Behave yourself

[Anonymous No.6489211]

Noticed we never talk about the genetic side of behaviorology.

Keeping in mind early humans evolved for thousands of years in small groups of hunter gatherers with the majority of the followers submitting to the "alpha male", could we assume that theres a gene present in some modern humans which facillitates there taking on of this role?

On a related note, can we also propose that personality disorders like psychopathy or sociopathy were valuable in how they allowed leaders to make critical decisions for the general well-being of the group, unswayed by emotional attachments?

My second theory stems from the realization that nearly all of those in power exhibit sociopathic tendencies.

[Anonymous No.6489219]

>>6489211
>Keeping in mind early humans evolved for thousands of years in small groups of hunter gatherers with the majority of the followers submitting to the "alpha male"

>[citation needed]

>unswayed by emotional attachments?

Why would a leader take care of people if they weren't emotionally attached?

[Anonymous No.6489232]

Not really related but i thought this was interesting idea. Cant find the exact article as i read it a few weeks ago but ill try my best to regurgitate.

Recently evolutionary biologists were working on human personality disorders and looking for the causes of them within our own evolutionary history. One certain conclusion that stuck in my mind was the one made on Bi-Polarity disorders.

They drew conclusions that diseases like SAD (Seasonal affective disorder, A.K.A "winter depression") could have had conferred to us an advantage in our fight for survival.

Those who suffer from SAD experience a slight form of depression during the winter, which may have also depressed our ancestors, preventing them from venturing into the wild wasting valuable energy in an environment not suited to them. Equally, during the sunnier months these people go through a manic stage. This, as you can imagine was a fantastic opportunity for going out to collect food and conceive children(who would be born just in time for the next depressed stage).

There were some other explanations for similar pyschiatric ailments we hear much about (autism, ADHD) mentioned in the article but above was the theory i found most compelling.

[Anonymous No.6489242]

>>6489219
do you really need a citation for that? What are the alternatives?
Granted i probably shouldnt have used the word "small" but you get the idea.

>Why would a leader take care of people if they weren't emotionally attached?

Good question. Genetic interest i suppose. If hes the alpha male he likely has fathered a lot of the offspring in the group.

Im not saying all leaders are psychopaths, just supposing that this may have been a way for such a disorder to slip through the filter of evolution.
tks for replying m8

[Anonymous No.6489247]

>>6489242
>do you really need a citation for that? What are the alternatives?
If it's the only choice, it should be easy for you to find a source

[Anonymous No.6489251]

>>6489247
are just not gonna discuss anything other than that one sentence?

Ok for my sources i choose "guns, germs & steel" by Jared Diamond and also my junior certificate history book

[Anonymous No.6489255]

>>6489211
>could we assume that theres a gene present in some modern humans which facillitates there taking on of this role?

Come on, /sci/...

I thought we had moved beyond this simplistic view of genes and genomics.

[Anonymous No.6489257]

>>6489251
I'm not the person you were originally replying to

[Anonymous No.6489277]

>>6489255
care to explain to a simplistic mind like mine?

[Anonymous No.6489280]

>>6489211
>behaviorology
Stopped reading right there, faggot. It's called Psychology.

[Anonymous No.6489284]

>>6489211
lol, what the fuck is "behaviorology"? Where the fuck are you getting your ridiculous information? The Homo genus developed over 4 million years ago and we don't know shit about any social structures for almost the entirety of that time.

[Anonymous No.6489286]

>>6489251
That's the equivalent of a storybook, OP.

>>6489255
Just because some dipshit makes a retarded thread doesn't mean the whole board is retarded.

[Anonymous No.6489291]

>>6489280
>>6489284
>implying you didnt understand what i meant anyway.
lets not be pedantic.

>Where the fuck are you getting your ridiculous information?
It came to me in a dream.
If you care to let me know what you disagree with we can hash this out like gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.6489293]

>>6489291
But why did you say that? Just curious.

