omnimirage

That is so interesting/bizarre Yeah, that probably would be the case

1) You're assuming that the dogs are basing they're ability to successfully take over and lead the pack on their size. That is no evidence that dogs transfer alpha status, nor is it that they don't want the position, the dogs egos could simply be at a level that they don't merit high enough for the alpha strategy to be the most profitable 2) My theory would explain that: whoever has the highest social rank at that moment would be the alpha. So when hunters are out doing their thing, whoever has the highest rank their would be alpha, even though the tribal alpha is at camp. " Pack animals of all sorts are more like ant and bee communities than lone individuals in competition with each other for selfish use of resources." Perhaps the leaders reason that it would be better for them to sacrifice some food in order to sustain his "workers" "The result is that there is little or no motivation for everyone to strive to be the leader." They still have more access to mates. Because of animals not going for alpha male status doesn't necessarily mean they have no desire for it, kind of like saying the 50 year old man has no desire for going for the attractive 16 year old because he makes no attempts 3) Interesting indeed. I really don't know much about that so really can't comment but one thing that strikes me as odd is how I'm short-sighted; if I don't wear my glasses I'm at a huge disadvantage, so why would have my genes survived? It simply wasn't "killed" off yet?

As you are most likely aware of, when people are confronted with new ideas they break down the concepts and compare them with their fundamental preconceptions them deem as true/false. I, a amateur Psychologist enthusiast, wanted some professional nit picking on my newly found fundamental(not sure if my theory is incorrect and am somewhat concerned that it's a classic example of anchoring(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring)) My theory is the following(Note: I already have the Natural Selection theory as one of my fundamentals and yes, am aware of the concept of absolutes): People have the inbuilt desire to socialise because people are more efficient in a group rather than when alone; it would take less energy for 20 people to kill a mammoth compared to 1 (ignore social loafing, I think that's more a offshoot of socialising) So when people socialise they're organising to do/make something happen that's deemed productive by them, whether it be to fulfil money/food/ego/relationship bonds(security/preparation for future situations) In an environment that is constantly fighting for food, in times of crisis the weakest must perish. Translated to social groups, whoever is deemed weakest would have the least access to resources. For reasons unclear atm, groups seem to have a leader, probably something to do with group efficiency, being decisive and what not. So essentially, there's a ranking order within any group, where the leader is branded "Alpha", weakest, "Omega" and everyone in between "Beta." Everyone wishes to rise in the social rank because they will have access to more resources and to the best/most mates. This inherently means socialisation is a constant struggle, a constant war, fought over to rise in social ranks. People use many strategies to rise, and this is essentially "the game." Why I call this a fundamental because literally every social theory/observation I've came across as of late can be explained by this, whether it be bullying(lower another's rank and hence raise theirs, create a omega in more serious settings) or money chasing(Haven't you watched tv? People with money are better people, =higher rank, also related to other things like cars/shiny desirables, People who can summon feelings of pride, glory, fear, greed or lust have their you under their control) People's egos also seem to be an offshoot over their perceptions of their ability that deems them to belong in x social rank( I say ability because if one thinks they have the goods they'll take actions to become a higher rank, more relating to males, females rank seems to be more or less based on their beauty.Alpha/Beta ultimately seems to be different strategies, the Alpha takes high risk but with high reward and only does so if he thinks his success rate is higher enough to merit, which his ego is also based on. This causes him to act more assertive whereas the Beta/Omega who thinks he hasn't got the goods to stand a confrontation takes on a more passive persona in order not to anger the Alpha who is prepared to fight) I should state that I'm not certain if this is horridly flawed, it's the main reason why I'm posted, wanted to know if there's already a theory or it's disproved because of x/y