> As Calhoun saw it, the repression they had suffered at the hands of their superiors had resulted in deviant, creative, and thus adaptive behaviour.
Could it also be that the group was simply different, and suffered because it was different/non-dominant, but it was not the suffering that made them different to begin with? And getting away from the main group allowed them to do those things?
I would posit a utopia where there is such a thing as "dominant group" is not a utopia, after all.
I think there always will be "dominant groups", as long as being in group is more beneficial than not being in one - simply because even an uniform random distribution is not perfectly uniform when you build it point by point.
A dominant group is not one that is merely more beneficial. If there's a rat park somewhere that has happiness level 5, and the other rat park has happiness level 6, that doesn't mean one is dominant over the other. It just means one has more happiness than the other. And in an effort to not cause too many paperclip maximizers, let's define some acceptable margin of difference at which it doesn't really matter who's happier, I don't think the world will explode and the philosophical arguments are seriously not worth it.
Dominance is something else entirely and I staunchly disagree that this strictly evolutionary construct needs to persist forever.
Could it also be that the group was simply different, and suffered because it was different/non-dominant, but it was not the suffering that made them different to begin with? And getting away from the main group allowed them to do those things?
I would posit a utopia where there is such a thing as "dominant group" is not a utopia, after all.
Remember these guys? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullie...
Groups of people interested in esoteric things who just want to be left alone... sounds familiar.