Deceptive behaviour and social hierarchies (evolutionary? social? psychology)

[pip]

Is there any species that uses deception as a hierarchical tool, other than human beings?

Is "mean" behaviour used as a tool to establish one's dominance over another human being?

Often in life you encounter people who undermine others for no apparent reason. We all understand that the person probably has their own personal issues, but from a more biological/evolutionary standpoint you still have people resorting to childish tactics against each other. For example, the group of "underminers" for lack of a better word, that form packs and send out "spies" to befriend people in order to gather more ammunition. Or the "underminers" that spread false rumours, or exaggerate things, or take things out of context in an attempt to destroy someone's credibility and value in the group/pack situation. I've heard arguments that this behaviour is limited to high school, but I find that it simply grows with people. You encounter the same situations in post-secondary education, in work environments, in families, even.

According to Paul R. Ehrlich in Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and The Human Prospect (note, I'm paraphrasing someone else's explanation here, I have yet to find a copy of the book in English here in Europe), people have only been civilized for about 250 generations or so. In all the time before we were "civilized" we tended to aggregate in very small groups - and that we carry with us still that mentality at some level. At some point, these groups grow to the point where we lose our recognition of membership (at about 100 people or so). Beyond that, people stop being people per se, and become objects or enemies.

So, as a civilization, have we advanced to the point where we're just too plain big? Could this be an explanation for mean and undermining behaviour? Or is that simply hierarchical behaviour, common to every other animal out there? What causes an individual to behave this way? A group?

Any ideas?

 

[Jazzey]

This is a great question pip. You certainly had me thinking this morning.

I kind of break it down to its simplest element. Much like packs of other animals, some people feel a need to be the alpha of the group. I think this need serves a variety of functions; 1) there a sense of survival if you feel bigger than the rest, 2) your needs are validly placed before others, 3) and you get to feel better because of the importance you are given.

I believe that whether we're talking about animals or humans, when you whittle it down to its simplest component, we're talking survival. In human terms- this could be self-esteem, self-confidence. Sometimes, people relish in the hierarchy for all the reasons I mentioned above, of course, this is just my opinion.

And then, there are other kinds of people who are more like a chameleon. They deceive to survive social situations and not be eaten by those alphas out there.

 

[pip]

Thanks for the reply Jazzey, it certainly makes sense that it's a survival/dominance thing. I like your chameleon theory!

As a bit of a follow-up, why is it that people who are perceived to be different tend to be the biggest victims of the deception/mean behaviour? For example, a woman who is open about her sexuality is instantly labelled as being of "easy virtues" and is often ridiculed. An anarchist is instantly labelled a "left-wing extremist" or "terrorist" despite being a pacifist, a republican becomes a right wing neo nazi even if they may not be racist at all.

And of course, this can be even further stretched to the growing racism throughout the world. Suddenly all religious people become potential terrorists, Jews find themselves accused of taking over the media and justice systems, and Christians are automatically assumed to be miniature versions of Bush.

Is there a reason we target groups that are different than our own more readily than our own?

 

[Jazzey]

I personally tend to lump those kind of ideas in the same category as what I mentioned above. I view racism, sexism and all the other 'isms' as symptomatic of a fear. The lashing out is under the umbrella of survival (misguided). And moreover, imagine the self-importance we can give ourselves when we can dismiss everyone else as less important, intelligent, morally sound etc...

 

[sauvin]

Impression: briefly, we live in metaphorical villages, tending to associate most with others we recognise as village-mates. People with tangible differences live in "foreign" villages; at our aeons-old hunter-gatherer core, we see them as competitors for scarce resources and are certain they see us likewise. They'll have uncertain or unknown priorities, and fear they will have little investment in our continued comfort or survival. They are therefore seen as a potential threat, and we feel it incumbent upon ourselves to bear this in mind as we look after our village, and after ourselves. In a more primieval setting, such a perspective would tend to find militaristic expression.

---------- Post added later and automatically merged ----------

Kindly understand that Ehrlich's work is a reflexion of a lifetime's experience of anthropological study, and relatively massive for someone like myself whose education, background and interests do not normally stray into this field. I'd be hard pressed to summarise the work with any justice with the sound bite sized messages this medium seems to encourage, saying with reasonable confidence only that it tends to view humanity from a macroscopic viewpoint - courses of human events over large scales and over evolutionary time, rather than the forces cosseting any particular individual or small group, and their reactions to them.

I have no clear idea what to make of the chameleonism mentioned in earlier posts, but do have some errant thoughts.

