Control freaks vs brutality

After being beaten with the stick of morality, I've created this thread from the ashy remains of the other:

I'm amazed by the modern success of certain types of humans that would seem to not fare well in terms of natural or sexual selection in a more primitive time like, say, the hunting-gathering or subsistence-farming period. We have all encountered control-freaks, and some of us may be one ourselves. They appear often to be surprisingly successful now, but what was this type's outlook in more primitive times? A human's ability to get along with the rest of its group was generally a large factor in both its survival and reproductive success. Any educated or uneducated opinions regarding what their outlook was in older times when survival was not guaranteed? What about their place in the hierarchy of the (relatively small) social group? What about their likely relationships with various other specific human types? What about their reproductive success? What about all that extra energy that they use?

The "control freaks" of old probably; determined acceptable social practices through their intensity or were weeded out by more powerful control freaks.

I don't see why a desire to control your surroundings and those you interact with would be seen as a poor guaranteur of survival. "Control Freaks" run the world today as they did in the past, in one way or another. I like to think of myself as an attempted control freak who is trying to distance himself from his docile malleability. To be the master of men and women helps you survive on a more comfortable level than others. Listen and compromise only when it helps you become more powerful and more controlling.

There is a large difference between a control freak who wants you to do everything the way they say because its their way, and those who actually lead people.

The former I dispise, they are protected now by the restrictions of society from dealing with the repercussions of those they boss around.

Crazed Rabbit

Depends who they were in the pecking order. Being a control freak may have got them access to more resources and hence more mates.

If they have the ability to match their desires then they would be more successful then those who had the ability but no desires.

Testosterone has a lot of things that make for a control freak. A lot of control freaks are those trying to stabilise what they see as an uncertain world... something that would be far more accurate in times of old when things were certainly less stable.

At a primitive level a male who has a herd would be described in modern terms as a control freak... but he ends up with far more progeny in the future.

Interseting. heh. Oh man. The buzz from the bacardi is seeting in. I was gonna comment. But screw it. I am going to stay outta here for the rest of the night.

MTWVI just finished reinstall. soorry for the off topic. I really wanted to comment, but I ggot a little buzz that just rocked me.

Okat. what was the question? control freaks, right.

uhm.... who cares. Wjat like bullies? Or guys with little dicks trying to comepnsate? I dont get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Depends who they were in the pecking order. Being a control freak may have got them access to more resources and hence more mates.

If they have the ability to match their desires then they would be more successful then those who had the ability but no desires.

Testosterone has a lot of things that make for a control freak. A lot of control freaks are those trying to stabilise what they see as an uncertain world... something that would be far more accurate in times of old when things were certainly less stable.

At a primitive level a male who has a herd would be described in modern terms as a control freak... but he ends up with far more progeny in the future.

---

As for your last point, the alpha male in a group would actually tend to spend alot of his time relaxing with females while others spent energy competing amongst themselves. Is this really compatible with the behavior we observe in most control-freaks today?

I think you're possibly on to something in that a high level of testosterone may have something to do with someone being a control-freak, but in the end I think its a psychological product, a defensive one.

The following is especially interesting because you're giving a positive application of their special trait that would make them valuable to a group and very likely a leader:

"A lot of control freaks are those trying to stabilise what they see as an uncertain world... something that would be far more accurate in times of old when things were certainly less stable."

I think you skirt over the fact that control-freaks mainly command with the intention of domination. Do they also really order the world around them in a generally useful way?

Good arguments but something just doesn't sit well. I am doubtful that the alpha-level dominance of yesterday manifests itself today mainly as the control-freak. If anything I'd say control-freaks come from beta-level dominance... which is (to my disliking) still an achievement.

Actually I think control freaks are often uncertain persons who are afraid of others and need to feel they have power over them and can control them in order to not be afraid. However their desperate search for power can make them hurt so many so much that the little control the power can give isn't worth the damage their search for it does, and they end up being disliked by all. If they succeed in getting power they often calm down a bit if they get safer, but often they stepped on so many on their way to the power that they're still hated so much they'll never feel safe, thus remaining semi-evil and disliked when in power. The interesting question from an evolutionary point of view is - why do people get these search for power instincts when they feel insecure? I'd guess it's more phenotype than genotype to be honest. Many movies, books and other stuff often make the main characters as powerful people, and holding power is often lifted up as an ideal, often romanticized to something it in reality isn't. And the confusion of organizational powers and status/rank, which is also phenotype (caused by culture), completes the chaos. The only really natural existing instincts for "power" lie in getting high status/rank, but most status/rank fights are pretty civilized, for example without too much backstabbing and follows a pretty rigid "honor code" to ensure a pure fight for rank and sexual rights doesn't turn into a bloody battle for survival rights, which could destroy the entire flock. Remember that a pure survival fight means there's a conflict where both sides think the death of the other is necessary for their own survival, thus those fights are really dangerous and must be avoided at all costs, and typically would only occur during starvation and similar. While the rank fights are necessary to have to determine couplings, they mustn't develop into pure survival fights to the death. Of course there are borderline cases and there are certain animal species that more often than others tend to kill each others in rank fights, but the rank fights also do contain some form of "honor code" and often a possibility to surrender without too much harm if only you disgrace yourself enough to mark that you're the loser and lost your status/rank to the other part. So I think that control freaks are in many ways more of a cultural than genetical creation. By the way there are also indications that for many species the rank/status fights have become obsolete due to better partner choice mechanisms. Actually mating with the strongest can be less effective than mating with the one that has the best genetical match, so that if you choose "the right one" you get a stronger offspring than if you choose the strongest. Many species seem to have a combination of both. This explains why women can still have a tendency to choose "weak" men even if the development I spoke of in the other thread haven't gone that far yet (which makes it very complicated to predict how far it has gone).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

There is a large difference between a control freak who wants you to do everything the way they say because its their way, and those who actually lead people.

The former I dispise, they are protected now by the restrictions of society from dealing with the repercussions of those they boss around.

Crazed Rabbit

---

So true : ( ... As they make their criminal laws where they like ...