A Theory of Everything (that Matters)

[labelwench]

One of the 'social structures' that I have had opportunity to study in detail over several years, is the hierarchy of horses.

Horses do not have a democracy.

They are a social animal, that lives in small extended family groups, which have sub-groups within.

Although the role of the stallion is somewhat romanticised, and males do fight for the control of a group of mares, it is often a matriarchal hierarchy, with the stallion's role primarily to fend off rivals and predators.

The lead mare will tolerate her suitor during breeding season, but otherwise, it is she who rules the roost and keeps things orderly. The mares have a well established hierarchy and each knows their place in it. Foals are born with their dam's status within the herd (not unlike human society) but upon weaning and separation, they may move upward or downward, depending on their own accumen, and who they group with. Any addition or subtraction from the group is cause for an entire reorganization. Some horses are very good at befriending the more powerful horses, by which means they benefit from such association.

Here's the main point of this post:
Horses practice excommunication as their most powerful negative reinforcement. Sure, they bite and kick and strike each other, only rarely with intent to do serious injury, although mishaps can result in a broken leg, which is usually fatal for a horse.

If a horse is so disruptive as to put the rest of the group at jeopardy, every member of the herd will repel the individual. This separation deprives the individual of nutrition, water and rest, even if plenty of graze is available, as they are not granted time to eat, using all of their energy to avoid the other herd members, who have divided this duty.

Kept at a distance from the combined resources of the group, the marginalized individual must also watch for predators, who seek out the stragglers, further depleting their own reserves of energy.

What is the most observable reason that a group of generally benign creatures would act so despicably toward one of their kind?

A horse that does not show respect for the existing order, often one who bullies the slighter herdmates and lashes out for no acceptable reason.

The whole process is fascinating to observe, as the mature horses are usually very patient and consistent, elevating their responses only if the offender does not comply.

Horses use the rule of 3.

1) I'm asking you - usually just a glance or a drawing up of their head or posture.

2) I'm warning you - ears go back, eyes narrow, muscles tense...

3) BLAAAM - I told you, and there's plenty more where this came from. This is usually a bite or a strike if a male is disciplining, while mares will swap ends, rush backwards, and start booting wth both hind feet.

Which is the reason you do not put strange horses together in a confined space, as there is not sufficient space to work through the discourse.

Maybe people act the way they do because, in many cases, they are strangers to each other, forced by circumstances, to be in closer proximity than is optimal for our species.

But of course, we are so much more civilized than a bunch of dumb animals, aren't we....?

[SteveA]

One of the 'social structures' that I have had opportunity to study in detail over several years, is the hierarchy of horses.

Horses do not have a democracy.

They are a social animal, that lives in small extended family groups, which have sub-groups within.

There is still effectively some "democratic" pressures, but I understand what you mean - it's more of a herd culture. Just like families and friends or culture, not something where they line up as groups against each other for reasons that are often entirely unnecessary or irrelevant (for example, gay marriage or legal marriage in general - why do we have to vote on what marriage is? It's not a complex thing and should be entirely private - if two people want to call themselves married or not or have a party etc., that's all private matters. If they want some form of contract as to the terms that are considered enforceable, that's still a private agreement etc. Noone needs to vote on that except whatever people might be involved, but because some people in the past wanted to control whether or not a rich person could marry a poor person or whether a person of one skin color could marry someone of another etc., then it all began and now people argue over whether or not hospitals should be forced to comply with laws regarding marriage etc. A giant scam and lawyers love it too and they try to threaten and intimidate people in matters they should rarely need to be involved in ... and we generally fall for it too People stopped "drawing the line" and defending it and now we're paying for it constantly).

Although the role of the stallion is somewhat romanticised, and males do fight for the control of a group of mares, it is often a matriarchal hierarchy, with the stallion's role primarily to fend off rivals and predators.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Sounds like real marriage! LOL (I'm not even joking though)

The lead mare will tolerate her suitor during breeding season, but otherwise, it is she who rules the roost and keeps things orderly. The mares have a well established hierarchy and each knows their place in it. Foals are born with their dam's status within the herd (not unlike human society) but upon weaning and separation, they may move upward or downward, depending on their own accumen, and who they group with.

That sounds like a very natural (it seems close to optimal genetically) arrangement. Personally, I think children should be treated similar to the property of the parent(s), though if a child wants to leave the parent(s) or the parent(s) don't want to take care of the child, that's different (and truly it's the mother that should have the final say whether or not the father should be involved - I think she should and it can effectively give good fathers some advantages genetically and discourage the 'once around the track' "dads", and similarly if a man wants to be a father and raise a child then this should really be an explicit agreement with the mother, of course like marriage, but really the initial decision is the mother's she does the work, there are no questions over who the mother of a child is either - fathers can't be quite so certain and in that respect I do believe there is more of a reason that a man interested in being a father naturally has more interest in the woman "drifting" than women have in men "drifting" and animal herds tend to be similar - a lot of people say marriage was for women, but I think it was actually more for men ... of course it can work out fine for both though)

Yes, I can always ramble on and on LOL ... pick any random subject and I've got 2 days worth of opinions, questions and unresolved paradoxes to rattle off.

