Serotonin And Social Dominance Hierarchies

[AnonE]

It's interesting to consider social outcomes between humans and what the correlation between success (physical, social, hierarchical, sexual, etc) might be with their neurochemistry and hormone levels.

An oft-repeated mainstream claim is that 'alpha males' or more dominant types receive more 'happy hormones' like serotonin. Obviously if you read Peat you suspect the opposite is true, or maybe everyone's misattributing this to dopamine or testosterone or some combination of things or something else entirely.

The serotonin = top of the ladder idea persists. There are clips online (which I can't link yet, new account) of the controversial but often insightful Jordan Peterson talking about lobsters, where he talks about dominance hierarchies and serotonin / SSRIs. The implication is that "winning" lobsters have higher levels of serotonin, and you can treat losing lobsters with anti-depressants and make them act more like the dominant lobsters.

But from the readings of Peat, wouldn't one expect the opposite? I.e. that losing lobsters / non-dominant organisms would have high levels of serotonin in order to make them "fall back" and recuperate, lick their wounds, hibernate, not expose themselves to further trouble, live to fight another day, etc.

So what is the actual correlation with serotonin and social hierarchical dominance? And if it's not serotonin getting bolstered by the winners of a given species' society, then what is it?

Edit - let's try posting the Peterson clip:

Edit - to be clear, I definitely agree with the general thrust of what he's saying. My confusion is from the specificity of the mechanism, i.e. serotonin.

 

[opethfeldt]

I don't think lobsters can be compared to human beings in this case. I can speak from experience that an increase in dopamine increases your social status. And why wouldn't it? Testosterone is closely associated with social status and so is cortisol. So a reduction in serotonin would increase dopamine, increase testosterone, reduce cortisol and thus make you behave in a more rational, authoritative way that would lead to you being perceived as higher status. Given that dopamine is known for making you feel better about yourself and more confident, it really makes sense.

 

[Fractality]

While it's fun to theorize about this, there is too much subjectivity involved. Personally, I find low serotonin and high dopamine elicits a feeling of contentedness which doesn't compel me to interact with the aim of dominating/outdoing others. In other words, I do not require outwards validation to feel good. However, that doesn't mean one cannot gain social status in that state. With high serotonin, I tend to feel easily annoyed and want to withdraw from others; so I'm not sure I would gain social dominance in that state. I think a high serotonin/estrogen/dopamine state can lend one towards a more dominating presence (think cocaine).

 

[opethfeldt]

There's some studies you can look up about this. Google "testosterone cortisol social status" and "serotonin social status" and you'll find some studies backing up what I experienced.

 

[lampofred]

Wanting to dominate people is estrogenic (like being on cocaine) and is reminiscent of a "mid-level" leader like a middle manager. Truly dominant people (think Bill Clinton, regardless of what you think about him politically, his charisma is off the charts) don't attempt to dominate anyone, but their extremely high energy levels just draw everyone to them like a magnet (low estrogen, low serotonin, low stress hormones, high testosterone, etc). Similar to how in high school as you go up the "popular" ladder, people tend to get douchier and douchier but once you get to the absolute top, it's a total 180 and the people up there are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

That's just my theory anyway.

 

[opethfeldt]

Wanting to dominate people is estrogenic (like being on cocaine) and is reminiscent of a "mid-level" leader like a middle manager. Truly dominant people (think Bill Clinton, regardless of what you think about him politically, his charisma is off the charts) don't attempt to dominate anyone, but their extremely high energy levels just draw everyone to them like a magnet (low estrogen, low serotonin, low stress hormones, high testosterone, etc). Similar to how in high school as you go up the "popular" ladder, people tend to get douchier and douchier but once you get to the absolute top, it's a total 180 and the people up there are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

That's just my theory anyway.

I agree. I think if you increased a dominant person's serotonin, their social status would be decreased because they would be trying to pick fights with everyone. Perhaps this is why with lobsters, serotonin increases social status, because being aggressive is probably more beneficial in that case. Total speculation, obviously. In human society, being aggressive and always trying to assert yourself over others gets you exiled usually. No one is going to want to follow a leader like that, because they seem unstable and overly reactive to stimuli.

 

[AnonE]

Wanting to dominate people is estrogenic (like being on cocaine) and is reminiscent of a "mid-level" leader like a middle manager. Truly dominant people (think Bill Clinton, regardless of what you think about him politically, his charisma is off the charts) don't attempt to dominate anyone, but their extremely high energy levels just draw everyone to them like a magnet (low estrogen, low serotonin, low stress hormones, high testosterone, etc). Similar to how in high school as you go up the "popular" ladder, people tend to get douchier and douchier but once you get to the absolute top, it's a total 180 and the people up there are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

That's just my theory anyway.

