"Thinker" As a Social Role

[Phuein]

I am not the first to raise this question, without a doubt.  Still, I find it more curious than ever, to wonder maybe human society - naturally - is supposed to propagate only few serious Thinkers in each group / tribe.

 

Could it be that nature designed us, as animals, to have a very limited amount of people capable of deep strategic and logical thinking? Maybe replace that with 'people who see it as their duty and profession to think deeply, strategically and logically.'

 

And if so, does that mean that - in order to not be fascists, it is the role of the Thinkers, to convince the general population of possible future strategies, for the entire society?

 

And, yet, if so, could it possibly mean that a big chunk of what the Thinkers should focus on, is their skill in convincing the general population? Maybe even excluding the other Thinkers from that part of the process?

 

And, finally, if so, could the "human problem" originate in the fact that in modern society, most people don't have a specific Thinker, or group of Thinkers, that they personally know and trust? Just like people have their trusted doctor, or cook, or even plumber.

 

What do you think? 

[dsayers]

Nature designed us so that if we do not think, we do not survive. Our use of technology and tolerance of socialist views has led to a world where people do not have to think to survive. Where not all people have to endure the consequences of their decisions and therefor do not have to apply consideration to their decisions.

 

Like any activity we could engage in, I think that yes, there would be people who are better at it than others and that deference is an important part of the division of labor.But just as if there was an article about a rash of mechanics that were rigging cars to fail would lead to heightened scrutiny of mechanics, people claiming to think and leading people astray should lead to a heightened scrutiny of "solution providers." Unfortunately, most people (as a result of their underdeveloped ability to think) do no even realize that who they defer to is taking advantage of them and getting away with disastrous erroneous thinking.

[giancoli]

I am not the first to raise this question, without a doubt.  Still, I find it more curious than ever, to wonder maybe human society - naturally - is supposed to propagate only few serious Thinkers in each group / tribe.

 

Could it be that nature designed us, as animals, to have a very limited amount of people capable of deep strategic and logical thinking? Maybe replace that with 'people who see it as their duty and profession to think deeply, strategically and logically.'

 

And if so, does that mean that - in order to not be fascists, it is the role of the Thinkers, to convince the general population of possible future strategies, for the entire society?

 

And, yet, if so, could it possibly mean that a big chunk of what the Thinkers should focus on, is their skill in convincing the general population? Maybe even excluding the other Thinkers from that part of the process?

 

And, finally, if so, could the "human problem" originate in the fact that in modern society, most people don't have a specific Thinker, or group of Thinkers, that they personally know and trust? Just like people have their trusted doctor, or cook, or even plumber.

 

What do you think? 

Although interesting topic, you show a very low understanding of how evolution works. There is no overall plan or goal, it's just about reproduction. True, there are several different strategies to achieve that. Looking at the brain as an ornament, a peacocks tale, perhaps the thinker is one such strategy.

I recommend reading the selfish gene, after you have understood the message of that book you wont fall in the trap of thinking nature is set up so that....no there are lots of survival machines build by competing genes, all "trying" to replicate themselves. The seeming overall order is because all organisms have coevolved and are in constant competition, symbiosis etc. with each other generation after generation. Just like the free market gives rise to order through self organisation and cooperation even though each individual is in it for himself.

[Pepin]

I do believe there is a sort of theory that suggests this. It's the idea that there are certain personality traits and physical ability that occur in humans in some ratio which allows for different specializations. A simple example would be of the warrior type, where someone has great capacity for strength and control of their body. There is also a architect type which is less formidable as warriors, but have greater capability to build shelters and tools. The argument is that this is these different genetic roles have a large impact on the survival of the tribe, and is a reason for their existence.

