jmmcd comments on Q&A with Harpending and Cochran - Less Wrong

26 Post author: MBlume 10 May 2010 11:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (103)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 May 2010 03:41:24AM *  4 points [-]

I thought RichardKennaway's previous comment was interesting, and would appreciate hearing your comments on it. Commenting on the hypothesis that life under the rule of others may have selected for submissiveness, he wrote:

On the other hand, submissiveness is surely selected against in rulers, who as noted in the posting leave more descendants than proles. So perhaps in a society in which the strong rule and the weak submit there is some evolutionarily stable distribution along a submissive/aggressive spectrum, rather than favouring one or the other?

Comment author: jmmcd 13 May 2010 10:55:14AM *  4 points [-]

I don't think it's correct to assume a pure strategy (ie each male is either dominant OR submissive). It might make more sense for males to be able to switch when the opportunity arises from submissive to dominant (a mixed strategy in game theory terms). I think outsider orang-utans can become alphas (adding the distinctive cheek-flaps etc) when they find a group that will let them join, for example.

We do see humans making the same transition (and in the other direction too) when they move between groups, and when opportunities arise.