PhilGoetz comments on "Progress" - Less Wrong

1 Post author: PhilGoetz 04 June 2012 03:51AM

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

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2012 12:44:28PM 20 points [-]

Pre-human male hominids, we infer from observing bonobos and chimpanzees, were dominated by one alpha male per group, who got the best food and most of the females.

Um. Bonobos don't work that way. They're "dominated", if you can use the term, by less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females. Food is shared widely, paternity certainty is a nonissue.

We're equidistant from them and chimps, talking divergence from common ancestors, so it's really less clear-cut than you think how well chimp analogies suffice to model proto-hominids -- both are equally-close relations, but their lifestyles and social strategies differ tremendously.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 04 June 2012 01:46:05PM 4 points [-]

Bonobos still have alpha females and alpha males, and, according to the article, though they have less violent conflict than chimpanzees, they are still more hierarchical than human foragers. This is not a binary distinction, but the review article definitely supports the "less egalitarian - more egalitarian - less egalitarian" progression.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 June 2012 11:28:57PM 6 points [-]

There are males with greater status, but the typical associations of "alpha male" don't really cover it. They're simply males with higher-status mothers, and their relative status only really holds leverage among the other males; they're still subordinate to the dominant coalition of females.

(The basic progression I don't take issue with.)