Alpha Males do not dominate in humans

[Mopi Licinius Crassus]

...and here's why

read this :p

http://www.spiegel.de/international/interview-with-anthropologist-richard-wrangham-a-1259252.html

[Mopi Licinius Crassus]

:) thoughts ?

[lonewolfcypriot]

:) thoughts ?

so in the future there are just going to be little shits running all over the place.

[Joso]

This is true because humans are rational and individualist, therefore there is no need for "alpha males".

[HungryLion]

:) thoughts ?

Just say what they said in short?

[HungryLion]

This is true because humans are rational and individualist, therefore there is no need for "alpha males".

It's very unacurate ...Probably some week ass made this neonsence..

[Aldaris]

so in the future there are just going to be little shits running all over the place.

No, our evolution is basically over. All the potential useful adaptations humans could have evolved are easily substituted by our technology. In other words, there is no evolutionary pressure on our species anymore. People who have more kids do not posses any genetic trait, which is naturally selected because it provides some advantage. BTW, interesting interview, thanks for the sharing.

[Joso]

No, our evolution is basically over. All the potential useful adaptations humans could have evolved are easily substituted by our technology. In other words, there is no evolutionary pressure on our species anymore. People who have more kids do not posses any genetic trait, which is naturally selected because it provides some advantage. BTW, interesting interview, thanks for the sharing.

It is not over, far from it, actually.

[Rædwald]

It would be more accurate to describe the Alpha as those who are capable of aggression. However being able to implement it in the right place, not just blind aggression. That's what allows the creation of stable hierarchies.

[The Lawspeaker]

Der Spiegel says it ? Then it must be true (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/claas-relotius-reporter-forgery-scandal-a-1244755.html) (and how ironical that I can use one of their articles as a source to expose them).

[Joso]

No, our evolution is basically over. All the potential useful adaptations humans could have evolved are easily substituted by our technology. In other words, there is no evolutionary pressure on our species anymore. People who have more kids do not posses any genetic trait, which is naturally selected because it provides some advantage. BTW, interesting interview, thanks for the sharing.

I can see your point but what you said doesn't makes sense at all, what have technology to do with end of evolution?

[Dorian]

Nah that's just PC bs because these neologisms are most commonly used by right-wingers.
Yes we are different to chimps but that doesn't mean we don't have our own versions of alphas,as Darwin put it below...
The alpha males of today are the 1% elites even If they don't look like it.
http://i.imgur.com/49IvIww.jpg

[Mopi Licinius Crassus]

Just say what they said in short?

can't you read or summat ?:picard2:

[Aldaris]

I can see your point but what you said doesn't makes sense at all, what have technology to do with end of evolution?

Let me elaborate then. If we didn’t posses our technology, medical care, etc., and still lived as the rest of the animals, the people with certain traits would have an evolutionary advantage over others - they would be better suited to their environment, which generally results in more offspring, who will have a relatively high probability of retaining the said traits, since, as you surely know, genetic information is hereditary in some sense (I’m oversymplifying now, but it doesn’t matter for the point I am trying to make). In our world though, those traits, which would potentially be useful for the animalistic lifestyle are of no use to us, since we can take care of problems, they’d solve or simplify with our technology and medication. Therefore, the people with such traits do not have any advantage over people without them.

[Dorian]

Let me elaborate then. If we didn’t posses our technology, medical care, etc., and still lived as the rest of the animals, the people with certain traits would have an evolutionary advantage over others - they would be better suited to their environment, which generally results in more offspring, who will have a relatively high probability of retaining the said traits, since, as you surely know, genetic information is hereditary in some sense (I’m oversymplifying now, but it doesn’t matter for the point I am trying to make). In our world though, those traits, which would potentially be useful for the animalistic lifestyle are of no use to us, since we can take care of problems, they’d solve or simplify with our technology and medication. Therefore, the people with such traits do not have any advantage over people without them.

I don't think the one excludes the other,some people still have an advantage but yes farming/christianity-monogamy/technology etc made it possible for most to "get into"the genetic pool but the subconscious motivations are still there working right now and "waiting"for an opportunity to be mass-selected again.

[Óttar]

The male who beats a particular female the most is the most likely to be the father of her next offspring.
Kind of like among humans.

[de Burgh II]

Nah that's just PC bs because these neologisms are most commonly used by right-wingers.
Yes we are different to chimps but that doesn't mean we don't have our own versions of alphas,as Darwin put it below...
The alpha males of today are the 1% elites even If they don't look like it.
http://i.imgur.com/49IvIww.jpg

Very true; natural selection in its most objective state broski. :p

Its the people most adept at adapting to one's current environment that survives in the end.

[Not a Cop]

Let me elaborate then. If we didn’t posses our technology, medical care, etc., and still lived as the rest of the animals, the people with certain traits would have an evolutionary advantage over others - they would be better suited to their environment, which generally results in more offspring, who will have a relatively high probability of retaining the said traits, since, as you surely know, genetic information is hereditary in some sense (I’m oversymplifying now, but it doesn’t matter for the point I am trying to make). In our world though, those traits, which would potentially be useful for the animalistic lifestyle are of no use to us, since we can take care of problems, they’d solve or simplify with our technology and medication. Therefore, the people with such traits do not have any advantage over people without them.

The fact that enviroment has changed doesn't cancel the natural selection per se. Look at the fertility rates among some newest religions like Amish or Hassids.

[Aldaris]

The fact that enviroment has changed doesn't cancel the natural selection per se. Look at the fertility rates among some newest religions like Amish or Hassids.

I would not call such selection 'natural', but 'social'. The Amish, for example (and we can generalize of course) are not genetically different from other Americans, at least not when it comes to some phenotypical trait, which would potentially make them more likely to have more evolutionary successful offspring. Now you can argue, that social selection is a subset of natural selection, and you wouldn't be entirely wrong, but my previous point would still hold, as it does not solely apply to the modern society as we know it, but it goes far beyond that in time.

[Bellbeaking]

There is a variety of evolutionary strategies, but it seems humans have not selected for masculinity evolutionary all that much

If being an alpha male was the best evolutionary strategy, then humans would have evolved to become more alpha in the past 100000 years, yet the opposite has happened, we have evolved to become more neotonous (child like physically and hormonally - compared to our ape ancestors) while become smarter mentally.

I am not discouraging masculinity of course, a healthy human male ego and drive combined with rationality is quite useful, acting like a dumb gorilla less so.

[Ice]

there are two men. they are both being attacked by a poor man. one will be beaten up and lose his wallet. but will file a complaint afterwards and try to get a full pot. the reason he doesn't let it go is because his wife has a black boyfriend. the other man will defend himself and will beat up the attacker.but he will visit the hospital afterwards with chocolate. will give the poor guy some money. second person who beat the hell out of the attacker is alpha male.

[Miko]

...and here's why

read this :p

http://www.spiegel.de/international/interview-with-anthropologist-richard-wrangham-a-1259252.html

Yes they do.
The West is falling to foreign alpha males. In fact, an ethnicity conquered the West way before these new people arrived.

[PaganPoet]

Haha. All the macho men here be like "yeah they do".