[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)


Human beings have an innate need to have control over their lives, and also to feel as if the people around them facilitate the sense of control. As an anarchist, I believe that, for example, workplaces ought to be owned and run democratically by their workers, because this kind of economic arrangement, called workers self-management, meets the human needs of the workers for autonomy. It seems very unusual to suggest that meeting the innate human need for autonomy is somehow contrary to human nature when we have reason to believe that people having autonomy is associated with positive psychological outcomes. Being trained for compliance not only undermines people's autonomy but also reduces their creative and intellectual faculties. Another study found that the use of controlling teaching methods makes children more prone to helpless behavior, and this interferes with their performance. We can look further at her hierarchy affects people by considering the impact of competition on human relationships. Hierarchical systems, by their very nature, create centers of power. These centers of power may or may not be treated as scarce resources that people have to compete with each other to obtain. Indeed, capitalist societies valorize the notion that individuals ought to compete with each other for the acquisition of wealth and resources. Alfie Kohn writes,
>In the workplace, one tries to remain at friendly terms with one's colleagues, but there is guardedness, a part of the self held in reserve. Even when no rivalry exists at the moment, one never knows whom one will have to compete against next week.

Edward Deci contrasts autonomous motivation and controlled motivation as follows,
>Autonomous motivation really means to do something with a full sense of willingness, volition, endorsement of the activity. It's having a sense of "this is what I want to be doing now. This is what I choose to be doing now". The experience that goes along with what we call controlled motivation is that I'm feeling pressured and intense about it. "Those forces are operating on me and making me do this", for instance.

One study looked at the relationship between autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and the outcome of interpersonal therapy for recurrent depression. It found that,

>In the entire sample, both the therapeutic alliance and the autonomous motivation predicted higher probability of achieving remission; however, the relation differed for those with highly recurrent depression compared to those with less recurrent depression. For those with highly recurrent depression, the therapeutic alliance predicted remission whereas autonomous motivation had no effect on remission. For those with less recurrent depression, both autonomous motivation and the therapeutic alliance predicted better achieving remission. Controlled motivation emerged as a significant negative predictor of remission across both groups.


Autonomous motivation is also a predictor of something called flow. Flow describes a state in which a person becomes fully immersed and focused on an activity. They are completely engaged, they have a full and thorough appreciation for what they're doing, and this brings them intense feelings of enjoyment. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a Hungarian psychologist, identified a number of characteristics of flow states, which includes but is not limited to,
&ltComplete concentration on the task
&ltClarity of goals and reward in mind and immediate feedback
&ltTransformation of time (speeding up/slowing down of time)
&ltThe experience is intrinsically rewarding, has an end itself
&ltEffortlessness and ease
&ltThere is a balance between challenge and skills
&ltActions and awareness are merged, losing self-conscious rumination
&ltThere is a feeling of control over the task

A study looking at flow in the context of higher education found that,
>Psychology students who were autonomously motivated experienced more flow than those that exhibited controlled motivation.

Giving people autonomy meets the essential needs of humans, and this need satisfaction enhances people's capacity to fully engage themselves with what's going on and promotes mastery of activities. Conversely, when people are deprived of their autonomy, when we go through the experience of feeling like, as Edward Dici says, "forces are operating on me and making us behave in a certain way", our needs are unsatisfied, and that diminishes our capacity to engage with what's going on. For examples of this, we can look at how rewards, a simple example of imposing controlled motivation on people, "do this and you'll get that" affect us. Rewards are widely used and one of the most commonly accepted means by which authority figures exercise control over people. We have reason to believe that dangling goodies in front of people in order to behave in a certain way is inherently destructive to human nature. Rewards increase the likelihood that we will do something, but they changed the way we do it. Alfie Kohn writes,
>They offer one particular reason for doing it, sometimes displacing other possible motivations. And they change the attitude we take toward the activity.

When people are rewarded for doing something, they continue doing it for as long as the reward persists, but when the rewards run out, they lose their interest in it. For example, in 1972, a systematic review of the research looking at token economies, which dispensed rewards for acting in a certain way, found that there are numerous reports of token programs showing behavior change only while contingent token reinforcement is being delivered. Generally, removal of token reinforcement results in decrements in desirable responses, and a return to baseline or near baseline levels of performance. In other words, when the goodies stop, people lose interest.

A study looking at children's interests, in particular games when rewards were involved, found that when the reward started, the kids promptly gravitated to the games that led to a payoff. When the rewards disappeared their interest in those games dropped significantly, to the point that many were now less interested in them than were children who had never been rewarded in the first place. A review of 28 programs encouraging people to wear seat belts found that reward-based programs, which gave people prizes or cash for wearing seatbelts, were the least effective over the long haul, whereas programs without rewards were actually more effective, which was, contrary to the predictions of the authors. Rewards tend to produce temporary compliance, not behavior change that lasts beyond the reward. When in a situation where someone is saying "do this and you'll get that", our minds tend to assume that the reward is the only reason for doing the activity, hence why we lose interest as soon as the goodies stop. When we are in these conditions, we also tend to feel as if our behavior is being controlled by external forces, by getting us to think this way, rewards actively undermine our intrinsic interest in the activity at hand and our autonomous motivation. If n activity is creative, stimulating, and interesting, this will be undermined when rewards are introduced.


