"there is always an alpha in any group"

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by visceral_instinct, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    In one of my threads about group behaviour, someone who I'll refer to as 'Bowel Movement' made the comment that 'in any group there is always an alpha. They may not assert themselves but there always is one'.

    Is this true?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No.

    Unless it's based on inanity, like "there is always someone who talks the most".

    The military has all but proven, for example, that alphas have to be created if you want to rely on their presence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    How do you create one?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Do you have evidence of that study? Or do you have any other documentation to prove or substantiate what you're saying?

    Over the years, I've read numerous articles in magazines and newspapers that show studies done by psychologist and psychiatrist, etc that the "alpha" character becomes perfectly obvious even in pre-school facilities.

    I'd love to read your evidence ...esp the military study!

    Baron Max
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's not a study, it's the observation that the military has to put a great deal of effort into training "leaders" and "followers" - effort that would be unnecessary if every group of soldiers could be counted on to have an alpha.

    And it still doesn't always work - some people just never fit into that kind of a setup, even after years of conditioning in programs designed by professionals.

    How many times have you watched some group fall into the situation often described as "too many chiefs, not enough indians"? Where's your alpha, then?
    Yet another example demonstrating that the soft sciences are not too good at predicting.

    Would anyone using such studies have predicted that Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin would be buried near each other in Westminster Abbey? - designated alpha male territory, top dog real estate.
     
  9. Alien Cockroach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    886
    Oh, it's a scarcity-based behavior. Studies done on mice show that dominant and submissive behaviors are only really apparent where there is a shortage of food, though there are always some minor signs of it. When given restricted amounts of food, mice that have neurochmical correlates to depression or anxiety eventually begin behaving "submissively" toward mice that are more aggressive or "dominant." Apparently, some mice were found to be genetically predisposed to this sort of behavior. What this means to humans is simple: this shit only matters to losers. In stable, prosprous social groups, the "alpha" position may be present, but it is usually rotated on a relatively fair basis.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Better known as "the buck doesn't stop here"
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Explain that to me, please. And I'd like to see some article or something discussing that situation in the army. I was in the army, so....

    In the army, leaders are promoted to the ranks of leadership ...they're the alpha members. Those people are the hard-driving, quick-learning, knowledgeable, take-charge personalities ...naturally the army wants those types as the leaders. The others that are plain followers, submissive and docile, simply won't be promoted. I've seen no "...great deal of effort..." at training to produce an alpha characteristic. The army doesn't train the alpha, they simple find and recognize them in the groups.

    The/a leader, the alpha, would eventually rise to the top. In the sitations that you've described, there's simply not enough time to establish the pecking order.

    No one said anything about predicting anything. It's an observation of conditions that exist ...right there in the pre-school. The alpha will rise to the top ...and it's observed over and over in such groups. But it has nothing to to with predicting anything.

    Baron Max
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    What studies? Please provide some evidence of those studies.

    As to the food shortage, I would think that it would be obvious that the stronger, more dominant, would take his share. But the other part of your post suggests that the alphas are not in evidence ...I've heard and read otherwise ...as well as noted it in real life situations in humans.

    Baron Max
     
  13. Nyr Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Agreed..
    Even anthropological findings (not 'soft science predictions') have shown that in all human societies, not only those marked by organized political ones, there is always a more dominant person; the leader of the tribe; not exactly at the top of the hierarchy, but one who organizes and looks over proceedings, one to whom others come when in search of guidance.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    What the army does is identify the type it wants to designate as "alpha" in certain limited situations (not involving selection of a good farm, or leading the community in song and dance, say), and then spend years training them to perform in that role. Even in that limited arena it fucks up, in both aspects, quite often - people are routinely misidentified as good officer candidates and have to be screened out later, the training fails to produce a good leader from what seemed an ideal prospect, etc (the assumption that good candidates are not routinely passed over as being "docile and submissive" is without support in the evidence, and has some evidence against it from combat experience and dramatically successful "field promotion" - the null hypothesis, or some wisely modified variation of it, has never to my knowledge been tested). You know this. It's very difficult to identify, in advance, who will turn out to be the good leaders in the future even in the very limited arena of military command - that's why promotion takes so long, and is suspect without combat experience, and so forth, in the military.
    I've seen such situations last for years, and resolve by attrition or changed circumstance. No alpha ever arose - or too many alphas arose, or the generatlity of the concept is bs, take your pick.

