Once upon a time humans were social animals who lived in small groups maybe 15 to 50 individuals. Like lions, wolves, hyenas, or baboons.
And just like the lions, baboons, etc, they must have had an alpha male who got a lot of action, alpha females who tried to keep the alfa genes just in her family and some hopeful no hopers males, eyeing all the females, especially the alphas and waiting for the alpha male to hurt itself or fall off a cliff. Then inteligence evolved and the tribes swelled in size to 100 strong, then 200, then 2000 and 2 million . But did things really change in the hard wired pecking order stuff? I mean, it evolved over something like 30 million years. It is not suddenly going to disappear. And the pecking order, itself, is still only going to be 5 or 6 pecks long because thats what it was hard wired to be.
I see a clash occuring between the pecking order stuff and rational thought. One big irrational pecking order is monarchy. The heredetary king and his loyal followers. Stupid idea. just irrational. But there are millions of loyal followers in countries all over the world and many would still die for "king and country" The king might have a bunch of kids with willing hopeful cortesans and these kids will not become king. And why not? And why should any of his kids have special right to be king anyway? Probably a better new king is somewhere among his 4 million subjects. Another is the caste system. Thousands of years of regimented drudgery for some based on a pecking order. Pecking order power explains bill and monica, tiger and quite a few, and perhaps it also explains politicians and ceo's and movie and pop stars and how some of us follow their every move. And the introductory question "what do you do?". This question is asked purely to find out if the person is higher or lower on the pecking tree than you are. To "put them in their place".
Anyway, I think the pecking order thing is bad. I think the human brain slices up his or her social network into multiple pecking orders. And if you are below them in the order, your thoughts and words and actions are ignored unless they threaten his or her position in their preceved order. (People have actually researched this) Bosses! I have had a few where I had more training that they had as certain stuff, but they vetoed no brainer improvements that would have made them more money.
I think that sometimes you can be below a person in one order and above them in another of thesse multiple pecking orders.
I think politicians know all about these pecking orders. Harper has defunded climate science and the scientists (who are basically losing their jobs) hardly even whimper. It is because in their mind, he is the alpha and they must take whatever shit he gives them.
I used to look up to scientists, but now I see them as no better than lab rats. If harper puts funding into carbon storage underground, they will run for that funding as fast as their little legs will carry them.
Someone did an experiment a few years ago where he had actors taking fake electric shocks. The shocks were administered by "lab techs" who did not realize that they were the subjects of the experiment. Their boss insisted that the techs give the actors higher and higher shocks. Even with the actors pleading for their lives and faking their own death throes, many of the "lab techs' continued to "electrocute" them. I suggest there is much to learn about rational thought and how easily it can be turned off by a pecking order.
Any thoughts on pecking orders versus rational thought?