# The Most Dangerous Superstition



## The Atomic Ass (Feb 29, 2012)

by Larken Rose.

He spends a good portion of the book expatiating the punchline of the book, to wit:


> The belief in "authority," which includes all belief in "government," is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" is the arch-enemy of humanity.



He carefully explains the moral dichotomy of the belief in "authority" to the reader, perhaps even to the point of verbosity.

I can imagine any statist who takes the book seriously breaking down into tears before the half-way point. 

Anyone else read it? 

Link: http://larkenrose.com/store/34-books/2019-the-most-dangerous-superstition-new.html

ETA: I feel the need to repeat the line which has resided within my signature for over a year now, as it is astoundingly relevant:


> When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 29, 2012)

Interesting.

There have been some interesting theories and studies regarding how belief in authority protects people, especially toddlers and young children. Being able to accept that something is to be avoided just because other say so, instead of having to learn of each hazard, poison or deathtrap empirically, is usually considered a good thing by parents.

It would definitely interest me to see how the author manages to reconcile his assertions with that particular sticking point. 

----

At some point I was at a language conference, and this presenter started with how many languages use a negation to affirm, and then asserted that English was the only language where one could *not* affirm to negate.

And after that statement, a voice called out from the back in a doubtful tone...

"Yeah, yeah!"

Everyone broke up laughing.

I suspect the book's author doesn't have any children, and therefore missed out on how evolutionary forces shaped humans to accept authority. That's amusing but unfortunate.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Mar 1, 2012)

Explorer said:


> There have been some interesting theories and studies regarding how belief in authority protects people, especially toddlers and young children. Being able to accept that something is to be avoided just because other say so, instead of having to learn of each hazard, poison or deathtrap empirically, is usually considered a good thing by parents.
> 
> It would definitely interest me to see how the author manages to reconcile his assertions with that particular sticking point.


At the beginning he states that when he writes of "authority", it is in the sense of the belief that one who has the right to command, and another who has the obligation to obey, as opposed to other senses of the word, such as one who is knowledgeable on a particular subject. (paraphrasing from memory here, pardon me if the structure is a little off)

He mentions Stanley Milgram and the Nuremburg trials as examples of how blind obedience can be destructive, and in the last part, dealing with living without the superstition, he suggests that parents teach their children morality, rather than obedience to authority. He also specifically mentions that parents should be careful not to use the old line "because I said so!" when trying to get children not to do something, instead teaching them WHY they shouldn't do something, teaching them the principles of self-ownership, etc.



Explorer said:


> I suspect the book's author doesn't have any children, and therefore missed out on how evolutionary forces shaped humans to accept authority. That's amusing but unfortunate.


I don't know if he has children or not, but I would like to know how evolutionary forces shaped us that way. I admit to some hefty skepticism in that department.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 1, 2012)

The Milgram experiment is an interesting one;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

I was reading about this again recently as it came up in something else I was interested in. Definitely worth becoming aware of. 

Authority increases compliance, but how far will people go? 

Milgram's experiments suggests personal morality can be negated by compliance to the will of an authority figure, in most subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience_to_Authority:_An_Experimental_View



> Wikipedia Article...
> 
> Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority are among the most important psychological studies of this century. Perhaps because of the enduring significance of the findings -the surprising ease with which ordinary persons can be commanded to act destructively against an innocent individual by a legitimate authority...



Thanks for the book recommendation, Atomic.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 1, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I don't know if he has children or not, but I would like to know how evolutionary forces shaped us that way. I admit to some hefty skepticism in that department.



Simple thought experiments: 

Two toddlers are told not to jump into a fire at the mouth of the cave. One child accepts the admonition without question, the other tests it. Which will survive to pass on the genes?

Two children are told not to eat a particular poisonous berry. One accepts that admonition, the other tests it. Which will survive to pass on the genes?

There are benefits to being a doubter, but surviving to adulthood can be helped by accepting authority. Those two thought experiments should be pretty obvious. 

Similarly, if a group is fighting a mastodon, and a skilled hunter gives orders to keep his fellow hunters safe, the ones who decide they're going to reject the commands because they don't understand why they should listen to the bossy caveman will likely die and not pass on the genes. Again, it seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm happy to consider other lines of reasoning, but I guess my question then becomes... how did humans become a species which was willing to submit to authority? Evolution generally doesn't bring about changes which don't result in better fitness to survive conditions, so where did that acceptance of authority come from? 

Keeping in mind that the phenomenon exists, to the point where this author wrote a book about it, I would hope there's no argument about that.

Since those thought experiments seem so obvious to me, I am highly curious as to how one would argue otherwise as to the basis of human submission to authority. There's nothing like alternate viewpoints to keep one thinking.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Mar 2, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Simple thought experiments:
> 
> Two toddlers are told not to jump into a fire at the mouth of the cave. One child accepts the admonition without question, the other tests it. Which will survive to pass on the genes?
> 
> Two children are told not to eat a particular poisonous berry. One accepts that admonition, the other tests it. Which will survive to pass on the genes?


What about the child who, while not immediately testing it, is curious enough to ask why? That's merely the first question to come to my mind. There's blind, ignorant obedience, and informed obedience. The former, (coinciding with the former child in both of your examples), does not possess the knowledge of WHY they shouldn't do something. They may avoid the fire at the mouth of the cave, only to later jump into a fire at some other location, when not being watched. If they are told that fire will hurt them, then they may avoid fire generally. Similarly, with berries they may be told not to eat *those* berries from *that* bush, but may eat the same berries from another bush. They could be taught instead how to tell if a berry is poisonous, and thus decide for themselves whether a specific berry is edible.



Explorer said:


> Similarly, if a group is fighting a mastodon, and a skilled hunter gives orders to keep his fellow hunters safe, the ones who decide they're going to reject the commands because they don't understand why they should listen to the bossy caveman will likely die and not pass on the genes. Again, it seems pretty obvious to me.


The mental image, combined with the unlikeliness thereof for this example, makes me chuckle, and pass upon any response. 



Explorer said:


> I'm happy to consider other lines of reasoning, but I guess my question then becomes... how did humans become a species which was willing to submit to authority? Evolution generally doesn't bring about changes which don't result in better fitness to survive conditions, so where did that acceptance of authority come from?


I think it's quite obvious at this stage, that, among humans at least, evolution can be or has been overcome. As an example, my grandmother tells me of two invalids she visits while vacationing in Maine.
They:

Have the mentality of 5-year old children
Have been in wheel chairs their entire lives (incapable of walking)
Are 65 and 55
Have never had anything to offer society at all (beyond sentimental attachment to family, of course)
(Pardon the clinical analysis, but I have no personal relationship with either of them, and in fact only know of them by proxy)

Where else but in human society could these two have survived to have become so advanced in age? They would have otherwise quickly died after their mother became unable to care for them.

More specifically to authority and evolution, I surmise that any idea, whether good or bad, can be taught, and believed by the learner. I'll toot Dresden James' horn again, and refer to my signature.

As for the book itself, I'll refrain from putting words into the authors mouth for now, as I've loaned the book out to a coworker, and eidetic memory I have not.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 3, 2012)

A lot of the questions about why humans submit to authority are also about why humans have religions, and many of the behaviors crop up in both inquiries. 

Although you might think the mastodon example is absurd, I'm a little disappointed you couldn't extend that old behavior to situations which still rely on hierarchical approaches to danger: warfare, hunting and the like. 

I have no argument against teaching one's children to question authority, to develop more flexible approaches, and so on. I tried to do that, and it turned out wonderfully. 

However, I just wanted to point out that submission to authority is something which has helped human survival for millions of years. Using recent cultural developments in the first world as a baseline for all human behavior seems a little odd.

I don't remember the specifics, but I think you and I had a bit of a discussion a while ago about utopian schemes: "If only everyone did this, the world would be a better place." It would definitely be interesting if human behaviors evolved over millions of years were suddenly abandoned, and this particular utopian scheme came to fruition, don't you think?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm curious about the book i might give it a read.


To add to the discussion. i think that can be extend further to control vs freedom like airport security (how much is too much), tapping phones, and other matters of "someone is protecting us by controlling us".


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 3, 2012)

At some point, I think it'd be nice if humanity learned to get over its primal instincts. Explorer, in the beliefs thread, you talked about primate politics, a great example of the 'evolution' of morals. Now, you alluded to religious persecution as an outgrowth of primate politics; wouldn't it be fair to say that indoctrinating ourselves against instincts that are not necessarily beneficial anymore would be good for society? At any rate, that's a wholly different topic. 

I haven't read this book, but I'll check it out, eventually. I don't like some of the quotes you selected, as they seem to run towards the tin-foil-hat crowd and the Prison Planeteers folks, but the basic premise sounds interesting, and it'd be fairly lame to judge a book by some quotes used without more context. Obeying authority certainly seems to encourage procreation, but blind obedience is bad for the species. In fact, if people just asked 'why' more, I'm inclined to think that quite a few backwards, widely held beliefs would be nonexistent.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Mar 3, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Although you might think the mastodon example is absurd, I'm a little disappointed you couldn't extend that old behavior to situations which still rely on hierarchical approaches to danger: warfare, hunting and the like.


Absurd? No. The mental imagery it induces in me IS however, so I had difficulty formulating worthwhile commentary. For the same reason, extending the point is difficult.

But, on reflection, it reminds me of a distinction the author makes early in the book between "obey me" authority (my words, not the authors), and other kinds of authority. In your example, the primary hunter would be an authority of knowledge, but would not be imposing his will by force on the other hunters. The book deals with the type of authority that deals out punishment for disobedience.



Explorer said:


> However, I just wanted to point out that submission to authority is something which has helped human survival for millions of years. Using recent cultural developments in the first world as a baseline for all human behavior seems a little odd.


I was merely attempting to point out that we, as a species, have become somewhat disconnected from evolution. Being fit, is no longer a requirement for survival. Likewise, beliefs that may be contrary to the evolutionary goal of the continuation of our species may be seen as necessary for our continued evolution.



Explorer said:


> I don't remember the specifics, but I think you and I had a bit of a discussion a while ago about utopian schemes: "If only everyone did this, the world would be a better place." It would definitely be interesting if human behaviors evolved over millions of years were suddenly abandoned, and this particular utopian scheme came to fruition, don't you think?


/me daydreams of utopia

Pardon any irregularities in this post, I started writing it, got tired, and continued the next morning.


----------

