Dominator Relationship

[Tarantism]

i find that in every day life, humans attempt to find little ways to put themselves above their peers, apparently to satisfy ego. here are some examples that i have seen in my lifetime:

 

there is a wife, and she gets angry at her husband because he leaves the toilet seat up. now, they are both equals and, from sterotypical american households, the man handles finances and money (while the wife spends it :D), and the woman seems to find little ways to enforce her own power within the household, like punishing the children, making dinner and things like that. this stereotype is not nessesarily common in todays america, but it goes either way. the point is that little things that wouldnt normally matter turn into big household problems because one spouse or the other wants to ensure a certain amount of respect from the other.

 

a few friends are hanging around, chatting. one brings up a certain philisophical opinon, and his friend, who normally would keep his mouth shut, disagrees and poses a plausable argument simply because there is a female present. this is called a contest for alpha male, simply put into "civilized" terms. the two friends continue to argue, trying to prove themselves to this female, all the while not realizing that they are losing her intrests, because they cannot stop nagging each other :hihi:.

 

those are just some examples of what i have seen, but i guess im trying to figure out why we as humans choose to live with such dominator values? why must we "one-up" each other? is it because we live in a capitolist society? is it because of some "survival of the fittest" notion, that we feel if we disagree we are coming off as more informed or intelligent?

 

humans are so strange...:doh: :) :hihi:

[coberst]

It appears to me that our human instincts are to dominate or to serve. I would like to suggest that we concentrate our critical skills upon seeking to focus attention upon synthesis.

 

When I read history I see primarily a dual human need exerting itself—we seem to have a two class social system; we have the few who dominate the vast subservient majority. The subservient take this roll because humans crave order and stability. Humans crave dominance and they crave order and stability. Is their a third way?

 

When we are dominating objects we are united in a common goal. Our unified goal is to dominate objects as much as possible and we have proven to be very good at it. When we try to serve both a roll as dominant and as subversive we appear to create a society that is constantly at war with it self.

[Tarantism]

yes i recall that one. certainly you are correct, but that is a good question: is there a third way? i think yes, i believe that we must create a society where not only are there no nations (humans would simply exist as a race, i see nations as simply an excuse for war), and we would have to coexist. i think that this is the closest we could ever get to a utopian society. if you consider the natioal government, or comitte of people, we would stop fighting ourselves and start creating. progression would be the mission priori in this society, as fast as we can move we will. that would be ideal.

 

consider my post in the "world governments" thread:

 

a new world government would require brand new ways of thinking about how governments run. it should certainly be vote-based, but instead of 40 or 50 people on a voting commitee we should raise the scale to 2000 or so. then, we could interchange the commitee every year, letting people apply for admission and make a modest salary (quite literally...this public service shouldnt be too lucrative). on top of that, such a large commitee would eliminate discrimination and imbalance, breaking down the boarders and acting as one human race would eliminate natinalism. no longer would you be "american" but rather a human living in the North American part of Terra.

 

it would be nice to stop killing each other and start progressing and pushing further.

 

the only setback i can see to the idea of a peaceful human race (at least within itself) is that the population swell would be astouding. it would require us to find another habitable planet much faster than the next 100 years, as Stephen Hawking theorized we must do.

[coberst]

yes i recall that one. certainly you are correct, but that is a good question: is there a third way? i think yes, i believe that we must create a society where not only are there no nations (humans would simply exist as a race, i see nations as simply an excuse for war), and we would have to coexist. i think that this is the closest we could ever get to a utopian society. if you consider the natioal government, or comitte of people, we would stop fighting ourselves and start creating. progression would be the mission priori in this society, as fast as we can move we will. that would be ideal.

 

consider my post in the "world governments" thread:

 

 

 

the only setback i can see to the idea of a peaceful human race (at least within itself) is that the population swell would be astouding. it would require us to find another habitable planet much faster than the next 100 years, as Stephen Hawking theorized we must do.

 

Well said!

[InfiniteNow]

i guess im trying to figure out why we as humans choose to live with such dominator values?

 

I've responded to a similar question before, in fact, in a thread started by Coberst:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/7316-do-we-have-psychological-need-led.html

My thoughts are going back to extremely early evolution, such as bacteria. Groups and colonies of bacteria having greater strength due to the membership of a stronger bacteria... or something along those lines.

 

Then, when organisms became more complex, those group members who offered a competitive advantage over other groups not only assisted in survival, but received recognition for this assistance.

 

I presume that millions of years later, this could be the cause of a psychological "need" (however, I prefer the term predilection) for leaderhip.

 

If the above logic holds, then our social interactions such as those you described above are a direct result.

[Tarantism]

that makes sense, so...we have begun to rely on approval from others in order to conpensate for our own feelings of well-being. perhaps when those who do not get these compliments, they seek other forms of attention, such as those i just mentioned.

[coberst]

To dominate or to serve, there is the rub.

 

It appears to me that our human instincts are to dominate or to serve. I would like to suggest that we concentrate our critical skills upon seeking to focus attention upon synthesis.

 

When I read history I see primarily a dual human need exerting itself—we seem to have a two class social system; we have the few who dominate the vast subservient majority. The subservient take this roll both because humans crave order and stability and because such a roll is the path to power. Humans crave dominance and they crave order and stability. Is their a third way?

 

When we are dominating objects we are united in a common goal. Our unified goal is to dominate objects as much as possible and we have proven to be very good at it. When we try to serve both a roll as dominant and as subversive we appear to create a society that is constantly at war with it self.

 

Power is the siren song we all hear. We all want power and we get it by dominating or we get it by being subservient to power. Our newspapers abound with such stories daily of the struggle for power, i.e. power is the means to get what we want when we want it.

 

Acquisition of power is a human imperative. We can acquire and use power either rationally or irrationally. One of the primary motivating forces behind irrational behavior is considered to be human egocentrism, which is “to view everything within the world in relationship to oneself, to be self-centered”.

 

To be rational in one’s desires is to use intellectual standards of thinking and to be irrational in one’s desires is to use egocentric standards to determine what to accept or what to reject as true.

[infamous]

 

those are just some examples of what i have seen, but i guess im trying to figure out why we as humans choose to live with such dominator values? why must we "one-up" each other?

 

Somehow I feel this behavior is related to the survival instinct. When we humans get in situations where we appear to be losing control, we often react in this manner. The feeling of losing control usually generates defensive posturing..........................Infy

[Tarantism]

To be rational in one’s desires is to use intellectual standards of thinking and to be irrational in one’s desires is to use egocentric standards to determine what to accept or what to reject as true.

 

while i agree with you co, i think that it is important to remember that rationality is perception. while you and i may believe that intellectual methods of disserning a situation may be appropriate...another may think that brawn is the way to go, that being that most basic of ways to solve a problem, and if you are physically built to satisfy the primal need to battle for what you want, then perhaps that IS the correct way of doing things....but i doubt it. especially in a society that struggles so much to coexist with opposites and attempts to ignore disagreements.

 

Somehow I feel this behavior is related to the survival instinct. When we humans get in situations where we appear to be losing control, we often react in this manner. The feeling of losing control usually generates defensive posturing

 

i can understand this, and i do agree. when we are not in control in the situation we begin to feel helpless, and we as humans want to be able to contribute to the pack, and we want the things to say to hold water in group debate of discussion. when it comes down to it, if we are not allotted or allowed these rights by others, we attempt to carve out our own nitche of demand and command for ourselves, in a desprate cry for attention and control.

[Kriminal99]

This is something I hope to see change in my lifetime.

 

The truth is there is a whole category of immoral acts that most systems of law are woefully incapable of dealing with and that they therefore ignore.

 

What is it?

 

These are acts which some categorize as passive agressive. Deception, straw man arguments made in the abscence of the person being attacked, tactics designed to subvert people's capacity for reason in debate or any form of communication (such as intimidation, unconnected metaphors yelling over opponents)

 

Why are they done?

 

All of these things have in common that they are designed to benefit the person using them at the expense of everyone else. They also have in common that a person using them can do it such that it does not appear to the unobservant that they have done anything aggressive at all. People who use such tactics often treat any attempt to counter their actions with more direct aggressiveness as criminal behavior. But their actions are just as criminal, it is simply too difficult for any legal system to deal with. Often they are even hard for people in a social setting to identify if you are not the person on the recieving end of such behavior.

 

What would the world be like without it?

 

I believe that this category of action, if removed, would

 

A) Greatly increase the efficiency of the human race. Discussions would actually end in a greater understanding on all sides.

 

:beer: Reduce crime and perhaps war in the world greatly. I think most anger comes from being on the recieving end of this type of behavior and knowing that the person is going to get away with it unless you do something yourself.

 

How to stop it

 

And I also believe it is quite possible to stop it. We simply have to change the way we think and act such as to prevent this type of thing from happening. Since some people will always be tempted to do what they think the world will not stop them from doing, we simply have to make a world that does recognize this type of behavior and punish (in some form) or at least fail to reward people who do it.

 

If someone talks to you about someone behind their back, ask them if they have spoken to the person in question about it. Ask them if perhaps the other person would have a different explanation or reasoning regarding the subject.

 

Always be skeptical of people's claims when they have something to gain from the situation no matter how well you think you know them. If they have nothing to hide they should not care that you want to verify what you say. If you never check the truth of what people are saying, you are tempting them to tell you whatever will benefit them.

 

Design debate with rules, just like any sport where two people both want to win and beat the other person because despite what anyone says that is what is really going on in a debate. With rules the winner will be the person who creates the best understanding of the subject, without them the winner is the person who has created the most chaos through his manipulative tactics.

[Ananke]

It is both natural and desirable that the strong should dominate the weak. Why should the sheep dictate to the shepherd? Most people lack the capacity for original thought, they are by nature conservative and unimaginative. Those who have original thoughts, who may contribute to the furtherance of human achievment, oftn lack the will to dominate that is necessary to coerce the staid masses into action. It is a rare human who combines both will and insight, and it is both beneficial and just that they should use the one to implement the other.

[Kriminal99]

Average people are not sheep. They just don't have the motivation to do things that historical leaders have had the motivation to do. What kinds of things to average people say in response to people motivating to action. Who cares? And then they go dance or something. Or if its related to war or oppression they are too afraid. They would rather have whatever fun they can then fight for ideals. Normal people just take the easy roads to happiness.

 

Its the screwed up people that fight against all odds to invoke change in the world. Not that they aren't needed or useful.

 

In any case the means by which someone causes change in their surroundings is a major factor. I'm all for someone becoming a leader because they choose to put more effort into making things better for all or fixing injustices for the benefit of all.

 

But that is totally different then people using manipulative tactics to benefit themselves at the expense of others. When you speak of domination etc it seems to point towards this type of behavior rather than real leaders. This type of behavior (and people who cannot be dissuaded from using it) are a plague upon humanity that should be stopped.