tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post4160568508275028936..comments2024-03-27T03:22:41.073-07:00Comments on Psych Your Mind: Status Hierarchies: Do We Need Them?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-35332329449655363262012-10-29T08:48:57.411-07:002012-10-29T08:48:57.411-07:00Thanks for the comment Nik! Yeah, hunter gatherer ...Thanks for the comment Nik! Yeah, hunter gatherer communities have much less need of hierarchy, although I wonder about the extent of formal hierarchies. For example, there is a Yasawa Island culture in Fiji that researchers have studied recently--they hunt, gather, and do some yam farming. <br /><br />Anyway, there are strict rules among the villagers to not lord status over each other, and yet, informal hierarchies do develop, mostly based on age.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-71842661073195574932012-10-29T08:21:09.992-07:002012-10-29T08:21:09.992-07:00If you haven't already, you would probably enj...If you haven't already, you would probably enjoy reading more about hunter-gatherers - AFAIK, they place a lot less importance on status hierarchies than us folks in agrarian and industrialized societies.<br /><br />Btw.: "Status Hierarchies: Do We Need Them?" - I'd definitely phrase that as "Who needs status hierarchies, and for what purpose?"Nikolaj Lykke Nielsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02448077344949018765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-56713051072936971992012-09-21T15:31:04.456-07:002012-09-21T15:31:04.456-07:00I took Professor Burt's course on Network Stru...I took Professor Burt's course on Network Structures at Chicago Booth that may provide explanation for this. Burt's class was about how networks are either open or closed, with the determining factor being how well the people in your network know each other. The more social connections there were between the other people within your network, as a percentage of total connections you have to people in your network, the more closed your network was considered. For example, if you know three people, your network would be completely closed if all three people knew each other. Your network would be open if none of them knew each other.<br /><br />Burt didn't stress the importance of one network over another, he just showed how their functions differed. For example, within a company, you would drive efficiency and profit via closed networks. Because everyone knows each other, there is a sort of self-check to ensure that people follow policy and procedures. However, open networks were optimal for a situation where you needed to create value to drive top line growth. These situations tended to involve bridging structural knowledge gaps, linking two unrelated topics and solving problems.<br /> <br />With respect to your discussion about social hierarchy, it seems that the balance between brokerage and closure of a person's network would determine their success at solving other people's problems. If someone is more comfortable with a closure network, they will know fewer people really well. This wouldn't bode well for helping someone from another city solve their problems. However, if someone is more comfortable with kind of knowing many people but not as well as the person with a closure network, they are going to be able to identify people who have solutions for other people's problems more readily. I suppose social stature will precipitate out of this value creation because that person will be looked upon more favorably by both parties. Additionally, if the broker ever needs help with another problem, they will have more pull with these people than otherwise. <br /><br /> S0YG0RD0https://www.blogger.com/profile/12630903748413423472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-2413283877694421672012-09-19T09:04:36.882-07:002012-09-19T09:04:36.882-07:00I think it boils down to humans being mammals. We ...I think it boils down to humans being mammals. We are confined by our biology. A handful of individuals can rise above that, but most can't. This is probably true of the Cheeseboard collective you mention too. Even where there isn't supposed to be any rank order there are usually informla hierarchies. Staffanhttp://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-7999319584384648782012-09-12T11:21:00.208-07:002012-09-12T11:21:00.208-07:00Hey a site you might be interested in based on wha...Hey a site you might be interested in based on what I'm reading here. Really good stuff all on the same points. I highly recommend it: www.balancedindividual.comEvan Danielshttp://www.balancedindividual.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-78214576758236649052012-09-10T21:18:34.640-07:002012-09-10T21:18:34.640-07:00I believe that status hierarchies are necessary be...I believe that status hierarchies are necessary because one way or another some will rise and others will fall. With hierarchies already in place there will not be fighting over who falls or not. This is evident in the Stanford University prison experiment where some students where prisoners and some where guards. Even though they were already given their duty they still fought for power and respect. In conclusion, status hierarchies are inevitable and in a way are necessary.Bryan Hillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-57561032693147055932012-09-10T21:11:16.571-07:002012-09-10T21:11:16.571-07:00Thanks! That is a great question. Clearly hierarch...Thanks! That is a great question. Clearly hierarchies form, but they definitely don't need to be as unequal as they are--in terms of resource sharing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-40605927155601969732012-09-10T02:17:26.360-07:002012-09-10T02:17:26.360-07:00Nice article!
Indeed, it appears that no human or...Nice article!<br /><br />Indeed, it appears that no human organization can achieve a perfect horizontal structure. We are living organisms, not atoms in a cristal ;)<br />The question then appears as what is the minimalistic structure that we have to adopt in order to maximize fairness, cooperation and sustainability. Big question!Guillaume Dumashttp://www.extrospection.eunoreply@blogger.com