Where are the Independently Dominants?

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H. L. Mencken

“A man who is not afraid is not aggressive, a man who has no sense of fear of any kind is really a free, a peaceful man…What is needed, rather than running away or controlling or suppressing or any other resistance, is understanding fear; that means, watch it, learn about it, come directly into contact with it. We are to learn about fear, not how to escape from it.”   ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

“…let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself…”                     ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt

*****

(The following commentary has resulted from a series of exchanges, both through some LinkedIn groups, and personal email with Chris Aristides Pappas.   You can find him on the internet, and read some of his thoughts if you wish.  You can also see the footnotes at the bottom of this post that includes some of the things he’d told me.  

Our correspondence was prompted by a keen interest I began to have for his views about biological social archetypes–specifically Dominants, Dominators and Phobics.  For those of you who have read some of my other posts about motivation, know I have taken a considerable interest in the psychology behind what prompts decision making.  

With that, however, we cannot overlook some anthropological and biological facts and theories that lead up to the development of a social order in the first place.  I owe a great deal to Chris, who is a scientist with quite a broad spectrum of interests, including nanotechnology.  That he has chosen to share some thoughts with me is absolutely amazing.)

*****

Hominids have been hard-wired for fear for millions of years.  From the early beginnings in Africa, it was not only the predation of other mammals that might eat them, but that some of this predation occurred in the darkness of night, leaving the hominids at some disadvantage.  There were many predators in Africa back then, and still are*.

Besides direct predation that included other primates such as chimpanzees and baboons, our early ancestors also had to deal with quite an array of venomous creatures that are ubiquitous in their environment: primarily spiders and snakes.

In North America, there are a few species of venomous snakes, and a small enough number for most people to be able to know what they are, and quickly recognize them as rattlesnakes, copperheads, coral snakes, and the cottonmouth water moccasin.  Early hominids faced a much larger threat**.

In nature, the independently dominant can take care of itself and its own; can adapt, can cooperate, and can stand in the face of much adversity.  It can take care of business, so to speak.  This is seen in all species, both plant and animal.  In nature, the phobics die off.  In nature, there are the independently dominants and the phobics, but the gene pool favors the dominants since the phobics cannot take care of business, and often cannot figure out how to cooperate or adapt.  The topic thus far is around natural conditions, and not the contrivances of processes such as systemic linkage, institutionalization, socialization and social control, or the domestication of other species.

As homo sapiens sapiens evolved, some clever phobics began to bully other phobics, often not recognized as bullying, and became dominators over them.  It’s important at this point to not confuse dominators with true predators, as predation is a part of the natural order of things.  Dominant predators tend to survive; phobic predators do not.  And in the natural world, dominators as are described here, don’t exist.  Among human beings, dominators that prey on their own kind are best described as cannibals***. 

Dominators do not survive very well on their own, and need to have slaves and armies do their work for them.  Dominators share a bit of the produce of the slaves back with the slaves in amounts sufficient to keep enough of them alive, and able to to the dominator’s work.  Dominators exist in hierarchies, and are often dominated over by other bullies.

This arrangement allows the phobics, who would otherwise die off, to over populate and create potentially unsustainable ecological situations.  It is also the structure that, backed by ideologies created by dominators, even allows for the possibility, as well as the probability of all out war.  Whichever dominator rises to the top at the end of the war is allowed to authorize the writing of the history of it, claiming themselves to be the good guys. Of course two motivations surface whenever you are dealing with what is behind revisionist history: the potential capability to shape and control ideological influence, as well as political influence.  These behaviors are always proprietary to dominators.  The phobics won’t know how, and the independently dominants will have no need of it.

It is worthy to note that dominators do not like independently dominants, because among other reasons, they don’t make good slaves.  When independently dominants, who are often respected by other independently dominants and some of the phobics, begin to gain a following, it is common for the dominators to gang up on them to either discredit them, or to destroy them–kill them if necessary, as history says was what happened to Socrates, The Christ, and many others.  And it is for that reason, though often well respected and trusted at local levels, they never rise to significant power in either state or national hierarchies.

In the meantime, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurky will always believe Foxy Loxy is showing the best short cut to take to safety.  And to follow Foxy openly makes them feel worthy, and to stand right behind him urging the others to follow as well makes them feel significant.  That they are significant, worthy or safe from anything they have been made fearful of, are all illusions.  And all their thinking on the matter, always passive and never self-reliant, becomes a system of belief disorders that always allow others (such as Foxy Loxy) to make up mind laws, and convince the phobics they are real.

