Serotonin, or 5-hydroxytryptamine, seems to be implicated in primate male dominance...

Such a huge difference between the experience of the 5-hydroxy and N,N-Dimethyl prefixes, but is it really all that different? It's easy to forget that serotonin is a tryptamine, as wiki says "Besides mammals, serotonin is found in all bilateral animals including worms and insects,[16] as well as in fungi and in plants.", but I think there's something really important in this that we've overlooked. It's really odd that a tryptamine plays a role in dominance patterns, perhaps the extra burden of authority requires broadened perspectives or more complex awareness. Anyways, thought this was interesting enough to post.

Is being dominant something "bad"?

You can be dominant in a loving way.

I believe the tone of these articles is more or less neutral.

From what i read here, the elevated serotonin levels are a consequence, rather than cause, of the established dominance. It also seems to be unclear what exactly causes this effect.

Serotonin is responsible for so many different functions. It regulates social as well as sexual behaviour.

It could help dampen agression, but as dominant men are generally speaking an object of desire for many women, it could also help to deal with this increased desireability. Either to boost or to inhibit sexual behaviour, so as to either cease the increased opporrunities, or to prevent harvey weinstein-type of behaviour.

Have you guys heard the theory that humans were originally not a dominator society when we had the proper diet? I think the theory goes that during this time a golden age of brain expansion, collaboration, expansion, peace, and art ensued. Also, orgies under the moon and dancing around the fire.

Then, the diet changed due to climate change. That lead to a deficiency and neural imbalance. The old primate serotonin dominance returned along with large egos, wars, murder, hate, fundamentalist religions, disconnection from nature (to the point of declaring parts of it illegal) and other types of neurosis. I mean we have gotten to the point of some humans thinking it was lawful to send kids to gas chambers, hating people they have never met, etc. If that is not mental insanity I don't know what is.

It's an interesting theory. Not sure how much is true. There is a nice podcast talking about it here (don't miss the modern example of the people who need to eat plantains to remain same):

https://psychedelicsalon...-at-historys-end-part-3/

No, it's not always something 'bad'. It's an important social structuring, particularly for primates and in humans male tribal patriarchy seems to be the default system which would revolve around male dominance. It's just interesting, to me at least, that serotonin is involved, either as a result or a cause.

Serotonin as a neurobiological messeneger is very very, very old. It goes back way further than primates, the serotonin system is used by insects, virtually all forms of life you are familiar with on a daily basis. It is older than mammals, even flowering plants, going back at least minimum 300 million years and more likely many hundreds of millions more. This is why Jordan Peterson is famous for the 'lobsters' because he uses the lobsters to illustrate this point. Lobsters neurobiological systems function on serotonin, as well as dopamine, the two are both equally old and go hand in hand.

Serotonin regulates the changing status or 'dominance' in lobsters, which in turn influences their mating behaviors, aggression, submission, appetite etc etc. It is a self-reinforcing mechanism that perpetuates the natural selection process, it is crucial neuro-biological player that regulates the selection of certain traits and genes which are to be passed on. Seeing just how crucial a role it plays, it's not surprising to see it exist in all forms of life we know, that play by the same game of evolutionary biology.

I've been reading this book: "A Primate's Memoir: A Neuroscientist's Unconventional Life Among the Baboons" It is interesting, about a neuroscientist studying the effects of stress in the social lives of baboons who live in small tribal 'troops'. It is very interesting, his study observes the baboons who are higher up in the social hierarchy or lower down, and studying the effect that has on their stress hormones, and biology. Serotonin levels are a given in this case, directly correlated. Lower on the hierarchy, consequently being poorly treated by other baboons, having to work harder for food, less likely to mate and produce offspring, etc. the biological correlation is that serotonin levels drop, and stress hormones sky rocket.
It is an interesting book, they are sometimes disturbingly brutal, and disturbingly human-like. Showing acts of rage and resentment to innocent bystanders when being unseated from the top of the hierarchy by another baboon, for example. Something we would certainly call 'evil' we might have only attributed to humans.

Of course, serotonin does a lot more than just that, this is a very simple explanation of one, albeit important factor. Dopamine on the other hand, is equally ancient and powerful in its influence, but is different from serotonin in that it regulates reward seeking behavior, among many other functions, including motor control. It is more associated with the 'motivating factor' to get from point A to point B. You could think of it the mechanism of actually getting to the point that serotonin lays out.

In more complex social animals, like primates, we still share this base system, while it is extraordinary sophisticated in comparison, the similarity and reasons why serotonin plays a huge role in our social behaviors is obvious.

