The Alpha Male Monkey In The Sky

The phrase "the Alpha Male Monkey" may be the most useful new explanatory tool I've encountered in years. gave it to me in a recent LJ post about primate group psychology. It was an inspirational and motivational insight into the evolutionary biology of my psychology which has kept me up at night thinking of the implications. I wrote about it in this subsequent LJ post, but it occurred to me that this is valuable for explaining myself to bible-believing Christians.

We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:

Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"

Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."

Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"

Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."

Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"

Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:

It looks like this:

We're all equally at the top."

Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."

Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."

Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."

Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"

Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"

Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."

Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"

Me: *facepalm*

As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.

Comments

users on Nov. 24, 2006 7:55 PM

This is a very succinct and clear explanation for a concept I have heard referred to as "group concience"... the notion that the group, as a whole, is as smart, strong, and moral as the sum of its parts.

Many (myself included) believe that the reason this breaks down is the widespread nature of morality... What I consider to be acceptable with, for example, the age of consent is very different from the ideas of a Japanese person or someone from Thailand.

I think, however, that it works very well on the micro-level. If, in the second diagram, everyone depicted was everyone involved in a specific decision... then I think it works perfectly.

I think it would be fantastic if we could move to a moral structure along the lines of what you describe. I wish those that believed in the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky would realize that such a model leaves as much room for their beliefs as any others. And it just might improve their chances of learning a more rational sense of morality.

Ahh, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a million dollars and a pony too.

matt-arnold on Nov. 24, 2006 8:44 PM

I just updated the graphic. Tell me what you think now.

users on Nov. 24, 2006 8:51 PM

I literally laughed out loud! Fantastic!

matt-arnold on Nov. 24, 2006 9:12 PM

"the notion that the group, as a whole, is as smart, strong, and moral as the sum of its parts."

I'm not sure this is entirely true. I added the words to the graphic to illustrate a balance between the individual and the group. Society can set "rules of thumb" that say we generally shouldn't kill, cause pain, deprive of pleasure, or restrict freedom-- but everybody's different. Some of us want us to do these things to them, and "one size fits all" doesn't apply. The thing about reciprocal morality is that, even though we can still use rules of thumb as a stop-gap measure for our ignorance, we need to listen to the unique people in our lives and observe evidence about them individually.

users on Nov. 24, 2006 9:22 PM

I was unclear. My point in the initial statement was to express that the conept of "group concience" was inherently flawed due to the individual nature of morality. That's why I laughed at your edited graphic, it expressed that view very humorously.

I believe that, on a macro scale, the "web of morality" or "group concience" concept does not work. It might, however, work on the micro scale (as in my example above, when those depicted in the web diagram are, in total, those responsible for a _specific_ moral decision.)

rachelann1977 on Nov. 26, 2006 4:13 AM

I've been thinking about this, and I think there is a version of "Do no Harm" that works regardless of the size of the group. We don't need religion to give us this moral code, but we do need a legal system to enforce it, unfortunately.

the alternate version would be such that the legal system is intended solely to make sure that the fewest people are harmed as is possible while removing the fewest possible individual freedoms of those that do no harm to others.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 4:20 AM

Ahh, but now you're talking about something completely different. Now you're talking about a legal structure designed to enforce some degree of morality.

Laws don't change morality, they just enforce someone's morality. Just because I follow certain laws does not mean that I agree from a moral standpoint.

rachelann1977 on Nov. 26, 2006 2:16 PM

The point is, we don't need religion to be moral. Although the model may not work for every person in a society, because many of us still need an AMM to defer to, it can work for any individual that chooses.

Also, even if people do need an AMM, it doesn't have to come from religion. A common question to atheists is, "If you don't have {insert AMM here} to guide you, how can you be moral?" This model shows a way that any individual who chooses to can be moral without an AMM. It may not work for everyone, but it's a good model nonetheless.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 4:58 PM

Oh, no question... the AMM model is certainly unnecessary. More importantly, it doesn't even work very effectively. Ted Haggard is a brilliant example of how poorly enforced morality from on high actually works in practical life. It's far to easy to dismiss.

