 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 10: UT Group HierarchyIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
UT Group HierarchyUT Group hierarchy is very similar to the tale about the fly which was eaten by the spider, which was eaten by the bird, which was eaten by the cat which was eaten by the vegetarian, or whatever .... I don't know the rest of the fascinating menu. It is usually the higher level (‘the more inner’ , the more immediate) group which dictates the behaviour of any individual who is a member of this group, that is, unless the ‘power’ of the outer UT Group has a physically stronger influence, which cannot be ignored by the individual or inner UT Group. In every case the UT Instinct will justify the actions and opinions. The main UT Group is the human UT Group. So, automatically, humans have always considered biological resources - animals and vegetation etc - are for bes group's benefit - the resources of the subordinate UT Group are considered as being for the benefit of the dominant UT Group - ‘we deserve it!’ - it is natural to think thus. The next sublevel may be nationality, but usually only in the case of war etc - opportunity and circumstance yet again. Another level may be employment; if bes is an employer be will see the employees as being in an inferior UT Group and therefore will think it natural that they are in existence for bes benefit. The UT Instinct will tell ben that they should be working harder (the ‘them’ are lazy and not earning their pay) and be is overpaying them - and doing them a favour by employing them! - they should be thankful to bes despite the fact that be is exploiting them. If there is an excuse or possible chance for its success be will try to decrease their pay while at the same time increasing bes own. If be is an employee be will be under the impression that be is being underpaid, despite the fact that be does as little as possible, and that the employers are being overpaid. Be may well think that it is not only acceptable to steal from bes employer but that it is actually just and fair and only getting ‘what we deserve’ , which thus becomes part of the reward - a ‘perk of the job’ . If be is a male worker he may well think that his female fellow workers should not get equal pay because his male employee UT Group ‘works harder, is more professional and intelligent’ etc than the female employee UT Group. If there are different employee UT Group categories eg floor workers, office cleaners, drivers, assemblers, stockworkers etc each of those UT Groups will consider that their particular group are a ‘special case’ and deserve a greater increase in their wages than any other group. If the person is married that will be yet another inner UT Group and in some cases will take priority over the outer UT Group. Be may consider that ‘we are all equal’ but be will try and get bes children better educated than the children from other families and, if necessary, get them extra tutoring in order to give them a better advantage over the other children. Be will consider that bes children deserve this advantage. At a time when it was acceptable, if be was a married male, he may well have considered the female as being in existence for his benefit. The wages he earned were his and his alone and he would only ever give his wife enough money to keep the house and feed the children and himself. A man had the right to even sell the house in which his wife and children lived, thereby making them homeless, if he so desired. The male would be of the opinion that ‘she should be happy with what she's got’ . He would see this situation as being natural - the ‘way things should be’ - just like exploiting ‘pack animals’ (you don't pay them - just give them enough to live!). Even within UT Groups there usually is a ‘me’ UT Group and in some cases, where opportunity and circumstance allows, this is a dictatorship UT Group. I could carry on this example but I hope I have included enough for you to understand the hierarchical structure of UT Groups. The ‘us’ UT Group will always think that the ‘them’ UT Group has to be controlled - for the very fact that they are less equal and thus less civilised, but, of course, always considering that the ‘us’ do not have to be controlled by the same rules - being more civilised and decent, and so there will always be the desire for a two tier system. The ‘us’ can always justify their behaviour while condemning the ‘them’ for doing the same. For example, if the employer tries to decrease the pay packet for any reason the employee will see this as cheating and it will demonstrate just how selfishness and exploitative the employers are. Yet if the employee tries to get unearned pay - eg taking a day off pretending to be sick - be will be able to justify that dishonest action and certainly won't see that as cheating or as equivalent to the employer's attempted action. So, if you think you are a good person and civilised it is merely because you are within your own UT Group and are acting according to the UT Instinct ‘rules of engagement’ . When you are confronted by another Lowtribe UT Group your true colours will show. AND you will be able to justify whatever your actions are. Sometimes people use baby-talk phrases like ‘one of his own’ which are easily demonstrated to be so incorrect when you understand the UT Instinct and UT Groups. For example when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq baby-talkers asked ‘how could he do this to his own people?’ . When you understand UT Groups it is easy to see that Saddam did not consider the Kurds as being in his UT Group. They were seen as being the Lowtribe and therefore not only not deserving of his protection but actually deserving death by gassing. He wouldn't have done that to members of his UT Group (the UT Group which was ‘in control’ at that particular point in time). Though, to a dictator, the ultimate UT Group is the ‘me’ UT Group - ie he doesn't need the respect of anyone at all - only their fear. Another example would be some of the British Muslims who were members of the Islamic UT Group and the British UT Group. In some cases the Islamic UT Group was much more important and controlled the evaluation mechanism. And even then it would have been an inner UT Group - the ‘martyrs’ UT Group which prevailed. Once you become a member of that UT Group (that closely knit UT Group) you can consider blowing up anyone outside that particular UT Group as being acceptable. The more respect a person gains by being a member of an UT Group the more difficult it is to consider leaving that group. Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|