I review Christopher Boehm’s book which makes the case that human nature has tendencies toward both egalitarianism and despotism. The book asks the question: How might such a nature have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps?
This book is reminiscent of "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" by Peter Kropotkin. There have also been studies of bonobo communities where a despotic leader is removed and the society *transitions* to an egalitarian one.
This is video truly helped me to piece things together. I mean I had some vague ideas that early societies were egalitarian, I also knew stories how the Indians gave the "silent treatment" for those how broke the norm. But the inversion of the power hierarchy is a really intuitive way to think about this, and this explains a lot about politeness and white lies and so on. Personally, I'm surprised that early human comunities were able to coordinate somehing like this at such a large scale.
She's conflating the altruistic and status minded into one group which can't explain the laying down of life for virtue but a lot of this author's work is just rehashing Robert Sapolsky's work to a none bio aware audience
The flip was caused on my view, by a long period of unintended cooperation that changed the local minima of the models of social procedure in early institutional life. See institutions, institutional change and economic performance by Douglas
Hi Authority ≠ Dominance Being hostile to dominance hierarchies does not necessarily mean hostility to authoritarianism and hierarchies and a desire for egalitarianism. Authoritarianism believes in discrimination and cold war, not hot war.
The female scientist should watch yakuza films , any low rank member speak over his rank will get punished , no matter what you said is right or wrong , it is disrespect to the Boss and clan .