    The army solves that problem by designating an alpha, top down, by force. That is not the same thing as a single alpha naturally and inevitably emerging. It is a feature of military (and corporate) organization, which doesn't work well for large categories of critically important human endeavor.
    Prediction is fundamental to the designation "alpha". It's a prediction based on observation, not an observation itself, to label someone as being "more dominant". You aren't saying "that guy was leader yesterday", you are saying "that guy will be the leader for tomorrow's project". And if that project is the harvest celebration, the choice of location and timing for the next prairie burning, the planning of defense against raiding neighbors, the arrangement of brideprice for an important wedding, or the selection of the decisionmaking persons or procedures for any of that, are you really thinking one person is going to be your "alpha" throughout?

    Note: a striking feature of modern corrections of past anthropology and biology is how often "alpha" designations were limited, misleading, or simply wrong. To pick one famous arena: the feminist correction of the "alpha" designation in everything from "leader of the baboon troop" to "Chief of the Iroquois" has occasionally been dramatic. If the label "alpha" is so variable according to circumstance and labeler, what does it mean?
     
  15. Alien Cockroach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    886
    This would only have mattered in hunting parties. Prehistoric societies, in relatively peaceful times, were probably led mostly by elders, except during game season. Tribal chiefs always served essentially as leaders in warfare or hunting.

    An example of this would be the "governors" that were elected by the Slavic peoples, during Antiquity. These governors were NOT considered to be leaders during peacetime. It would be more accurate to regard them as "elected generals" or constables. The Celts did practically the same thing: they would elect a member of their society to serve as their tribal chief, viz the legendary Boudica. The entire purpose of this "permanent, settled-upon alpha" deal is to keep people from completely losing their minds under circumstances of extreme stress, where it's actually necessary, for the purpose of MUTUAL SURVIVAL, to put up with a bully. As I said above, this is a behavior that is designed mostly for dealing with scarcity, which is a form of stress.

    Analogous to Parliamentary Procedure, the functions of village elders would have been centered primarily around making sure that every member of the tribe would have a fair voice in procedings. Although they would lead discussions, they would not have presumed themselves to be dominant or "alpha" over the rest of their tribe. That's the job of the chief. They would have had something more like a form of veto power.

    Now, I was taught in my Communications courses that, when men are having a discussion with each other, it is in their nature to "take turns" at "having the floor." They will rotate between each other, and they will listen politely while one person speaks at a time. Women tend to be a little bit different; in discourse between women, it is natural for more than one person to "have the floor" at the time. There really isn't a strong sense, in their discussions, that anyone has ANY kind of special authority at any given time. It's common, while one is speaking, for others to chip in with supporting dialogue or questions.

    Outside of times of stress, I think it would be more accurate to state that, in human social behavior, there is always an elder or mediator of some sort who actually serves the function of preventing headstrong belligerents from domineering unnecessarily over others. I have noticed, in human social groupings, there is always ONE member who remains stoically quiet for most of the time, except when it becomes necessary to bring misconduct under control. He/she ironically ends up having the least actual input, but others in the group look to him/her for mediation and arbitration. He/she also seems to have a bit of veto power. They act like soft-spoken elders, not like belligerent tribal chiefs.

    In existing Asian monarchies, we see other examples of this theory. The King of Thailand traditionally practices a firm policy of intervening ONLY when his intervention would absolutely, almost unanimously be appreciated. In doing so, the King of Thailand has assumed the position of a "wise elder," not that of a war chief. Under traditional Confucian-style government, the emporer was expected to follow a similar policy, serving as a stable, steady axis around which the functions of government are carried out. We see a parallel in the Stoic philosophy that was applied to rulership in Hellenistic Greece, where rulers were expected to serve as unbiased, stable figures of "moral perfection." Stoic rulers were expected to treat even a slave as his absolute equal, and this was a highly respected philosophy in Hellenistic Greece.

    During times of peace, humans tend to prefer looking up to the "virtuous ruler," who is there, explicitly or implicitly, to make sure that everybody has their turn to "play the alpha" and say their piece. These attitudes are something that helped keep our prehistoric ancestors from perpetually killing each other during internal struggles for dominance.

    In modern times, groups that DO have a pack-like mentality, where the alpha is nothing but a big bully, are usually groups of people who totally failed at life. If you want to gain leadership among successful people, you should develop a mature, quiet, skeptical personality and a reputation for fairness, not an aggressive or domineering personality. A person who has MY kind of personality is really only suited to being a war chief, and this is one of the reasons that I have never been interested in a position of leadership. Among people I would respect, I would not make a very good leader, and I could only hope to be valued as a source of creative energy.

    This has always been a trend in my social relationships, for I have always had a nearly slavish respect for individuals who tend to have stoic, calm, and quiet personalities. I see them as more mature, even if they are actually younger than I am. It can throw people for a bit of a loop if they have ever been at the brunt of one of my tempers, but I am literally unable to continue being hostile, aggressive, or uncooperative after someone has assumed that role toward me. If you told me so in a calm, steady tone, I would probably be inclined to believe you if you said the moon was hot pink. I would probably spend a few seconds wondering how it got that way before I realized you were full of shit.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2009
  16. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383

    I guess B M is not saying that an Alpha (somebody with a dominant and or intense and or unrelaxed personality) with a will magically appear in each group but rather that somebody is going to be the leader of of each group.

    I have seen groups with co-leaders but usually one leader is at least slightly more assertive than the other.

    When you have a group of sort of passive people who are more used to being followers than leaders somebody seems to eventually gently assert themselves just so that the group can do something. You can't defer to people who are determined to defer to you.

    Can you call somebody the "Alpha" just because they are slightly less deferential than their friends?

    If somebody does not assert themselves and is not deferred to are they still the Alpha just because they usually assert themselves and are usually deferred to? If the people in the group don't try defer to what they guess the the usually assertive person would want when the usually assertive person does not speak up then then I don't think that usually assertive person is functioning as the Alpha "when they are not asserting themselves".


    Maybe there is usually an "Alpha" in each group but I think the idea "that there is always an Alpha in each group" is not true.
     
  17. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    i would say yes, there are alpha males in the animal kingdom aswell has the human population, just watch a group of men and women and see, there is always one woman or man who are the "Alpha"
     
  18. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    Alpha's are not created, they are born that way. Children with dominant personalities will always have dominant personalities, how they excert themselves later in life may be different, but it will always be a part of the personality. When situations get tight it usually reveals itself.
     
  19. Nyr Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    That's sort of what I meant; that the rulers in the group aren't really the dominant, aggressive types that the 'alpha' is generally conceived, but people with a knack for leadership who are as necessary to the community as the community is necessary to them.

    Just a question, but were these elders, or virtuous rulers, just selected on the basis of dynasticism or seniority, or because they had that.. alpha character? I doubt the former would have been true for the Slavic and Celtic societies you mentioned.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The odd thing, though, is that you will find the same group in a different situation displaying a different alpha.

    And you will often get different opinions from different observers about who is "really" the alpha in a given group, even in a given situation.

    The same holds for many higher social mammals. Chimps, dolphins, elephants, baboons - a whole range of animals seems to fit poorly into the "chief and indians" model of behavior.
     
  21. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I think you might observe that in special group situations. The human alpha is often not completely dominant to the point of hostility, force, etc. So if another happens to know more about something, the alpha will often step aside for that particular presentation, whatever.

    Sir, you are very badly mistaken.

    Baron Max
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There are no other situations involving an "alpha".
    Not as mistaken as the early researchers who identified the biggest male elephant who won all the male/male fights as the "alpha" elephant of the herd. Not as mistaken as the early chimpanzee researchers who identified the big loud male who won all the fights as the alpha chimp of the tribe.

    Not as mistaken as the army "leadership" evaluators who keep having to wash out or marginalize such a high proportion of their officer candidates - because the fact is they can't reliably predict who will make a good officer by rating soldiers on their "alpha" scale, any more than the playground monitor can tell who will end up with the huge state funeral and the burial site in Westminster Abbey by watching the playground dynamics.

    And if you can't predict "alpha" human status in the future, what are you talking about when you assign it in the present?
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    From those comments, I'm thinking that you don't know what an "alpha" is!

    But be that as it may, you seem to be just talking ...and worse, talking about something that's completely different to the topic.

    By the way, elephant herd are matriarcal ...the alpha elephant is a female and she seldom, if ever, fights with anyone. She's the alpha, and all the others know it ...there's no need to ever prove anything.

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page