Any addition or subtraction from the group is cause for an entire reorganization. Some horses are very good at befriending the more powerful horses, by which means they benefit from such association.

Yes, sometimes it works fine for both or more parties to have a deference in some manner. You can see this in work between people as well - if someone wants to learn some skills they might apprentice for a while and start out "at the bottom" but obviously with hopes of moving up and similarly a mentor or employer etc. doesn't want to lose the assistance and generally tries to keep people satisfied and as long as there aren't chains or guns or physical agression or threats etc. these are all voluntary institutions and it works best to allow people the greatest number of options and freedom to find how to fit in best.

Here's the main point of this post:

Horses practice excommunication as their most powerful negative reinforcement. Sure, they bite and kick and strike each other, only rarely with intent to do serious injury, although mishaps can result in a broken leg, which is usually fatal for a horse.

To me, that's the ideal and it looks like nature agrees (thank you for your post on this too ... a little corroboration can't hurt! ), but people keep thinking they can "fix" nature. No, they should try to fix themselves, make themselves better, set a better example etc. believing that people can be "saved" by force is entirely wrong - it doesn't change their desires, they don't learn why, it doesn't somehow protect them from natural consequences and it causes stagnation in the culture because it has little diversity and everyone sinks and swims together without even knowing if they're sinking or swimming because they're all on the same boat, but still most people "jump ship" when things get bad and that's why I have hope.

BTW, I've enjoyed both your posts (Yes, they do agree with a lot of my thoughts on politics, social cultures etc. and just basically how people "fit together" best - and it's actually so simple. Nature already gave the desires and instincts to people to do fine, though it still takes some (re)learning with scrubs elbows and a little "school of hard knocks", but I admit I worry about the direction things are heading and I don't see any "magic solution" to it. There appear to be some very focused campaigns trying to subdue and enslave a lot of people ... I was in a McDonalds a few days ago and they had a TV with CNN on. I rarely watch the news anymore, but when I heard the stuff they were trying to pass out, it literally almost made me sick to my stomach and no, it wasn't the food. It's just really sad to see where things are at and the number of "willing volunteers" that appear being led to a slaughterhouse. I don't get it ... in fact that was one of those things a couple weeks ago, that I basically realized there's little of anything I can do and if something's going to fix it, some "higher power" needs to do something. I haven't been of a religious bent in maybe 25 years, but looking at it now, it really does look like some stories may have been true. It just seems best to plan on getting out of the way and let nature take her course. Ironically if people stopped trying to fix things we'd probably be fine)

I'll reply to the second half of your post too.

Thank you for bringing up the subject too and I enjoy the context (and yes, watching how animals in nature do it is not a bad idea at all. We've allowed things to become overcomplicated and don't see the value of simplicity - I admit I tend to overcomplicate, but I do that to understand the simple things better to know why they are as they are)

Continued ...

[SteveA]

If a horse is so disruptive as to put the rest of the group at jeopardy, every member of the herd will repel the individual. This separation deprives the individual of nutrition, water and rest, even if plenty of graze is available, as they are not granted time to eat, using all of their energy to avoid the other herd members, who have divided this duty.

Yes, I do believe that there are the equivalent of "property rights" that have to be respected. If you want to stay in some area but your actions cause conflict with others in the area, then the preference should go to those with the most vested interest in the area.

So the choice is either to stay and follow the owner/community rules or set up your own elsewhere with whoever wants to join. Beyond that, there's really no reason for any additional punishment unless that peaceful separation of ways doesn't occur (and it can go both ways - you can have people who cause trouble and resist leaving as well as people who're willing to go, but some in the community don't want them to leave. In either case, there's an additional problem that needs to be resolved, but oftentimes it can be a rather peaceful separation and ultimately better for both).

Kept at a distance from the combined resources of the group, the marginalized individual must also watch for predators, who seek out the stragglers, further depleting their own reserves of energy.

What is the most observable reason that a group of generally benign creatures would act so despicably toward one of their kind?

Well it's indirectly protecting the rest of the herd. Ideally the "rouge" could do it's thing, but if the rest of the herd perceives it as a threat to their well being, then it's similar to a physical defense of ones interests, which are often communal interests as well.