[Anonymous No.6489294]

>implying our ancestors didn't think the same way we do
>implying our ancestors way of thinking was predominantly genetic based and not ethnicity based
>implying early humans followed an alpha male (bonobos, our closest ancestor have clear matriarch-based societies)
>implying most tribal humans don't practice egalitarianism in gender rights
>implying "mental disorders" existed before modern medicine found a way to profit from it

gtfo and die please

[Anonymous No.6489306]

>>6489251
that one sentence was the basis of your argument.
And since you have no basis for that sentence you have no basis for an argument.

[Anonymous No.6489310]

>>6489293
Im not sure Rene, i think i heard someone else use it and just assumed it was a word.

>>6489294
>ways of thinking are based on ethnicity
eh do you mean culture?
>bonobos, our closest ancestor have clear matriarch-based societies
im quite familiar with them. Just because they are closely related to us doesnt mean we have the same social structures.
>implying "mental disorders" existed before modern medicine found a way to profit from it.
I think i get what you are saying here but no. No. Of course they still existed. Whether or not someone could profit from them is irrelevant.

Your other two points are very general i found it hard to comment on them

[Anonymous No.6489312]

>>6489286
all this hate but no explaining.

[Anonymous No.6489313]

>>6489310
Ok

[Anonymous No.6489315]

>>6489306
ok so what are the alternatives then to small groups of hunter gatherers?

I genuinely want to know more about this so if we could put a hold on the snark thatd be cool

[Anonymous No.6489332]

>>6489310
>>ways of thinking are based on ethnicity
>eh do you mean culture?
I'm not that guy but prior to the 1900s ethnicity and race were considered the same thing. However, that was also an era full of tons of pseudoscience where people believed that cultures were genetic. You also had shit like phrenology where people claimed they could figure out a person's culture by studying their skull shape and other such nonsense now considered pseudoscience as well. Nowadays race and ethnicity are considered different things with ethnicity pretty much having become synonymous with cultural identity.

[Anonymous No.6489336]

>>6489332
so he did mean culture?

[Anonymous No.6489340]

>>6489336
No, ethnicity is also correct.

[Anonymous No.6489344]

>>6489315
it doesn't matter what are the alternatives.
Unless you can support your hypothesis with evidence there's no reason to take it into consideration.

Otherwise you're doing like those who say "we don't know? then God did it".
This is an important concept when talking about science.
Now, with that out of the way, we didn't have a society structured on submitting to the alpha male.
First of all such a society wouldn't promote the development of intelligence and social cooperation the way it developed in humans, since the pack leader is the stronger one and he gets to reproduce more. And it would not favor the selection of neotenic traits like in humans.
Then there is the dick. And porn.
Animals with a leader who controls all the members of the pack have a small dick, since the leading male has little to no competition to breeding with females.
gorillas and chimps have much smaller dicks than humans. Around 5 cm.
Bigger dicks are necessary if there is high sexual promiscuity, and thus being able to deliver your sperm as deep as possible in the vagina increases your chances of reproduction. And the form of the head of the human penis helps drag out the sperm of rivals.
That's why women take longer to reach orgasm and can come multiple times. To encourage them to have multiple partners.

And porn. If we evolved from from packs with alpha males then seeing a girl having sex with another man should be a turn off, since that is the alpha male and you can't get that ass.
On the other hand if our ancestors who engaged in groups sex then seeing a girl involved with a dick means you'll soon have a chance to spread your seed and thus you'd better get ready.

[Anonymous No.6489353]

>>6489211
I think you are confusing alpha males with leaders. I'm pretty sure leaders in most fields are not alpha males, on the contrary.

This sort of speculation is the most annoying type of pseudoscience. Usually when evolutionary "scientists" discuss this sort of cases, they jump from one, cherry-picked behaviour directly to reproductive benefits. There is a world of phenomena happening between reproductive behaviour and whatever they pick to "explain". Not everything you do in a lifetime is reproductively relevant. If you're a stamp collector, it doesn't mean you collect stamps because it will increase your chances of survival or reproduction.

Have you noticed that lots of leaders have very ordinary looking wives/husbands? You think Germans elected Merkel because she's sexy or her husband married her because she's a leader, which increased her reproduction chances?

[Anonymous No.6489355]

Bingo anybody?