General Social Theory/Fundemental

[omnimirage]

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

Edited June 18, 2011 by omnimirage

[Marat]

It has been noticed among canines that there is occasional transfer of the role of alpha dogs in groups, perhaps because the alpha dog has so many additional responsibilities (being vigilant, patrolling and defending the group's territory, fighting intruders, etc.) that most of the rest of the back actually don't want his job, even though he gets first pick of the food. Many dogs simply show no interest in competing for the alpha dog role in the first place, even though they might be larger and stronger than the one who becomes alpha dog.

 

Perhaps a difficulty with your theory is that it would fit homogenous groups better than groups with many specific niche roles. In a primitive human community, there will be nurturers, child-rearers, nest-builders, hunters and gatherers, night guards, warriors, and leaders, and each role has its own special advantages and disadvantages. Since the community as a whole needs each niche role to be fulfilled in order for it to survive, it will be to the advantage of the group to distribute resources commensurably to each role, rather than to concentrate them on the leader(s). 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. The result is that there is little or no motivation for everyone to strive to be the leader.

 

A topic I have worked on the question of why the genes predisposing people to become schizophrenics have survived for so long even though schizophrenics over the last century have reproduced themselves at a rate of only 0.8 children per schizophrenic, which should have led to their extinction by now. One answer is that schizophrenics may have been especially valuable to primitive groups of humans because of their inclination to stay awake through the night while the rest of the group wanted to sleep, thus allowing them to serve as night guards. This may have enhanced the survival of groups which had large numbers of schizophrenics and thus a larger than normal amount of schizophrenogenic genes in the group, thus keeping the schizophrenia genes in existence up to now. But schizophrenics, for obvious reasons, would never have been the group leaders, but only important niche-role occupiers.

[omnimirage]

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?

Edited June 20, 2011 by omnimirage

[Marat]

Stanley Coren, a University of British Columbia psychology professor, suggests in his book, 'How to Speak Dog' (New York: Simon & Shuster, 2000) that dogs do on occasion abandon, exchange, and re-adopt alpha roles with each other. I know that in the case of my two dachshunds, the usually subordinate female will, on occasion, emphatically assert dominance over the typically alpha male dog, who then looks puzzled for a moment but quickly starts acting submissively, getting off the couch when she barks at him, rather than barking her off the couch, letting her have first pick of the chew chips, etc. This lasts at most for a day, and then things shift back to the usual hierarchy.

 

It does seem odd that obviously disadvantageous traits like nearsightedness survived in the human population over the thousands of years before glasses came into existence, at least for special purposes like reading, in the 14th century. Even though they were in theory available, they were not generally used until the 18th century, and Isaac Newton once confessed that he was so myopic that he had never actually seen the stars.

 

Perhaps the survival of myopia can be attributed to the longstanding role of human communities in cooperating to protect the weaker members of the tribe, thus diminishing the effect of natural survival pressures.

[omnimirage]

That is so interesting/bizarre

 

Yeah, that probably would be the case

Edited June 21, 2011 by omnimirage