The Ronfeld-(TIMN)-Chain


In order to avoid confusion in my previous post, I’m going to provide some explanation for the term of Ronfeld Chain. The name is derived from a comment made by some David Ronfeldt (maybe it’s him working for the RAND institute on a Social Evolution Forum webpage.

He summarizes his TIMN-theory as follows:

EXPLANATION: In brief, TIMN theory finds that, over the ages, people have come up with four cardinal forms of organization for constructing their societies: tribes (or the T form), hierarchical institutions (the I form), markets (M), and information-age networks (N). Each form of organization has different purposes and uses, along with different philosophical and strategic implications. Each form also has both bright and dark sides, and can be used for good or ill; societies can get them wrong as well as right, in ways that affect their usage of the other forms.

Concerning evolution he further explains:

In notational terms, this means that societies have evolved across the centuries in a preferred historical progression: from monoform (T-only), to biform (T+I), to triform (T+I+M), and now potentially to quadriform (T+I+M+N) types of societies.

This theory is consistent with the fauceir theory and quite handy to explain a lot of social phenomena, so I will translate it in more detail in faucier terms.

T: The tribal form is the most ancient way to organize human social groups based on biological needs such as provision of food and propagation and it involves some elementary types of division of labor in child care, hunting, and protection.

I: I’d better call it the imperatorial or ideological form. It is the way to control larger social groups which includes institutional hierarchies and ideologies and was made possible with increased agricultural production.

M: The market form. It is the way to control different social groups across countries (imperial states). This form became dominant with the industrial revolution.

N: The network. Though the network is not the hallmark of this form, markets form networks too for instance, the cardinal sign of this networks is rationality. All human brains contribute to this network one way or the other, and though it already can be felt everywhere, soon the contribution of artificial intelligence (AI) will increase substantially.

As we are talking about fauceir evolution all the forms are control units which control other fauceirs and may come under control themselves in evolutionary history. Eventually, a hierarchy is build. A hierarchy is not a divine order. On the contrary, it is the product of fierce competition, and as the element fauceirs keep evolving themselves it is like an arms race between host and parasite to keep the subdued fauceir under firm control.

The control that had been established by human social evolution is the chain of control, the Ronfeld Chain.

T < I < M < N

In summarizing human social evolutionary history, we have to recognize that most of the hunter gatherer societies up to about 30.000 years ago were dominated by tribal fauceirs. With the advent of agriculture, tribes were overruled by imperatorial fauceirs. The most ingenious innovation to keep tribal fauceirs in check was creating the family that is private tribes. But not only in families. Tribal fauceirs survived in some rare cultures and fringe groups that most often are called asocial or even criminal indicating that these fauceirs are under heavy control now.

The prime time of imperatorial fauceirs was about 10.000 years ago and since about 2.000 years we observe a steady decline of its influence. The imperatorial style of governance already existed in hunter gatherer societies which does not come as a surprise because the system of alpha males we inherited from our primate ancestors. But is was not before ideology was invented that tribal behavior could be effectively controlled across tribes. The only thing that was necessary was that a tribe accepted an ideology. We known from history how bloody business it was to spread ideology throughout several tribes.

Next step on the ladder was control by market fauceirs. Though archeological evidence proves that people traded some 60.000 years ago ( see here and and here and the references listed there) and the many activities of merchants is known from history, it was not before recently and after the industrial revolution in particular that economic fauceirs gained significant control on both imperatorial and tribal fauceirs. An insightful anecdotal evidence how this takeover took place over the centuries of industrial revolution on British Island is the history of freemasonry. Aside of secret societies, today numerous ways exist by which market fauceirs control the imperatorial ones: lobbying, the monitary system, and by corporates sponsored think tanks and NGOs to influence policy makers. Market fauceirs also force tribal ones under control. The most prominent example is the disbandment of families by economic means of coercion. Women had to work to also provide for the family and childcare was handed over to the government. According to a report by Aaron Russo it was thoroughly planned by Rockefeller. Maybe that’s true in the US, but it happened everywhere even in countries like the Soviet Union where Rockefeller had rather negligible influence, I guess. It is just what economy demands.

Next and so far final step is the takeover by the rational network fauceirs. Rational fauceirs also exist for long, but there influence on economy and ideology was rather limited. It was only with the advent of the internet and the spread of new ways of communication that the influcence of the rational network became obvious. Brexit and the Trump election are symptoms of the control shift from market to network fauceirs.

For us ordinary humans two things remain difficult to understand:

1. We are just witnessing a competition between market and network fauceirs. The market by far is not under full control yet and it will never be. The fight between these two fauceir units is fierce and will become fiercer the next years. The two fighting fauceir parties take what they can get control of as weapons, including us, the people. We people contribute in several ways to this combat. We participate as members of the imperatorial or tribal fauceirs.

