Wikipedia

4768 readers

107 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Only links to Wikipedia permitted
Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.

Recommended:

Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

dantheclamman@lemmy.world

Plum@lemmy.world

Dominance hierarchy (aka the "pecking order") (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 4 days ago by dantheclamman@lemmy.world to c/wikipedia@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is a fascinating subject to me, as "dominance hierarchy" has been overly plain to me since the evidence we have of early civilisation models, but also much more recently, in terms of dear Jane's observations of Gombe chimps, plus dear Robert's (Sapolski) observations upon baboons.

Now whether that same type of hierarchy structure is the same when it comes to other tribal / social animals such as Grey Wolves and doggos seems a fascinating thing to observe, whether or not the whole 'Alpha-Male' thing is complete nonsense, or not. (with no apologies whatsoever to utter wankers, such as Andrew Tate)

Conclusion? Please, let's never forget that we humans are also monkeys by definition. (Great Apes < Apes < Monkeys < Primates)

And we're the most truly dangerous of all monkeys, n'est pas? :S

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We’re as related to Bonobo’s as we are to Chimpanzees.

The major overall result of our study is that hierarchy is fairly nonlinear in this group: during the first study period (eight adults), the hierarchy was nonlinear, whereas during the second one (six adults), it failed to reach statistical linearity. We argue that the reduction of the number of adults is the principal factor affecting linearity. We also found that dominance interactions were evenly distributed across sex classes in both study periods. Furthermore, no correlation was observed between age/body weight and rank. As for the overall dominance relationship between males and females, our results suggest that there is no exclusive female dominance in the Apenheul group. The dominance style of bonobos may be loose and differentially expressed in diverse groups or in the same group, along with shifting conditions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16353224/

We may be great apes but we are not pongo, gorilla or pan, we are homo. Homo sapiens to be precise and we have followed our own evolutionary path. Our social structures are incredibly diverse and complex, influenced by our intelligence more so than our environment or biology.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

We may be great apes but we are not pongo, gorilla or pan, we are homo.

Yes... the most self-destructive and globally-destructive of apes by a humongous margin.

...we have followed our own evolutionary path.

The exact same can be said of every single species on the planet, mate, including that every single one is a transitory form of life, always evolving (via genetic mutation and natural selection) towards whatever comes next.

Our social structures are incredibly diverse and complex, influenced by our intelligence more so than our environment or biology.

Hahahahaha. And yet here we are, with our high-minded ideals and stale bag of crisps clutched in one hand, whilst so many of our leaders' hands are incessantly open for whatever kickback is available. XD

Come on now, Deceptichum, mate.

[–] angryattherighthhings@quokk.au -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

'Early civilization models' aka 'some shit i just made up to justify what i already think and real archaeologists/anthropologists do not conclusively support. Not that id care if they did.'

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

Whoah! That seems weirdly hostile, for no particular reason.

My fellow monkey-man, may I ask you to explain..?