I remember a president saying something like "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". In many ways this is an entirely backwards and destructive view. We should be asking what benefit we get from a country and whether or not we'd be better off with something different, not asking what additional sacrifices can be made to sustain something that isn't even a person. Obviously, when it benefits people, then they should want to support it and it's natural to expect some sacrifices to maintain it, but that should be rather natural. In fact, ideally there should not be a single person expected to sustain it, if anyone feels they are worse off due to it, they should not be expected to support it - no slaves, just people trying to get along (yes, I admit realistically that's an ideal difficult to reach but it appears many have the attitude that it's ok to sacrifice a few people to appease a fire god or something, it's always another minority that supposedly has it too good and needs to be brought down ... purely destructive for all parties because it pushes down those we need the most and breeds apathy in the rest).

A horse that does not show respect for the existing order, often one who bullies the slighter herdmates and lashes out for no acceptable reason.

Yes, those are the ones that need a little "pushing" as they don't respect the well being of others and some physical defense/discouragement is necessary (I've tried to think for a long time how to get around the need for physical defense, but that's a tough one. No, if someone thinks they need a shotgun it's probably better that they get one and the track record appears to be that this form of "equal respect" works well . It would be nice to find a way in which people had no need for such, but that's really just a social thing and without defense even a single apple can ruin the whole batch)

The whole process is fascinating to observe, as the mature horses are usually very patient and consistent, elevating their responses only if the offender does not comply.

Horses use the rule of 3.

1) I'm asking you - usually just a glance or a drawing up of their head or posture.

2) I'm warning you - ears go back, eyes narrow, muscles tense...

3) BLAAAM - I told you, and there's plenty more where this came from. This is usually a bite or a strike if a male is disciplining, while mares will swap ends, rush backwards, and start booting wth both hind feet.

Yes, that's the way it appears things work best. You have to make sure you let someone know if they're causing a problem - don't pick up a phone and call the police everytime someone annoys.

If that doesn't work, maybe see if there's a compromise.

If that still doesn't work, then something needs to happen and I don't recommend people always back down. If you're right, hold your ground and let loose. If noone ever did that, we'd be in very bad shape now.

Which is the reason you do not put strange horses together in a confined space, as there is not sufficient space to work through the discourse.

Yes, and along related lines (not identical) if we, for example had a broader diversity in states cultures and typical social expectations, people would much more naturally be able to find places they fit in - whether or be San Francisco, a bible belt, a socialist attempt at utopia or partying in Vegas and the beauty is that so much less enforcement is needed because people will tend to "do their thing" elsewhere instead of police needing to try to monitor everything - less resentment for everyone too and as a group they're more likely to try to protect the freedom and diversity they have this way.

People need some room, just like horses to resolve their differences.

Maybe people act the way they do because, in many cases, they are strangers to each other, forced by circumstances, to be in closer proximity than is optimal for our species.

Yes, though it's not necessarily that the proximity is bad, it's the alignment that's poor - a bit of room for different orientations would help and actually pull people closer.

But of course, we are so much more civilized than a bunch of dumb animals, aren't we....?

Of course! Especially the average voter (And to think we're trying to export this "product" to the rest of the world and it doesn't even work here - in the U.S. we were actually a republic of rather independent states and a limited federal government - that's a lot like having 50 grazing pastures ... that sounds much better than the giant zoo we have now and overly zealous caretakers! )

It's ironic to consider that many people have a hard time taking care of themself in their own life and yet we're suppose to vote on things for people living a thousand miles away we don't even know about and can't verify the results of etc.

Control of onesself and ones immediate environment is worth 1000 times as much as having a drop in the bucket representation on things that hardly matter or something there was no reason for there to be "losers".

And ideally, people could find a nice little community that they fit into well, even if it took moving a few times and we could learn both from others mistakes as well as maybe copy some of the successes (I know we can do a lot better, but it takes some work and risks, but with a few successes people will copy the best and leave the failures behind with noone else to blame for them - that's another problem we have, you find one political party will say that their idea failed because the other party didn't give it enough support, whereas by letting them each do their own things, they can't blame anyone else and others don't have to suffer for their mistakes, and we can move on to better)

But no, I think many are walking into a glue factory and they don't even know it and even beating sense into someone wouldn't help you just have to try to set an example, pass the word and then just hope others make the right decisions, but for yourself the only available receipe seems to still be the "old-school" method of drawing that line and having a shotgun at hand to defend if it people won't respect it.

Here's an interesting section of how "classic" views were:

New Hampshire State Constitution
June 2, 1784
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

There are many other similar documents showing the same trends, from the Magna Carte to the Declaration of Independence and many other state constitutions etc. People already went through this stuff before, in some ways it's nothing new.