2. But, we also contribute to the network simply by developing rational arguments. Any rational endeavor and exchange of opinions contributes to the network in a way that is not foreseeable. A single human individual contributing to the network has no control of the network. The network controls itself and the people contributing.

Let’s give an example. Now many people write articles like this one. In this article the authors try to explain what happened when Trump was elected, and although the authors did not find a point that I can agree with, they made a valuable contribution on how tribal fauceir control is exerted by both imperatorial and market fauceirs that can be used by the network to tap the control mechanism in the future. Therefore keep in mind that a single person’s contribution to the network might not be visible and conscious instead it might be accidental and work in a not intended direction.

Conclusively, while ready this article you were making your contribution to human social too. Thank You.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at


Empathobesity—The Dynamics of Social Symbiosis and Parasitism

Social parasitism is a recurrent topic on this website. I tackled the question how such parasitism is unaware to those who contribute. Also the phenomenon of the evolution of a social parasite’s defense system was illustrated. In a recent article Heartiste, raised an other aspect of social parasitism. The systems theory’s well known fact that a symbiotic relationship can become parasitic (and vice versa).

This dynamics of a relationship’s mutuality, of course, is true for all relationships social included. Empathobesity is a role model. The concept describes the rise-and-fall process of Western societies by the impact of empathy.

As well as the process can be divided into rise and fall, the two phases are characterized by (1) a distribution of wealth, education, and power which translated into higher productivity and considerable ingenuity, and (2) growing inequality, declining education, and concentration of power which translates into stagnation and genuine ingenuity became replaced by just fancy but useless innovation such as ringtones. The two phases of the process even have a biological, population genetics, implication. While in the first phase the more prosperous people had more children, it is now the other way around, so even the genetic basis of ingenuity is in decline not to mention the schooling system and psychological and sociological research that supports a propaganda of educating the imbecile to become geniuses.

No doubt, this process was propelled by empathy mostly arising from Christian religious believes, and we owe those Christian ethics a great deal of our wealth and prosperity. The major question is why did the growth of prosperity came to a halt. The answer lays in the dynamics of relationships. Institutions that sprout from the grounds of Christian ethics like political parties and organizations and charities entered their parasitic stage of behavior. All these organizations have in common that they spread their political agendas by the help of creating empathy like the Christian Church did.

Thus empathobesity well characterizes this process. It is empathy that became obesity. Like obesity empathobesity results from doing in excess what is essential. If you don’t eat you starve, if you eat too much you become obese. Obesity like malnutrition is a disease, and both can kill you. The same is with empathy. It is essential to keep a society flourishing, but to much of it causes dangerous metabolic consequences.

The parasitic abuse of empathy has a long history and it has it re-birth again and again.


The young man on the streets of Prague creates empathy, but does he deserve it. Please take a closer look. His sneakers are as new as the ones of the bystanders and his backpack and his clothes aren’t ragged. He covers his face to not show that he is well shaved. My conclusion was he just wanted to create a feeling of empathy in visitors crossing the Carl’s bridge to pay for his vacation.

In a family, for instance, one member can force tho other into obedience by playing the sufferer. This is the trick played by men and women likewise, but only women showing such a behavior are supported by society. You can easily spot those women on facebook, for instance, by re-posting charity requests. The women don’t care the least about the poor chap who asks for help, but it is a test for her male followers who will qualify to become enslaved by her empathy trap.

But empathy parasitism is not restricted to personal relationships and personal contact like beggars. Whole institutions support on it. Charity organizations, Environmental protection groups, churches, and political parties all use to employ the human social instinct of empathy for their egoistic purposes.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

But empathy is not the only social behavior pattern (fauceir) that is abused by social parasites. Here follow some other examples of social parasitism:

  • A security agency that creates security risks to enforce their power and influence.
  • A news agency that creates new just for a good selling headline.
  • A health organization that creates a disease to have more patients to cure.
  • A company that creates a monopoly to increase revenue.
  • A scientific community predicting a disaster, such as an epidemic, to obtain more funds.

The faces of social parasitism is manifold, and what once has been a respectable institution can become a social parasite. This is made clear by the term Empathobesity when empathy in political realms becomes an obstacle of social advancement at best but in its worst case scenario become morbid leading to death of a culture. So many culture died already. They all died because they succumbed to their specific social parasites. BTW biological organisms die the same way.

Well from a fauceir historical perspective there is nothing wrong with that. Fauceir Theory has a non-partisan view. Nobody can avert the death of an organism. That’s true for biological organisms and social organisms likewise. Death and the subsequent degradation is the prerequisite of a life circle going on. If the Roman Empire hadn’t been degraded some thousand years ago we would not have the level of culture that we enjoy in Europe today.

