Very interesting read. I'm also interested in noting that Western society and hunter gatherer society are _more_ similar to each other in their individualism than either are to pretty much every non-Western large/agrarian society. Does fit very well with Henrich's kin-structure idea of society. Agrarian societies are larger and more stationary than hunter gatherers, and complex kin affiliations and hierarchies emerge. These remain restrictive until society is large enough and the political will there to break these up through the mingling and pairing up of people from different clans.
what's your definition of individualistic? sure, they're interdependent, but we're interdependent in modern society - we rely on the products from others
hunter gatherers are more egalitarian, which lends itself to being less deferential to authority than those in non-Western large scale societies
No, hunter-gathers are more deferential since being thrown out of the tribe means death, while, today, you can almost get a job whatever you've done or said.
well that's not a reply to what I said at all, I was comparing traditional large scale societies to hunter gatherer societies, The trad societies with high rates of exile, capital punishment and homicide
Interesting to read (between the lines, perhaps) ithat you appear to find modern society less judgemental and conformist. From where I sit, the view is somewhat different. In my youth, homosexuality was illegal. Today it is almost compulsory if one wishes to engage in certain spheres.
Being 'different' has always been embraced by some and shunned by others. The few who live and behave without regard to social mores don't care what conformists think or say about them. The latter, whilst publicly accepting the idea that we are all individuals, are careful not to stray from the mainstream thinking of the day. They subtly vie with one another to be the most politically correct, regardless of evidence against the ideas they endorse and support, as the opinion of others is no less important to them now than it has ever been and laws are continually being created to reinforce their stance. Those who think for themselves also vie with one another to produce solid evidence in support of the facts which the conformists of today are instructed to shun. At least to some extent, I'd say that both groups are evidence of a continuing desire to be admired by others, just not for the same things that motivated people half a century and longer ago.
On the material plane, many men still judge one another by their ownership of more or less coveted vehicles and property whilst many women focus on each other's fingernails, hair and clothing. The advertising industry's output relies to a great extent on people's desire to impress one another as do the sprayed 'tags' of graffiti 'artists' (or vandals, depending on ones point of view) in hard to reach places in cities and towns.
In my opinion, individual members of our species still judge their self worth by their perceived effect on each other.
I'd agree with a lot of this, especially the last sentence, but the cost to ignoring those things I'd say is much smaller than in the past. Having divergent views on all sorts of issues today is little problem because we hardly know our neighbours, while, before the industrial revolution, we did and they were a far greater part of our lives, meaning, the cost of ignoring them today is much less. I'd dispute the point about homosexuality, it was worse in the 18th Century, say, to be a homo compared to today when it comes to being excluded from society.
Very interesting read. I'm also interested in noting that Western society and hunter gatherer society are _more_ similar to each other in their individualism than either are to pretty much every non-Western large/agrarian society. Does fit very well with Henrich's kin-structure idea of society. Agrarian societies are larger and more stationary than hunter gatherers, and complex kin affiliations and hierarchies emerge. These remain restrictive until society is large enough and the political will there to break these up through the mingling and pairing up of people from different clans.
How is a hunter gather society at all individualistic?
what's your definition of individualistic? sure, they're interdependent, but we're interdependent in modern society - we rely on the products from others
hunter gatherers are more egalitarian, which lends itself to being less deferential to authority than those in non-Western large scale societies
No, hunter-gathers are more deferential since being thrown out of the tribe means death, while, today, you can almost get a job whatever you've done or said.
well that's not a reply to what I said at all, I was comparing traditional large scale societies to hunter gatherer societies, The trad societies with high rates of exile, capital punishment and homicide
Interesting to read (between the lines, perhaps) ithat you appear to find modern society less judgemental and conformist. From where I sit, the view is somewhat different. In my youth, homosexuality was illegal. Today it is almost compulsory if one wishes to engage in certain spheres.
Being 'different' has always been embraced by some and shunned by others. The few who live and behave without regard to social mores don't care what conformists think or say about them. The latter, whilst publicly accepting the idea that we are all individuals, are careful not to stray from the mainstream thinking of the day. They subtly vie with one another to be the most politically correct, regardless of evidence against the ideas they endorse and support, as the opinion of others is no less important to them now than it has ever been and laws are continually being created to reinforce their stance. Those who think for themselves also vie with one another to produce solid evidence in support of the facts which the conformists of today are instructed to shun. At least to some extent, I'd say that both groups are evidence of a continuing desire to be admired by others, just not for the same things that motivated people half a century and longer ago.
On the material plane, many men still judge one another by their ownership of more or less coveted vehicles and property whilst many women focus on each other's fingernails, hair and clothing. The advertising industry's output relies to a great extent on people's desire to impress one another as do the sprayed 'tags' of graffiti 'artists' (or vandals, depending on ones point of view) in hard to reach places in cities and towns.
In my opinion, individual members of our species still judge their self worth by their perceived effect on each other.
I'd agree with a lot of this, especially the last sentence, but the cost to ignoring those things I'd say is much smaller than in the past. Having divergent views on all sorts of issues today is little problem because we hardly know our neighbours, while, before the industrial revolution, we did and they were a far greater part of our lives, meaning, the cost of ignoring them today is much less. I'd dispute the point about homosexuality, it was worse in the 18th Century, say, to be a homo compared to today when it comes to being excluded from society.