File: 1608528180632.png (105.26 KB, 500x606, anarchism-no-person-may-ru….png)

Teresa Amabile has conducted multiple studies looking at rewards and creativity and found that young creative writers wrote less creative poetry when made to focus on rewards. Children and adults making collages and inventing stories also had their creativity undermined from the use of rewards, and professional artists did less creative work when being rewarded.

A study by Sam Glucksberg found that offering people rewards for a task, involving the use of creative thinking to solve problems, actually resulted in them taking longer than those not being rewarded. The effect of offering someone a reward for doing something is to diminish that person's creativity. When people are made to do things in order to get rewards, the rewards interfere with their performance.

A 1971 study with high school students found that people being promised rewards did a poorer job on a variety of tasks than people who weren't.

A 1981 study by Richard Fabes, James Moran III, and John McCullers found that undergraduate students had a lower level of intellectual functioning when they were rewarded for their scores on the more sophisticated parts of an intelligence test. In fact, in *Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us*, Daniel Pink argues that rewards ought to be used when the task itself is menial or requires very little thought or creativity. Morton Deutsch argues that rewards work best for those who are alienated from their work, that is for people doing tasks that seem pointless, or a drudge, where there isn't any intrinsic interest to be found in the activity itself.

Alfie Kohn writes in *Punished by Rewards*,
> Rewards usually improve performance only at extremely simple – indeed, mindless – tasks, and even then, they improve only quantitative performance.

Carole Ames found that in her studies with children, competition can cause people to believe that they are not the source of, or in control of, what happens to them, and this external locus of control interferes with their performance. This is contrasted with an internal locus of control where people feel that the outcomes of what happens in their lives are determined by their own actions, as opposed to external forces beyond their control.

A study by David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Linda Scott found that,
>Cooperative learning promoted more positive attitudes towards heterogeneity among peers; higher self-esteem; more positive attitudes toward the teacher, fellow cooperators, and conflict; more internal locus of control; and higher daily achievement.

The mutually exclusive goal attainment that characterizes competition, "I succeed only if you fail", compels people to work at cross-purposes. It erodes their sense of community by creating anxiety and hostility in our relations with other people. A famous experiment called the Robbers cave study looked at the behavior of Boy Scouts in situations of cooperation and competition. As the experiment predicted, when the Boy Scouts were separated into, groups and set against each other to compete, they developed hostile attitudes to one another.
Alfie Kohn writes,
>The boys began taunting and insulting each, other in some cases turning against good, friends who were now on the opposing team. They burned each other's banners, planned raids, threw food, and attacked each other after the games and at night. When the groups were cooperating toward common goals, people were a lot nicer to each other.

David Johnson and Roger Johnson carried out 37 studies, looking at different learning arrangements, cooperative and competitive, and in 35 of these studies, it was found that cooperation enhances interpersonal attraction among students. Interpersonal, attraction refers to a number of effects, such as more giving and receiving encouragement to and from peers, greater sensitivity to the needs of others, less self-centeredness, greater capacity to imagine the perspective of others, fewer difficulties communicating, and greater trust. While competition creates anxiety, aggression, and hostility cooperative, conditions promote far more empathic behavior.

If we suppose that the needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy should be met, and if we see hierarchical organization as conflictual to these needs, then the anarchist position, which is that hierarchy has a burden of proof to meet, and that if it fails to meet this burden of proof it should be dismantled and replaced with horizontal organization, is entirely consistent with the view of human nature posited by self-determination theory. I am an anarchist because living as self-determined, curious and thoughtful agent, cultivating my skills and abilities and sharing in the experience of this cultivation as part of a community is fundamentally more in line with our inherent needs and capacities as human beings than being made to live as fragmented, alienated, atomized machines, responding to external forces.

With this in mind, to show that anarchism is incompatible with human nature, the advocate for social hierarchy has a number of options one option is to argue that hierarchy meets other more essential needs that human beings have, and does so more effectively than non-hierarchy. A second option is to accept SDT but to argue that social hierarchy is somehow not conflictual to the needs. A third option is to argue that the premises of SDT are false. You would be hard-pressed to find evidence for any of these.