Thus what can be done practically, is to prevent the dying social organisms to take to much human vitims, to destroy intellectual achievements and other natural resources.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Male intelligence and female preferences

This is actually a comment on Do women find bright men sexy?

Heartiste writes in his Dating Market Value Test For Men that only slightly above average men have an advantage. I would agree with that as it not only is consistent with my own experience but also coincidentally is found by a mathematical model of democratic election. Finally, it seems quite logical that higher intellectual capabilities are not perceived as an advantage but as a threat. According the Dunning-Kruger effect, we all are incapable to correctly evaluate capabilities that are more favorable than ours. We cannot understand a more intellectual person, and everything that we cannot understand we use to fear instinctively.

Fortunately, if women are capable to select slightly more intelligent men this is of evolutionary advantage over many generations, as these INDIVIDUAL decisions sum up over the generations.

Unfortunately, that is not true with democracies, as COLLECTIVE decisions always cut down over the generations.

The mathematical effect on variance is as follows: the former will increase variance, the latter decrease towards idiocracy.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Easter refutation of the Messiah

The faith in a Messiah is ubiquitous. It is common in many if not all cultures. It survived till today, not only in legends and religious scripts. It is even revived in modern literature such as Dune or philosophy such as Marxism or ideology such as democracy. The idea of a Messiah evolved from prehistoric tribal behavior, showed some transformations over human history, and found its solution recently in The Bible. The Easter story in particular.

Jesus Crucifixion

Jesus’ Crucifixion demonstrated that a Messiah fails even if endowed with god-like power.


The Messiah idea has its roots in prehistoric human social behavior. Humans primeval ancestors lived in compound that were lead by alpha males. Obedience to that leader was essential to that compounds competitiveness, so we may conclude if not even biologically wired there is a strong socially inherited tendency to follow a leading male. In the emerging class societies, the function of the alpha male was substituted by religious or political rulers. No wonder then that the first Messiahs in old scriptures coincided with political rulers.


As with growing contradictions among social classes an other type of interpretation of Messiah evolved. While the ruling class still maintained the old ideology of God given ruler being the Messiah, the abused classes suffering from conflicts, suppression, and injustice began to dream of an other Messiah. A new type of ruler who would enforce their interests.

Human thinking caged

Psychologists call it cognitive inhibition. As human upbringing in a family with a strong leader reinforces humans primeval social behavior, there is a perpetual source of new Messiah stories. Some as clumsy as Dune where a single person changes the world. Some others, more realistic about human egoistic behavior, transpose the idea of a Messiah to a group of people. The working class in Marxism and a democratically elected assembly in Western ideologies. None is working for two reasons.

  1. There is no such thing as a human that wont abuse power. That holds for a single person as well as for groups of people.
  2. There is no such thing as a wise decision that all people are complacent about. Neither contradictory interests can be reconciled nor really progressive decisions can be made by mass support.

Despite the growing number of people that create ever new stories of Messiahs and scholars that invent new Messiah theories, wise people found out about its infeasibility some two thousand years ago when they wrote the story about Jesus. Jesus was meant to be a Messiah but failed. The message is clear. As Jesus failed who was capable to muster all the power of God in his favor, every human who cannot muster as much power must fail too.

Unfortunately these rational foundations of human sociology by early Christian scholars remained almost unnoticed. Too strong have been the efforts of ruler, even of the Christian churches, to disguise the original tenet. And also too strong is the desire of humans to believe in something that complies with deeply inherited feelings, however irrational it may be.

Unfortunately early sociologists did not offer a solution to the problem, but they did so for a purpose, for not creating a new Messiah, for not repeating old mistakes. Admittedly progress in society and sociology goes slowly. But what is 2k years in an evolutionary timescale?

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Crabtree’s hunter-gatherer problem

Pygmies, an extant hunter-gatherer society that has a low average IQ, are used to rebuke Crabtree’s argument about dwindling intelligence.

A recent article by Matt Ridley “Does Survival of the Sexiest Explain Civilization?” has an unexpected impact on discussions going on about Gerald Crabtree’s paper “Our fragile intellect. Part I” and “Part II”. Crabtree claims that human intelligence is declining since the advent of human societies. A claim that is by the way also made by Fauceir Theory only for different reasons. While Crabtree makes the accumulation of damaging mutations responsible, Fauceir Theory considers human enslavement by social fauceirs the main reason. This may include, of course, the accumulation of disadvantageous mutations due to provision of food and shelter to those who were otherwise subject to starvation and succumb to selection, but it also includes active elimination of those who were more intelligent.

The opponents of Crabtree’s ideas argue that present day hunter-gatherers rate very low in their IQ tests which they shouldn’t if Crabtree were right. On the contrary, they claim hunter-gatheres should outsmart all of us. Supporters counter that present day hunter-gatherers cannot be compared to hunter-gatherers 10,000 years ago. Why not? Both purportedly share the same evolutionary environment. But, is this really true? As a matter of fact primeval hunter-gatherer societies are in fact already master fauceirs to the enslaved human individuals and those masters may have differed significantly. Some supporting the evolution of intelligence. Others diminishing it. While the former societies evolved into present day modern societies, the latter remained hunter-gatherer.

Compare this quote from Matt Ridleys article …

Back in the hunter-gatherer Paleolithic, inequality had reproductive consequences. The successful hunter, providing valuable protein for females, got a lot more mating opportunities than the unsuccessful. So it’s possible that men still walk around with a relatively simple equation in their brains, namely that relative success at obtaining assets results in more sexual adventures and more grandchildren.

… with the narrative about Pygmies in Foster’s book quoted thru this webpage.

While the former is a vivid illustration how evolution of intelligence may had came about the latter illustrates how extant hunter-gatherer societies actively suppress the selection of intelligence. Moreover the website states that all existing hunter gatherer societies show a similar system of uniformization.

I think this is strong evidence of societies’ power to control the evolution of intelligence, and it is strong evidence too that societies that allow the accumulation of intelligence among their members are more successful in competition.

So why societies are interested to suppress the evolution of intelligence at all. This is equivalent to the question why societies have a quite limited capability to anticipate the selection exerted by evolution. This is also equivalent to the question why Germans mostly followed Hitler into the catastrophe and allowed to kill those who warned. Well these are the questions that can be answered by Fauceir Theory and it it what this blog is about.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Never ask a parasite

Never ask a parasite how to fight parasitism. You certainly would get the wrong answer.

The interpretation of advantage, advancement, and even progress is relative. It depends on the observer’s position. The same is true for social parasites.

  • Ask a mafiosi and he will probably suggest that he should take over police control to reduce crime.
  • Ask a beggar and he would probably suggest giving more to charity.
  • Ask an academic and she would probably suggest raising taxes.
  • Ask a politician and she would probably suggest a reduction in people’s freedom.
  • Ask a bureaucrat and she would probably disapprove bureaucracy in other departments.

Therefore, never judge a political opinion without analyzing the social background it derives from.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Imprecise emotions allow to trick your sweetheart

A recent study [1] discussed on this blog page found a relationship between awe inspiring experiences and decision making. That is not absolute new, however. A similar study in the seventies similarly found an association between sexual desire and feelings of anxiety [2]. On a bridge, probably not as much anxiety arousing as this one in the picture, but height enough to feel uncomfortable, men were interviewed by an attractive women following a typical psychological questionnaire. At the end of the interview the women gave her telephone number to the male test person. Significantly more callbacks were counted from those who were asked at the height bridge compared to an ordinary bridge. Obviously the anxiety emotion, the raised heart beat for instance, caused by the bridge was interpreted as sexual attractiveness and some of the men felt it worthwhile to re-experience that emotion.

 That is good news for all those who want someone to fall in love. Simply choose a bridge or something else awe inspiring enough to arouse your sweetheart’s emotions, put on a lovely smile, and your sweetheart is likely to believe he or she is in love with you. I recall that Niagara Falls are a preferred honeymoon destination. Probably for the same reason.

 The question is what all this has to do with fauceir theory. The answer: it is a typical example of imprecision. Emotions are psychological fauceirs that are slaves to our rationality fauceirs. As such, they are likely to do things that are from the outset adapted to the most common situations of our animal or primeval ancestors, that we would not always sanction rationally.

 Most exciting to me however was the following quote from the blog mentioned above.

 … it seems to me that atheists have a great appetite for awe-inspiring stories – in particular, stories about great scientific and engineering feats. Could this in part be a facet of life that in other circumstances could be filled by religion?

 That is sheer fauceirology. Of course, atheism is some kind of religion. Of course, it has to fill the same emotional gaps as any other religion; if not all atheists would become distressed. In some people atheism ensues more rational thinking. In those I would agree that atheism is more evolutionary advanced (in its fauceirological sense). Some atheists however seek refuge in demonism which cannot be considered as a higher level of evolution.


Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D. & Aaker, J. Awe Expands People’s Perception of Time, Alters Decision Making, and Enhances Well-Being. Psychol Sci (2012).doi:10.1177/0956797612438731


Dutton, D. G. & Aron, A. P. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30, 510–517 (1974).

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at