Society/Culture Are hierarchies bad?

[Carringbush2010]

It's an example of people abusing the power, not the system.

We wouldn't be sending any random 11 out to play cricket for Australia.

This is something that some are not willing to accept or are just too naive to understand it.

Yes patriarchy 'allows' abuse of power, like any hierarchy.

But that does not make the actual hierarchy bad, and as much as the 'allowance' is bad that doesn't take away from the fact that hierarchy are absolutely necessary, they're all around us and everywhere that humans and other mammals are.

It's not up for debate in my mind.

 

[Taylor]

This is something that some are not willing to accept or are just too naive to understand it.

Yes patriarchy 'allows' abuse of power, like any hierarchy.

But that does not make the actual hierarchy bad, and as much as the 'allowance' is bad that doesn't take away from the fact that hierarchy are absolutely necessary, they're all around us and everywhere that humans and other mammals are.

It's not up for debate in my mind.

The assumption is that humans prop up those who are deemed to be good at whatever we decide matters, usually something that lends itself to being successful in life.

The alternative to that hierarchy is then that random selection decides who is who leads - and let's not pretend we are capable of group thinking our way around, even our current democracy is a presentation of mostly two choices to decide between.

That means you can choose from a structure where our best and brightest at at the top, potentially lead astray by malice and selfish corruption of power or you can have randoms there and we are lead astray by incompetence. Either way when we lose we lose, but I'd argue the wins are better when our social structure is built off merit.

 

[Gethelred]

The assumption is that humans prop up those who are deemed to be good at whatever we decide matters, usually something that lends itself to being successful in life.

The alternative to that hierarchy is then that random selection decides who is who leads - and let's not pretend we are capable of group thinking our way around, even our current democracy is a presentation of mostly two choices to decide between.

That means you can choose from a structure where our best and brightest at at the top, potentially lead astray by malice and selfish corruption of power or you can have randoms there and we are lead astray by incompetence. Either way when we lose we lose, but I'd argue the wins are better when our social structure is built off merit.

Abstraction.

Demonstrate a measurement tool of intelligence that is certain, and demonstrate that capitalism produces merit and not avarice or commitment to the system at the top end. Define merit. Define 'best and brightest' in a workable context.

You could essentially make the precise same argument you're making here for a return to the rule of kings.

 

[Taylor]

Abstraction.

Demonstrate a measurement tool of intelligence that is certain, and demonstrate that capitalism produces merit and not avarice or commitment to the system at the top end. Define merit. Define 'best and brightest' in a workable context.

You could essentially make the precise same argument you're making here for a return to the rule of kings.

If we are facing a future where our leaders need to take us into battle then having a period of time where the best commander in war is determined would be beneficial.

It's that period after where being born into the position dilutes the benefits.

 

[Gethelred]

If we are facing a future where our leaders need to take us into battle then having a period of time where the best commander in war is determined would be beneficial.

It's that period after where being born into the position dilutes the benefits.

Abstraction.

Platitudes sound great, but I'm not interested in them.

 

[Malifice]

It's an example of people abusing the power, not the system.

You dont think patriarchal society enabled that abuse of women and young men?

How was it that Weinstein, Cosby, Spacey, Harris etc were all able to openly get away with it for so long?

 

[Seeds]

I'll say it again, just so everyone gets it. (if you wish, look up the word epiphany)

No hierarchy = no order and organization

No order and organization = chaos (if you wish, look up the word anarchy)

So in answer to the thread question, > NO <

Why does it have no order or organization. Have you not heard of democracy?

also dont confuse hierarchy with responsibility.

 

[Seeds]

A hierarchy is essentially an order. Some have more, some have less. That is a hierarchy.

Policing requires a hierarchy whereby some folks have more power, some have less.

That is a hierarchy.

Oh its another sweet jesus semantics discussion. Awesome.

 

[Taylor]

You dont think patriarchal society enabled that abuse of women and young men?

How was it that Weinstein, Cosby, Spacey, Harris etc were all able to openly get away with it for so long?

Because hollywood is the most fake place ever, full of debauchery, unhappy and insecure people that are up to their eyeballs in drugs and meaningless sex to fill the huge void in their lives.

Funnily enough the place where characters come to life is devoid of it.

