<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>J-</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Love the Arendt quote/reference... an (space-time) region I've
become fond of revisiting (pre/post-war Europe), especially in
light of the abstractions of organization and form/function
dualities.</p>
<p>Your observation about Trump/Musk/MAGA feels <i>aphorismically
correct</i> (I may be the only one who would use those two
words together) and aligned with another aphorism: <i>"take two
(or three) problems, put them together and call them a
solution"</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><i>- </i>S<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/20/24 3:29 PM, Jochen Fromm
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:202410202144.49KLitLC017941@ame1.swcp.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<font dir="auto">Wonderful essay.</font>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Hannah Arendt wrote <span style="color: rgb(0, 0,
0); white-space-collapse: preserve;">in the 1951 preface to
her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism": "It is as though
mankind had divided itself between those who believe in human
omnipotence (who think that everything is possible if one
knows how to organize masses for it) and those for whom
powerlessness has become the major experience of their lives".</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
white-space-collapse: preserve;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/why-free-minds-are-our-best-defence-against-the-rise-of-totalitarianism">https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/why-free-minds-are-our-best-defence-against-the-rise-of-totalitarianism</a></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
white-space-collapse: preserve;">Trump and Musk clearly belong
to the former, his MAGA followers to the latter class. </span><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Google
Sans"; white-space-collapse: preserve;">If MAGA followers
are similar to the people who vote for the far right AfD here
in Germany, then they probably indulge in resentments against
immigrants and refugees, because they feel powerless and
generally </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: "Google Sans"; white-space-collapse:
preserve;">unable to achieve the life they long for. </span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
white-space-collapse: preserve;">-J.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000" align="left">
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Roger Critchlow <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rec@elf.org"><rec@elf.org></a> </div>
<div>Date: 10/20/24 9:30 PM (GMT+01:00) </div>
<div>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a> </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On Evolutionary Atavism </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">My video watching has just started season 3 of His
Dark Materials, Phillip Pullman's epic fantasy, which has a lot
to say about Authority, its excesses, and the necessity to
overthrow it. Then there was this essay, <a
href="https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/why-individualism-fails-to-create-individuals?ref=upstract.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://hedgehogreview.com/web-features/thr/posts/why-individualism-fails-to-create-individuals?ref=upstract.com</a>,
which definitely had a conservative axe to grind, but said some
interesting things about authority in the context of learning.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Trump and Musk seem to be playing argument from authority
to death, that is, demonstrating how far you can get on bs
alone in this age.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- rec --</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at
3:32 AM Jochen Fromm <<a href="mailto:jofr@cas-group.net"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jofr@cas-group.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">I
agree that the hype in conservative news sources about
great CEOs is an example of the Great Man theory. The
hype about AI godfathers is an example too. Nevertheless
I still believe that authoritarian organization is the
rule in social systems. In almost all companies and
corporations the CEO has the last word, in armies the
general at the top, in families traditionally the
father. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory</a></span></p>
<br dir="auto">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">In
hierarchies there are two ends of a spectrum: at the one
end we have an authoritarian system and a top-down
hierarchy where people at the bottom are doing what the
leader at the top wants. At the other end we have a
democratic system and a bottom-up hierarchy where
elected people at the top are doing what the people at
the bottom want. In between are authoritarian systems
that pretend to democratic, and democratic system that
have authoritarian tendencies. </span></p>
<br dir="auto">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">An
example of the spectrum would be a Navy vessel vs a
pirate ship in the 18th century. Mutiny is one form of
transition between the two types.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_18th-century_piracy"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_18th-century_piracy</a></span></p>
<br dir="auto">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Another
example is the Catholic church vs protestantism. In the
Catholic church officials are appointed from the top, in
protestant culture they are elected. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism</a></span></p>
<br dir="auto">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">The
question why people are shifting from one form of
organization to another is intriguing. I am not sure if
we have clear answers to this interesting question. Nick
argued that "groups capable of shifting to an
authoritarian organization in response to a perceived
existential threat survived in greater numbers than
those that didn't" but this argument alone is not fully
convincing, or is it? </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><br>
</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-J.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><br>
</span></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:100%;color:rgb(0,0,0)" dir="auto"
align="left">
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: glen <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">gepropella@gmail.com</a>>
</div>
<div>Date: 10/18/24 9:47 PM (GMT+01:00) </div>
<div>To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">friam@redfish.com</a>
</div>
<div>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On Evolutionary Atavism </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
I can't help but feel that the sentiment that authoritarian
organization is the rule is an example of (or sibling to)
the Great Man theory. Ultimately, it's something akin to a
psychological investment in teleology - which I'm using to
mean when the appearance of purposeful behavior is often
treated as an indicator that processes do have purpose (as
opposed to teleonomy - where processes merely seem to have
purpose, behave as if they have purpose, or perhaps purpose
is emergent). But it's not merely the attribution of
purpose, but also the attribution of unity or fusion into a
bounded whole.<br>
<br>
I'd challenge anyone to present an organized system that is
*actually* unified in this way. Even political systems we
name and accept as authoritarian, are not completely fused,
atomic, centralized. The extent to which the nominal leader
is actually the leader is a graded extent, never perfect.
