Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Dominance hierarchy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticism
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
There have been various criticisms of an overall dominance hierarchy in humans, with critics saying applying such animalistic concepts to humans is mostly or entirely pseudo-science.<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0165025407084054</ref> | There have been various criticisms of an overall dominance hierarchy in humans, with critics saying applying such animalistic concepts to humans is mostly or entirely pseudo-science.<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0165025407084054</ref> | ||
==Social domain variance in humans== | |||
However, while there is nothing pseudo-scientific or non-obvious about the fact that men differ in their social, romantic and material success, critics say that the platonic ideal of an 'alpha' is dubious due to the sheer number of social domains in which humans can or do engage in their lives, unlike less intelligent animals. For example, a D&D champ may be the alpha in a board game shop, but not in the lacrosse field. Critics may have a hard time denying, however, that there exist people who exert control over entire populations, as well as those who are submissive to nearly everyone, due to their social status. Critics of dominance hierarchy theory often point to these positions as temporary [[Social constructionism|social constructions]], and not as fixed or genetic as dominance hierarchy theorists often imply. | However, while there is nothing pseudo-scientific or non-obvious about the fact that men differ in their social, romantic and material success, critics say that the platonic ideal of an 'alpha' is dubious due to the sheer number of social domains in which humans can or do engage in their lives, unlike less intelligent animals. For example, a D&D champ may be the alpha in a board game shop, but not in the lacrosse field. Critics may have a hard time denying, however, that there exist people who exert control over entire populations, as well as those who are submissive to nearly everyone, due to their social status. Critics of dominance hierarchy theory often point to these positions as temporary [[Social constructionism|social constructions]], and not as fixed or genetic as dominance hierarchy theorists often imply. | ||
Critics of social dominance hierarchy theory may say that something like a sports star hogging dozens of women by virtue of male competition is more of a self-fulfilling prophesy in a social construction, and is not inevitable about humans, as many countries lack the degree of celebrity culture necessary for this to happen to the degree that it does in certain countries, or in times of resource scarcity. | |||
===Adam Conover=== | ===Adam Conover=== | ||
| Line 233: | Line 236: | ||
David insists that "alpha wolves" didn't actually become dominant over men outside their 'pack', but that their dominance was only or mainly familial and born through non-competitive mating.<ref>Scientist David Mech addresses readers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU</ref> He also said that the few wolves who would bear more offspring than others within a pack could more accurately be called 'dominant breeder' rather than 'alpha', as 'alpha' implies that male competition determined reproductive success, which he said was not accurate in wolves.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20151023133410/http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/24/my-bad-alpha-wolf-term-outmoded/</ref> | David insists that "alpha wolves" didn't actually become dominant over men outside their 'pack', but that their dominance was only or mainly familial and born through non-competitive mating.<ref>Scientist David Mech addresses readers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU</ref> He also said that the few wolves who would bear more offspring than others within a pack could more accurately be called 'dominant breeder' rather than 'alpha', as 'alpha' implies that male competition determined reproductive success, which he said was not accurate in wolves.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20151023133410/http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/24/my-bad-alpha-wolf-term-outmoded/</ref> | ||
===Incel criticism=== | ===Incel criticism=== | ||