I highly recommend reading *Punished By Rewards* and *No Contest* by Alfie Kohn because of the insights that they offer into human nature when it comes to things like rewards and competition.


can you guys give me something to read that isnt idealist and not the good old classic anarchist( theyre great but read them all) and not post-left faggotry


My problem with “abolishing hierarchies” is that it’s totally meaningless and anarchists really have no idea what a non-hierarchy is. the best answer I can get is “democracy”, but in my opinion that’s just a hierarchy towards the consent of the majority. If you want to call yourself a libertarian, fine, sure, but don’t mix it up with that confusing language like “abolish hierarchies” if you can’t reduce it into any meaningful praxis.


can we get a tl;dr pls


Ok, I’ll give it a shot. Firstly, we must define hierarchy. Hierarchy is not force nor is it individual differences in strength, knowledge, capacity, influence, etc. either. Hierarchy is a system of rights. When one establishes a right to a given action or resource, that is when a hierarchy is established. Well, what is right? Rights are manifestations of desires or claims which are guaranteed, are justified, and raised above other desires or claims. For instance, a man with the right to bananas must receive bananas no matter what. It doesn’t matter who gives it to him, that man needs those bananas. Hierarchies also involve roles that persist. The role of the manager needs to be fulfilled regardless of whether anyone is capable of fulfilling that role or even if such a role isn’t needed at all. In a monarchy someone needs to be king, in a government, there needs to a head, etc.

So what is anarchism then? Anarchism is the absence of hierarchy. So what does this mean? This means that, in anarchy, all desires and claims are equally valid. It means that, in anarchy, roles are created in accordance to needs and aren’t maintained simply out of mere conservatism. Since all desires and claims are equally valid, individuals would associate with others who have similar interests and negotiate with others to obtain their desires. From this association and negotiation arises distribution, money, the economy, and all the other institutions which constitute society. Since these systems are the product of the needs of those participating in them, they would be adjusted or changed in accordance to those needs. Institutions are no longer fixed practices that must be maintained no matter what, they change or grow based on participation. This all emerges naturally from abandoning the notion of rights, justification, etc. or, in other words, hierarchy.

The funny thing is that historical anarchist writers have said everything I’m saying right now. It seems that you haven’t read or understood any of them.


Post-left "faggotry" is where you'll find a lot of theory about abolishing hierarchy if that's what you're looking for. Post-structuralist theory & so on.


As a teacher, this pretty much confirms what I've seen in 7/10 cases in my classrooms.

Good thread OP


How do you expect to do a revolution without authority and hierachy?


Force is not hierarchy, nor is it authority. You do not need authority to use force. This seems to be the point of contention for MLs, they can't seem to wrap their minds around this and usually repeat the same thing over and over again after this.


As an anarchist, I do not like this definition. If a hierarchy is any system of rights and justifications, that implies some pretty serious problems with any kind of morality, which I think FFF is trying ineptly to signal at.

If hierarchy is a system of rights, that means universal rights also don't exist, which would imply you don't have a right to life. But this is not only a very odd thing to call a hierarchy but also a right that almost everyone respects anyway, and the fact that people do respect the "natural" rights of others like this without having to be forced to has been used by anarchists to argue for the practicality of anarchism in the past. Even Proudhon, who DDM appears to hold in pretty high regard, believed in usufruct property rights.

IMO hierarchy is not just any system of rights and justifications. Hierarchy is a class system in which one group, called the hegemonic group, holds social privileges which are not granted to and often at the expense of another group or groups, called the marginalized group(s), which are enforced directly or indirectly through threats to the material conditions of those who reject or defy the hierarchy. (Usually, this is against the marginalized group, but it can also be against members of the hegemonic group who act against the hierarchy.)

Some examples:

&ltThe state is a hierarchy since the ruling class has the right to rule at the expense of its citizens, enforced through force in the form of the police and the military. (Even direct democracy is a hierarchy, but a strange one where the hegemonic group and the marginalized group are not different people but the same people at different times.)
&ltCapitalism is a hierarchy since the capitalist class has property rights at the expense of the working class, enforced through force loaned to them by the state.
&ltRace (which is entirely a social construct and has no biological basis) is a hierarchy, since white people have social and economic privileges at the expense of POC, enforced through a combination of capitalist property rights and direct use of force.
&ltGender is a hierarchy since men have social and economic privileges at the expense of women, enforced through a network of social expectations that demand social rejection of women who refuse to let men dominate them and men who refuse to dominate women, plus of course capitalism.
&ltGender is also a different hierarchy in which both men and women have social and economic privileges over those who defy or reject the binary gender system, enforced through social expectations that license rejection of or individual violence against NBs plus a hefty dose of state power plus capitalism.


>IMO hierarchy is not just any system of rights and justifications. Hierarchy is a class system in which one group, called the hegemonic group, holds social privileges which are not granted to and often at the expense of another group or groups, called the marginalized group(s), which are enforced directly or indirectly through threats to the material conditions of those who reject or defy the hierarchy. (Usually, this is against the marginalized group, but it can also be against members of the hegemonic group who act against the hierarchy.)

