The top dog

Scanlas The 2nd

The King of Moo wrote: »

Pottler wrote: »

I completed a deal today with the last apprentice winner - nice enough lad in fairness but well able to slice the bacon. Fortunatly, so am I. This thread reminds me of a lad who informed me "there's only one bull in this field" - when it comes to fellas there is always manouvering as to who is top dog, who is second dog, it comes down to small stuff like handshakes - "top dogs" will try to turn their hand so their hand is palm down and yours is palm up - who gets to interrupt who(top dog gets to interrupt)and who decidedes when a meeting is over -if dealing with a self percieved "top dog", I always make sure my hand is locked vertical and refuse to turn my palm up to meet theirs, I sit uninvited when entering their office and assume a relaxed position, and I always get up and leave well before anyone gets the chance to dismiss me. Some would call this gamesmanship but it allows you to deal on an even level with supposed "superiors" and be accepted as an equal and not an underdog.

Normal men don't care about such trivialities, and shake hands with their hands side by side .

Have a look g8 summits and the like, the jockeying for higher status is comical. ( yet not necessarily something they shouldn't do)

Eve_Dublin

Although I don't like to say this, there's a top dog in 2 of the groups of people I hang out with and they're the ones I get along with least. I'd only relate to them in a group and not as an individual. I'm not sure what makes them Top Dog....perhaps there's a slight element of...not fear....fear is too strong a word but from what I've noticed, there tends to be an underlying element of nervousness to speak up against them and question or contradict what they are saying and I've no idea why that is. I suppose they never seem to doubt themselves and rarely show their weaknesses. You presume nothing phases them as they don't outwardly show it. They seem consistant in their authoritiveness and are usually quite self-centered, mouthy, patronising and terrible listeners.

They're not people I like to spend time with. I like to feel I'm completely equal with the person I spend time with. Saying all that though and contradicting myself, I know one or two Too Dogs who'd possess the total opposites to the traits I mentioned above and I suppose that's why they'd be Top Dogs? They respect everyone equally and in turn, you respect and admire them for their diplomacy and kindness because those tarist would be fairly hard to come by.

Scanlas The 2nd

Pottler wrote: »

mikemac1 wrote: »

This thread reads like the candidates on Alan Sugar's Apprentice

I'm a leader, I'm top dog, people will follow me!

Respect?? Very unusual to see a real leader that everyone respects.
Stella English two seasons ago was one, just got instant respect

Pretty much all of the rest of them are muppets with buzz words

So OP, I'd say getting people to do what you want doesn't mean they respect you

I completed a deal today with the last apprentice winner - nice enough lad in fairness but well able to slice the bacon. Fortunatly, so am I. This thread reminds me of a lad who informed me "there's only one bull in this field" - when it comes to fellas there is always manouvering as to who is top dog, who is second dog, it comes down to small stuff like handshakes - "top dogs" will try to turn their hand so their hand is palm down and yours is palm up - who gets to interrupt who(top dog gets to interrupt)and who decides when a meeting is over -if dealing with a self percieved "top dog", I always make sure my hand is locked vertical and refuse to turn my palm up to meet theirs, I sit uninvited when entering their office and assume a relaxed position, and I always get up and leave well before anyone gets the chance to dismiss me. Some would call this gamesmanship but it allows you to deal on an even level with supposed "superiors" and be accepted as an equal and not an underdog.

The interrupting thing you mention is interesting. Generally speaking higher status members of the group can do things other which others would be labelled rude.

Scanlas The 2nd

AnnaVanilla wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just thought of another one.

The person who can tell a crap joke and get the most laughs.

Good friends will tell you to your face when you've told a crap joke, or when you're talking sh*te in general... I don't know you that well though so let's just say I disagree

Or maybe being higher status actually makes people think their jokes are funnier than they are.

Pottler

another way to see who is top dog at work is being kept waiting. If you are kept waiting, you aint it. As another point of "gamesmanship", I never wait for anyone - I arrive either on time or slightly late, if I'm expected to wait, I head off and do somthing else so they have to call me to see where I am, and if I even vaguely suspect someone is going to cancel or postpone, I get in first and cut across them to say I can't make it, I'm busy. I am actually quite chilled(that's bull****, I'm not a bit chilled) on a personal level but I have had to deal with a lot of "top dogs" over the years and if you don't have some tactics, they will play you. I have also spent years working with fairly hard and independent minded men who if you showed a hint of weakness would chew you up. If you want to be the boss and paying the wages alone wont cut it, you need to cultivate an air of "top dog". Somtimes I cant be ar5ed, but a lot of the time I pay attention to making sure the pack is kept in line.:)

AnnaVanilla

I really don't get the top dog/higher status thing, someone who interrupts you, always tries to get the upper hand - who'd want to hang around with someone like that?

