Humans Herd Organization

In order for a herd to function it must have some sort of structure.  Imagine if you can, a number of animals that come together in group, but instead of really interacting, they all just do their own thing.  Clearly there would not be any survival or life enhancing advantages to that sort of structure.  If anything it would create greater competition due to the density of the population, and even make the animals easier targets for predators.  If a species is to evolve herd behavior, the species needs to also evolve life enhancing behaviors that the individual animals within the herd settings follow.  Additionally these behaviors within the groups setting must enhance the survival odds of the individuals within the group when compared to the odds the individual would have living and acting alone.

In the case of humans, we create a hierarchy of the Inner Circle within Circles, within even larger Circles.  This pattern of behavior allows a few to organize the efforts of many effectively without the need of decision making input from the vast majority of the group.  This is particularly important giving the advancement of human intelligence!  Imagine a world where a government leader had to receive the input and opinion of every individual in the town before making a decision.  Nothing would ever be accomplished that way. In the old world order this pattern was demonstrated in the government structure with Nobility ruling the masses.  In our modern world we still follow this pattern in the free world with our Republic Government structure.  We elect representatives to make decisions and guide the group for us.  Since this hierarchy has shown up in every human society in history, and currently in all the world governments, it stands to reason that this structure has its roots within our genetic makeup.   

Note: Its true that in modern America we say our government is a Democracy, but that has not always been the case, nor is it in fact true.  America follows the Republic model, which is we elect leaders to make decisions on each issue.  In a true Democracy, we would need to hold a vote for each and every decision that faces the country.  If you look at all the original documentation created by our forefathers, and even in the pledge of allegiance, the term used is Republic. So why do we say Democracy now?  Well that would be a result of effective marketing, and education control.  Americans did not call our government a Democracy until just prior World War II when the Democratic Party was firmly in control.  During the Social reforms of the New Deal the school systems were encouraged to change the way they described our government in school.  See a Republic equals Republican, a Democracy equals Democrats.  This is just one example of the consolidation of power which is part of the Nobility instinct and will be discussed in more detail in that post.            

Take a group of people who have just been gathered together, but have not known each other previously.  Place them together without any guidance or leadership and watch how they will over a rather short period of time “organize” themselves.  If you really want to see this take place rapidly, give them a task difficult enough that it can only be accomplished with the resources of the group as a whole.   When humans gather together an unconscious “dance” takes place as those within the group select leadership, appoint the inner circle, and create the social order of the herd.

So when humans are organizing the herd, how is the structure of the herd, by that I mean the leadership and the inner circle, selected?  Unfortunately it is not done in a manner that we would find intellectually reasonable.  What people need to understand is that the need to organize as a herd existed long before humans had their current level of intellect.  Odd are the ancestor that developed the herd instinct had little to no real intellectual capability.  Keep in mind that Evolution is a perfect example of “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”.  As long as a strategy works in nature, evolutionary pressure will not allow it to change unless a better one is stumbled upon by random mutation. 

Referring back to the PIFTB Cycle, do you see a point where humans “Intellectually” consider any action?  People always select leadership based upon their feelings.  When have you ever heard of someone who voted for the candidate they didn’t like because that candidate was “best qualified”.  Let me go off on a tangent for a moment.  Science has shown that human intelligence and capabilities is pretty universal across all races and ethnic groups, however most humans chose not to believe this.  If we selected our leadership based upon intellectual considerations, we would see have seen the election of Presidential candidates of multiple ethic and religious back grounds. But, with the exception of the most current president, our leadership has been selected from very narrow group.      

Humans however do select and appoint the leadership and the inner circle based upon careful consideration of the qualification, but what are qualifications at an instinctive level?      

The strongest qualification is what I call the “arrogance factor”.  See humans normally express themselves in wide range between “Humble” to “Arrogant”, or “Insecure” to “Confident”.  In the real world, the only difference between “Confident” and “Arrogant” is how nicely an individual handles others.  The “Confident” leader leaves you feeling good about yourself, while the “Arrogant” one may not.  What is most important is to understand what either Arrogant or Confident and conversely what Humble or Insecure behavior states in terms of human instinct. 

Within the human behavior “package”, humans display the “Arrogant” or “Humble” behavior based upon how they feel about themselves.  If a person is experiencing success, they display confidence.  If they are experiencing failure, they act insecure.  In cases of extreme and prolonged success Confidence becomes Arrogance, and in extreme and prolonged failure Insecure becomes Humble.  Over evolution, humans have adapted to see these behaviors as “Success or Failure” markers.  Since the display of Arrogance is an indicator of success, humans instinctively seek to follow those who display greater arrogance then the person feels.     

Referring back to the human behavior “package” once again; humans have an instinctive distrust of those with odious differing genetic back ground.  This trait evolved as means to prevent negative mutations from mixing into the gene pool.  See in nature negative mutations (defined here as a mutation that degrades an individual’s chance of survival) show up in nature thousands of times more often than positive ones.  Because most mutations are negative, an instinct to rid the herd of any mutation evolved.  What this means in terms or leadership selection is those candidates who share similar genetic identity to ourselves is an indicator that they are likely to follow behavior that will support the “Me and Mine First” position best.  This is important because once in power, one of the first items on the agenda is to secure your place within the inner circle.  This is done by creating rules of membership to the circle that disqualify most others.

Note: One of the dangers of embracing a life of following instinctive behavior is that without either a balancing environmental condition as earlier humans saw living close to the land, a few or even one of our instincts can become dominating.  One example of this is the instinct to protect the human gene pool from mutations.  To the human mind this instinct manifests itself disgust toward any physical traits that are widely different than our own.  In situations where humans feel VERY secure in their position within the inner circle, this among other instinct start to be displayed in unnatural ways.  It is in fact the whole basis of the Science of Eugenics.  Often toted in history as being for the good of mankind, Eugenics is nothing more than the displaying of a basic primitive instinct, unfiltered by humans intellectual reason.  More of this will be discussed in a future post on the “Instinct of Eugenics”.   

Now I want to bring this down to more personal level and common day to day interactions and hopefully give folks some tools they can use to make their lives better.

As we have seen, the average person belongs to many “circles” and these circles on a lower level are reconfigured all the time.  At work for example, we have all seen situation where we have a boss and their “click” of colleges.  Often these colleges technically are not senior to yourself (or others), but effectively have more authority and influence because of their relationship to the boss.  Sometimes these circles seem pretty hard to break into, and if you don’t hold membership you have trouble advancing and you can be among the first to lose your job during times of downsizing. 

Another case is in social circles, or in school.  Certain folks have been established as the inner circle and hold all the influence over who can do what, who is included, and who is left out.

So what do you do?  Well first obtain a good grasp of the subject material presented here in this website.  Remember, herd organization is based upon instinct.  As such it is subject to the same laws as everything else under the PIFTB Cycle.  What this basically means is you can purposely and effectively manage your PIFTB Cycle.  Once you are in control of your own cycle, this automatically affects the PIFTB Cycle of everyone around you.  Every “Result” is read as a moment to moment change in the environment, which will result in a change in the instinctive response of those around you.  I will admit this can be risky because in certain situation you can become threatening on an instinctive level to the established power.   Remember the Nobility Instinct, if you are perceived as threatening the established power, their instinct will be to protect their place in that organization.  The most important point is to gain control of your cycle, not let it control you! 

Now at this point you have many options.  Since we live in a world with many circles within circles, it is both a natural and tactically sound option to organize a competing herd.  Additionally all herd membership in business, social, and school settings are normally short lived because of the changes in personal situations all the time.  Folks come and go; some drop off because of other issues within their lives, only to replace by someone else from outside the circle. So another option open to those in control of their PIFTB Cycle, is to take advantage of these times of flux and break into the establish groups.  Yet another would be to leave and head off to a new setting all together and take advantage of the natural instinctive reorganization that occurs when a group has new membership.  People in control of their PIFTB Cycle can manage that reorganization to suit their needs.

Let me know what you think, please feel free to leave your comments and questions below.  

Comments are closed.