The argument, however, that the "group conciousness" or "web of morality" or "moral dogpile" is a good model, however, I do disagree with. It doesn't work on a grand scale. It works on the tribal scale... it works on the community scale... but it falls apart when the scale becomes too large and too many types of morals come into play.

rachelann1977 on Nov. 26, 2006 6:45 PM

Right, but it's not meant for groups, it's meant for the enlightened individual to grasp onto and say, "Aha! I don't need to play follow the leader to be moral!"

users on Nov. 26, 2006 6:47 PM

That web is a very large conglomeration of one person then :P

rachelann1977 on Nov. 26, 2006 6:52 PM

The web is every person that one person may interact with. If you don't show the web, you can't demonstrate the true complexity of the rule, "Harm None."

Here's the problem. If we all followed the rule, "Harm None," it WOULD work, but you just can't get everyone to follow that rule. So, we need a heirarchical structure for morality on a larger scale, that much is true. But it doesn't have to come from religion. All morality is not religion.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 6:59 PM

Aha, but now you've come full-circle back to my point:

Harm None does not work on a grand scale... what is harm? Who defines harm? On a macro scale, everyone has to agree what is and is not harm. On a micro scale, everyone INVOLVED must agree.

Let me give you a 'for instance':

I consider the age of consent to be 18. My 14 year old daugher considers it to be 14, as does her 22 year old boyfriend. What they do behind closed doors, to them, involves no "harm"... however, I disagree.

How about this:
I enjoy telling anti-semitic jokes. You enjoy hearing anti-semitic jokes. Matt is grossly offended by them. Me telling such jokes to you in front of Matt would clearly be "harm" to Matt... but what if instead of anti-semitic jokes, we substituted "jokes in Spanish", or "jokes in general" or anything else that is more dubiously harmful?

Harm None only works if everyone involved can agree on what is or is not harmful, on the macro scale, and if you just observe it on the personal scale... well, that is anti-social at best, and the stuff of serial killers at worst.

rachelann1977 on Nov. 26, 2006 7:09 PM

True, the rule is much more complicated than just that simple statement.

As I've stated, I agree with you that it requires enforcement on a larger scale. That's what government is for.

Those of us who understand morality a little better can use our hard earned common sense to define harm, but I know that not everyone is capable of that.

For me, in order to define harm in a way that I know will keep my from doing immoral acts, I use a fairly broad definition. So far in my life, I have managed to do very little harm to anyone.

So, the point is, with a good head on your shoulders, and a decent heart, any individual can be moral without religion (to beat the dead horse one last time).

And, on the grand scale, we don't expect everyone to be moral, so we have laws. Do we need religion there, just to have an AMM? I don't think so. Religion uses the AMM structure, but that structure does not automatically imply religion.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 7:13 PM

Umm, I don't think we're discussing the same thing... looking back, I don't know that we ever were.. :)

rachelann1977 on Nov. 26, 2006 7:41 PM

I think you're right, lol. It's cool. But hey, we got the number of comments up to 41 now! I wonder how many comments are required before this entry takes over a minute to load, even on the best computer?

users on Nov. 26, 2006 7:42 PM

I think LJ busts the comments up onto multiple pages at 100 comments, give or take...

matt-arnold on Nov. 26, 2006 7:15 PM

"Harm none" should be thought of as an over-arching value, not a rule. I don't think anybody here has suggested all we need are those two words and we're set for life. We can agree on it as a way of distinguishing right from wrong, and by doing so we've done some groundwork and made some progress. "Value the absence of harm (whatever it may be) over the causing of harm (whatever it may be)" is still worthwhile to say, even though we've got our work cut out for us disagreeing about what's harm and a lot of other details.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 7:20 PM

Fair enough. I guess I just subscribe more to a "least harm" philosophy. I recognize that, for the most part, what I consider harm wouldn't necessarily be agreed with by everyone else, so I try to not WILLFULLY harm others, and I try to inflict the least harm possible.

I'm also all for people having their AMM dictate their morality. Whatever it takes for a species that is inherent self-serviing to occasionally act in service of others in a non-compulsory fashion is ducky for me. If my invisible friend tells me to be nice, and I'm willing to listen to him, coolness.

metalfatigue on Nov. 26, 2006 8:12 PM

So David Berkowitz (a.k.a. "Son of Sam") was acting in accordance with the highest moral dictates, then? I mean, he did exactly what his dog told him to do.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 8:17 PM

There is a highest moral dictate? Do tell...

metalfatigue on Nov. 27, 2006 4:38 AM

I'm also all for people having their AMM dictate their morality…. If my invisible friend tells me to be nice, and I'm willing to listen to him, coolness.

See, that's the problem with encouraging people to listen to the voices. No telling what they'll say.

dbvanhorn on Nov. 25, 2006 6:41 AM

My experience of committees is that they are less intelligent as a group than the least intelligent member.