The important thing to realize is that dominators do not want the phobics to be well educated.  They do not wish them moving closer to any understanding of things other than what they’ve been told to accept.  The dominators want compliance; demand compliance, and when their own authority to insist upon it is insufficient, they present their mind laws to be from a higher, even supernatural power.

Dominators prefer their illusions over those of the dominated.  And, they do not care to allow the teaching of what they wish to remain unlearned.  This is the root of hierarchies, and the prejudicial development of attitudes of moral superiority by station.  It is also the fundamental reason behind all oppressive behaviors of one person, or groups of persons, over other individuals and groups of people.

And while it is presumed by many to be revelations of the supernatural, fully understood only by designated dominators, no proof of it is ever required.  The phobics are kept fearful of what they themselves cannot explain, so it is easy for them to accept the explanations given to them by their “betters”.  Because of this, most folks never come to the realization that one of the saddest delusions man has ever conceived of is that oppression of other people is authorized and approved of by the Deity.

The reason it works is, a few of the phobics often don’t recognize they are being oppressed, but instead, see themselves as being kept safe.  Others know quite well they are being oppressed, but other fears, such as not knowing what to do about it, cause them to at least try to project the appearance of being compliant–especially when they suspect they’re being monitored.

 The character, “Huckleberry Finn”, was based on a real-life boyhood friend of Samuel Langhorne Clemens.  As I’m sure many of you recall, Huck was neither a phobic nor a dominator.  And because of that, his general resistance to conformity was presumed to be problematic by those that would have his submission.  He knew how to catch a fish, build a lean-to, build a raft, and generally find ways to fill his personal needs.  Yet he was not a bully dominating over other people in the story.  And he would regularly remove himself from the presence of those who would want power over his choice of actions and personal behaviors.

The real life boy grew up to be a man others could trust and depend upon, and became somewhat of a pillar of the community back home, but never rose in any power beyond that.   Over the years, some have had the pleasure of knowing a few, though probably only a very few, “Huckleberry Finn”s.

So, where are the independently dominants?  Perhaps not where you’d think they would be.  Though not in every case, they are often independent scientists, scholars, doctors, artisans, and those who have mastered various art forms, crafts and skills.  You might traditionally look for leadership in high places, but find them missing.  Many of those in high places hold office at the pleasure of other dominators.  Yet as they themselves are dominated, due to the corrupt nature of sponsored politics itself, they often take on the same role as would effect the public at large.

Folks often refer to the game of life.  But if it’s your life, you have to consider who’s allowed to keep score.

*****

“Evidence offers that the other apes and primates had well established themselves in niches prior to the appearance of the earliest hominids. Upon inception, the earliest hominids were the odd man out. Chimp and baboon groups defend their territories against other groups of their own kind and other primates. Clearly, the smaller weaker hominids could neither challenge these nor tarry overlong in their territories. They certainly could not compete with these nor even with the monkeys in the trees. This allows that they may have had to pursue a nomadic existence. Our feet offer some consideration of this. I do not recall any discoveries of hominids sans these. Of course, what early evidence we have found has been very incomplete. A skull cap here, a knee joint there.

But Chimps and baboons offered an even greater risk; predation.  Certainly, the leopard was the greatest risk to Hominids as it was to all large primates. Even young gorillas were on the menu. The leopard has a wide appetite, but primates are easy. Of these, hominids were the easiest. Predators are not trophy hunters and the weakest are always a target.  Leopards are disproportionally strong. A good sized leopard can easily kill an eland. These are horse sized antelope. They have two long sabre-like horns with serrated edges. They weigh 1500 lbs, 682 kgs. A leopard can then haul it over 30 feet, 9.2 meters, up a tree so that lions can’t take their kill, or them.  Primates, even groups, are entirely at risk from leopard predation. Another serious risk is an ancient cousin of the modern cats, the hyena. Both are effective predators, day or night.

However, chimp and baboon harassment and predation of Hominids would have left hominids little respite. Vigilance could not be relaxed and anxiety would be relatively continuous. Most prey species enjoy periods of relaxation when the predators are sated. Hominids may have been under greater pressure. A chimp or baboon is a serious and even lethal threat to a fit modern man. Until the Heidelberg-Rhodesian man varieties, most earlier Hominids were much smaller.

Bonobos eat a variety of foods, including fruits, nuts, seeds, sprouts, vegetation, and mushrooms. They eat various parts of plants, including the leaves, flowers, bark, stems, pith, and roots. They also eat small mammals, insect larvae, earthworms, honey, eggs, and soil.  Unlike chimpanzees who form hunting parties to capture monkeys, bonobos do not aggressively hunt mammals, but they have been observed to capture duikers (small antelope) and flying squirrels.  Chimps eat every part of a monkey, including the brain.  Chimps also kidnap and eat young baboons.  Baboons eat seeds, fruits, meats, birds, small mammals and even antelopes.

