Is creating Hierarchies a part of Human Nature /his/? Is a functioning

>>2016181
>Is creating Hierarchies a part of Human Nature /his/?
Yes, the vast majority of people are idiots that want to be told what to do.

>Is a functioning non-Hierarchal society impossible?
No, it would just require everyone to be an ubermensch.

>>2016185
Basically this.

Also, the more humans there are, the more social complexity is needed to process information and coordinate different groups.

>>2016181
human nature is a social construct. if society was diffrent we would not necessarily look, act, or think according to "human nature." for instance, the fact that we grow up to stand vertically is just a product of our vertically-directed society.

>human nature
sounds spooky.

http://petercast.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/western-illusion-beautiful.pdf

>human nature

>>2016224
>>2016227
>>2016272
I think there have been any number of early childhood studies that suggest certain behaviors are innate within a large percentage of the population.

>>2016224
I think your an idiot who doesn't understand basic anatomy.

>>2016369
>therefore, human nature has an objective description
non-sequitor.

Yes, we've had hierarchies for 200 million years

General animalistic behavior is represented by this description. Since humans are tard fags with no social inteligence this "nature" is the only way, or aryans as mentioned.

>>2016369
Explains the popularity of the foo fighters

>>2016438
Explain the popularity of tobey maguire's spiderman films.

I'm waiting.

>>2016181
Human nature doesn't really extend to groups of people larger than a tribe. Since tribes didn't have people, no. We're in uncharted territory evolutionarily.

>>2016534
*Since tribes didn't have hierarchies

>>2016405
No, we haven't.

>>2016431
That's not true at all, humans had the largest natural groups back in prehistoric times out of any species.

>>2016181

Depending. There will always be some form of heirarchy, but wether its an opressive one or a leader who you look to for guidance, there's a difference.

>>2016536
Yes, we have.

>>2016548
Well I didn't realise that nomads and hunter-gatherers lived in hierarchies anon. Got anything to cite?

>>2016556
The hierarchies of hunter-gatherer tribes are not as rigid or complex as those of larger nations, but they still do have hierarchies.

Chief or "Big man" > all
Strong men > Weak men
Men > Women > Children

These hierarchies are not rigid "what I say goes" monopoly of right hierarchies like a military, but rather are hierarchies of respect of opinion and respect of social power.

>>2016556
No need for citation. They weren't communists, i.e . did not have an equal social structure, most being patriarchical. Its impossible to not have some form of heirarchy >>2016545
and this holds true even to this day, hell even communism had a heirarchy. Can you give me an example of a any group that does not have a heirarchical structure?

>>2016590
>>2016592
I wouldn't really call it hierarchy at that scale. I think being specialised based on what they could do would be a closer description, without any real top-down power structure aside from the chief himself. There's some evidence that suggests many hunter-gatherer groups may not have even been male-oriented.

>>2016181
Humans are naturally unequal to each other. There will always be people naturally more inclined to certain behaviors, and therefore certain roles in society.

>>2016224
Where do you think societies come from? Thin air?

>>2016224
>>2016227
>>2016272
>>2016683
It's clearly not a construct, but much of what is human nature and what is environmental is and has been up for in question for a long time. Congratulations, you've hit upon the classic nature vs nurture debate.

>>2016227
>>2016272
>>2016391
Reminder that by denying the existence of human nature you're in the same camp as this >>2016224

>>2016181
Only two hierarchies exist ; bourgeoisie and proletariat

manlets always got bullied and Chad always had more sex seems like hierarchy to me

>>2016653
>I wouldn't really call it hierarchy at that scale.
An hierarchy only needs two elements.

File: 1420406594710.jpg (14KB, 473x333px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 473x333px

>>2016536
>>2016534
>Since tribes didn't have hierarchies
What?

>>2017574
Your Reddit is showing

>>2016653
>I wouldn't really call it hierarchy at that scale.
> without any real top-down power structure aside from the chief
Well, the lack of homogeneity in paleolithic peoples is an issue when it comes to generalization of social structure, but it would be fair to assume that a "pecking order" type hierarchy likely exists in most tribes based on a number of things, like physical strength, popularity within the tribe, respect, etc. In general, this is probably true, as we see this in almost any initially unorganized social group of humans (schoolyards being a good example).

>There's some evidence that suggests many hunter-gatherer groups may not have even been male-oriented.
That's likely true, but by and large patriarchical tribes and societies tend to dominate. I'm reminded of a rather hilarious quote from Tacitus discussing the neighbors of the Swedes.

>"Bordering on the Suiones are the nations of the Sitones. They resemble them in all respects but one - woman is the ruling sex. This is the measure of their decline, I will not say below freedom, but even below decent slavery."
Certainly there is historical precedence for female dominated societies, but they tend to be short-lived and displaced by male-dominated societies.

>>2017595
Stfu /pol/tard

>>2017568
I'm pretty sure >>2016224 was being sarcastic/absurd in a failed attempt to be funny.
But then this is 4chan, so that guy being actually serious is about as likely as all the posters quoting him just being spergs misreading his sarcasm.
You're still spergs tho.

>>2017625
>communist
>has the nerve to suffix -tard to anything
I'm all for socialism, but Marxism is braindead retarded.

maybe

but it's also human nature to oppose said hierarchy

>/pol/ defending hierarchy because of "muh aryan"
>jews end up taking over businesses, governance, foreign policy, and entertainment
>/pol/ suddenly buttmad