And I think that's largely true of us as a species.

users on Nov. 26, 2006 6:08 PM

Sadly, that seems true...

phecda on Nov. 24, 2006 10:11 PM

(Points at RA Wilson's "Prometheus Rising").

In emergency situations, it actually helps to have a top down command structure, because there isn't time to discuss things democratically. So, the alpha monkey structure makes sense in those circumstances. And since primates following that structure have a better chance of surviving a crisis, you can see how this would become part of the biological wiring.
Where the trick comes into play is to become a general purpose human, who can easily shift paradigms from a command structure (both giving and receiving orders) to a democratic egalitarian structure as the circumstances dictate.

Also, (somewhat metaphorically, and possibly in reality) some people more resemble Chimpanzees and some people more resemble Bonobos. Not much difference genetically, but how the whole heirarchial society is designed and interacts is very different.

matt-arnold on Nov. 25, 2006 12:15 AM

But toward what end do we adopt an alpha monkey structure? There is one end for that structure: to serve the good of the leaders at the expense of the rank-and-file. I think the Bush administration is giving us quite a demonstration of the creation of a sense of crisis in order to establish a top down command structure. I don't trust it.

Look at Katrina. The class of people you might call The Protective Caste failed dramatically, and kept telling people to sit tight and not take matters into their own hands. The success stories all involved somebody stealing a bus and getting people out on their own initiative. In a crisis, there needs to be flexible, redundant empowerment, as a flattened pyramid, in order for infrastructure to break down gracefully.

phecda on Nov. 25, 2006 1:36 AM

Please don't use the Bush administration when conjuring examples of leadership.

No, there are situations when you are in crisis situations where decisions need to be made quickly and efficiently. There is no time for democracy when you are under fire, being attacked by a large predator, running away from a forest fire or other natural disaster.

In situations like these, a leader may be right or wrong, but he or she can never be indecisive. If you are right, then both you and your charges get to survive. And thus the evolutionary impetus to the adoption of a heirarchy. The leader knows what to do. The leaders lieutenants know what to do, and the remaining pack/tribe knows what to do. In the case of a group of people who do not know each other being thrust together in a crisis, there will be some brief jockeying for control as the alpha, and then people will fall into following roles. Eventually there may be disputes for leadership, but that's what happens in the human heirarchy.

Additionally, I'm speaking of small groups -- tribe size -- not an organization the size of the US government. In the case of Katrina and New Orleans, there were people and groups that attempted to take leadership roles, and when their organization levels threatened the control of local police and FEMA, they were put down. There was actually a convention of emergency response workers (paramedics, etc.) in N.O. when Katrina hit. They started organizing and trying to do the best for the people in their groups, and after building a set of temporary shelters on top of a freeway, they were forcibly dispersed by the National Guard. Something to think about should anything of similar magnitude affect you. So in that respect, you are absolutely correct. The Brown led version of FEMA failed miserably.

But simply said, in emergency situations, things happen too quickly for a democratic discussion to occur. Certainly, if there is a sufficient level of trust and experience working together, you can expect people to work independently with an understanding of how they should deploy. And there will be plenty of time to armchair quarterback after the crisis. And that analysis should assist in making the next crisis run smoother.

But just expecting untrained and inexperienced people to converge into a coherent response in a crisis at a moments notice is naive at best and most likely doomed to failure.

phecda on Nov. 25, 2006 1:57 AM

Of course, there's other evolutionary aspects to the whole alpha dominance thing. The major one is breeding rights. The alpha male pull together a harem and is able to reproduce with females at his discretion (and if you don't think this applies to humans, you haven't paid close enough attention.) Where non-alpha males get the advantage is if the alpha male is so occupied with maintaining order, that the non-alpha males can start breeding with the females. So being attentive and considerate are also successful breeding traits. (Besides being dominate and protective).

paranthropus on Nov. 24, 2006 11:49 PM

I love the diagram! This is a great line of inquiry, and I am glad to have helped light that fuse. Sometimes I am afraid that I sound a bit harsh in the process... curse these darn interwebs! If I did, I apologize.

Why do many Christians say that atheists "are their own god", or some such thing? This has always puzzled me. The "Alpha Male Monkey in the Sky" model could provide an explanation.

rachelann1977 on Nov. 24, 2006 11:56 PM

I love this! However, I'm not a huge fan of "do unto others...." as it tends to break down for me and reminds me too much of religious stuff.