It's been suggested some damn where or other over the years that as much as ten percent of any general population is essentially sociopathic (if that's the word I'm after), unable to discern ?right? from ?wrong?. They're either incapable of foreseeing the possible consequences of their actions, or lack the capacity to understand any pain but their own (except possibly as entertainment value), or both.

Chameleonism wouldn't necessarily just be a way of appeasing the ?alphas out there?. There may also often be the perception that while not everybody can be an alpha, some degree of control over one's environment may still be possible by ?playing? the alphas. Control, after all, is survival.

A third thought involves compartmentalisation. When Meanie is in the company of the alphas, he embraces their values completely. Hours later, when he's slumming on the other side of the clearing with the downtrodden, he's their brother and companion, heart and soul, and doesn't remember what he was thinking or feeling while still with the alphas. In other words, who he is at any given moment is totally defined by his immediate environment, with no memory of any other.

A fourth thought involves a process geek humour evocatively sometimes calls ?proactive Darwinism?: for the herd to remain strong, the weak, lame, aged or otherwise somehow ?inferior? herd members must be purged.

The kind of chameleonism Jazzy is trying to describe may result from any combination of these possibilities, and probably others I've momentarily forgotten or haven't managed to appreciate yet.

 

[Jazzey]

I agree with what you've posted Sauvin.

 

[Budoaiki]

Deceptive behavior, evolutionary? social? psychology?

Thought provoking question, beyond the obvious limitations of circumstance and it's subjective nature, I think it is all three.

I think in a behavioral sense most people tend to try to be cooperative as a means of survival because as a fact in society the more people who work towards the same goal the less time and energy required to achieve it. Which is part of the reason for our success as a species and the growth of society. I think people often deceive to use that fact to their own ends.

I think deception can be seen as a necessity and justified by an individual who is unwilling to share the benefits of their goal because they want the outcome to perpetuate their survival as far as possible. So they deceive someone or multiple people into believing they will either receive an equal share or that the benefit to them is something entirely different than the what the subject is actually after.

The goals of deceit would allow the subject to profit from the efforts of others and so as we evolve so too does the range of deceit coinciding with our conceptual abilities. Deceit can also perpetuate the behavior itself, meaning that the original deceit can evolve from the subject as a means of survival. This could be to continue to profit from the original or to avoid it's consequences and the deceiver could potentially evolve their technique and adapt it to new situations.

The psychological is what I believe is the most important part because it is how the individual justifies the deceit and it dictates the subjects behavior after they have achieved their intended goal. I think the moral structure is often the only limiting factor as it dictates the use and range of deceit by the subject.
Like I said thought provoking.

 

[sauvin]

Pip's original post asks, among other things, if there are any examples of deceptive behaviour found in the animal kingdom consistent to some degree with what we see in people. I would further ask: if any, to what degree do they resemble human deception, and what would those resemblances imply about our natures and possible futures?

 

[Yuray]

Pitcher Plants resemble human deception if your imagination allows you to see parellels.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Or various birds and insects that mimic other creatures, either to scare others away or to lure others closer.

 

[Jazzey]

The black widow tarantula..

 

[sauvin]

Folks, this is all very entertaining. We could spend quite a while thinking up examples of evolved instinctive (unthinking) behaviour or physical characteristics that serve to deceive or mislead. I believe Pip was looking more towards examples from the animal kingdom, presumably among mammals at or above the level of the common rat, of practises or behaviours that would seem to be the product of something resembling teleological thought.

 

[Jazzey]

How about a dog who's only known beatings. When you approach, the dog automatically shows his belly as a form of submission. I think humans who've only known bad experiences do much the same. They sometimes resign themselves to what they believe is their fate. While it's not a deceptive behaviour, I think it is representative of being on the other side of deception and hurt.

What about you Sauvin, what were your thoughts on the matter? I think everyone here was trying to be helpful to Pip. No ill-intent was meant in posting about insects, plants and birds.

 

[Yuray]

Hi Sauvin
Teleology requires cognition, and usually a design to achieve an end result. You have suggested we look to more adavnced species above the rat, which tests show have a learning ability ( trial and error), but not cognition in the sense we have it. I am stymied at trying to think of another species other than human that can practice preconceived deception for personal gain. Any suggestions?

Yuray

 

[sauvin]

No, I have no suggestions apart from suspecting we'd need some primatologists (as an example) to supply valid examples of consciously deliberate deceptive behaviour in the animal kingdom outside of man himself.

Jazzey, no ill intent was perceived, I promise you. This is just how informal and undirected conversation goes - lots of rabbit trails. I'm a former engineer, and can be maddenly strident about staying "focused" - if anybody is being rude here, it would be me, also entirely without intending to be.

 

[Yuray]

Sauvin

Welcome to the warren!