 

[Gethelred]

Because hollywood is the most fake place ever, full of debauchery, unhappy and insecure people that are up to their eyeballs in drugs and meaningless sex to fill the huge void in their lives.

Funnily enough the place where characters come to life is devoid of it.

Have you ever noticed the pattern between what you blame for societies or an individual's ills?

It's not the system, it's the people; it's not the system, it's the city.

It's never the barrel, and always the apples.

 

[Taylor]

Have you ever noticed the pattern between what you blame for societies or an individual's ills?

It's not the system, it's the people; it's not the system, it's the city.

It's never the barrel, and always the apples.

The power of choice shows itself.

 

[Gethelred]

The power of choice shows itself.

I was more thinking along the lines of the famous Thatcheresque aphorism, "There is no society."

 

[Taylor]

I was more thinking along the lines of the famous Thatcheresque aphorism, "There is no society."

When we are constantly, seemingly, in a struggle between one side who wants to leave the dynamics of society to it's own creation and another that wants to hand the decisions of the rules of society upwards then I can see how we end up stuck in a middle where people who wanted someone else to tell them how to do everything feel disenfranchised because they didn't get everything they wanted while also directing none of the blame at those who sought to fix the issues over the last generation/s.

The answer is always to be responsible for yourself. The people who do that the best usually end up in a position they deserve and society respects that.

But we still like playing the game where we put losers into positions of power because they promise us free stuff.

 

[Gethelred]

When we are constantly, seemingly, in a struggle between one side who wants to leave the dynamics of society to it's own creation and another that wants to hand the decisions of the rules of society upwards then I can see how we end up stuck in a middle where people who wanted someone else to tell them how to do everything feel disenfranchised because they didn't get everything they wanted while also directing none of the blame at those who sought to fix the issues over the last generation/s.

The answer is always to be responsible for yourself. The people who do that the best usually end up in a position they deserve and society respects that.

But we still like playing the game where we put losers into positions of power because they promise us free stuff.

That first paragraph is the run-on sentence to end all run-on sentences; it at once makes sense and no sense at the same time.

You need to be able to demonstrate that people who are/do the best end up in a position they deserve. You need to demonstrate that losers placed in those positions do worse than those you have arbitrarily decided are the best, and you need to decide what it is you value more, capitalism or democracy.

Because when your choices are democracy or capitalism, you trend towards choosing the latter as opposed to the former.

... which is why I keep posting that your posts are abstractions, because they are. You're pontificating about an ideal society (that matches this one) without demonstrating the ideal as practicable or in existence. You're idealizing stagnacy.

You are Ayn Rand.

 

[Taylor]

We can make an argument that democracy, especially our form of it, ensures that society remains mostly where it is.

Capitalism is just the free exchange of something to another party for something else they want. The opposite isn't socialism. It's relative valuism where the work or effort someone does it valued the same as the work or effort someone else does.

Unfortunately for us to have the best at the top we need to be comfortable with those not good enough failing, but we aren't.

 

[Gethelred]

We can make an argument that democracy, especially our form of it, ensures that society remains mostly where it is.

Capitalism is just the free exchange of something to another party for something else they want. The opposite isn't socialism. It's relative valuism where the work or effort someone does it valued the same as the work or effort someone else does.

Democracy and Capitalism have at times a strained relationship, because where one has an egalitarian mindset and principles to maintain, the other provides advantage to deliberate circumvention of that mindset and the discarding of those principles.

Again, the reason your analysis cannot capture the problem is because it's the apples that are bad, not the barrel. You cannot analyse a society you refuse to admit exists; if society does not exist, then democracy cannot, either.

Unfortunately for us to have the best at the top we need to be comfortable with those not good enough failing, but we aren't.

This is an admittance that your ideal society is not ideal, not that this societal structure is the ideal.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Why does it have no order or organization. Have you not heard of democracy?

also dont confuse hierarchy with responsibility.

Democracies have hierarchy, in fact any organised group whether it be the neighbourhood watch club or any sovereign state has hierarchy. Those groups do not function without it.

Nothing is organized or in order in a group of 1 or more individuals without hierarchy.

Without organization and order there is chaos (anarchy), or at best disagreement at impasse.

Thought it was pretty simple stuff.

