Sociel hierarchy

Social hierarchy is really a very complex and it's pervasive ranking system and it operates quietly in the background in the affairs of man.

. . . The question is do you accept it and try to climb the ladder of success or become a hermit and live in a cave somewhere?
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You are partially right--it does exist, and it is complex.

But your list of options is far to myopic.

--Some people acknowledge it exists (on multiple axis at once) but decide NOT to "climb the ladder". The are content to be where they are, or in some cases conciously move DOWN the ladder.

--Some flat don't care: they do not even really pay attention to where they might be in "someone else's" strata. Some of these people recognize others have this artificial measuring stick, but some also disavow it exists.

--Some choose to climb ONE axis of the hierarchy which simultaneously lowers their place on others.

--One need not be a hermit to avoid it; one of the "best" alternatives is to change the rules, change the environment.

. . . There is a social hierarchy in the world and everyone is there somewhere, but outside of the military it is quite vaporous and capricious! Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

There are others besides the military. Religeous societies. Academia to some degree. Regulated professions. And from first hand knowledge, the military can be capricious at times as well.

Io it really doesn't matter. The concept is to complicated and to many variables to how it can be defined. If you're happy with your life and successful in your own right it really doesn't matter what others think or how you're rated by society as a whole. A person can go nuts worrying about this sort of thing. Iam not gonna say Iam content with every aspect of my life cause Iam not. I always strive to move foreward and better myself for the sake of myself. But I don't feel I have to be a slave to any social pecking order.

Jim

Your response is interesting, but I believe that my list of options is comprehensive enough to cover every contingency.

As for your notion of "multiple axis", I'm not sure I can even properly conceive of what in the world you are talking about.

What does a multiple axis hierarchical system even look like?

The world is complicated enough and personally, I like to bring simplicity to facilitate understanding rather than more complexity which only obscures.

A multiple axis hierarchical social system certainly does seem complex enough to be something out of the future!

The way that I see the social system in the world is similar to a pyramid.

At the base of the pyramid, you find the multitude of the more common people. As you move up, the number drops off, but the quality increases. Then at the very top, you have the fewest and the best.

I suppose within a wide enough pyramid you can have enough latitude to allow these multiple axis you are talking about.

You are partially right--it does exist, and it is complex.

But your list of options is far to myopic.

--Some people acknowledge it exists (on multiple axis at once) but decide NOT to "climb the ladder". The are content to be where they are, or in some cases conciously move DOWN the ladder.

--Some flat don't care: they do not even really pay attention to where they might be in "someone else's" strata. Some of these people recognize others have this artificial measuring stick, but some also disavow it exists.

--Some choose to climb ONE axis of the hierarchy which simultaneously lowers their place on others.

--One need not be a hermit to avoid it; one of the "best" alternatives is to change the rules, change the environment.

[/I]

There are others besides the military. Religeous societies. Academia to some degree. Regulated professions. And from first hand knowledge, the military can be capricious at times as well.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Some at the top are hardly the best...

@ FG--OMG I cant understand a fucking thing you are writing. Rants of a schizophrenic for sure. And I happen to be educated and have worked in mental health hospitals. You write like some of the patients I used to encounter, especially the ones with the God Complex. Give it a rest, your not at the top and never will be. Megalomaniac? Who cares where anyone is. We all have personal value and ranking, and even if society places a person at the top, we all know that NOBODY is that perfect, and what goes up must come down.

Mr Eccie Addict, you are very right on!!

You will get no argument from me on that score.

I'm sure Saddam Hussein was at the top of the social hierarchy in Iraq as was Hitler in Germany before their fall, even though they were truly evil men, but that is really another topic for another thread.

By the same token, some folks at the bottom rungs are better people, but personally, I would say that in general, the upper classes are more useful to society. With the proviso that there are people up there who are merely ornamental as Playboy playmates and certain movie stars who got there strictly on style and lacking substance.

Now, as for those who condemn me outright merely for not being able to understand what I write, well, all I have to say about that is that is really not my problem.

Your lack of comprehension is your problem alone and you have to deal with it by diligent study.

As our late friend, Covey, used to say, "seek first to understand, then to be understood"

. . . You may have been at a mental hospital, but gauging primarily by the constant rage in your posts, I have to wonder who committed you to the institution and if the orderly knows you are using his computer to post this tirade now?

Some at the top are hardly the best... Originally Posted by Eccie Addict

@ FG--OMG I cant understand a fucking thing you are writing. Rants of a schizophrenic for sure. And I happen to be educated and have worked in mental health hospitals. You write like some of the patients I used to encounter, especially the ones with the God Complex. Give it a rest, your not at the top and never will be. Megalomaniac? Who cares where anyone is. We all have personal value and ranking, and even if society places a person at the top, we all know that NOBODY is that perfect, and what goes up must come down.

Mr Eccie Addict, you are very right on!! Originally Posted by kymberlane

Haha...seriously. We had a patient who claimed to be God. You guys have the same rants, maybe you are that same guy. Every night he would mysteriously break out and go across the street for a yoohoo and honey bun, then come back, ring the hospital doors to be let back in. Ironically, he came from a very influential family, so he my friend was considered to be at the top, regardless of his mental status. Or maybe he was God. Maybe you are? hmmmm

As for your notion of "multiple axis", I'm not sure I can even properly conceive of what in the world you are talking about.