I like the harm none rule best. If you make it one of your primary goals to never do more harm than good to any individual or group, and, if possible, to do no harm at all, I'd say that's the epitome of strong morality.

matt-arnold on Nov. 25, 2006 12:09 AM

I would agree. "Do unto others as they would do unto you" is only good so far as it levels the playing field and establishes mutuality.

You've got to grant others self-determination if you want to have self-determination. So, the Golden Rule breaks down as stated by Jesus of Nazareth, as it is understood by authoritarians. They don't want individualistic self-determination and are happy to over-rule that of others. The way I would restate the Golden Rule is, "Empower others to control their own lives, or else don't be so silly as to ask for it yourself." Most immoral actions are in violation of that.

All in all, the Wiccan Rede ("An' it harm none, do as ye will") is a superior guideline. Where do we have sovereignty to swing our fists? Anywhere we like, so long as it stops short of someone's nose.

rachelann1977 on Nov. 25, 2006 12:11 AM

exactly :-)

phecda on Nov. 25, 2006 1:48 AM

Or to restate in Crowleyian terms: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will." Although, I prefer the wiccan rede -- it's a bit more forthright and plain.

metalfatigue on Nov. 25, 2006 8:45 AM

Well, Crowley's maxim assumes that one is able to align one's Will with Universal Will. The obstacle to that is ego. Crowley's version would work just fine for a boddhisattva; it didn't work for Crowley, who was by many accounts pretty free about fists and noses.

matt-arnold on Nov. 25, 2006 1:21 PM

Yeah, Crowley's formulation sucks big time. I've never liked it at all.

metalfatigue on Nov. 25, 2006 9:22 AM

The first "Will" in my earlier response should've been a mere "will." Oops.

tlatoani on Nov. 26, 2006 4:07 PM

Crowley, as I understand it, wasn't attempting to restate the Wiccan principle. He was stating his own operating principle, which deliberately removed the bit about not harming others.

metalfatigue on Nov. 26, 2006 8:06 PM — Thelemite ethics

It would've been fascinating if Aleister Crowley had managed to restate the "Wiccan Rede" in 1904, since Gerald Gardner didn't invent Wicca until 1939.

People usually omit the second sentence and cite just the first, which is exactly backwards. "Love is the law, love under will" is the more significant part; "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," if read in context and according to Crowley's commentaries, are admonitions that each person has to interpret his or her own morality, rather than receiving it from others—including Crowley.

Stripped of its ceremonial vestments, this is just Intuitionism: each person relies on his or her own clear judgment of right and wrong, and no one can tell anyone else what is right for them. Anyone who takes "Do what thou wilt" as license to act without thoroughly contemplating their own moral intuition is acting immorally.

Intuitionism has some pretty severe and obvious problems. It's at its least effective when applied by Ceremonial Magickers, Thelemite or otherwise, who go to great lengths to disengage their own common sense and disorient themselves to the mundane world. Nonetheless, "Do what thou wilt" is not at all the same as "Do whatever you feel like."

dbvanhorn on Nov. 25, 2006 6:45 AM

I think you've defined why we keep creating gods. :)

Reminds me strongly of Shermer's "Why people believe wierd things."

metalfatigue on Nov. 25, 2006 9:20 AM

First of all, nice graphics! They get the point across quite well.

That said, I think you're headed in the wrong direction and haven't done your homework to boot.

Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws…. [I]f somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong.

You have failed to define a standard of what is reasonable to assert as a moral prerogative, and what is not. In other words, you have allowed everyone to choose the length of their own nose; and some will poke it into others' business, and (quite accurately) claim as their justification that they would be perfectly happy if everyone followed the same rules with regard to them that they are following with regard to everyone else. I suspect that that's not what you want.

Your web of morality appears to me to be a restatement of the conclusion of Social Contract theory without any of its premises, mixed with a largely unexplored Rule Utilitarianism. This is a common starting point for naïve theories of ethics, but there are a lot of reasons why philosophers since Hobbes and Mill have felt it necessary to come up with alternative theories—for instance, the failure of distributive justice in Utilitarianism.