This is a better definition, though I would prefer "dominating" and "dominated" to "hegemonic" and "marginalized," which have more specific meanings. An extractive military caste ruling through open fear and constantly putting down rebellions from a populace that hates them is dominant but not hegemonic; a working class that is 99.9% of the population is dominated but not marginalized.


>There is a common misconception that natural selection always acts for the good of the species
>Social hierarchy typically runs counter to the needs which human beings have and creates conditions under which people become alienated from the valuable capacities that they possess.
>as a non-hierarchical society creates conditions under which human beings can unleash their true potential.
Spot the contradiction. Protip: you can't
>The conditions of social hierarchy in which people are subjected to control from above, and in which people are encouraged to compete with one another for power and resources
Competition for power and resources is universal. Anarkiddies fail to see the big picture yet again.


File: 1608528257900.png (229.88 KB, 558x491, Here's your (You).png)

Good job, you read the first couple sentences and decided you could totally pwn OP. Here's your (you).


Not him, but no-argument


There's nothing to argue against. He (I assume unintentionally) conflates natural selection with self-actualization in an attempt to make OP seem like he's contradicting himself. The latter half of his post is an argument made out of an inability to read the OP in its entirety before criticizing it.

I appreciate your concern for your fellow anon, but his post was lazy.


>Competition for power and resources is universal.
Read Mutual Aid.


so isn’t class and hierarchy just the same thing then?


That's a defensible position insofar as you can use the term class very broadly if you so choose, though in the interests of brevity and being concise even anarchists tend to use the Marxist definitions of class as it relates to material conditions. When they start bandying about the word hierarchy it is an indication that they are talking about social power imbalances that exist outside of material conditions within the bourgeoisie - proletarian paradigm.


>conflates natural selection with self-actualization
You still don't get it, anarkiddie. What is good for the individual may not be good for society as a whole. Participating in a hierarchical or capitalist framework, backstabbing your coworkers to suck up for your boss and indifference towards politics are good examples of this. You ignore the incentives that lead towards those societal structures and ironically appeal to nature as if it operates for the good of the species.
>SDT posits that human beings have three key psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
Chances are that if your model doesn't involve the reproduction of human life then it's trash.
>Read Mutual Aid.
"mutual aid" towards what?


File: 1608528259812.jpg (42.17 KB, 450x489, kropotkin-mutual.jpg)



I already addressed Mutual Aid. The advantage of cooperation does not negate the presence of competition. The purpose of cooperation is to be more competitive in the struggle for life.


>If I don't establish a position and throw around ill defined tautologies then they can't effectively dismiss my ramblings!


>ill defined tautologies


> If they can't guess what I did not tell them they must have inferior brain capacity!


At this point I'm pretty sure that anon is a teenager who decided he wanted to be a communist so he read a handful of short articles and thinks we know what lens he's using when he takes the negative positions itt. Upon being correctly dismissed for failing to present any logical case for his position he doubled down with obtuse examples that make sense from his frame of reference but have left us mystified because he never really elaborated on what he means by "competition" as it pertains to the OP or why every analysis of human interaction has to specifically reference propagation of the species.

Hopefully in the future he reads more theory because the path of contrarianism leads more easily to reactionary thought.


>social power imbalances that exist outside of material conditions within the bourgeoisie - proletarian paradigm
but from those posts it seems like “hierarchy” is just a system of privileges. privileges are really just your rights to interact with certain items in a certain way. that’s the whole basis of property. which puts it under the Marxist definition of class.


This is the type of person who uses "anarkiddie" unironically. Take a good look so that you know what kind of galactic intellect you're up against.


>galactic intellect
Nothing i said is hard to grasp, actually. OP argues that hierarchy prevents the full potential of humans and is therefore in contradiction to their nature. He ignores that individuals may benefit from supporting a hierarchy that is detrimental to society as a whole. In such a scenario there is no contradiction between human nature and the negative consequences thereof. The only way such a scenario can not exist is if selection operates not on the level of the individual, but that of the collective.
>but have left us mystified because he never really elaborated on what he means by "competition"
Why am i asked to specify a term that OP used before me? It's fine if he uses it, but if greentext it then i suddenly have to "define" it? Get that shit out of here faggot.
>or why every analysis of human interaction has to specifically reference propagation of the species
If you talk about human nature and "key psychological needs" while coming up with a model that doesn't include evolution you are a brainlet, plain and simple. Not to mention that OP never specified why "competence, relatedness, and autonomy" are the end all be all of human nature. Selective sourcefagging.


Forgive me for answering your question with more questions, but do you consider the leaders of the vanguard party to be proletarians? Would you say that they have more agency/autonomy than workers, the same because they represent the class, or less because they have to realize the ideals of a class that may not best represent their material interests?

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]