Unless it's at work and you have to. The boss at my previous company was like that, which is why I don't work there anymore. No way was I putting up with that crap.

None of my friends are like the type you describe, otherwise they wouldn't be my friends. So I do recognize the type you're describing, but I think those people believe that they have to act like that to get respect, when in fact they get just the opposite, everyone avoiding them cause they're a pain to be around. Sad really...

Scanlas The 2nd

AnnaVanilla wrote: »

I really don't get the top dog/higher status thing, someone who interrupts you, always tries to get the upper hand - who'd want to hang around with someone like that?

Unless it's at work and you have to. The boss at my previous company was like that, which is why I don't work there anymore. No way was I putting up with that crap.

None of my friends are like the type you describe, otherwise they wouldn't be my friends. So I do recognize the type you're describing, but I think those people believe that they have to act like that to get respect, when in fact they get just the opposite, everyone avoiding them cause they're a pain to be around. Sad really...

That's different, that's a work situation. Amongst your friends I bet there is one person who influences the group more than the rest.

AnnaVanilla

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's different, that's a work situation. Amongst your friends I bet there is one person who influences the group more than the rest.

You really got me thinking about this one but I can honestly say no. No one person in my various groups of friends decides when/where/what etc, people take turns taking the initiative, deciding/agreeing where to go and when and for what. So no, I don't agree that there's always what you would call a "top dog".

Chuck Stone

flutterflye wrote: »

It is everywhere

Yes, but not everyone subscribes to it.

It is just human nature - we do this naturally.

I'm a nurture guy. I don't believe we humans do very much 'naturally'. Yes hierarchy is an undeniable aspect of life currently but I don't think it is a law of nature for humans.

Equality legislation and human rights are human attempts to limit the power of or 'house train', if you will, top dogs.

Pottler

AnnaVanilla wrote: »

I really don't get the top dog/higher status thing, someone who interrupts you, always tries to get the upper hand - who'd want to hang around with someone like that?

Unless it's at work and you have to. The boss at my previous company was like that, which is why I don't work there anymore. No way was I putting up with that crap.

None of my friends are like the type you describe, otherwise they wouldn't be my friends. So I do recognize the type you're describing, but I think those people believe that they have to act like that to get respect, when in fact they get just the opposite, everyone avoiding them cause they're a pain to be around. Sad really...

I'm coming at this from a work perspective, but socially, there are two types, the "top dog" who is usually a needy, domineering pain in the hole, and life-enhancers, who become "top dog" because they are more fun to be around, have strong articulate opinions that are interesting and varied, are comfortable in their own skin and willing to put the other person at ease and also listen as though what you have to say is interesting and important. They end up being the one who is listened to and a group will "center around" them, but there is almost always an edge, ie, you don't want to fall out with them as the group will side with them to your detriment or they are also very entrenched in their views and will quickly get into an arguement if you contradict them. I know a few, I like them, but no way are we getting along too well - I have my view and am fecked if I'm going to follow anyone, so a row will usually ensue.:) They can be a lot of fun to be around though, in small doses. A fairly typical few everyone would know would be Jeremy Clarkson, Ian Dempsey and Ray Darcy. If you listen to any of them with an ear tuned to human nature, you will soon see why - they are generally interesting, likeable on the surface, popular, have strong views, but if you listen, they are very self-absorbed, self opinionated and will rapidly put-down anyone who verbally challenges them - that's not a judgement on them, it's just who they are, and is also the reason they are successful at what they do.

flutterflye

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes, but not everyone subscribes to it.



I'm a nurture guy. I don't believe we humans do very much 'naturally'. Yes hierarchy is an undeniable aspect of life currently but I don't think it is a law of nature for humans.

Equality legislation and human rights are human attempts to limit the power of or 'house train', if you will, top dogs.

You can't really be a nurture person.
It is pretty much 50/50 nature/nurture.

I think that you are thinking of a type of person that fits op's description.
A kind of loud, ignorant type of person who thinks they are superior.
This is not it at all.
This type of person is just a fool.

Everyone 'subscribes' to this unwritten hierarchy in some form or other, in some area of their life.

All families, all groups of friends, co-workers, cycling club!! Whatever!
- They all have a hierarchy of status.
Just because you don't recognise it as such, doesn't make it any less there!