I am quite sure that early hominids, young and adult, were at serious risk of predation by chimps and baboons.  Interestingly, this may have fueled a fear of others that appear like us beyond that from normal territorial competition between groups of the same species.  This all allows that hominids were under multiple pressures that suppressed their numbers for almost four million years. It is notable that early hominid remains are rare. Even many extinct mammals have left far more evidence of their existence.” ~ Chris Aristides Pappas

*****

** “Immediately following is a list of venomous snakes from Africa, where Hominids spent most of their existence. Some of these are also found in surrounding “out of Africa” areas. Recall that H. sap was only the latest of the Hominids to trek “out of Africa”.

Boomslang Dispholidus typus.  Distribution: Found throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

Bush viper Atheris squamiger.  Distribution: Most of Africa, Angola, Cameroon, Uganda, Kenya, and Zaire.

Egyptian cobra Naja haje.  Distribution: Africa, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

Gaboon viper Bitis gabonica.  Distribution: Most of Africa.

Green mamba Dendraspis angusticeps.  Distribution: Most of Africa.

Horned desert viper Cerastes cerastes.  Distribution: Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Iran, and Iraq.

Mole viper or burrowing viper Atracaspis microlepidota.  Distribution: Sudan, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Cameroon, Niger, Congo, and Urundi.

Puff adder Bitis arietans.  Distribution: Most of Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan.

Rhinoceros viper or river jack Bitis nasicornis.  Distribution: Equatorial Africa.

Sand viper Cerastes vipera.  Distribution: Northern Sahara, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, and central Africa.

Saw-scaled viper Echis carinatus.  Distribution: Asia, Syria, India, Africa, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Egypt, and Israel.

Following is a list of venomous snakes that were waiting for any Hominids that managed to trek “out of Africa” at any time.

Levant viper Vipera lebetina.  Distribution: Greece, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Afghanistan, lower portion of the former USSR, and Saudi Arabia.

Palestinian viper Vipera palaestinae.  Distribution: Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Common Adder or European Adder (Vipera berus).  Distribution: very common throughout much of Europe. It is also the only poisonous snake occurring in the United Kingdom.

The Aspic Viper, Asp Viper or Asp, European Asp, European Viper, Jura viper (Vipera aspis).  Distribution: Europe: northeastern Spain, Andorra, most of France- inckuding in the Ile de Re and Oleron islands -, Monaco, Italy, the islands of Elba, Montecristo and Sicily, San Marino, Switzerland; northwestern Slovenia and extreme southwestern Germany – southern Black Forest.

Long-nosed Adder or Nose-horned Viper (vipera ammodytes).  Distribution: Occurs in south-eastern Europe, from Hungary and Austria to Italy, Romania, former Yugoslavia, and northern Albania.

Pallas’ Viper (Akistrodon halys).  Distribution: throughout southeastern Europe

Ursini’s Viper, or Orsini’s Viper, or Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii).  Distribution: This snake can be found in south-eastern France, central Italy, west Balkans (former Yugoslavia), northern Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Germany.  

Lataste’s Viper or Snub-nosed Viper, Snub-nosed Adder (Vipera latastei).  Distribution: This viper occurs in the extreme southwestern Europe – France, Portugal and Spain- and northwestern Africa – the Mediterranean region of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.

Seoane’s Viper or Baskian Viper, Iberian Cross Adder, Portuguese Viper (Vipera seoanei).  Distribution: extreme southwestern France and the northern regions of Spain and Portugal (Basque country, mountains of Galicia and Cantabrici).

Ottoman viper, Turkish Viper, Rock Viper, Coastal Viper, Near East Viper, Mountain Viper (Vipera xanthina).  Distribution: a widely distributed species which occurs in northeastern Greece and European Turkey, as well as in some Aegean Sea islands (Simi, Kos, Kalimnos, Leros, Lipsos, Patmos, Samos, Chios and Lesbos). Its population is presumed to be quite large.

Nikolsky’s Adder or Forest-steppe Adder (Vipera nikolskii).  Distribution: endemic to central Ukraine.

Milos viper (Macrovipera schweizeri).  Distribution: Greek viper, limited to the islands of Milos, Kimolos, Polyaigos, and Sifnos.

McMahon’s viper Eristicophis macmahonii.  Distribution: West Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Common cobra Naja naja.  Distribution: All of Asia.

