Science Classification of Humans 130

Mamasan

It is correct that science doesn't state that some people are losers. However, some scientists do say this and imply this.

The classification of human males who are brutally aggressive and physically strongest as "Alpha males" springs to mind as a blatant implication that those who are not brutally aggressive or the most physically strong are beta. If this is so, then humans would have to be completely separate from nature. In any other species of primates, these two traits alone would not an Alpha make. They would neither be the leaders of their group nor would they be most attractive to females.

An Alpha would also have to be territorial, have some care for others in their tribe, be intelligent enough to deal with threats to his position, predators, and competing tribes...a whole collection of traits go with being an Alpha ape that seldom all exist at maximum levels simultaneously in any creature. Maximum and optimal are two very different things.

Not to mention that there is the matter of scale which is supposed to be tribal, not generalized across humanity. When they say "women", my question is "women where?"

I want to see the statistics of a collection of regional cultures, with varying levels of exposure to western media. I want to know what level of choice in husbands these women have...how much of a say their fathers or family have in who they will marry. I want to see if there's a difference between the responses from those in matriarchal and patriarchal cultures...places where polygamy is tolerated or common, and places where it isn't.

In other words, I believe that their observations may be statistically correct, but I challenge the choices of what and who to study.

Science is science, but scientists are still human ("all too human").

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit