Social media is built on social status and comparison.
This has nothing to do with hierarchy. Someone who is extremely intelligent and educated gains a lot of social status. But that has nothing to do with hierarchies. At least not necessarily. For example, I don’t think anyone feels subordinate to Eminem just because he has a lot of social status.
AfterNova@lemmy.world [bot] 2 weeks ago
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
You think too high of Eminem fans, or fans in general. A system that ignores the instinct of humans to follow or lead is doomed to fail without permanent, pervasive, and relentless (re)education. Call it aculturization if you want:
Aequitas@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
There is no such instinct.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
If you’re going to argue, please don’t make people look up basic stuff, it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy
Aequitas@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.
I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.