[justonenote]

And what about chimpanzees? Our closest relative genetically. Is anyone disputing that they exhibit a brutally dominant social hierarchy? Our second closest relative is (afaik, or close enough) Bonobos, who lump around all day jacking each other off.

While the alpha terminology may have come from dog packs, it's not exactly unobservable in other species, and even on these forums and in VC funding rounds you can observe people both jacking each other off with a healthy amount of social and institutional pandering and financial support, and other people not posting as much but taking dominant positions to "secure the bag" and whatever is downstream from that.

People don't like these conversations but it doesn't change the reality.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Maybe a thing to note here is that the behavior of many different kinds of social animals changes dependent on the living situation.

Given that, it is not unreasonable to wonder (hope?) that there might be human living conditions that reduce "brutally dominant social heirarchy".

The best part is: we even appear to have archeological evidence that this is true, for humans!

[mmooss]

We have tons of current evidence that its true. I've never experienced a 'brutally dominant social heirarchy' personally; it's pretty uncommon. I don't live like Lord of the Flies.

IME the theory is a reactionary (i.e., anti-liberal, anti-humanitarian, anti-human rights) myth to justify the rule and worship of power.

[justonenote]

It's not at all uncommon, either in history or modern day. The stats on wealth inequality in the west demonstrate this out pretty clearly.

It's probably more viscerally visible in poorer parts of the world, though trying to compare which is worse, is not very clear. You could argue in the western countries it's easier for someone to become entrenched and cement a position of "top dog" while if you are in a tribe in Africa the position is more fluid and volatile.

I think using the term 'brutally dominant' I invoked images of violence, and maybe something like 'cut-throat' is (ironically) more apt. While you yourself may be in a good and comfortable position, it doesn't negate the reality that people vie for positions of power all over the world every day and have for the entirety of history. We are not just Bonobos living in a forest.

[dylan604]

> reduce "brutally dominant social heirarchy".

if you mean literal brutality, but how the uber wealthy treating those of lower wealth could be considered brutal as well--in modern parlance of course.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I was quoting the comment I was replying to.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

You can’t draw more than rudimentary conclusions from the comparison because we could have evolved different behaviors, or we could share them, or we could work that way on the savannah but not in a city, etc. These conversations can be and are used to say whatever the speaker wants to say, since they can just select a trait that’s been observed in a monkey case study and apply it lazily to humans. “Wow humans sure like to jerk off, must be because we’re like bonobos!”

[mmooss]

> Is anyone disputing that they exhibit a brutally dominant social hierarchy?

Could you share the basis for saying they do, for those who are not primatologists?

> even on these forums and in VC funding rounds you can observe ...

How is that 'alpha wolf' behavior?

> People don't like these conversations

Has someone objected?

[justonenote]

> Could you share the basis for saying they do, for those who are not primatologists?

You can look it up yourself, plenty of published research. I'm not a primatologist either but still managed to educate myself.

> Has someone objected?

You seem to be, in the most snide and backhanded way possible.

More generally yes people have been preaching (since the 60s majorly but obviously before that) that being kind, and that peace and love is and mutual reciprocity is not only one way to go about in life, but _it's the only way_ that you should pursue. And this very much the mainstream opinion. Meanwhile central banks have been printing money at zero interest to give to their friends, Saudis have been selling oil, states have been buying up weapons, bribing the US, etc.

And guess what? All of those people have lot more power and influence on the world today, than a guy living in the desert preaching how humans should be perfectly balanced at one with each and nature.

> How is that 'alpha wolf' behavior?

Zuckerberg retaining complete voting shares wasn't a power play? Altman returning to oust the board and be CEO of OpenAI wasn't a power play? Investors leveraging the outsized gains from an early success to bet on further outsized gains isn't a power play?

[enragedcacti]

> Our second closest relative is (afaik, or close enough) Bonobos

They are equally close (tree-wise, percent-wise idk), and they exhibit a radically different and mostly nonviolent matriarchal social hierarchy. Not sure what the takeaway from that should be other than that maybe there shouldn't be a takeaway if our two closest relatives (and each others closest relatives) behave so differently from one another.

[justonenote]

To me it's pretty obvious that we are somewhere in-between the two in temperament, but probably tending quite a bit more toward the chimps. I don't have a peer-reviewed study or empirical proof etc but some things are just staring you in the face. (see: all of history, boxing and MMA and other less violent but still highly competitive sports being popular worldwide)

I mean the interesting question is whether it is necessary, if we were maximally Bonobo would we have built the civilizations and technology we have? Possibly, but it's not beyond the realms of thought that the drive to amass power, to be the alpha or top dog, has driven action and risk taking, low probability paths to outsized gains.

There is a second question about whether we should be more Bonobo like now, but we are what we are and there is 7 billion people on the planet.

[ninetyninenine]

>People don't like these conversations but it doesn't change the reality.

I mean you have to be an idiot not to see it. You literally just observe all human societies. You have some leader at the top, the president, a king etc. etc. Then you have CEOs, VPs, Managers, team leads etc etc.

Human society is structured around alphas. Clearly. No I take that back. Humans are more similar to bonobos. At least that's how it is when I go to work we just jack each other off all day, no team leads or CEO where I work.

[matwood]

I think people run into definitional biases. I used alpha/beta as short hand in a comment last week and was downvoted just for using the terms.

In short, alpha does not imply male or violence. It’s someone for whatever reasons is at the top (eq, iq, physical attributes, confidence, etc). It also depends on the group, think big fish/small pond.