} high social status becomes correlated with strength is obvious, but why
} can't we have strong *and* smart alpha males? As it is now, intelligence
} individuals into the shaman direction (perhaps because that is a safe
Who says we don't? My local pack had two ringleaders, a big guy and a
little guy. The latter was rather smarter, and was also at least
slightly more dominant. But his smarts were in how to manipulate people;
mine were in books and science. What you're missing is the *type* of
intelligence. Magical knowledge can turn one into a witch or shaman, to
be burned or respected. People knowledge puts you on top more reliably
than beating people up.
The L.A. Times had an article on one of the founders of either the
Bloods or the Crips, LA's two big gangs, who is on death row and is
reformed and putting out children's books saying "don't follow me".
There was a picture; he's a big man. But the journalist wrote of
surprise at the leader's apparent focus and intelligence. My response
was 'duh'.
Charlemagne could barely read or write his name. Anyone want to
challenge his intelligence, at least in areas relevant to ruling?
} different are mistrusted has been true for all of history, but since when
} are smart people seen as different? I wonder if this isn't a very recent
Sorcery is rather old, as far as anthropologists can tell. Closer to
home, smart women were pretty 'different' in Europe for a while.
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"Food is much cheaper in Hong Kong than in Japan--
primarily because Hong Kong has almost no farmers."
-- World Bank report, on the political clout of farmers