 

[Seeds]

Democracies have hierarchy, in fact any organised group whether it be the neighbourhood watch club or any sovereign state has hierarchy. Those groups do not function without it.

Nothing is organized or in order in a group of 1 or more individuals without hierarchy.

Without organization and order there is chaos (anarchy), or at best disagreement at impasse.

Thought it was pretty simple stuff.

Democracies have dispersed responsibility. The courts, military, government are all seperated. And in a proper democracy the government is the people.

people have responsibility in some areas but not in a triangle hierarchical structure. Its more like a web.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Democracies have dispersed responsibility. The courts, military, government are all seperated. And in a proper democracy the government is the people.

people have responsibility in some areas but not in a triangle hierarchical structure. Its more like a web.

Doesn't change the fact or the purpose of a hierarchy.

Order and organisation.

In a true democracy as you put, the people hand that 'responsibility ' (elect) to certain people to organise and instil order. In other words a hierarchy

 

[Seeds]

Doesn't change the fact or the purpose of a hierarchy.

Order and organisation.

In a true democracy as you put, the people hand that 'responsibility ' (elect) to certain people to organise and instil order. In other words a hierarchy

Sounds like we are leaning into a disagreement of semantics rather then a disagreement on anything actually real.

all im arguing is that prosperous and efficient societies arent in a giant ordinal triangle Structure which is what you get endless pictures of when you google hierarchy.

Triangle hierarchical structures are extremely poor at making decisions in complex situations as no man or small group of men can comprehend and properly assess all the complex information no matter how smart they are.

this is another reason why democracies have tended to be superior to monachies and communists. Democracies have less hierarchical structure then monarchists and communists. Centralized decision making is what brought communism down and turned it into a nightmare.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sounds like we are leaning into a disagreement of semantics rather then a disagreement on anything actually real.

all im arguing is that prosperous and efficient societies arent in a giant ordinal triangle Structure which is what you get endless pictures of when you google hierarchy.

Triangle hierarchical structures are extremely poor at making decisions in complex situations as no man or small group of men can comprehend and properly assess all the complex information no matter how smart they are.

this is another reason why democracies have tended to be superior to monachies and communists. Democracies have less hierarchical structure then monarchists and communists. Centralized decision making is what brought communism down and turned it into a nightmare.

Yes we're going into finer details, none of which indisputably prove hierarchies are bad.

All we've got to is that the basic purpose of hierarchies are good. That's all we needed to get to.

 

[Gough]

I went to the Australian Geographic Nature Photo of the Year exhibition this morning and it highlighted how stupid hierarchies can be, a bunch of incredible works of art and people actually spent time trying to justify why one is better than the other. It debases the whole concept of art.

 

[Seeds]

I went to the Australian Geographic Nature Photo of the Year exhibition this morning and it highlighted how stupid hierarchies can be, a bunch of incredible works of art and people actually spent time trying to justify why one is better than the other. It debases the whole concept of art.

Art is better cos its more beautiful, stimulating and technically complex.

those who think certain art isnt better then other art debase the whole concept of art.

my kids drew a couple of squiggles on a piece of paper. Took them 1 minute. For you to say a Monet or Van Gogh isnt better then my kids art is objectively insulting to Monet and Van Gogh.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I went to the Australian Geographic Nature Photo of the Year exhibition this morning and it highlighted how stupid hierarchies can be, a bunch of incredible works of art and people actually spent time trying to justify why one is better than the other. It debases the whole concept of art.

Art is better cos its more beautiful, stimulating and technically complex.

those who think certain art isnt better then other art debase the whole concept of art.

my kids drew a couple of squiggles on a piece of paper. Took them 1 minute. For you to say a Monet or Van Gogh isnt better then my kids art is objectively insulting to Monet and Van Gogh.

Better send in the hierarchy to sort it out then.

 

[Gethelred]

Art is better cos its more beautiful, stimulating and technically complex.

those who think certain art isnt better then other art debase the whole concept of art.

my kids drew a couple of squiggles on a piece of paper. Took them 1 minute. For you to say a Monet or Van Gogh isnt better then my kids art is objectively insulting to Monet and Van Gogh.

Are you truly arguing that art is not subjective?

That would be an obstinate stance, even for you Seeds.