I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, don’t necessarily agree either though.
I don’t think class conflict (that drove feudalism etc) arose just from there being grains around that “needed protection”. Without the dominator instinct, grain storage just means insurance, food security (security against bad weather, not finding the herd to hunt, or outside groups raiding).
I think class conflict was due to individuals who both desired power over others and understood that grain provided a means of attaining power because it provided a hoardable resource that allowed paying others to back them up. “You want to eat good? Then protect me and my hoard” That then sets up a situation where the grain holders become the upper class, those they pay for protection become class traiters, and everyone else ends up exploited.
I posit that humans as a species are a generally good cooperative species but due to natural variation, some individual’s brains are wired to think in a more exploitative way. But this exploitative person would be viewed negatively by their community and without a state to protect them, would be vulnerable to the direct consequences of their actions; and so this exploitative strategy was kept in check and unable to grow.
The ability to hoard grain allowed those with the dominator instinct to gain the upper hand against their community and take power. Feudalism evolved from that.
The rare dominator instinct + hoardable resources evolved into large scale exploitative economies of various types where the dominator instinct then became common and is now in most of us.
Is this “dominator instinct” backed up by science, or vibes? Is it not more likely that environments shape humans, who then shape their environment, which in turn reshapes humans who reshape their environment?
Is this “dominator instinct” backed up by science, or vibes?
Vibes, mainstream science is a product of capitalism, why would it vilify itself?
Is it not more likely that…
These things are not mutually exclusive. The dominator instinct is not a metaphysical thing. Every species chooses (by evolving) a life strategy. Think about Bonobos vs non-bonobo chimps, same biology for the most part but they chose different strategies at the species level, chimps went with the dominator strategy and bonobos didn’t. The dominator instinct probably pops up in some individuals the bonobo populations but is kept in check by the bonobo culture.
The chimp/bonobo thing does have a scientific basis. I’d say genetic variation that causes modulation of personality traits is pretty well established as having a scientific basis. The fact that mainstream science doesn’t view things in terms of a “dominator instinct” doesn’t mean anything other than that those funding the science don’t have motivation to view things that way.
Does it need to be instinctual, for some people’s brains to be “wired different”? Seems to me that this phenomenon is more easily explained as learned behavior. Since people’s behavior changes the environment, it creates a feedback loop; societies form a semi-artificial environment where people learn that domination is successful behavior, and are rewarded for continuing it. Thus, the behavior is propagated across generations, no instinct required.
…and neuroplasticity doesn’t really fit well with the idea that people are “hard-wired” to certain behavior. The only thing we really seem to be pre-programmed for is language and communication.
Animal behavior is the product of both genetics and environment (including the environment affecting the genes, epigenetics), and feedback loops are real but any neuroplasticity is limited to what our genetics will allow and what level of change is genetically possible over a given number of generations.
Since people’s behavior changes the environment, it creates a feedback loop; societies form a semi-artificial environment where people learn that domination is successful behavior, and are rewarded for continuing it. Thus, the behavior is propagated across generations, no instinct required.
This is what will cause genetic changes over time and turn learned behavior into innate behavior. Like the non-bonobo chimps probably started out that way (or maybe vice-versa) and over millennia or even millions of years, no longer have the capacity to behave like the other regardless of environment. If we took a non-bonobo family and put them with regular chimps I don’t believe the non-bonobo children would behave like bonobos because they are around bonobos.
Even if the “dominator instinct” is purely behavioral and not based in biology at all, it doesn’t change my point. My point is really a game theory point, that our species chose cooperation as a general strategy because it works out best for everyone in our situation at the time. But because we vary (whether genetically or a person’s learned behavior) an occasional individual comes along that tries out a different strategy.
Imagine a form of this game is played in early humans that have a cooperative culture. The cheater is likely to be ostracized or beaten up/killed allowing the cooperative culture to continue. But then you throw money into the game (ability to hoard resources, and create artificial scarcity by taking things from others and allowing selective “paying” of individuals that back you up. Now when a cheater comes along, they have tools (money and artificial scarcity) that allow them to break out of the normal game rules and dominate others – a dominator instinct was born.
neuroplasticity is limited to what our genetics will allow
sorry, what do you mean by this? Surely the benefit of a learning and growing brain is that it can respond and adapt to situations faster than germ-line genetics ever could. Why would there be a genetic limiter, what purpose would that serve?
