Talk:Social dominance orientation

message: Sometimes a question is just structured to generate a predisposed response - any other response is viewed as "wrong".  SDO is an example of one such question that has been embraced by those with a 'socialist' agenda to the point that it has been recently been mislabeled a 'theory'.  The only responses to the study are those labeling the subjects of the 'study' as varying degrees of elitist 'conservatives'.  One participating within the SDO study can only hope to minimize their negative labeling within that system by generating socilistic answers or accept the 'SDO' or 'RWA' labels.  Those who embrace the SDO discussion are accordingly at least as narrow-minded as those they hope to exemplify as SDO or WRA.  The bottom line is that maturity in truth is not looking at the world through your perspective & assuming the world should fit within your shoes.  Truth is.   Mik Dunamo   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik Dunamo (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality template

message: (as I have no credentials or references for this induction):
Social dominance -- certain personality types (with certain things "wrong" with them) and a social variant priority in personality.
Interpersonal dominance -- the same certain personality types (usually, though possibly not completely) and a sexual variant priority in that personality.
This leads to a retrenchment "home"/castle (possibly territorial in general) dominance aligning with the self-preservational variant.
This would demonstrate why Social dominance and Interpersonal dominance do not fully align.  Some Socially dominant people will be sexual (interpersonal) last - thus will be socially dominant, with a negligible interpersonal dominance -, some interpersonally dominant individuals will be social last - thus will be interpersonally dominant, with a negligible social dominance -, some territorially dominant individuals (here, I'm thinking of the game Stronghold) will be varyingly interpersonally or socially secondarily dominant in orientation.
Depending on how various social dominance scales are created, they can be measuring these instinctual variant variables combined with the base personality variables, or variables predominant to the base personality, regardless of variant - thus the overlap. --Formerly the IP-address 24.22.227.53
I've just edited this page rather intensively to pare away the speculative secondary material and focus on SDO itself--with some supporting reference to SDT.  While the relationship of group-based to individual dominance is a fascinating subject in itself, the SDO scale--which I've added to the text to make it perfectly clear--has NO reference whatever to individual dominance.  Hence whatever correlations appear are just that--correlations--and not challenges to conceptual meaning of SDO.  SDO is what the SDO scale measures.  That's what the scale is for. A separate entry on theories of dominance would be the appropriate place for this discussion to bear fruit. Paul Rosenberg 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future research in re: Group-based or Individual Dominance? 

message: Would it be OK with everybody if we started the disputed paragraph with something like "According to (name), ...", which is how most of the other paragraphs start? The literal meaning of the paragraph actually sounds plausible, but the political code words imply an attitude to the left of most Democrats. It should be treated as a controversial Point Of View, regardless of how unanimously it may or may not represent modern social "science". So is there a specific person or study that this paragraph can be attributed to? Art LaPella 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with your view that much of this seems like anti-right bias, because to an extent you are correct.  For the record I am libertarian (neither left nor right).  I've removed the worst sentence, but as it illustrates the relationship between RWA and SDO very well, I will put it back once I have a good reference.  Ppe42 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Art LaPella 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: I have started the Social Dominance Theory article with the text of one of my essays from last year.  The text kinda sucks, so feel free to wade in there and start tidying it up!  :-)  Ppe42 02:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Social Dominance Theory]]

message: I moved this from the article: 2). The  Ray (1972a) Egalitarianism scale showed that people who rejected the notion of social equality were the better adjusted ones.  3). Surveys with the Ray (1972b) scale of politically deferential attitudes showed that it was REJECTION of social dominance that is deviant.  When I followed the reference for 1972b, it seemed like at best fewer people in the sample held one view, and the source just chose to express this in an inflammatory way. Will someone rephrase both of these statements to seem more clear and NPOV? Dan 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ray

message: I'm ignorant of this subject matter, but from my point of view, it looks like this material and the Social Dominance Theory material belong in a single article. What do y'all think? Cretog8 (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cretog8. I have a bit of background in this area and (four years later) I agree. I have set up the formal merge discussion. Feel free contribute over there. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with SDT? 

message: I'm interested in knowing some population statistics for this trait and whether or not it changes over time.  That would be a great addition to this article Greg Comlish (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population  Statistics 

message: In the section "Biology", the claim that "contemporary empirical studies have refuted the thesis that testosterone levels correlate with aggression" was supported by a link to a single study. Indeed, I find it very disingenuous to assert that this thesis has been "refuted" on the basis of a single study. Is this the only study ever to have investigated this? Surely this doesn't represent shoddy "scholarship" and bias on the part of Wikipedia, which everybody (unfortunately?) can use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezra Marcel (talk • contribs) 06:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: 1. Does wealth influence dominance vs prestige priority?
2. Does prestige prioritization stop people from perusing dominance?
3. Can equality and fairness be seen as a prestige trait?
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X19301836
* https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.181621
* https://ubc-emotionlab.ca/research-tools/dominance-prestige-scales/
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39223-0
* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01461672211042319
* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1002/per.2184
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794955/
* https://www.psy.lmu.de/pde/personen/wiss_ma/suessenbach/dopl/index.html
* https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-61115-003
* https://www.jstor.org/stable/43865622
* https://www.academia.edu/28089166/Dominance_and_Prestige_Dual_Strategies_for_Navigating_Social_Hierarchies
* https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-022-06072-6
* https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v120y2020icp539-550.html 183.179.53.41 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Dominance vs Prestige 

message: When I upgraded the following citation to include its DOI, wikipedia warned that the cite was from a self publishing site and might not have had any peer review.  I deleted the DOI after looking at the cited fact.   It did not appear on the face controversial but this needs to be evaluated by an expert in the field.  Here is the citation with the DOI.
* * 
J JMesserly (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self publishing warning on one citation