Isn't it likely higher serotonin levels in the alpha monkey could be explained more simply by the fact they eat the best? More food, better food, higher levels of neurotransmitters. Obviously other factors are involved, more sex being another good example, but I certainly wouldn't discount the dietary factor.

@Loveall check out Tony Wright's Return to the Brain of Eden for a really good well supported background to that argument.

No, i don't think it's food related. Because it's so specifically about serotonin.
Alpha males have ofcourse, greater acces to food, but wouldn't you expect levels of all the neurotransmitters to be elevated because of that, or the type of neurotransmitter to vary with the amino acids present in the food?

Macaques are omnivorous apes. I don't know what type of food they prefer. But i think you could expect the alpha males to get the generally most prefered type of food. So that could mean fruit (because fruit is high in sugar), wich often increases serotonin. But it could also be fish or meat (because meat is high in fat and proteins), wich usually increases dopamine rather than serotonin. Because the presence of tyrosine (and food with a lot of proteins is usually rich in tyrosine) decreases the metabolisation of tryptophan.

Sex is the more likely explanation, i think. It would also better explain the difference between male and female macaques. For a female macaque, alpha status does not nessecarily mean more sex. For males, at least among apes and primates, it does.

I don't know how exactly serotonin regulates sex drive. You could speculate that it makes male macaques hornier, but in humans, SSRI's tend to decrease the male libido (and cause erectile dysfunction).
So it could also be, maybe, because alpha males have acces to a greater gene pool, that it makes the males pickier.

That book is currently on my nightstand 😅😂🤣

As dragonrider suggests, serotonin is a sexual inhibitor. SSRIs are actually a front line medication for premature ejaculation (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors increase serotonin levels in the brain - while the actual action of these drugs is unknown, it is believed that this is by blocking the brains ability to reabsorb serotonin). When mammals have an “orgasm” a large amount of serotonin is released, in this way it regulates sexual behaviour (you can think of it like a counter for wether you need sex)

Not only does serotonin inhibit sexuality, it also reduces aggression and “anxiety” - this has been demonstrated in humans and other mammals. This would indicate the exact opposite of what is implied, that serotonin instead functions in an “anti-alpha-male” capacity. What’s more, it has been demonstrated that humans and other mammals that have naturally higher levels of reabsorption of serotonin display significantly higher levels of aggressive behaviour. This leads to a reasonable hypothesis:

Mammals with high levels of serotonin reuptake in alpha-male communities are more likely to challenge for alpha-male status, however if they are successful the resultant increased sexual activity produces more serotonin in their brain which reduces their aggression, making them a more suitable leader for their community.

That sounds nice and simple, but contradictory to the research highlighted in the encyclopedia entry linked in the first post.

I’m not contradicting the research, I’m contradicting the implied hypothesis. The link is actually to an encyclopaedia of summaries of and links to academic papers published by the publisher of the encyclopaedia, which are behind a subscription paywall. Unfortunately this means I can’t read the complete hypothesis, hence me calling it implied.

There is a huge hole in the hypothesis that seems to be being put forward. If alpha-male characteristics are dependant on high levels of serotonin, then males successfully competing for alpha-male status should have elevated serotonin prior to gaining alpha status. Not only is this not evidenced, it is counter indicated by many studies!

High levels of serotonin correlate to less aggression in mammals.

High levels of natural serotonin reuptake correlates to higher levels of aggressive behaviour.

Male mammals that display higher levels of aggression are more likely to compete for dominant status.

You can do a quick internet search on these assertions and you’ll see I’m not just pulling this out of my arse, it’s backed up by a huge amount of research.

IMHO, Ania Ziomkiewicz-Wichary has made an awful mistake for a scientist to produce this implied hypothesis - equating correlation to causation.

My hypothesis might seem nice and neat, but that’s occam’s razor for you.

more neurotransmittors in general is more dominant. if you get more serotonin dopamine and ocytocin you can have a nice panel for male ( or female BTW ) dominance. but you do"'nt get the asshole touch of dopamine rich only. you got to be clever enough but also confident enough to be a good sort fo dominant. but IMO a good dominant is not afraid to leave some room or even if weeling to help others grow dominant if they show love and innerstanding. we grox together. more serotonin is also more secure. dopamine you feel confident but you may also be a bit aggressive or too "much" to poeple around. that isn't always very attractive.

Does anyone happen to have access to the full text of that springer link entry? Now I'm curious to read it. I checked through my institutions and none of them seem to have access to that particular text.

Edit: Thanks Trav!

There you go (often it's best to search for the DOI number).


Kind regards,

The Traveler

It's available for free via ResearchGate also.