Why Do Subordinates In Many Animal Species Accept Social Position Without A Fight?

[JBeukema]

When the speed of escape in response to an attack was measured, the researchers found that subordinate fish were significantly faster than the dominant ones. "This is particularly interesting because we predicted the opposite: that dominant fish were the ones that would prove to be more athletic" explains Dr. Frank Seebacher, who led the research team. "Our data indicate either that there may be a training effect because subordinate fish have to escape quickly and often, or that slower fish become more aggressive because they cannot manoeuvre quickly."

Why Do Subordinates In Many Animal Species Accept Social Position Without A Fight?


I forward the hypothesis that constant infighting is detrimental to the fitness of the population. As a result, a population with a high proportion of aggressive individuals will be less successful than one with a greater number of submissive or 'cowardly' individuals, which will be dominated by the minority of more aggressive members.

Thoughts?

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, subordinate doesn't mean submissive in all cases. The matter is something that I have noted in my life often, seeing that the subordinates can often control the situation much better than the "dominant" being, based on human interaction though not the other beasts. I have always been the "weaker" in life (based on standards at the time) and yet, in spite of me not wanting them to, people often rally behind me. It's odd that I never want to lead, or follow for that matter, but always ended up being the "dominant" person in social circles.

It's a reason I like cyber life better, people don't follow me as often

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, subordinate doesn't mean submissive in all cases. The matter is something that I have noted in my life often, seeing that the subordinates can often control the situation much better than the "dominant" being, based on human interaction though not the other beasts.

We're not talking about M/S, KK

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, subordinate doesn't mean submissive in all cases. The matter is something that I have noted in my life often, seeing that the subordinates can often control the situation much better than the "dominant" being, based on human interaction though not the other beasts.

We're not talking about M/S, KK

You will forgive my ignorance ... M/S? You mean Microsoft?

i was talking about common social circles, such as in school or *shudder* church (where I wanted nothing to do with "friends"). Size, I was always much smaller than other kids, often mistaken for less than half my age. Personality I was, and still am IRL, and introvert. But somehow, in spite of these obviously "weaker" traits, I was often considered the leader. So in humans this behavior is observable as well and is not surprising to me. Though I still don't understand the connection that was made to evolutionary processes, but meh. I believe it is more behavioral for the fish as well, it just may be that for some reason the ones thought commonly as "weaker" hold a social trait that makes others willingly follow them or even protect them (not mention so speculation on my part there) as I had experienced in my life.

This is that whole "outside the box" thinking I try to get you to understand, so you may not get the connection of thought here.

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, subordinate doesn't mean submissive in all cases. The matter is something that I have noted in my life often, seeing that the subordinates can often control the situation much better than the "dominant" being, based on human interaction though not the other beasts.

We're not talking about M/S, KK

You will forgive my ignorance ... M/S? You mean Microsoft?[/qupte]

You're not fooling anyone

You keep thinking outside the box; I'll keep standing on top of the box laughing at the sheeple inside, like you

 

[KittenKoder]

We're not talking about M/S, KK

You will forgive my ignorance ... M/S? You mean Microsoft?

You're not fooling anyone

You keep thinking outside the box; I'll keep standing on top of the box laughing at the sheeple inside, like you

Sheeple ... yeah ... you know calling me that is like saying an apple is orange. Why not stop being like RGS and read what I posted then commenting on that or adding to the topic you started instead of trying to blindly insult someone?

 

[editec]

When the speed of escape in response to an attack was measured, the researchers found that subordinate fish were significantly faster than the dominant ones. "This is particularly interesting because we predicted the opposite: that dominant fish were the ones that would prove to be more athletic" explains Dr. Frank Seebacher, who led the research team. "Our data indicate either that there may be a training effect because subordinate fish have to escape quickly and often, or that slower fish become more aggressive because they cannot manoeuvre quickly."

Why Do Subordinates In Many Animal Species Accept Social Position Without A Fight?

Perhaps many of them are fighting in social ways that are less obvious than the standard physical confrontation?

Passive aggression is still agression. Often, in social environments passive aggression is a more successful strategy than overt aggression.

I forward the hypothesis that constant infighting is detrimental to the fitness of the population.

Certainly that is true in herd or social animals. If they were constantly having power struggles, the herd would quickly waste away.

As a result, a population with a high proportion of aggressive individuals will be less successful than one with a greater number of submissive or 'cowardly' individuals, which will be dominated by the minority of more aggressive members.

Sometimes.

That heirarchial system clearly didn't work out all that well for herd animals like the American Bison once they encountered those nasty White Apes.

When they were being slaughtered, the buffalo-skinners shot the leader first and the rest of the herd stood by to be slaughtered because their leader was no longer there to lead them to safety.

 

[JBeukema]

Of course, Edit, Man was a new evolutionary pressure they had not faced prior to that point in their evolution

 

[American Horse]

Sheeple ... yeah ... you know calling me that is like saying an apple is orange. Why not stop being like RGS and read what I posted then commenting on that or adding to the topic you started instead of trying to blindly insult someone?

He told you the answer to that.

Size, I was always much smaller than other kids, often mistaken for less than half my age. Personality I was, and still am IRL, and introvert. But somehow, in spite of these obviously "weaker" traits, I was often considered the leader.

He's a little guy, but maybe not aware of how that often shapes one's behavior in the attempt to stand out.
Have you noticed how, so often, the largest people among us are not very self assertive, just mellow and going with the flow?

 

[xotoxi]

Actually, subordinate doesn't mean submissive in all cases.

True.

In a hierarchy, the person at the top is not necessarily the strongest or the smartest.

They are just the person at the top.

 

[Coyote]

With most social animals - needless fighting wastes energy and social species have evolved many strategies to avoid fighting. It's easy to see this in dogs and there was an interesting video done on dogs living in a Mexico City dump. Food was actually plentiful, but shade, water, access to females or people in some cases were all resources to be gained. Yet there was surprisingly little fighting. It really kind of puts to the test all the "alpha theory" stuff. Social animals spend more energy avoiding conflict then initiating it and they use a variety of subtle singles - averting eyes, turning head away, social grooming, play. They can't afford energy wasting conflict when survival of the individual is determined by the success of the group.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, subordinate doesn't mean submissive in all cases.

True.

In a hierarchy, the person at the top is not necessarily the strongest or the smartest.

They are just the person at the top.

Or the one best at a particular task at a particular time - often heirarchies can be rather fluid (at least in dogs).

 

[eagleseven]

Because Alphas are born, not bred.

 

[Modbert]

Because Alphas are born, not bred.

That's not necessary true. Alphas are more of a product of their environment and their reaction of the environment.

One of the best examples in History: Hitler

If Hitler had actually been accepted to that art school, he might of never had become the man he became later on.