What does a multiple axis hierarchical system even look like? Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Let me give you an example: there is a man I used to work with. At work he was quiet, marginally competent at best, and typically was at the bottom of the appraisals and the choice assignments. Along the professional axis he was clearly below the middle.

He was also a member of the same church I went to--only there he was a lay minister, vocal and respected within the church. Along that axis, he was probably a bit above the middle.

He also played in the best jazz quartet in the area, and was very good. Among the music society he was right near the top.

Where he stood in the "hierarchy" depended whether you were looking along the work axis, the church axis, or the music one. I assume it would be different still if you looked at his family status, etc.

In his case he (consciously?) chose to take a few steps back on the one axis (work) because he put his efforts/energies into the other dimensions.

Okay, I think I have a somewhat vague notion of the concept you are trying to convey.

But suppose you were to create a graphic representation of these multiple hierarchical social axis you are talking about, what would they look like?

. . . I work best with complex images and believe that all complexity can be rendered into images or mathematical formulas.



And to the moonstruck girl who thinks that maybe I think I am God.

. . . No, I don't and I would never defile his name by making such foolish assertions.

Let me give you an example: there is a man I used to work with. At work he was quiet, marginally competent at best, and typically was at the bottom of the appraisals and the choice assignments. Along the professional axis he was clearly below the middle.

He was also a member of the same church I went to--only there he was a lay minister, vocal and respected within the church. Along that axis, he was probably a bit above the middle.

He also played in the best jazz quartet in the area, and was very good. Among the music society he was right near the top.

Where he stood in the "hierarchy" depended whether you were looking along the work axis, the church axis, or the music one. I assume it would be different still if you looked at his family status, etc.

In his case he (consciously?) chose to take a few steps back on the one axis (work) because he put his efforts/energies into the other dimensions. Originally Posted by Old-T

Okay, I think I have a somewhat vague notion of the concept you are trying to convey.

But suppose you were to create a graphic representation of these multiple hierarchical social axis you are talking about, what would they look like? Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Probably a radar plot would work.

personally, though one could theoretically manipulate the numbers to come up with a single "value" it would be meaningless; it would pretend to give significance but in reality provide none.

Example: take a 2-axis hierarchy, say music and work.

Guy A: A musical genius, has gigs wherever and whenever he wants. Hot 18 y/o groupies throw their panties at him. He maxes out as 100 on the music hierarchy. But he has no desire for responsibility, he just wants to play music. That carries over to his work where he is content to be the janitor. Low stress, fixxed hours so he can play his gigs. But a 0 on the work hierarchy. His combined hierarchy vaolue = (100 + 0) / 2 = 50. dead average.

Guy B; the company CEO CFO and Chairman all rolled into one for a Fortune 500 company. Can't get any bigger than him in the whole industry. 100 on the business hierarchy. He also owns the best jazz club in town and fancies himself a mean sax player. Good he owns the club because otherwise they wouldn't let him in. Man is he awful!! Peole run in terror at the though of him opening the case of his sax. A no-kidding 0 in the music society. (0 + 100)/2 = 50.

Guy C: He is Mr Average. Middle of the pack at work (a 50), and decent but unremarkable on his trumpet. He knows he's average and so does everyoneelse. (50 + 50) /2 = 50.

Numerically all have the same agrigate Hierarchy score, but they couldn't be more different.

Sometimes numbers are not the whole story (and this from a mathematician).

Okay now, I understand what you're trying to say, but I would say that a radar plot is not really the best mechanism to represent the concept.

That system is really better suited for describing real-time moving objects like airport traffic or a army tanks in a battle field.

What you are really doing is just referring to different arenas of life, but the basic social hierarchy structure is still the same, but just working in a different setting with different values of ranking.

You do not need multi-axis to explain what you mean, just different branches of life where the same hierarchical system operates.

For example, a highly qualified brain surgeon would be at the top of the social hierarchy inside the hospital in the medical field, but would not score much inside a courtroom the field of law as he would not know how that other system operated.

. . . The dynamics of the social hierarchy become very complex, but that is what makes it interesting!

Probably a radar plot would work.

personally, though one could theoretically manipulate the numbers to come up with a single "value" it would be meaningless; it would pretend to give significance but in reality provide none.

Example: take a 2-axis hierarchy, say music and work.

Guy A: A musical genius, has gigs wherever and whenever he wants. Hot 18 y/o groupies throw their panties at him. He maxes out as 100 on the music hierarchy. But he has no desire for responsibility, he just wants to play music. That carries over to his work where he is content to be the janitor. Low stress, fixxed hours so he can play his gigs. But a 0 on the work hierarchy. His combined hierarchy vaolue = (100 + 0) / 2 = 50. dead average.

Guy B; the company CEO CFO and Chairman all rolled into one for a Fortune 500 company. Can't get any bigger than him in the whole industry. 100 on the business hierarchy. He also owns the best jazz club in town and fancies himself a mean sax player. Good he owns the club because otherwise they wouldn't let him in. Man is he awful!! Peole run in terror at the though of him opening the case of his sax. A no-kidding 0 in the music society. (0 + 100)/2 = 50.

Guy C: He is Mr Average. Middle of the pack at work (a 50), and decent but unremarkable on his trumpet. He knows he's average and so does everyoneelse. (50 + 50) /2 = 50.

Numerically all have the same agrigate Hierarchy score, but they couldn't be more different.

Sometimes numbers are not the whole story (and this from a mathematician). Originally Posted by Old-T