where gender wasn't used to enforce differences in status clean across the whole globe?

hyperbole persuades the emotionally victimized, and few others; 12:21 AM
Jung the Foreman said...: I think McDuff believes that dudes are biologically inclined to talk shit about how women are biologically inclined.; 9:18 AM
McDuff said...: Those goddamn womens complaining about global gender inequality. Who do they think they are!?

You, of course, can show that women are treated equally in all cultures and that any inequality between genders is just an aberrant blip, I guess?

Same question on the genetics, btw, Franz. If behaviour doesn't have its roots in genetics, *where's it from*? Shouldn't be a hard question to answer if the obvious answer is as counter-intuitive as you seem to claim.

There's a lot of people waving a lot of hands and going "nuh uh". You do know, Franz, don't you, that "this inconvenient fact makes my worldview less tenable" is not really a good basis for an argument. If social behaviour isn't phenotypical, *what is it*? What makes it? Describe for me, if you will, some alternative mechanism that we can evaluate, sil vouz playt.; 11:37 AM
Justin said...: I don't know, this is the best I could come up with, but its probably a load of shit
http://conepost.blogspot.com/2011/06/man-and-god.html
http://conepost.blogspot.com/2011/07/social-networks.html

The 'comb-over reflex' explains everything!; 12:39 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: Duffer, wordiness-ness ain't proof.; 11:52 AM
McDuff said...: Nor is one line dismissal an argument.

I ain't even seen a counterargument yet, short of "nuh uh, sez you!" Which is, y'know, a bit shit, Karl.

Why don't you explain how come your strong-form hypothesis that no human behaviour is genetically influenced is more plausible than my weak-form hypothesis that some of the more universal stuff probably is, eh? But if you'd prefer to show your arse and pretend to be superior, go the fuck ahead.; 12:11 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: You stated something as if true - proof burden on you, bubba.; 1:46 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: meanwhile, your solipsistic superiority is... well... adolescent.; 1:48 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: ...and smells like ______ spirit.; 1:49 PM
McDuff said...: As opposed to you, who merely said:

behavior is not genetically enforced, let alone determined.

Gawsh, I'm so sorry I didn't make any statements as vague and uncategorical as that.

Simple question, captain rhetoric. Is any behaviour in any mammal phenotypical? If not, would you mind letting all the biologists in the world know. If so, where are you drawing the line between behaviour that is phenotypical and that which comes from elsewhere.

Also, where else does it come from? This seems like a really simple question. Can you give me a plausible alternative mechanism? Just one?; 1:59 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: if your aim is to be the queen of snark, I don't contest... not queenish myself

if you're trying to be holistic and honest, I give you the continued burden of proof; 4:06 PM
Karl Franz Ochstradt said...: also, I wonder why you take this so personally. glad I'm not you!; 4:09 PM
McDuff said...: Goodness gracious me. Personally? Snark?

I don't quite grasp what you think I have to prove. I've said quite often that my case is the weak conclusion that behaviour is phenotypical. The observation that other behaviour is phenotypical in other animals, and that we tend towards clumping behaviour, is enough to suggest that the hypothesis is sound.

Now, I don't know if you think I'm trying to assert that all behaviour is determined by genome from conception. If I were trying to do that I could understand why you didn't think simple observations of the natural world would do. But since this isn't my position, if you insist on digging your heels in over it, I can only assume that it is your position that no behaviour in any animals is phenotypical.

If you think that, come out and say it, and at that point yours is the stronger — in fact, verging on the absurd — assertion, so the burden of proof is on you.

If that's not your position, what the fuck are you babbling on about man?; 6:51 PM
Guaron said...: Justin, defending an ostensible meritocracy (in which men, by virtue of monopolizing common law in order to make women and children property, barring entrance to trade unions and guilds to those folk what have penises, and monopolizing politics, have earned the right to dominate and direct public life) means you support hierarchy. Your amateurish MRA talking points re dudely shit like War! and Hunting! being more labor intensive than agriculture, child-bearing, textile manufacturing, cookery, child rearing, and prostitution is noted and rejected as ahistorical bunk.

McDuff, as much I'm digging how quickly you frightened away the boys with talk of women's oppression, I just as fuck hope you're not using crap evopsych to support a hypothesis that patriarchy is "natural" and "inevitable." Dudes aren't genetically wired to hate women; it's just years and years of experience.; 2:43 PM
McDuff said...: I just as fuck hope you're not using crap evopsych to support a hypothesis that patriarchy is "natural" and "inevitable." Dudes aren't genetically wired to hate women; it's just years and years of experience.

Hold the phone on the feminist-on-the-internet jerking of the knees there. I'm not singling out any particular group for the role of oppressed or oppressor or making any extrapolations from the observed behaviour of a population to the moral compass of an individual.

I'm just saying. Groups of homo sapiens sapiens form authoritarian structures. The people who say this doesn't happen always cite groups of homo sapiens in authoritarian structures as counterexamples. I'm willing to rely on my lay knowledge of evolution in order to suggest that this tendency towards social structure is genotypical and that the kinds of structures people create is phenotypical, with the phenotype being appx.95% common across the whole species.

That's all. Apparently it's fucking controversial or something!; 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Yep, it is. Nice counterpunch about hysterical women on the internet, though.; 2:54 PM
Guaron said...: Time for some remedial science coursework, MacDougal.; 5:12 PM
McDuff said...: Oh good, another general purpose expert!

You'd be *amazed* how convincing the "nuh uh u r rong!" line of argument is, btw. I find myself astonished by its efficacy every day.; 6:14 PM

Friday, August 05, 2011

Northern Blights

88 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive