Dominance hierarchies — based on the relationship of domination and submission — are characteristic of all non-human hominid societies (an extreme example being the tiny-testicled, alpha-male gorilla lording it over his band of mates) and are found in many other species of animal — as in the proverbial pecking order among chickens, dogs, horses, etc.

Likewise, dominance hierarchies are a defining characteristic — in fact, an overwhelming feature — of every known civilization before modern times.

It is a curious fact, therefore, that dominance hierarchies are rare in the ethnographic literature describing hunting-and-gathering societies — and thus, presumably, also rare in hunting-and-gathering societies as they existed during much of our common evolutionary past.

To account for this fact, an anthropologist at UCLA named Christopher Boehm proposed a couple of years ago the idea of a reverse dominance heirarchy.

The gist of his idea is that a love of dominance was so bred into the human species (males above all) during their long, shared hominid past, that they developed an innate distaste of being dominated by others. Thus armed with a motive, and using the cooperative skills which language and their big brains conferred upon them, all the lesser males in a group who were in danger of being dominated by an alpha male, would band together (form a reverse dominance hierarchy) to put the would-be tyrant in his place. In this way, dominance behavior, while not eliminated entirely, could be moderated and dispersed. (To learn more, Google reverse dominance hierarchy or read Boehm’s book Heirarchy in the Forest

Boehm’s idea is interesting as a concept in evolutionary psychology, quite obviously, to say nothing of the contribution it might make, if it holds up, to the theory of democracy. But the question that I want to ask is different:

Given the presumed rarity of dominance hierarchies during the Paleolithic, and their well-documented universality in all civilized societies that emerged from the Neolithic (when agriculture was developed) what was the actual mechanism that led to the demise of “reverse dominance hierarchies” at the dawn of history: not only in Sumeria and Egypt, but in India, China, Mexico and Peru? (These should probably be treated as independent phenomena, I think, certainly in the case of Mexico and Peru.) Can anyone come up with a reasonably precise and coherent explanation that makes intuitive sense, something we can really understand?

Or do we settle for the grey mush in all the textbooks: that agriculture made it possible to grow a surplus of food, populations built up, societies became more complex, and people gradually lost control?

Posted by lukelea at 05:15 PM

I’ll be in Fort Lauderdale from the 17th to the 21st. I’ll check out the beach scene to see if the tales of “pretty girls in bikinis” are more than just legend (this is my first foray to the sunshine state). If anyone knows of free wi-fi spots, please email me (razibk-at-gnxp-dot-com). FYI, after the 21st I’ll be in Chicago, and I’m going have some beers with old buds in Evanston, after which (first week of April) I’ll be in the NYC area….

Posted by razib at 01:32 AM

Brian Greene is being interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air in preperation for his new book, and the host tried to insert the thought that String Theory and Religion/Spirituality might be related-he rejected that conflation rather forcefully. Greene did concede that some of the ideas that have emerged out of physics resemble those of certain religious & philosophical schools, but, this is inevitable when considered in light of the reality that the analogies physicists use to communicate their theories to the public are often taken from the same mental universe that religious thinkers have always had to draw from. Therefore, a certain intersection linguistically between these two fields is inevitable.

Posted by razib at 03:46 PM

I don’t know who this guy is, but he mounts an interesting challenge to the libertarian point of view, with some pertinant historical observations. If American living standards continue to erode, it’s the sort of thinking that’s bound to gain traction in the period ahead.

Only, thanks to the IT revolution, there are better tools than high tariffs & the progressive income tax to deal with the situation.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5859.htm

Posted by lukelea at 06:22 PM

Norman Levitt destroys Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science-from the Babylonians to the Maya in Skeptic magazine by focusing on the misrepresentations of the history of mathematics, in particular, the shaft given to the classical Greeks and the modern West. Levitt concludes:

…The myth, in a nutshell, says that your genetic ancestors do your thinking for you….

…The true lesson is that your ancestors can’t and won’t do your thinking for you. You have to do that all by yourself. But you’re free-this is a Western innovation too, by the way-to climb the shoulders of whatever giant you choose, regardless of race, color, or national origin.

I have noted on this blog that I believe that the vast majority of the human race is rooted in concerns of religion, race and place, that tradition, custom and the ties that bind of generations past are undeniable parameters that govern human existence. “Everyman” has little interest in the material presented in Skeptic, and the established wisdom of his genetic forebears is enough for the fulfilled life. But…this is a world where there is a place for others, those who break out of ancient bonds, who dwell in a land of axioms, propositions, inference and evidence. These individuals do not cement ties through the cohering glues of blood & faith, but via the common vision of the paramount grandeur & allure of cognition, of the singular beauty of ideas. This new tribe does exist, the elder ones need to acknowledge its legitimacy, and in return, the tribe of the mind needs to realize cold clean reason will never seduce all of mankind.