You can even have one person as the 'leader' in one group, but not in any other group.

mikemac1

I recognize the not waiting for people alright

If I've to have a one to one meeting with the team leader I'll be there in the meeting room on time but if they are five minutes late I'm walking out

Yeah delays happen but I'm not sitting in a room on my own like a fool
Too busy, stuff to do and my time is important too


They can get me back but they'll have to come to me
Not hanging around like a rejected date


As for handshakes, people overthink that far too much
It's not so important at all, I don't judge anyone by a handshake.

Scanlas The 2nd

flutterflye wrote: »

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes, but not everyone subscribes to it.



I'm a nurture guy. I don't believe we humans do very much 'naturally'. Yes hierarchy is an undeniable aspect of life currently but I don't think it is a law of nature for humans.

Equality legislation and human rights are human attempts to limit the power of or 'house train', if you will, top dogs.

You can't really be a nurture person.
It is pretty much 50/50 nature/nurture.

I think that you are thinking of a type of person that fits op's description.
A kind of loud, ignorant type of person who thinks they are superior.
This is not it at all.
This type of person is just a fool.

Everyone 'subscribes' to this unwritten hierarchy in some form or other, in some area of their life.

All families, all groups of friends, co-workers, cycling club!! Whatever!
- They all have a hierarchy of status.
Just because you don't recognise it as such, doesn't make it any less there!

You can even have one person as the 'leader' in one group, but not in any other group.

And likewise you can have a leader of a group of friends who doesn't think they are the leader, regardless of who "subscribes" to hierarchies, it is fully in built in everyone.

Shryke

Chuck Stone wrote: »

flutterflye wrote: »

It is everywhere

Yes, but not everyone subscribes to it.

It is just human nature - we do this naturally.

I'm a nurture guy. I don't believe we humans do very much 'naturally'. Yes hierarchy is an undeniable aspect of life currently but I don't think it is a law of nature for humans.

Equality legislation and human rights are human attempts to limit the power of or 'house train', if you will, top dogs.

We've evolved as animals with social structure. It's a part of who we are. There's no refuting it.
By law of nature you mean genetic I think? It is. Our brains are hardwired from birth. That doesnt mean you wont find exceptions and permutations maybe. Thats part of this whole humanity thing too.
I dont want to get into an argument on the nitty gritty science side of things so you can take what Im saying or leave it. Im not up for too much toing and froing at the mo.

LH Pathe

I'm just a pup.

But i have a big nepali cat for backup ain't no dingo gonna take my baby away from me..

Pottler

mikemac1 wrote: »

I recognize the not waiting for people alright

If I've to have a one to one meeting with the team leader I'll be there in the meeting room on time but if they are five minutes late I'm walking out

Yeah delays happen but I'm not sitting in a room on my own like a fool
Too busy, stuff to do and my time is important too


They can get me back but they'll have to come to me
Not hanging around like a rejected date


As for handshakes, people overthink that far too much
It's not so important at all, I don't judge anyone by a handshake.

You should start. When I walk through a large building, no matter if I am with the boss of that building, it is comical that so many people come over and offer a handshake and ignore the boss. There is a reason for this - I shake peoples hands, I make a point of it. Not in a one upmanship way, just out of manners and courtesy and the point sticks. Next time you shake hands with a sales rep/ manager/whatever, note what way they shake hands - the pushy ones will always try to manouever(often comically) your hand so your palm is faced up and theirs down - watch the end of a football match when the teams shake hands - the winners will always offer their hands to the losers palm down, always, just watch it and it becomes blatantly obvious. Equals shake hands flat, the one who considers themselves better will always extend the hand palm down, forcing the other to take it palm up. Watery handshakes pi55 me off and I automatically make a note not to trust that person or rely on them.

Chuck Stone

flutterflye wrote: »

You can't really be a nurture person.
It is pretty much 50/50 nature/nurture.

This is a convenient, settled upon, and baseless estimation that cannot be proved or disproved.

Everyone 'subscribes' to this unwritten hierarchy in some form or other, in some area of their life.

Not by choice. I don't like many laws but I'm forced to obey them because I have no choice.

All families, all groups of friends, co-workers, cycling club!! Whatever!
- They all have a hierarchy of status.

Some people are voluntarily elected to leadership positions, others assume positions because they possess greater skills or knowledge, and others will become 'top dogs' because they are nasty duplicitous scum (politicians for example :pac:).