Green tree pit viper Trimeresurus gramineus.  Distribution: India, Burma, Malaya, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, and Formosa.

King cobra Ophiophagus hannah.  Distribution: Thailand, southern China, Malaysia Peninsula, and Philippines.

Krait Bungarus caeruleus.  Distribution: India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.

Malayan pit viper Callaselasma rhodostoma.  Distribution: Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Java, Sumatra, Malaysia, Vietnam, Burma, and China.

Russell’s viper Vipera russellii.  Distribution: Sri Lanka, south China, India, Malaysian Peninsula, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and surrounding islands.

Wagler’s pit viper or temple viper Trimeresurus wagleri.  Distribution: Malaysian Peninsula and Archipelago, Indonesia, Borneo, the Philippines, and Ryuku Islands.

Habu pit viper Trimeresurus flavoviridis.  Distribution: Okinawa and neighboring islands and Kyushu

Hominid diet is also a factor here. Many primates eat eggs, regardless of type and including snake eggs.

Further, eating snakes cannot be precluded. Mistakes here would be fatal. Many snakes, including many of the above, are attracted to areas of human habitation. Clearly, these all are factors in risk and fear.” ~ Chris Aristides Pappas

*****

*** “I do not consider dominators as true predators. Those individual creatures who “prey” upon their own are better characterized as Cannibals.” ~ Chris Aristides Pappas

Advertisements

8 responses to this post.

  1. This article is very rich in science and logic. I could only glance through it but this week I’ll take a closer examination. Somehow while reading the first few paragraphs my mind returned to a TDY assignment I had at Ft. Polk aka Ft. Puke. I being a New York City Native was horrified by the many predator species the grunts loved bringing back to the base. The ones the Field Artillery did not take as “pets” just showed up on their own. For example bats. I had never seen live bats before. I asked my bunk mates what type of birds fly at night beating upon our barracks windows. When they said those aren’t birds but bats I quickly shut the windows and prayed Bela Lugosi was not about to get me. Needless to say my four years in the Army gave me a healthy respect for any species that could dominate me via biting!

    Reading a little further I thought a lot about predator and prey as well as survival of the fittest. Humans though created in the image and likeness of God do return on a regular basis to their lower animal instincts. This article also brought to mind the old TV show Wild Kingdom. Methinks that many times the most dangerous animal in the forest/jungle walks on two legs.

    Reply

  2. Oh yes. One more thing. My brother Stephen and I are fascinated by the variety and types of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Amazing and Incredible stuff!! Hats off to Neil de Grasse Tyson.

    Reply

  3. Lots to think about. In Ireland these days we can see very clearly the dominators and the phobics and we are sadly in need of more independent dominators even to inspire…but as you say they never rise high enough to make a difference in real time.

    Reply

  4. Posted by Chris on October 25, 2014 at 7:48 am

    Van, et al:

    I am afraid that I must confess to a minor conceit which may have contributed to some confusion or, at least, to less than fulsome clarity.

    This regards my use of the term Phobics. I confess that I do have an alternate term, which I employ when contemplating social associations. However, I thought “Phobic” a more “polished” term.

    I consider, instead, the “skittish”. “Phobia” infers discrete fears. “Skittish” individuals are more generally fearful, they startle or “spook” and are easily given to panic.

    Healthy, natural, wild animal societies are composed mostly of dominants. Whether patriarchal or matriarchal, these individuals stand as the first amongst brothers or sisters. As with the young, the old, the lame and the halt, dominators and the skittish are candidates for culling.

    Unfortunately, such societies may no longer exist. “Late Modern” human intrusion into the last areas where human activity was least disruptive to these drove great impact. European influence spread in a rapid fashion, accelerating from the !8th Century, through the 19th Century and the 20th century in South America and Africa.

    Louis Leaky initiated primate behavioural studies in the late 1950s. But, the behaviour of many African animal species had been steadily altered for a century by this time. The increasing slaughter of predators certainly changed conditions and, thus, behaviour of primates such as chimps and baboons.

    European cattle brought disease which they were resistant too, but which spread through African cattle and wild ungulates in a devastating fashion.

    The chimps studied by Jane Goodall, and those who have followed, were not “the chimps of ages”. Also, over the past decades, baboon behaviour and society have been notably changing. They have not only invaded villages and towns, but cities as well. They are now very aggressive towards humans.

