Peak Power Switch

[Little John]

Interesting article on Beeb News about possible evolutionary reasons behind "celebrity culture", in that we like to imitate successful individuals because, prehistorically, doing so was how we learned new stuff, thereby increasing our chances of survival. The problem being that what we imitate about a successful person nowadays isn't the trait that made them succeed (e.g. the hours of training, etc), but some other random thing (e.g. the hairdo).

Yes, celebrity-culture is the co-opting of some very old social instincts of humans to copy those who are perceived as being higher up the social strata. There is little discernment on the part of the imitator in terms of which behaviours to copy and the reason for this is psychological economy. The imitator may not be in a position to know which of the behaviours of the person they intend to imitate are more important than others. So, they simply copy them all (or, at least, all that they can perceive) on the basis of the "throw-enough-mud-against-the-wall-and-some-of-it-will-stick" principle. In the long run, this strategy works, which is why it has become a hard wired social instinct. In the short run, however, it can lead to some pretty dumb behaviour.

The more educated/intelligent among us may well look at such apeing behaviour and consider it deeply stupid, which of course it is for much of the time. However, such a consideration is pointless in the same way as it is pointless to consider as stupid the way a rabbit can be Pavlovian-conditioned to have it's instinctive eye-blink reflex co-opted to occur in the presence of a buzzer instead of when a puff of air is blasted into it. In the short run and in the statistically improbable context of a psychologist's lab, such behaviour can certainly be viewed as "stupid". In the long run, however, it stops rabbits going blind. Similarly, in the short run and the statistically improbable context of a mass-media-connected industrial society, celebrity-apeing can certainly be viewed as "stupid". In the long run, however, it facilitates the optimal propagation of successful behaviours throughout social groups.

Evolution plays the long game.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I'm pretty sure that those who ape celebrities are in a minority.

Judging by the magazines and programming devoted to it I'd also hazard a guess that it is an almost exclusively female trait.

[Little John]

I'm pretty sure that those who ape celebrities are in a minority.

Judging by the magazines and programming devoted to it I'd also hazard a guess that it is an almost exclusively female trait.

I'd say you are merely displaying your own cultural bias. That is to say, we all have people who we might look up to and this will depend on a number of factors including educational status, underlying intelligence, gender, social economic background etc. If i was to hazard a guess, I would say that people who are low educational status and/or low intelligence are more likely to see celebrities as being worthy of imitation than might be the case for people who are high educational status, high intelligence. Also, in cultures (or sub-cultures) that are more media driven than others, one might expect the phenomenon to be more pronounced. Finally,, when you say that you think it may be a predominantly female trait judging by the content of magazines, again this may be because you are only looking at one particular example of this type of apeing behaviour. You don't suppose people like Jeremy Clarkson have influenced a certain section of male psychology in our culture?

Nevertheless, I am prepared to concede there may be at least the possibility of a kernel of truth in your gender based assertion and the reason may be to do with a historical legacy of the distribution of power between males and females. That is to say, females historically did not have access to raw power, but could only access it vicariously either through proximal powerful men or via the display of cultural behaviours and practices that indirectly indicated that proximity to male power. Thus, whilst men might have sought to acquire the actual tools of raw power, women instead sought to display the cultural accoutrements of such power (attire, cultural behavioural practices that indicated socio-economic status etc).

It is true that in recent decades the denial of access to power for women has significantly decreased (though by no means vanished) and so such behaviours are much less necessary than previously. However, old cultural habits die hard and so it would not be surprising to see a cultural lag in women's behaviour. Indeed, one might even argue that if the denial of access to power has gone on for a extremely long time (prior to the recent positive changes) then there may even be a genetic element to women's behavioural response such that, despite the recent change in material circumstances on the ground, old genetic habits die even harder. This is all mere conjecture though.

[biffvernon]

Seems The Oil Drum has peaked too and will close at the end of this month.



http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10059

[RenewableCandy]

Isn't that just a total bummer.

[Little John]

It might translate as increased intellectual traffic here

[RenewableCandy]

Ever the optimizt

[emordnilap]

Peak something could well have been and gone.

Look at the lines in logo. It doesn't feel like we've reached the 'P' yet (presuming you're in a culture that reads left to right).

[JohnB]

Peak something could well have been and gone.

Look at the lines in logo. It doesn't feel like we've reached the 'P' yet (presuming you're in a culture that reads left to right).

Shouldn't the green line flatten at a lower level than the black one? Otherwise it implies renewables can ultimately replace fossil fuels, and restore BAU.

[emordnilap]

Good point John, though my implied scale means we may not live long enough to even reach the 'o'.

[RevdTess]

You know I've been on this site for 9 years and I never realised the green line was supposed to indicate a rise in renewables.

[emordnilap]

It may not refer to anything other than attitude; it's a good logo, simple and to the point.

[biffvernon]

Maybe the green line is not the amount of renewable energy measured in joules but the use value of the renewable energy?

We use less, but more smartly, so get greater utility.

[JohnB]

You know I've been on this site for 9 years and I never realised the green line was supposed to indicate a rise in renewables.

Who knows what was in the mind of the person who designed it. That's just the interpretation my warped brain puts on it .

[vtsnowedin]

Hummm ? We have 21 percent of the Middle East’s population change government by coupe with rioting in the streets and crude oil kicks up past $100 per barrel so we discuss the deep inner meaning of the sites logo? Perhaps we should rearrange the deck chairs on the starboard side before the fog rolls in.