3 ms·

The fact that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't imply the phenomenon doesn't exist? Remind me, why gorillas and not chimps? Why chimps and not bonobos? Why as

by dsr_ 2y ago

The fact that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't imply the phenomenon doesn't exist? Remind me, why gorillas and not chimps? Why chimps and not bonobos? Why assume that two related species with completely different environmental niches must share a social structure?

goatlover 2y ago
Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Baboons are similar in their social structures with the dominant alpha males. Bonobos are different with it being matriarchal and conflict resolution being less violent.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  Sadly not that simple. https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/bonobos-arent-as-peaceful-as-previously-thought/ https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/bonobos-arent-as-p...
lmm 2y ago
> The fact that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't imply the phenomenon doesn't exist? Wolves were never meant to be evidence. They were a model, a metaphor. I wonder how many people who complain about "believing the myth of alpha wolves" are the same people who defend astrology as a "useful way of thinking, whether it's true or not".
- crooked-v 2y ago
  Until it was debunked, people thought that the alpha/beta/omega nonsense was the actual natural social order of wolves. Some people then borrowed that as a metaphor.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > Until it was debunked, people thought that the alpha/beta/omega nonsense was the actual natural social order of wolves. Some wolf biologists thought that, sure. But that obviously wasn't and isn't any kind of evidence about human sociology (and conversely nor is the fact that it isn't).
  - djur 2y ago
    Right, "alpha" means a lot of things in ethology, but the "alpha/beta/gamma" categorization that took hold in reactionary circles was specifically derived from the wolf studies. "Some individuals tend to be more socially dominant" is not controversial.
- culi 2y ago
  > defend astrology as a "useful way of thinking, whether it's true or not". I wonder how many people defend mind palaces as a "useful way of thinking, whether it's true or not". Historically speaking, that's all astrology was. Research has indeed shown that people who practice astrology are better at remembering details about people in their lives. Astrology is just a mind palace that allows them to more easily memorize and organize useful facts about the people in their social networks

by dsr_ 2y ago

goatlover 2y ago

Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Baboons are similar in their social structures with the dominant alpha males. Bonobos are different with it being matriarchal and conflict resolution being less violent.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
Sadly not that simple. https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/bonobos-arent-as-peaceful-as-previously-thought/ https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/bonobos-arent-as-p...

lmm 2y ago

> The fact that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't imply the phenomenon doesn't exist? Wolves were never meant to be evidence. They were a model, a metaphor. I wonder how many people who complain about "believing the myth of alpha wolves" are the same people who defend astrology as a "useful way of thinking, whether it's true or not".

crooked-v 2y ago
Until it was debunked, people thought that the alpha/beta/omega nonsense was the actual natural social order of wolves. Some people then borrowed that as a metaphor.
- lmm 2y ago
  > Until it was debunked, people thought that the alpha/beta/omega nonsense was the actual natural social order of wolves. Some wolf biologists thought that, sure. But that obviously wasn't and isn't any kind of evidence about human sociology (and conversely nor is the fact that it isn't).
- djur 2y ago
  Right, "alpha" means a lot of things in ethology, but the "alpha/beta/gamma" categorization that took hold in reactionary circles was specifically derived from the wolf studies. "Some individuals tend to be more socially dominant" is not controversial.
culi 2y ago
> defend astrology as a "useful way of thinking, whether it's true or not". I wonder how many people defend mind palaces as a "useful way of thinking, whether it's true or not". Historically speaking, that's all astrology was. Research has indeed shown that people who practice astrology are better at remembering details about people in their lives. Astrology is just a mind palace that allows them to more easily memorize and organize useful facts about the people in their social networks