5 ms·

I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. More than a "violence and virtue" history, it seems to

I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. More than a "violence and virtue" history, it seems to me that the main point is cooperation brings a positive feedback of more cooperation. In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. Not sure why this is not the stressed point in the explanation. Maybe it doesn't make good titles.

treis 8y ago
>I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. There's an odd usage of alpha male. An alpha male is the one in charge and with high status not the guy with a propensity towards reactive violence. I hate the phrase, but "toxic masculinity" is a better way of phrasing what he describes. You can see how it's useful for the Alpha male(s) and a group at large. They can send them to war against neighbors and reap the spoils. It's also convenient that their aggression drops off a cliff as they get older. This ensures enough old men to control the younger ones and direct their violence towards appropriate targets. >In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. I'm not so sure about this. Basically every human group throughout history has one single person in charge. Whether that be the Holy Roman Empire, a ship at sea, a hunter-gather tribe, or a old ladies knitting group. The trait selected for is the ability to seize power when you can, cooperate when you can't, and the wisdom to know if you can.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  "There's an odd usage of alpha male" I think you are right. How can be a male be the alpha without the group collaboration? By definition, the alpha is the one in the top of the hierarchy in a given moment. "I'm not so sure about this.[..]" I think we basically agree, the ability to seize power is impossible without cooperation with others.

treis 8y ago

>I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. There's an odd usage of alpha male. An alpha male is the one in charge and with high status not the guy with a propensity towards reactive violence. I hate the phrase, but "toxic masculinity" is a better way of phrasing what he describes. You can see how it's useful for the Alpha male(s) and a group at large. They can send them to war against neighbors and reap the spoils. It's also convenient that their aggression drops off a cliff as they get older. This ensures enough old men to control the younger ones and direct their violence towards appropriate targets. >In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. I'm not so sure about this. Basically every human group throughout history has one single person in charge. Whether that be the Holy Roman Empire, a ship at sea, a hunter-gather tribe, or a old ladies knitting group. The trait selected for is the ability to seize power when you can, cooperate when you can't, and the wisdom to know if you can.

RobertoG 8y ago
"There's an odd usage of alpha male" I think you are right. How can be a male be the alpha without the group collaboration? By definition, the alpha is the one in the top of the hierarchy in a given moment. "I'm not so sure about this.[..]" I think we basically agree, the ability to seize power is impossible without cooperation with others.