 

If this theory is true, then it is likely product of humans deciding to segment its population into roles based of the acknowledgment genetic predispositions and this strategy being successful, as opposed to being based in evolutionary mechanisms. I do believe there is a decent amount of evidence to show that there are genetic predispositions to different abilities and to different types of intelligence, so some segment of the population having a natural higher ability to reason and this ability being valuable to people in the tribe doesn't seem too far fetched.

[giancoli]

I do believe there is a sort of theory that suggests this. It's the idea that there are certain personality traits and physical ability that occur in humans in some ratio which allows for different specializations. A simple example would be of the warrior type, where someone has great capacity for strength and control of their body. There is also a architect type which is less formidable as warriors, but have greater capability to build shelters and tools. The argument is that this is these different genetic roles have a large impact on the survival of the tribe, and is a reason for their existence.

 

If this theory is true, then it is likely product of humans deciding to segment its population into roles based of the acknowledgment genetic predispositions and this strategy being successful, as opposed to being based in evolutionary mechanisms. I do believe there is a decent amount of evidence to show that there are genetic predispositions to different abilities and to different types of intelligence, so some segment of the population having a natural higher ability to reason and this ability being valuable to people in the tribe doesn't seem too far fetched.

There are probably different reproductive strategies yes, and thus different types of men. Arguing for group selection has some logical difficulties. Different kinds of skills might be beneficial for the tribe, but selection is on the organism level, or more fundamentally gene level. A gene increasing reproductive success for an individual, that is detrimental for the tribe would still get selected.

Traits that are beneficial for both the tribe and individual on the other hand would be even better if the individual caring it is better of with a good tribe, which seems likely.

So ignoring genetical kindship each individual in a tribe would only be in it for himself.

Individuals in a tribes where probably for most of our evolutionary past, strongly genetically related though, then another dynamic is added where genes can increased their frequency by helping other individuals caring those same genes.

Another thing, if there where different roles for each member in a tribe based on genetic makeup. Then how would the optimal frequency of each type be maintained generation after generation. Remember selection is on the individual level. One solution to this would be that each roles success is a function of the frequencies of all the roles. Thus a drift away from the equilibrium would be pushed back again like a ball in a U shaped hole.

Another way to solve this would be that we all carry all the different roles and one strategy is picked by some mechanism based on the environment. If this is correct and the thinker is such a role, it would be interesting to know what those environmental factors where.

 

Last thing that pops into my head is altruism where deeds are done back and forth. But there would be beneficial, in such a dynamic to get away with as little deeds as possible as long as the other person doesn't recognise it. Where there is little genetic kindship you should expect cheating and fraud.

[Phuein]

I prefer to discuss the social consequences of this idea, rather the genetical relevance of it. However, in just a few words of response...

 

I actually did consider this in a genetical way. Genes respond to their environment, as we all know. I'm thinking that this is a human flexibility, which makes human groups respond in such a way that certain people are selected for the Thinker role. I do not doubt, even for a moment, that a genetic predisposition for logical/deep thinking exists in all of us.

 

 

Unfortunately, most people (as a result of their underdeveloped ability to think) do no even realize that who they defer to is taking advantage of them and getting away with disastrous erroneous thinking.

 

It does make me wonder. If the parallel is a profession, then how would a mechanic or a doctor be treated, if they were found taking advantage of their clients? And how are frauds usually identified?

 

I'm starting to think that this would work like giancoli said, like the free market does. Avoiding errors or fraud is ever an issue in all things, and not just in the issue of strategic thinking. Any professional who is wrong in such ways, may pay the greatest price! This is not taken lightly.

 

However, if anything, the reason that those in the "head" of society, today, do not feel that price - is exactly because there is no Thinkers free market. People need university degrees, and diplomas, and the right skin color, and the right surname, and all that yada yada, in order to be considered as reliable Thinkers. Right?

[dsayers]

It does make me wonder. If the parallel is a profession, then how would a mechanic or a doctor be treated, if they were found taking advantage of their clients? And how are frauds usually identified?

 

Competition and consequences are what make a free market self-correcting.