    Jane Goodall_From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    “Goodall had always been passionate about animals and Africa, which brought her to the farm of a friend in the Kenya highlands in 1957.[8] From there, she obtained work as a secretary, and acting on her friend’s advice, she telephoned Louis Leakey, a Kenyan archaeologist and palaeontologist, with no other thought than to make an appointment to discuss animals. Leakey, believing that the study of existing great apes could provide indications of the behaviour of early hominids,[9] was looking for a chimpanzee researcher, though he kept the idea to himself. Instead, he proposed that Goodall work for him as a secretary. After obtaining his wife Mary Leakey’s approval, Louis sent Goodall to Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where he laid out his plans.

    In 1958, Leakey sent Goodall to London to study primate behaviour with Osman Hill and primate anatomy with John Napier.[10] Leakey raised funds, and on 14 July 1960, Goodall went to Gombe Stream National Park, becoming the first of what would come to be called The Trimates.[11] She was accompanied by her mother, whose presence was necessary to satisfy the requirements of David Anstey, chief warden, who was concerned for their safety; Tanzania was “Tanganyika” at that time and a British protectorate.[8]

    Leakey arranged funding and in 1962, he sent Goodall, who had no degree, to Cambridge University where she obtained a PhD degree in Ethology.[8][12] She became only the eighth person to be allowed to study for a PhD there without first obtaining a BA or BSc.[2] Her thesis was completed in 1965 under the tutorship of Robert Hinde, former master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, titled “Behaviour of the Free-Ranging Chimpanzee,” detailing her first five years of study at the Gombe Reserve.[2][12]”

    I conclude with a return to the terms “Phobic” and “Skittish”. Again, “Phobia” infers discrete fears.

    Following are a few from the “A’s”.

    Ablutophobia – fear of bathing, washing, or cleaning
    Acousticophobia – fear of noise – a branch of phonophobia
    Acrophobia – fear of heights
    Agoraphobia – fear of helplessness and of leaving safe places
    Agraphobia – fear of sexual abuse
    Agrizoophobia – fear of wild animals, a branch of zoophobia
    Agyrophobia – fear of crossing the street
    Aichmophobia – fear of sharp or pointed objects (such as a needle or knife)
    Ailurophobia – fear of cats
    Algophobia – fear of pain

    And again, skittish individuals are generally fearful. Dominants do not tolerate the close proximity of dominators or the skittish. Both pose risks to the dominants’ “charges”, their “wards”. The dominant holds the parental role in its group. They are also the first in harm’s way. They cannot trust the dominators or skittish in matters of protection of the group, and so despise them, cannot tolerate them and are quick to show this.

    Reply

    • Posted by thevanbrown on October 25, 2014 at 1:47 pm

      Chris, “skittish” is a reasonable alternate word, and your explanation of general and discrete make sense. Further, it does add some clarification if consideration is to be given to those who seem fearful of almost everything, especially if change of any kind is imminent or sudden. Thank you for your contribution to all of this.

      While mankind’s alteration of the natural environment in Africa will have made an impact on many of the native species, and no doubt has had effect on baboon and chimpanzee populations, it might not be realistic to presume significant evolutionary changes in the species over such a short period of history. Some social behavioral changes, yes, due to pressures brought to their natural habitat from the outside are probably inevitable. However, it would be interesting to see empirical evidence showing where genetic differences, if any, have occurred in the species over the last couple of centuries.

      Due to similarities all the primates have with their central nervous system, it might be possible or even likely to see behavioral changes more associated with theoretical memetic influence rather than genetic. That would of course, perhaps require baboons and chimpanzees to be able to process conceptual ideas. From what we continue to learn about neurons seems to suggest at least the possibility of it.

      Chris, in the last sentence of your last paragraph above, I edited to change the word “dominants” to “dominators”, as I’m sure you meant it is them (along with the skittish) the dominants cannot trust in matters of protection.

      Your addendum comment below about “notable leaders of any group” is appreciated, as some readers might otherwise have some issues with differentiating between dominants and dominators.

      Reply

  5. Posted by Chris on October 25, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Oops: Yet another matter for clarity. I wish to readdress the following from my comment, “Healthy, natural, wild animal societies are composed mostly of dominants. Whether patriarchal or matriarchal, these individuals stand as the first amongst brothers or sisters. As with the young, the old, the lame and the halt, dominators and the skittish are candidates for culling.”

    “Whether patriarchal or matriarchal, these individuals”; here,” these individuals” refers to the notable leaders of any group.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Chris on October 25, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Oops and thank you Van.

    Reply

  7. relevant now as then thank you Van. It’s similar to our country – keep the populace alarmed and fearful, child like also, believing in some father/mother figure to keep them ‘safe’.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: