I’m totally with you that there are multiple hierarchies. And that dominance and prestige are attributes that play into hierarchies. I suspect your model is too simple to make very good predictions or useful recommendations, though.
People are complicated. There are multiple axes on which they can help or harm each other, and yet more on which they are willing to (offer/threaten/exchange) those abilities. These are constantly shifting in a multi-player equation that is likely not solvable in today’s technology.
My personal model is that when people say they prefer egalitarian societies, they really mean they prefer rich and slackful societies, where there’s plenty of room for the conflicts to be sublimated into harmless dimensions, so that most people (or at least most people in their consideration-group) can find dimensions of hierarchy that they feel OK with, while ignoring those which are icky. I may be projecting, as that’s certainly my preference.
I’m totally with you that there are multiple hierarchies. And that dominance and prestige are attributes that play into hierarchies. I suspect your model is too simple to make very good predictions or useful recommendations, though.
People are complicated. There are multiple axes on which they can help or harm each other, and yet more on which they are willing to (offer/threaten/exchange) those abilities. These are constantly shifting in a multi-player equation that is likely not solvable in today’s technology.
My personal model is that when people say they prefer egalitarian societies, they really mean they prefer rich and slackful societies, where there’s plenty of room for the conflicts to be sublimated into harmless dimensions, so that most people (or at least most people in their consideration-group) can find dimensions of hierarchy that they feel OK with, while ignoring those which are icky. I may be projecting, as that’s certainly my preference.