Finally, while you're doing a bang-up job deconstructing the Divine Command theory, you really need to read St. Thomas Aquinas before you scrape your ankles on your teeth. Not every theistic ethicist is a fundamentalist; a modern Natural Law theorist will smile and noddynod while you go on about evolutionary psychology, and then use it to prove exactly the opposite of your thesis.

matt-arnold on Nov. 25, 2006 1:20 PM

I know I left out a lot that was needed; that's because I deliberately did not even start defining a moral system very thoroughly in this dialogue, to say nothing of defending it. I couldn't bother getting on to that when the Bible Believer can't even understand the first thing I said. My point was to show that no matter what you present, you lose by definition, because to the typical bible believer on the street, obedience to perfect command is morality by definition. I could have substituted pretty much anybody for the "Me:" side of the dialogue.

metalfatigue on Nov. 26, 2006 1:57 AM

I deliberately did not even start defining a moral system very thoroughly in this dialogue, to say nothing of defending it. I couldn't bother getting on to that when the Bible Believer can't even understand the first thing I said…. [T]o the typical bible believer on the street, obedience to perfect command is morality by definition.

Fair enough. And I absolutely know where you're coming from with that; I've had the same experience. When you run into an atypical Bible Believer, though, you're going to need more ammo—especially since those are the ones you might actually have a chance of convincing, if you don't just dismiss them as monkey-minded morons.

treebones on Nov. 25, 2006 5:13 PM

*blinks*

*nods slowly*

Right. Using your nomenclature, I'm in the odd position of being someone often tapped as Alpha Male Monkey. Simultaneously, I dislike seeing people use the Alpha Male Monkey method for decision-making. So, for quite some time, I went out of my way to avoid reliably AMMing for people. I couldn't make them not do it at all, but, as a general rule, people tend to want their AMM to be reliably present; it makes them feel more secure.

But a problem I keep coming back to is this: if I don't AMM for the people around me with a strong case of this biological wiring, someone else will. Even if the individual doesn't intend to be subjugated, people often just drift into it. This wouldn't actually bother me, except for the fact that a lot of AMMs don't seem to care about their people much, if at all.

I believe, though I may be wrong, that many, if not most, natural AMMs use that AMM status to perpetuate AMM hierarchy behavior. They use their power to tighten their hold over their people.

Now, to be fair, there are a fair number of AMMs who do this by making their betas more comfortable in one way or another. But even when they do, they give it in a way which decreases the drive to autonomy of the other person, a "feel good and don't question" approach. And, many AMMs reliably demonstrate a callous disregard of the best interests of their subordinates; they exercise the power without even using the metaphorical velvet glove.

One of my core leadership tenets is, "take care of your people". One of my strong secondary tenets is, "encourage people to learn and grow in their own strength". So, by abdicating my AMM status, it is arguable, by my personal rules, I'm performing an immoral act, since I'm greatly increasing the risk that the people who would have looked to me for guidance will end up guided by someone much less concerned for their welfare, and who will weaken their sense of autonomy.

However, I'm still working through the ethical and/or moral implications of using my personal AMM toolkit in the hopes of creating movements that create countercurrents to the AMM wiring. I'm almost certainly going to do it, but the cognitive dissonance involved makes me woogy.

Of course, I may have deluded myself into believing I'm more benevolent than the other AMMs out there, and I've got to keep an eye on that, too. Many of them truly *believe* their acting in the best interests of their people, after all...

rachelann1977 on Nov. 25, 2006 6:43 PM

I thoroughly approve of and agree with the idea that you should use your "AMM-ness" the way you have been doing.

It is hard-wired in us to follow leaders, and only a very small percentage of individuals are capable of recognizing when they are being followers in order that they may try to not be led astray, and instead follow their own conscience. Did that make any sense?

You, and Matt also, are examples of individuals who feel compelled to use that AMM nature to lead people into a place where they can hopefully think for themselves a little bit more. I find this an admirable goal, and can only say, keep up the good work! :-)

Anonymous on Nov. 25, 2006 7:10 PM

It is hard-wired in us to follow leaders, and only a very small percentage of individuals are capable of recognizing when they are being followers in order that they may try to not be led astray, and instead follow their own conscience. Did that make any sense?

It makes sense. I've got enough of the follower wiring myself to have had to develop a lot of tools for identifying when signals are going up that wire, analyzing the results, and figuring out when I don't like them and thus must go against them. It's a pain in the butt and takes up time. Despite that, I'm just damn lucky (and glad) that my personality type and mental toolkit make a higher percentage of my personal wiring accessible to me.

metalfatigue on Nov. 26, 2006 1:58 AM

I'm in the odd position of being someone often tapped as Alpha Male Monkey.

Thou art God.