Why not? After Primitive Communist tribal societies, class has existed in every major society. It doesn’t need to be global.
Nobody said it was linear or quick, just that class conflict is what drove change.
Sure. Different forms of class society with different contradictions have existed in other places.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, don’t necessarily agree either though.
I don’t think class conflict (that drove feudalism etc) arose just from there being grains around that “needed protection”. Without the dominator instinct, grain storage just means insurance, food security (security against bad weather, not finding the herd to hunt, or outside groups raiding).
I think class conflict was due to individuals who both desired power over others and understood that grain provided a means of attaining power because it provided a hoardable resource that allowed paying others to back them up. “You want to eat good? Then protect me and my hoard” That then sets up a situation where the grain holders become the upper class, those they pay for protection become class traiters, and everyone else ends up exploited.
I posit that humans as a species are a generally good cooperative species but due to natural variation, some individual’s brains are wired to think in a more exploitative way. But this exploitative person would be viewed negatively by their community and without a state to protect them, would be vulnerable to the direct consequences of their actions; and so this exploitative strategy was kept in check and unable to grow.
The ability to hoard grain allowed those with the dominator instinct to gain the upper hand against their community and take power. Feudalism evolved from that.
The rare dominator instinct + hoardable resources evolved into large scale exploitative economies of various types where the dominator instinct then became common and is now in most of us.
Is this “dominator instinct” backed up by science, or vibes? Is it not more likely that environments shape humans, who then shape their environment, which in turn reshapes humans who reshape their environment?
Vibes, mainstream science is a product of capitalism, why would it vilify itself?
These things are not mutually exclusive. The dominator instinct is not a metaphysical thing. Every species chooses (by evolving) a life strategy. Think about Bonobos vs non-bonobo chimps, same biology for the most part but they chose different strategies at the species level, chimps went with the dominator strategy and bonobos didn’t. The dominator instinct probably pops up in some individuals the bonobo populations but is kept in check by the bonobo culture.
Let me know when it has a scientific basis.
The chimp/bonobo thing does have a scientific basis. I’d say genetic variation that causes modulation of personality traits is pretty well established as having a scientific basis. The fact that mainstream science doesn’t view things in terms of a “dominator instinct” doesn’t mean anything other than that those funding the science don’t have motivation to view things that way.
Does it need to be instinctual, for some people’s brains to be “wired different”? Seems to me that this phenomenon is more easily explained as learned behavior. Since people’s behavior changes the environment, it creates a feedback loop; societies form a semi-artificial environment where people learn that domination is successful behavior, and are rewarded for continuing it. Thus, the behavior is propagated across generations, no instinct required.
…and neuroplasticity doesn’t really fit well with the idea that people are “hard-wired” to certain behavior. The only thing we really seem to be pre-programmed for is language and communication.
Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been away.
Animal behavior is the product of both genetics and environment (including the environment affecting the genes, epigenetics), and feedback loops are real but any neuroplasticity is limited to what our genetics will allow and what level of change is genetically possible over a given number of generations.
This is what will cause genetic changes over time and turn learned behavior into innate behavior. Like the non-bonobo chimps probably started out that way (or maybe vice-versa) and over millennia or even millions of years, no longer have the capacity to behave like the other regardless of environment. If we took a non-bonobo family and put them with regular chimps I don’t believe the non-bonobo children would behave like bonobos because they are around bonobos.
Even if the “dominator instinct” is purely behavioral and not based in biology at all, it doesn’t change my point. My point is really a game theory point, that our species chose cooperation as a general strategy because it works out best for everyone in our situation at the time. But because we vary (whether genetically or a person’s learned behavior) an occasional individual comes along that tries out a different strategy.
Here’s a game that demonstrates my point.
https://ncase.me/trust/
Imagine a form of this game is played in early humans that have a cooperative culture. The cheater is likely to be ostracized or beaten up/killed allowing the cooperative culture to continue. But then you throw money into the game (ability to hoard resources, and create artificial scarcity by taking things from others and allowing selective “paying” of individuals that back you up. Now when a cheater comes along, they have tools (money and artificial scarcity) that allow them to break out of the normal game rules and dominate others – a dominator instinct was born.
sorry, what do you mean by this? Surely the benefit of a learning and growing brain is that it can respond and adapt to situations faster than germ-line genetics ever could. Why would there be a genetic limiter, what purpose would that serve?