11
edits
Dominance hierarchy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Criticism: Added more scientific and analytical background against the reductionist false scientific notion that the hierarchy itself is pseudoscientific.
(→Criticism: Added more scientific and analytical background against the reductionist false scientific notion that the hierarchy itself is pseudoscientific.) |
|||
| Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
#The misattribution of some of the Beta, Gamma, and Delta traits as a single lump of "Beta" | #The misattribution of some of the Beta, Gamma, and Delta traits as a single lump of "Beta" | ||
==Criticism== | ==Criticism== | ||
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> | ||
However, it is a constant in the media to mention that human beings are not organized in a type of alpha-beta hierarchy and that, technically, alpha males do not exist in the human species. This is an artifice based on a strawman, as it is not known how many of those who tend to propagate such a vision, based on decentralized internet philosophies (and, therefore, relatively diverse like the manosphere), are accurate enough to establish that hierarchy necessarily is the same as that of wolves or precisely reflected in the dynamics of monkeys, as well as those who place attraction factors as necessarily only derived from behavior. Incels and blackpillers, many averse to redpillers and PUAs, point out that these are predominantly aesthetic (rather than personalistic) in an online dating market context. The behavioral traits listed by public figures who advocate the idea of an alpha profile, such as Jordan Peterson, are completely adapted to human social nuances. Alphas are also synonymous with Chad, a stereotype implicitly more associated with appearance, especially in incel circles. | |||
Technically then, when put this way, hierarchies as a whole do not exist, nor does dysmorphism, nor physical strength, much less the possibility of establishing hypergamy just because "politicians can be short" while their very existence is not contested, even though they depend on the model; this is not true. In evolutionary psychology itself, we have Henrich and Gil-White (cited by Cheng, J. T.; Tracy, J. L.; Foulsham, T.; Kingstone, A.; Henrich, J. in "Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence."), which establishes the theoretical model of The Dual Strategies listable in humans. | |||
Ignoring the context and generalizing a single meaning to a conceptual breadth, as newspapers (journals) tend to do (many just for scientific divulgation, such as university blogs or those less committed to this, such as The Guardian, exemplified in "''Do alpha males even exist?''"), seems so fallacious and/or hasty (if not sophistry) as the phrases paraphrased by the thematic Wikipedia article "Alpha and beta male". Briefly, it points out: "''The term alpha male is often applied to any dominating man, especially bullies, despite the fact that dominating behavior in bullies is rarely seen as a positive trait for either an ideal date or a romantic partner''". Note how strategically the conclusion that refers to "pseudoscience" in the introduction is based on the assumption that the article cited by Greater Good Magazine, in this excerpt, has already directly transmitted the original honest claim extracted from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (LA JENSENCAMPBELL. WG GRAZIANO . WG GRAZIANOSG WEST. Dominance, ''Prosocial Orientation, and Female Preferences: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last''). In it, the dualist model is also advocated, half of which is hastily attacked even when inadvertently concluded as cited above by Scott Barry Kaufman, popularizer, although with a Ph.D., from Berkeley (whose quote was made in Greater Good Magazine). | |||
The paraphrase about bullies, aims to make a variance (possible in the model, perhaps due to intercultural interceptions), in the affirmation of female predilection for dominance, in a constant cross-cultural negative perception. Therefore, becomes additionally prepotent by ignoring other studies and focusing on a bias when the source itself was not even biased according to the model. Some studies state the opposite of what was mentioned, such as Pollastri et al. (2009), Volk et al. (2015), Lee and Provenzano et al. (2017), or even associative phenomena, such as hybristophilia and the dark triad of sociopaths' sexual appeal in Baughman et al. (2012). Although such attraction strategies are not universal and, therefore, presumptuously only with a logical leap we can conclude they are unscientific due to the ambiguous sense of determinism, they are certainly more effective compared to altruism, especially when we call "alphas" men whose outstanding attributes are factors that nor are socially dependent on this entire discussion, such as beauty, or other purely phenotypic attributes usable as (additional) tiebreaker criteria or not, such as height. In short, this pseudo-pseudoscientific reductionism would be paradoxical if not suspected of being authentic despair. | |||
===Social domain variance and political construction=== | ===Social domain variance and political construction=== | ||
However, while critics say 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 critics say 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. | ||