You could say it’s not true for bonobos but I have no idea how you could make the case that a silverback gorilla is not an “alpha” unless you have some very specific definition. Just pulling from Wikipedia as I’m lazy, but if you have better sources please provide them:
The silverback is the centre of the troop’s attention, making all the decisions, mediating conflicts, determining the movements of the group, leading the others to feeding sites, and taking responsibility for the safety and well-being of the troop. Younger males subordinate to the silverback, known as blackbacks, may serve as backup protection. Blackbacks are aged between 8 and 12 years
That seems to describe an alpha beta hierarchy structure to me. With chimps it may be a little less obvious and more variable but still, according to wikipedia again:
Among males, there is generally a dominance hierarchy, and males are dominant over females.
And
Male chimpanzees exist in a linear dominance hierarchy. Top-ranking males tend to be aggressive even during dominance stability
Yes humans have way more complex social structures but almost always there is a hierarchy of men at the top usually with a single man at the apex, call them alphas, the patriarchy, the oppressors, the greats or whatever you want, they exist. Denying their existence or the fundamental drive powering them only helps to obfuscate there motives. We as a society need to recognize those people and harness them for the benefit of society instead of the benefit of themselves.
Chickens have a dominance hierarchy too. And so do rats under some conditions. The dominance literature that I know of does not make it sound great. Dominant makes are like the loud drunk guy at a party who wants fight - people just generally avoid him. So they’re socially isolated bullies. Robert and Caroline Blanchard from University of Hawaii is good for this work, and Robert Sapolsky for work on stress hormones.
Yes humans have way more complex social structures but almost always there is a hierarchy of men at the top usually with a single man at the apex, call them alphas, the patriarchy, the oppressors, the greats or whatever you want, they exist.
They do in your head, probably because you want to be dominated by a man you unquestioningly accept as your ‘superior’. I won’t kink shame, but this is not for me.
Looking at your post history, you seem to be a Bad Take Machine. Bye!
So all the authoritarian regimes of today and the countless ones in the past are in my head? All the hierarchical corporate structures with a male CEO at the top is in my head? What world are you living in where there isn’t a small group or even a single male at the top making the major decisions?
I never said this is the right way to organize things, or that those people should be leading, I literally said we shouldnt idolize them and let them rule us, I think outside of times of crisis that shouldn’t be how we organize society. I believe we need to fight these systems of organization but to do that we need to understand them, denying there existence or the drives that propel them just maintains the status quo. In order to fight fascism you need to understand what drives fascism.
And yet, we still need to parse the effects of biology and the effects of situation. Sex differences across species vary based on the various incentives they experience. Sex itself arose out of a need for multicellular organisms to iterate more quickly. In less extreme and volatile conditions, asexual reproduction makes more sense. In certain organisms, all members contribute both male and female gametes, while others have individual organisms specialize in one or the other. It all depends on their specific challenges, modulating to changes in context.
When we think about why men might have advantages over women at the heads of large organizations, we’d have to look more at the context of what is adaptable in those empires. How much of it is due to biological advantages, and how much of it is due to the same self reinforcing mechanisms that favor pale skin over darker skin? The effect of skin color is totally cultural, yet the disparities between darker and lighter skin are compared gender in several places.
There are about 121 non white US House Representatives and 128 women. Assuming a 50/50ish gender breakdown, the disparity for race would be 13% while the disparity for gender would about 21%. In the US Senate, there are 12 non white people and 25 women, meaning racial minorities are underrepresented by about 29%, and women by 25%. For CEOs, women are underrepresented by about 18.5%, and racial minorities by about 17%. If race, a completely cultural factor, has such a similar effect to gender(equivalent to sex for most of these cases), what does that say about the effect gender or sex might have on someone’s ability to have positions of power?
Male and female bodies are different, but how much of an effect do those differences actually have on the behavior of domination? How much of the difference comes from gender as social construct, and how much of it comes from the realities of our bodies? Men can usually lift heavier things and women often have to give birth. Men are more likely to die in battle, women in childbirth. People who identify as male prefer to think and act differently than I do, but it’s unknown how exactly those predispositions shape our outcomes because there’s a mountain of culture woven into every part of those differences. Male behavior is part of human behavior, regardless of how much more often they do it.