Godless comments:

This bit from Levitt’s review caught my eye:

But to speak of mathematics in Greek antiquity or in early modern Europe without conceding that a kind of collective cultural genius must have been at work is to assert, when you get down to it, that the brightest minds on the Western rim of Eurasia must simply have been individually brighter than their counterparts on its Southern or Eastern rims. This is palpably silly. The internationalization of mathematics over the past century demonstrates just how silly it is.

Did anyone else notice this bit? He limits the area of consideration to Eurasia. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but Levitt does *NOT* say what I thought he would say, i.e., that “it is palpably silly to think any group is smarter than any other group”. He relies instead on a claim for which there is substantial empirical evidence – namely, that substantial numbers of East & South Asians have proven themselves to be good at mathematics.[1]

India is the leading place of origin for international students (74,603, up 12%), followed by #2 China (64,757, up 2%), #3 Korea (51,519, up 5%), #4 Japan (45,960, down 2%), #5 Taiwan (28,017, down 3%), #6 Canada (26,513, unchanged), #7 Mexico (12,801, up 2%), #8 Turkey (11,601, down 4%), #9 Indonesia (10,432, down 10%), #10 Thailand (9,982, down 14%), #11 Germany (9,302, down 3%), #12 Brazil (8,388, down 7%), #13 UK (8,326, down 1%), #14 Pakistan (8,123, down 6%), and #15 Hong Kong (8,076, up 4%).

Asian students comprise over half (51%) of all international enrollments, followed by students from Europe (13%), Latin America (12%), Africa (7%), the Middle East (6%), North America and Oceania (5%).

Levitt’s wiggle caught my attention, because really this is what the whole piece was about: a question of whether you can debunk multiculturalist idiocy without violating the “Axiom of Equality“. That is, it is well nigh impossible to talk about the geographical distribution of mathematics research without talking about intelligence and whether it is unevenly distributed among the earth’s geographically/reproductively semi-isolated human populations.

Levitt finessed this issue indeed. Crude racism is wrong, but so is crude “antiracism” (namely the proposition that all human groups are equal in distribution of mathematical ability). Of course there are outliers and exceptions as this is a distributional statement, but that hardly needs to be reiterated…

[1] One can of course argue about what “substantial” is, and this is *not* intended to denigrate people with ancestry outside these areas who are good at mathematics. Nevertheless it will be impossible to put enough qualifiers on this point to satisfy everyone.

Posted by razib at 03:20 AM

Did you know that Heather Locklear’s father was Dean of the UCLA school of engineering?

Posted by razib at 01:48 AM

I like alliteration, so I just changed “linguists” to “babbleologists.” In any case, Nick Wade has done a nice write-up titled A Biological Dig for the Roots of Language. Seeing as how Nick is normally on the genetics beat he tends to give the biologists a better hearing, and makes the linguists seem a bit spiteful. The central topic of the article is the recent research on the phylogeny of the Indo-European langauges. The only conclusion I came to after reading the article is that both “camps” need to talk to each other a little more….

Posted by razib at 08:57 PM

UN Leader Under Fire Over Gay Benefits :

…some of the world’s most homophobic regimes are demanding Annan rescind the order.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of 56 nations, is expected to demand, possibly by the end of this week, that the U.N. General Assembly address the benefits.

I see homosexuality as a “canary in the coal mine” issue. The order above applies to only those UN employees whose own countries provide similar benefit programs, yet nonetheless, a group of nations seems to be demanding that the world operate according to the lowest common denominator. This article from The Washington Times indicates that the Vatican and a few African nations are also objecting.

Posted by razib at 11:12 PM

Interesting cookie cutter piece in The New York Times about male & female reactions to sex, love and all that jazz. There is the standard pap about men being “visual,” but some interesting neurological findings are added that indicate the amygdala plays a crucial role in this rapid-fire reaction. Then it proceeds to the standard evolutionary reasons behind these functional differences, and ends with a caution from a psychiatrist who asserts, “”Differences between genders are boring,” Dr. Tiefer said. “The big differences are within the sexes….” Well, boring if you are a shrink who deals with individual head-cases, but not so boring for the average American if books like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus are any indicator.

Posted by razib at 08:25 PM

Does anyone know much about the evolutionary factors that have resulted in the prevalence of wisdom teeth? It seems that they would impose a cost on individuals who suffer their eruption. Trying to look it up on google tends to result in finding Creationist websites….

Posted by razib at 12:53 PM