Each particular authoritarian system will be more or less
authoritarian than another. And, worse, each particular
system will be more authoritarian in some dimensions and
less in others.<br>
<br>
So if I read this generously, what I hear is that we're very
used to ... comfortable with ... the attribution of
leader-controlled organization, as in corporations with
chief executives, etc. And we're less used to ... facile
with ... comfortable with ... distributed organization and
quantifying the extent to which organization is centralized
or distributed.<br>
<br>
If I read it less generously, it sounds like reification -
pretending like some illusory property is actual.<br>
<br>
On 10/17/24 10:21, Jochen Fromm wrote:<br>
> Interesting thoughts. The use of "atavism" in the
context of social systems is interesting, but it is not new.
Joseph Schumpeter has used the term atavism to explain the
outbreak of World War I<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I believe authoritarian organization is not the
exception, it is the rule. A pecking order or "dominance
hierarchy" is the most common order in social groups and
almost all organizations, corporations and companies. Even
among chickens in farms or apes in zoos.<br>
> <br>
> <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The opposite of authoritarian organization is an
egalitarian society where everybody is equal. In his book
"Warlike and Peaceful Societies", Agner Fogar agues that
people tend to prefer one of these two types depending on
the situation. His regality theory says "people will show a
psychological preference for a strong leader and strict
discipline if they live in a society full of conflict and
danger, while people in a peaceful and safe environment will
prefer an egalitarian and tolerant culture"<br>
> <br>
> <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regality_theory"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regality_theory</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -J.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Inters-------- Original message --------<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a><br>
> Date: 10/17/24 12:08 AM (GMT+01:00)<br>
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group' <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">friam@redfish.com</a>><br>
> Subject: [FRIAM] On Evolutionary Atavism<br>
> <br>
> On Evolutionary Atavism<br>
> <br>
> My so-called mind is still churning from our
conversation about evolutionary atavism, the idea that
current behavioral systems may be ill-suited to contemporary
circumstances. As an evolutionary psychologist I should be
for it; however, as a survivor of the instinct wars of the
1950’s, I should be against it. Where am I?<br>
> <br>
> The problem with evolutionary atavism arises when
people start attributing any necessity to it. Natural
selection would not be possible if organisms did not offer
up structures and behaviors that are maladapted. Evolution
could not have occurred if organisms did not respond to
these maladaptations with adaptive changes. Evolution is a
dynamic between change and stability and the interesting
question is why some things change while others don’t, and
why some changes occur more rapidly than others. Asserting
that some things are the same as they were a million years
ago because they didn’t happen to change is just silly.<br>
> <br>
> Still, evolutionary atavism does play a role in my
thinking. Let’s work an example together and see what that
role is and whether it is justified. I listened with guilty
pleasure to Obama’s address ridiculing MAGA thinking. My
pleasure was guilty because I thought his speech would make
Trump more likely to win the election. This conclusion
arose from an evolutionary hypothesis about the origins of
charisma. The logic, such as it is, goes like this.<br>
> <br>
> 1. *The modern human species arose 160kyrs ago from a
very small number of small groups. *That the human species
passed through a severe bottleneck at it inception is
probably true; that it was composed of small group at that
time is a plausible surmise.**<br>
> 2. *Those groups were engaged in intense competition
at the bottleneck. *This statement is reasonable but not
supported by any data I can think of. **<br>
> 3. *Therefore, they survived or failed as groups.
*Again, merely plausible.**<br>
> 4. *Those /groups/ survived that were capable of rapid
concerted action. *This is based on the idea that in
emergencies it is most important for every to do some thing,
rather than for them to wait and work out the best thing to
do.**Barely plausible. Not even clear how one would go about
researching it. **<br>
> 5. *Groups capable of shifting to an authoritarian
organization in response to a perceived existential threat
survived in greater numbers than those that didn’t.*<br>
> 6. *Humans, therefore, are inclined to put their faith
in a single person when they perceive an existential threat.
*Let’s call this the “Charismer Response”**<br>
> 7. *The person most likely to be selected for this
role is apparently single-minded and decisive. *This gives
us the characteristics of a *Charismer*, **<br>
> 8. *Charismees relinquish their capacity for
independent rational thought in favor of the Charismer’s
decision-making. *<br>
> 9. *Charismees receive benefits from the group in
proportion to their demonstrations of surrender of
rationality.*<br>
> 10. *Charismees demostrate their surrender by the
repetition of o or more flagrantly irrational beliefs.
(virgi birth, stole election , etc.)*<br>
> 11. *Challenges to these beliefs only increase
charismees allegiance to the group*<br>
> 12. *Therefore, Obama should have kept his smarty-pants
mouth shut. *<br>
> <br>
> You all ca*n* evaluate the heuristic, rationality,
a*n*d probability of this argument. I am going to stop
*n*ow because my keyboard has stopped reliably producing
“*n’s” * ad is drivig me uts. At best, I think evolutionary
atavism is a source of plausible hypotheses about why
organisms are not adapted to their current circumstances.
See some of you tomorrow.<br>
> <br>
> Sicerely,<br>
> <br>
<br>
-- <br>
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ<br>
<br>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. ---
-.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a
href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a
href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</div>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. ---
-.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
Zoom <a rel="noreferrer" href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a rel="noreferrer"
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a rel="noreferrer"
href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a rel="noreferrer"
href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a rel="noreferrer"
href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
to (un)subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>