You can even have one person as the 'leader' in one group, but not in any other group

Yep. I'm actually quite sensitive to group behaviour and have watched people assume command and others become 'followers'. I'm not the followy type myself.

This is going to get semantic...

Pottler

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a convenient, settled upon, and baseless estimation that cannot be proved or disproved.



Not by choice. I don't like many laws but I'm forced to obey them because I have no choice.



Some people are voluntarily elected to leadership positions, others assume positions because they possess greater skills or knowledge, and others will become 'top dogs' because they are nasty duplicitous scum (politicians for example :pac:).



Yep. I'm actually quite sensitive to group behaviour and have watched people assume command and others become 'followers'. I'm not the followy type myself.

This is going to get semantic...

Then maybe you are the "top dog" type yourself. The fact you are denying it as a facet of life makes it extremely likely that you may well be. That, or you recognise it everywhere but, not being top dog amongst others, choose to deny its existence and plough a lone furrow as your own "top dog". Common enough tbh and there's a bit of that in an awful lot of intelligent/sensitive people.

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

flutterflye wrote: »

You can't really be a nurture person.
It is pretty much 50/50 nature/nurture.

This is a convenient, settled upon, and baseless estimation that cannot be proved or disproved.

Everyone 'subscribes' to this unwritten hierarchy in some form or other, in some area of their life.

Not by choice. I don't like many laws but I'm forced to obey them because I have no choice.

All families, all groups of friends, co-workers, cycling club!! Whatever!
- They all have a hierarchy of status.

Some people are voluntarily elected to leadership positions, others assume positions because they possess greater skills or knowledge, and others will become 'top dogs' because they are nasty duplicitous scum (politicians for example :pac:).

You can even have one person as the 'leader' in one group, but not in any other group

Yep. I'm actually quite sensitive to group behaviour and have watched people assume command and others become 'followers'. I'm not the followy type myself.

This is going to get semantic...

How many people would you find who would consider themselves followers though. Nevertheless even if you aren't a follower the group will either follow you most or someone else who also isn't a follower. This is human nature, no law will change this. Next time you are with a group of friends notice all commands/requests given and whether they are obeyed or rejected.

Then see of you can get compliance with similar commands/requests.

See if you can get people to hold your jacket while you go to the toilet. See if you can have someone get something for you on the other side of the room for example, pay attention who in the group gets compliance with requests and who doesn't.

Dudess

Scanlas, you should bear in mind that your "I'm so cynical and see badness and an agenda in everything" take may not always be the reality. Not being as black and white as you isn't necessarily naive. I really cannot identify a specific person, like whom you describe, within any social circle I frequent. Some are quieter, some are more gregarious, that's about it.

flutterflye

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a convenient, settled upon, and baseless estimation that cannot be proved or disproved.



Not by choice. I don't like many laws but I'm forced to obey them because I have no choice.



Some people are voluntarily elected to leadership positions, others assume positions because they possess greater skills or knowledge, and others will become 'top dogs' because they are nasty duplicitous scum (politicians for example :pac:).



Yep. I'm actually quite sensitive to group behaviour and have watched people assume command and others become 'followers'. I'm not the followy type myself.

This is going to get semantic...

The vast majority of experts in psychology agree it's about 50/50 - they just haven't settled on an actual definite ratio.

There are unwritten societal laws - not like actual laws.
Just like actual laws, we don't all always obey them.

But this hierarchy of status is seen in every group - it is just built into us.
I honestly can't understand how you can continue to debate it - it is a fact of nature!

You are viewing this from the wrong angle I think.
It is not about slavery, politics, or anything like that at all!!
It is just how we all are.
ALL of us!
With everything, there are always exceptions of course - but that's what proves the rule!

cian68

I was once watching quite a large game of pictionary, or was it charades? Doesn't matter, the point is I noticed whenever someone from one of the teams came up with idea they always checked with one particular member of their all important pictionary/charades team whether this was a suitable film/book/tv show.

top
dog

I wrote this while sleepy.

Scanlas The 2nd

Dudess wrote: »

Scanlas, you should bear in mind that your "I'm so cynical and see badness and an agenda in everything" take may not always be the reality. Not being as black and white as you isn't necessarily naive. I really cannot identify a specific person, like whom you describe, within any social circle I frequent. Some are quieter, some are more gregarious, that's about it.

There is no badness in what I'm describing, it's just how we work. In a group one individually will nearly always have more influence tha the rest.

Giselle

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Would telling someone to pass the salt be bossing someone about?

People don't tell you to pass the salt, the ask you. If anyone told me to do something in that manner, I'd refuse until I was asked nicely.

There are always people in a group who are more assertive and socially aggressive than others.

It doesn't make them leaders, although they often think it does.

Doc Ruby

flutterflye wrote: »

You can't really be a nurture person.
It is pretty much 50/50 nature/nurture.

No, its not. Take a person raised by wild animals and compare them to a person raised by the finest minds on earth and look at the differences in behaviour. Its more like 98% nurture, 2% nature. We are incomparable to any other creature on earth.

Pottler wrote: »

Next time you shake hands with a sales rep/ manager/whatever, note what way they shake hands - the pushy ones will always try to manouever(often comically) your hand so your palm is faced up and theirs down - watch the end of a football match when the teams shake hands - the winners will always offer their hands to the losers palm down, always, just watch it and it becomes blatantly obvious. Equals shake hands flat, the one who considers themselves better will always extend the hand palm down, forcing the other to take it palm up. Watery handshakes pi55 me off and I automatically make a note not to trust that person or rely on them.

I love those social climbers that try to prove their dominance by squeezing as hard as they can. After a moment's surprise, I just keep closing until their bones make noise. Quite funny, mostly. Other than that nobody thinks about it and be wary of anyone who does.

flutterflye

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No, its not. Take a person raised by wild animals and compare them to a person raised by the finest minds on earth and look at the differences in behaviour. Its more like 98% nurture, 2% nature. We are incomparable to any other creature on earth.

Any psych or sociology lecturer I've ever had, plus any contemporary studies I've ever read, dispute that completely.
They all agree that it's about 50/50.
I actually can't believe I'm having to defend this!
It is basic knowledge, just like evolution!

Edit: Nature include genetics btw, not just what is programmed into our 'reptilian brain'.

minidazzler

The so called "Alpha's" are rarely the ones in charge I find. It's the quieter friends of these guys who make suggestions quietly and the main person takes it over as their own and it gets done.

Chuck Stone

Pottler wrote: »

Then maybe you are the "top dog" type yourself. The fact you are denying it as a facet of life makes it extremely likely that you may well be. That, or you recognise it everywhere but, not being top dog amongst others, choose to deny its existence and plough a lone furrow as your own "top dog". Common enough tbh and there's a bit of that in an awful lot of intelligent/sensitive people.

Nope. I'm really not the leader type.

flutterflye wrote: »

The vast majority of experts in psychology agree it's about 50/50 - they just haven't settled on an actual definite ratio.

As I said before that cannot be proved or disproved and I think the 50/50 number is bollocks. More like 80 nurture / 20 nature imho.

There are unwritten societal laws - not like actual laws.
Just like actual laws, we don't all always obey them.

Yes but they're not like laws of physics. We don't have to have top dogs and we don't have to like the top dog thing. I see society as a struggle between those with power and influence and those who don't.

But this hierarchy of status is seen in every group - it is just built into us.
I honestly can't understand how you can continue to debate it - it is a fact of nature!

It's not a fact of nature. There is no such thing as a dominant tree in a forest of oaks.

It is not about slavery, politics, or anything like that at all!!
It is just how we all are.
ALL of us!

I reject that hierarchy, especially of the top dog kind, is a natural state - I don't deny that it happens.

NOW STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME SEE THE WORLD HOW YOU DO. :mad:





:pac:

flutterflye

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nope. I'm really not the leader type.



As I said before that cannot be proved or disproved and I think the 50/50 number is bollocks. More like 80 nurture / 20 nature imho.



Yes but they're not like laws of physics. We don't have to have top dogs and we don't have to like the top dog thing. I see society as a struggle between those with power and influence and those who don't.



It's not a fact of nature. There is no such thing as a dominant tree in a forest of oaks.




I reject that hierarchy, especially of the top dog kind, is a natural state - I don't deny that it happens.

NOW STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME SEE THE WORLD HOW YOU DO. :mad:





:pac:

Oh god - I'm far too tired for all those mini quotes!
It's just I have studied this on and off for years.
To me, it really is as if someone were trying to dispute evolution - it is just there - whether you want to believe it or not - it just is!
Now, I think I must sleep.

Shryke

Doc Ruby wrote: »

flutterflye wrote: »

You can't really be a nurture person.
It is pretty much 50/50 nature/nurture.

No, its not. Take a person raised by wild animals and compare them to a person raised by the finest minds on earth and look at the differences in behaviour. Its more like 98% nurture, 2% nature. We are incomparable to any other creature on earth.

