Hah - good analogy!

So I'm not in agreement that corps are the collective actions of the bad aspects of the many, but I think they're more the exaggerated bad actions of the few.

There's a Dawkins example here I can't quite think of right now, but it's something along the lines of there are two camps of people: Hawks and Doves. Hawks are abrasive, Doves hate confrontation.

In a Dove population: When there's not enough seed to go around, Doves will split what they have with one another. Everyone gets a part.
In a Hawk population: When there's not enough seed to go around, Hawks will fight over the seed and in doing so, fight for their share of the seed. Everyone gets a part.
In a mixed population: When there's not enough seed to go around, the Hawks will take from the Doves without much struggle, and then the Hawks will fight it out. Hawks get their share, Doves get nothing.

Though I don't believe in such binary classifications of people, I do think everyone has Hawk or Dove like tendencies in certain situations, and ultimately that it just takes one single Hawk to dominate all the other Doves in a group. I genuinely believe this is how corps grow.

Write a reply

Replies

~inquiry wrote (thread):

> So I'm not in agreement that corps
> are the collective actions of the
> bad aspects of the many, but I think
> they're more the exaggerated bad
> actions of the few.

Might the many be at least as culpable as the few for somehow letting a truly miniscule few have their way?

I like somewhat tidiness of the hawks/doves thing, but am hard pressed to think of there being many - if any - human doves not too far beyond the crib. To me it seems more like greater and lesser hawks - the latter rising to the beastly occasion when in the company of what they consider even lesser hawks, copping dove-hood when imagining doing so gives them an advantage ("a hawk in doves clothing"), whatever they imagine securing a bigger seed share.