Masculinity is but one part of fascism, not the core reason or mechanism behind it. It’s just an important identity to manipulate for fascists looking to wield power. The will to power above everything else is at the root of fascism, and the basic will to power is just a fundamental adaptation for all life. If you want an evolutionary explanation, that’s it. Seeking power is near universal for all organisms, as power allows them to continue their existence. Those that don’t seek enough resources and control to continue simply don’t continue. However, all drives can be counterproductive in certain ways, getting culled into homeostasis eventually.
You could say it’s not true for bonobos but I have no idea how you could make the case that a silverback gorilla is not an “alpha” unless you have some very specific definition. Just pulling from Wikipedia as I’m lazy, but if you have better sources please provide them:
That seems to describe an alpha beta hierarchy structure to me. With chimps it may be a little less obvious and more variable but still, according to wikipedia again:
And
Yes humans have way more complex social structures but almost always there is a hierarchy of men at the top usually with a single man at the apex, call them alphas, the patriarchy, the oppressors, the greats or whatever you want, they exist. Denying their existence or the fundamental drive powering them only helps to obfuscate there motives. We as a society need to recognize those people and harness them for the benefit of society instead of the benefit of themselves.
Chickens have a dominance hierarchy too. And so do rats under some conditions. The dominance literature that I know of does not make it sound great. Dominant makes are like the loud drunk guy at a party who wants fight - people just generally avoid him. So they’re socially isolated bullies. Robert and Caroline Blanchard from University of Hawaii is good for this work, and Robert Sapolsky for work on stress hormones.
Petersdorf and Higham are a great summary of the variety in the primate world. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118584538.ieba0308
They do in your head, probably because you want to be dominated by a man you unquestioningly accept as your ‘superior’. I won’t kink shame, but this is not for me.
Looking at your post history, you seem to be a Bad Take Machine. Bye!
So all the authoritarian regimes of today and the countless ones in the past are in my head? All the hierarchical corporate structures with a male CEO at the top is in my head? What world are you living in where there isn’t a small group or even a single male at the top making the major decisions?
I never said this is the right way to organize things, or that those people should be leading, I literally said we shouldnt idolize them and let them rule us, I think outside of times of crisis that shouldn’t be how we organize society. I believe we need to fight these systems of organization but to do that we need to understand them, denying there existence or the drives that propel them just maintains the status quo. In order to fight fascism you need to understand what drives fascism.
And yet, we still need to parse the effects of biology and the effects of situation. Sex differences across species vary based on the various incentives they experience. Sex itself arose out of a need for multicellular organisms to iterate more quickly. In less extreme and volatile conditions, asexual reproduction makes more sense. In certain organisms, all members contribute both male and female gametes, while others have individual organisms specialize in one or the other. It all depends on their specific challenges, modulating to changes in context.
When we think about why men might have advantages over women at the heads of large organizations, we’d have to look more at the context of what is adaptable in those empires. How much of it is due to biological advantages, and how much of it is due to the same self reinforcing mechanisms that favor pale skin over darker skin? The effect of skin color is totally cultural, yet the disparities between darker and lighter skin are compared gender in several places.
There are about 121 non white US House Representatives and 128 women. Assuming a 50/50ish gender breakdown, the disparity for race would be 13% while the disparity for gender would about 21%. In the US Senate, there are 12 non white people and 25 women, meaning racial minorities are underrepresented by about 29%, and women by 25%. For CEOs, women are underrepresented by about 18.5%, and racial minorities by about 17%. If race, a completely cultural factor, has such a similar effect to gender(equivalent to sex for most of these cases), what does that say about the effect gender or sex might have on someone’s ability to have positions of power?
Male and female bodies are different, but how much of an effect do those differences actually have on the behavior of domination? How much of the difference comes from gender as social construct, and how much of it comes from the realities of our bodies? Men can usually lift heavier things and women often have to give birth. Men are more likely to die in battle, women in childbirth. People who identify as male prefer to think and act differently than I do, but it’s unknown how exactly those predispositions shape our outcomes because there’s a mountain of culture woven into every part of those differences. Male behavior is part of human behavior, regardless of how much more often they do it.
Masculinity is but one part of fascism, not the core reason or mechanism behind it. It’s just an important identity to manipulate for fascists looking to wield power. The will to power above everything else is at the root of fascism, and the basic will to power is just a fundamental adaptation for all life. If you want an evolutionary explanation, that’s it. Seeking power is near universal for all organisms, as power allows them to continue their existence. Those that don’t seek enough resources and control to continue simply don’t continue. However, all drives can be counterproductive in certain ways, getting culled into homeostasis eventually.