Pottler wrote: »

Next time you shake hands with a sales rep/ manager/whatever, note what way they shake hands - the pushy ones will always try to manouever(often comically) your hand so your palm is faced up and theirs down - watch the end of a football match when the teams shake hands - the winners will always offer their hands to the losers palm down, always, just watch it and it becomes blatantly obvious. Equals shake hands flat, the one who considers themselves better will always extend the hand palm down, forcing the other to take it palm up. Watery handshakes pi55 me off and I automatically make a note not to trust that person or rely on them.

I love those social climbers that try to prove their dominance by squeezing as hard as they can. After a moment's surprise, I just keep closing until their bones make noise. Quite funny, mostly. Other than that nobody thinks about it and be wary of anyone who does.

Sorry thats nonsense about nature/nurture. Most cases of children being raised by animals are BS. Its difficult to tell if nearly any are genuine. Try something better than "Mowgli turned out OK."
A child being raised by wild animals doesnt show adaptability it shows derangement. A really stupid thing to say to be honest.

kumate_champ07

Doc Ruby

Shryke wrote: »

Sorry thats nonsense about nature/nurture. Most cases of children being raised by animals are BS. Its difficult to tell if nearly any are genuine. Try something better than "Mowgli turned out OK."
A child being raised by wild animals doesnt show adaptability it shows derangement. A really stupid thing to say to be honest.

Stupid is someone unwilling or unable to take on new facts and information and adapt themselves to the situation. Not pointing any fingers at your post or anything, but...

A child raised in adverse conditions will be a very different person to one raised in ideal conditions. This is not up for dispute, although it may not suit some who feel more comfortable viewing people as meat machines of some sort.

98% nurture, 2% nature.

Doc Ruby

flutterflye wrote: »

To me, it really is as if someone were trying to dispute evolution - it is just there - whether you want to believe it or not - it just is!

No, its not.

The King of Moo

Handshake contests, deliberately keeping people waiting: this is why I could never work in business or politics. There's too many schoolyard pissing contests, and I could never bother getting involved in such childishishness.

It's strange that I only ever hear about male examples like the above. I wonder if women do the same things, or have equivalents.

Chuck Stone

Shryke wrote: »

Sorry thats nonsense about nature/nurture. Most cases of children being raised by animals are BS. Its difficult to tell if nearly any are genuine. Try something better than "Mowgli turned out OK."
A child being raised by wild animals doesnt show adaptability it shows derangement. A really stupid thing to say to be honest.

Privation damages developing children (demonstrable fact) and it is thought to be irreversible (loads of evidence).

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Stupid is someone unwilling or unable to take on new facts and information and adapt themselves to the situation. Not pointing any fingers at your post or anything, but...

A child raised in adverse conditions will be a very different person to one raised in ideal conditions. This is not up for dispute, although it may not suit some who feel more comfortable viewing people as meat machines of some sort.

98% nurture, 2% nature.

I don't see how you can make such a confident assertion on that. How do you account for the fact that adopted siblings are usually completely unalike? Or that twins separated at birth end up living uncannily similar lives? I would actually lean more towards genes than upbringing when it comes to determining personality ... the example of a child being raised by animals is a limit case, and doesn't really say much about the nature/nurture debate.

Doc Ruby

The King of Moo wrote: »

Handshake contests, deliberately keeping people waiting: this is why I could never work in business or politics. There's too many schoolyard pissing contests, and I could never bother getting involved in such childishishness.

Yes, because academia is a politics-free zone. :pac:

Here's my thinking on it. Its about dogs. A dog now, that's a 50-50 prospect. A dog will act like any other dog, storing food, forming packs, turning round in circles before settling down to sleep, choosing an alpha leader, its a fairly simple creature beyond what you train into it, which is the other half of the picture.

I reckon for a long time people have been looking at dogs and trying to overlay that behaviour on other people. The facts don't bear this out however. Lets look at the extremis - a person raised by wild animals or otherwise isolated from their fellow humans from a young age. No education, no language, no skills. That's 100% nature.

Compare this to the exact same person raised in a priveleged environment, educated in great universities, honed to a razor edge by the best. I'll tell you what, you need to make a deliberate decision to act like a dog in that case. And many people do exactly that, its a grand delusion.

Jimmyhologram wrote:

I don't see how you can make such a confident assertion on that. How do you account for the fact that adopted siblings are usually completely unalike? Or that twins separated at birth end up living uncannily similar lives? I would actually lean more towards genes than upbringing when it comes to determining personality ... the example of a child being raised by animals is a limit case, and doesn't really say much about the nature/nurture debate.

I never said nature was not a factor, but its a lot less of a factor than 50-50. I've never encountered any studies indicating twins live identical lives, can you provide a link? And non adopted siblings are very often completely unalike too! As for a corner case, these are what must be looked at to provide clarity in such debates. Normally its not good science, but here its precisely what proves the point.

The King of Moo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yes, because academia is a politics-free zone. :pac:

Here's my thinking on it. Its about dogs. A dog now, that's a 50-50 prospect. A dog will act like any other dog, storing food, forming packs, turning round in circles before settling down to sleep, choosing an alpha leader, its a fairly simple creature beyond what you train into it, which is the other half of the picture.

I reckon for a long time people have been looking at dogs and trying to overlay that behaviour on other people. The facts don't bear this out however. Lets look at the extremis - a person raised by wild animals or otherwise isolated from their fellow humans from a young age. No education, no language, no skills. That's 100% nature.

Compare this to the exact same person raised in a priveleged environment, educated in great universities, honed to a razor edge by the best. I'll tell you what, you need to make a deliberate decision to act like a dog in that case. And many people do exactly that, its a grand delusion.

*deliberately waits a few minutes to reply to assert dominance*

Good point, but it's a more subtle, genteel type of politics :pac:.

The dog comparison is interesting, as that's what I'm reminded when I see people like the contestants on The Apprentice so clearly trying to one-up each other. It reminds me of two dogs squaring off, trying to make themselves look tougher than the other.

There probably is some tiny kernel of that attitude buried deep down in most people's brains, but we've developed beyond the need to rely on it.
I think when people put on such overt displays of trying to look like the top dog, they must be consciously trying to act in such a manner, as what they're doing is so obvious.

Still, it doesn't really bother me. If it helps their business, then let them carry on. It just looks so ludicrous to me.

Doc Ruby

The King of Moo wrote: »

*deliberately waits a few minutes to reply to assert dominance*

Hahaha, I've neither time nor patience for such affectations. As one!

The King of Moo wrote: »

Good point, but it's a more subtle, genteel type of politics :pac:.

No less cut throat or schoolyard for all that though.

The King of Moo wrote: »

There probably is some tiny kernel of that attitude buried deep down in most people's brains, but we've developed beyond the need to rely on it.

This is my point though. I think our long relationship with dogs has been a two way street - this is learned behaviour, not built in.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I never said nature was not a factor, but its a lot less of a factor than 50-50. I've never encountered any studies indicating twins live identical lives, can you provide a link? And non adopted siblings are very often completely unalike too! As for a corner case, these are what must be looked at to provide clarity in such debates. Normally its not good science, but here its precisely what proves the point.

Ok, it's from an NY Times article by Steven Pinker, who's a pretty respected guy. His book the Blank Slate goes into this stuff in more detail.

"The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.” By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?pagewanted=all

Again, I don't agree that extreme cases provide clarity. You say a dog is 50/50, but I'm sure you could seriously mess with a dog's behaviour if you subjected it to particular conditions from birth, to the point where it would be a whimpering and rather un-dog-like mess.

The King of Moo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Hahaha, I've neither time nor patience for such affectations. As one!


No less cut throat or schoolyard for all that though.

Absolutely, it can be quite petty and vicious, and not something I really want to get involved with either!

Doc Ruby wrote: »

This is my point though. I think our long relationship with dogs has been a two way street - this is learned behaviour, not built in.

I think pop psychology has a lot to answer for as well as that: the idea that we're not too different from other animals. While that is true in a lot of ways, it gets overstated quite a lot, particularly in terms of male aggression and attempts to attract women, which people tend to over-simplify, saying we're basically just dogs in that regard.

So I do understand when people act in such a way to an extent, and we're all a little bit competitive in some ways, and seek approval at least a little bit.

But when people put on very obvious displays of asserting their dominance, like with handshakes or interrupting people, it just seems to me that the attempts are so obvious that it makes it look like they're not confident in their position at all, so I don't see why they don't do it more subtly.

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Ok, it's from an NY Times article by Steven Pinker, who's a pretty respected guy. His book the Blank Slate goes into this stuff in more detail.

"The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.” By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?pagewanted=all

What was that? Three quarters of the article was him talking about his Jewish heritage and general narcissism. Biological siblings? Half of my immediate my family are renowned and extremely wealthy engineers, architects, and doctors, the other half are in psychiatric care or dole dodgers. Yes, I have a large family.

A quick google for Steven Pinker gives us the following.

Steven Pinker's book is a comfort blanket for the smug

The factual errors in The Better Angels of Our Nature destroy Pinker's thesis, rendering it no more than a bedtime story

I may as well admit that I haven't read all of Steven Pinker's new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, but quite enough of it to see that the mixture is the same as in his previous bestsellers – a great piece of theatre in which half-truths do battle with straw men while the reader watches in safety, defended by barricades of apparent fact against any danger of actual thought.

And so on and et cetera...

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Again, I don't agree that extreme cases provide clarity. You say a dog is 50/50, but I'm sure you could seriously mess with a dog's behaviour if you subjected it to particular conditions from birth, to the point where it would be a whimpering and rather un-dog-like mess.

Lets be clear here, hard cases make for bad law, but science is not the law. Of course if you abuse an animal or person they will turn out badly, but that's injecting a new element into the equation. I'm talking about education, nurture, and the absence thereof, which must indicate nature.

Chuck Stone

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same.

Talk about 'nurturey' things to measure and claim they are decided by genetics!

How do you compare the intelligence of an Amazonian tribesman to that of a Japanese school child?

If you separate twins and had one grow up in a liberal-lefty atheist home in Norway and the other in a traditional Muslamic Saudi Arabian home there's no ****ing way they will have similar political and religious outlooks.

Jimmyhologram

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Talk about 'nurturey' things to measure and claim they are decided by genetics!

How do you compare the intelligence of an Amazonian tribesman to that of a Japanese school child?

If you separate twins and had one grow up in a liberal-lefty atheist home in Norway and the other in a traditional Muslamic Saudi Arabian home there's no ****ing way they will have similar political and religious outlooks.

You've misread the line you quote - it's not suggesting that "the outcome is the same" in the sense that it doesn't matter where you grow up. Of course it matters. But not by a margin of 98 per cent versus 2 per cent genetics, or anywhere near those figures. The overall argument is that genes count, and will affect personality and life outcomes, but that's obviously within the context of whatever kind of latitude is available in the society you're brought up in.

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

But not by a margin of 98 per cent versus 2 per cent genetics, or anywhere near those figures.

50:1 sounds about right to me.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

A quick google for Steven Pinker gives us

And your response is to cite the religion correspondent from the Guardian. Gotcha...

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

And your response is to cite the religion correspondent from the Guardian. Gotcha...

I didn't comb through the book to find mistakes. I just opened it at random a few times and looked for references to subjects I know something about. It wasn't hard. His range is wide. But the factual errors, although they destroy his thesis as a serious piece of history, point up its attractive weakness as a comfort blanket for the smug.

In his earlier works, Pinker was a great populariser of the just-so stories of evolutionary psychology; in this, he has moved on from prehistory to give an account of history, which is still stitched together from just-so stories, but this time illustrated with graphs, and lots of numbers. This kind of thing tends to impress arts graduates. But it's still just a bedtime story and the only serious conclusion to draw from Pinker's work is that a culture that regards him as a great intellectual is one already in serious crisis.

Can't see a whole lot of religion in there to be honest. And of course that was just the first result on google.

LH Pathe

Look.. yer not top dog unless you can bring the other guy to his knees. Like a bitch; and make him give and take it - of course to do this you'd have to be giving and taking it yoreself.. all the while dictating the giving and taking which is of course; the sign of a real man.

Pdfile

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That's how I finally got my classic rock forum.

and a pipe + rocking chair...


now go have a nap, nobody likes a cranky Bollocko :rolleyes:

Ellis Dee

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

---
For me I'd say the top dog is the person who gets the most compliance from everyone else in the group. The top dog can tell others in the group what to do more than anyone else in the group, they can dictate what's normal more than anyone else, for example they could wear unusual clothes and it will more likely be accepted rather than ridiculed.

Also, they usually IMO are the least socially anxious in the group, they are the least affected by the opinions of the others in the group. When they speak people listen more than anyone else.

What utter unadulterated poppycock! Especially the sentence "the top dog is the person ---"

A person is not a dog and a dog is not a human.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I would recommend that the author of the OP get out of Ireland and try living for a while in a modern society, where social hierarchies are no longer pronounced and people tend more to behave as a cooperative group rather than a squabbling pack of hounds. In addition, unusual clothes and things like that are accepted because there is a general air of tolerance, not because the person wearing them is, in a way, feared. Also, those who get listened to are usually more successful in their endeavours precisely because they are good at also listening to others. :)