WOW.... that is a very insightful observation regarding the contrast at the very top vs. the mid-upper echelons. It certainly describes one of my business partners perfectly - shorter stockier guy who loves his stimulants and eating out (PUFAs), skipping sleep, using alcohol to slow down, and is just overall very unhinged, albeit dominant and overly aggressive.

Maybe that's a fairly natural pattern due to the stress of posturing and competing while climbing the ladder, then when you get to the top you get to 'calm down' a bit and just enjoy the neurological and hormonal benefits of being there =P

 

[Travis]

I think serotonin is more involved than dopamine. The motor muscles are heavily innervated with serotonergic neurons, stemming from the raphe nucleus. Also: Serotonin releases growth hormone from the pituitary: dopamine suppresses prolactin release from this gland.

But serotonin seems to under control of simply tryptophan intake and the kyneurenine pathway, I don't think that a high‐tryptophan intake guarantees anything. Serotonin seems to make people less inhibited; but there is a fine line between a 'dominant person,' a 'boor,' and a 'buffoon.' If people simply have material objects and dominance as their main priorities they will devote more time and energy towards these ends; if serotonin helps with this it could probably only be through reducing empathy and shocking people (but tryptophan and serotonin do increase muscle synthesis).

I think the neuropeptide system could be involved in mediating certain social 'hormonal' rewards. Our neuropiate system (i.e. enkephalins) work directly on our dopamine system, and exorphins can release prolactin (i.e. GEB5).

But I wouldn't stop at Pederson. He seems like a charming guy but his interest in religion bothers me a bit. I don't think a person can get a full understanding behind the 'biochemistry of dominance hierarchies' without reading Sapolsky, who despite his unkept appearance is a hard‐headed (not religious) primatologist (better than lobsters) who's been comparing blood samples of chimpanzees against their social position for decades:

Sapolsky, Robert M. "Cortisol concentrations and the social significance of rank instability among wild baboons." Psychoneuroendocrinology (1992)
Sapolsky, Robert M. "Are subordinates always stressed? A comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisol levels among primates." Hormones and behavior (2003)​

I don't see how brain serotonin can change much. This neurotransmitter seems directly linked to tryptophan intake, and even helps control hunger. The synthesis of dopamine seems to be more variable; tyrosine is found in greater abundance and dopamine can even be make from phenylalanine. And of course, the variability in the neuropeptides is large; these can range from zero—being nonessential—to alot, after certain activities.

The kyneurenine pathway is induced after immune stimulation: Gamma‐interferon has been shown to reduce plasma tryptophan by 50% while having no effect on any other amino acids. So not only is serotonin a symptom of high protein intake, it indicates that the person is not eating immunogenic foods or suffering from infection. So to be high in serotonin to begin with, a person has to be somewhat healthy and eating a decent diet. The prerequisites for dominance—if that's the game you'd like to play—might appear to be a paleo‐type diet with no grains or dairy (exorphins interfere with dopamine), or the best way to ensure high serotonin. And this is almost exactly what you see those types of people eating.

Histamine can be upregulated by an immunogenic diet, and this creates an angry mentality—the schizophrenic. I would be more scared of a person on histamine than a person on serotonin.

 

[YourUniverse]

Wanting to dominate people is estrogenic (like being on cocaine) and is reminiscent of a "mid-level" leader like a middle manager. Truly dominant people (think Bill Clinton, regardless of what you think about him politically, his charisma is off the charts) don't attempt to dominate anyone, but their extremely high energy levels just draw everyone to them like a magnet (low estrogen, low serotonin, low stress hormones, high testosterone, etc). Similar to how in high school as you go up the "popular" ladder, people tend to get douchier and douchier but once you get to the absolute top, it's a total 180 and the people up there are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

That's just my theory anyway.

I love this, think its so true from my experience

 

[Mukem]

Tryptophan improves executive function in humans.

 

[Insaneacinamide]

In that video at @2:10, Peterson says Lobsters are not very empathic or social lol.

There are no serotonin drugs that I recall on wada/olympia drug lists. Most of those drugs are hormones/stimulants/peptides/narcotics/cannabinoids etc. It's much more complex than just raising serotonin and becoming the most dominant lol.
List of drugs banned by WADA - Wikipedia


edit: random thoughts about Peterson... I don't know if he has ever been into a fight but he does not look like he trains for one. Nor I have heard him talk about being in any physical fight.
Though he talks about dominance type stuff a lot.
Seems like he uses a lot of intellect to to bypass the need to fight as he knows all the science behind why it happens.
Maybe being an authority on what makes people fight, using verbal skills to manipulate one to not want to fight him.
If more serotonin makes 1 dominant(he has admitted to using ssri's and pushes them), he lives in Canada where you can fight consensual or set up a legal fight. Let's see him fight someone. Enough with the talk buddy, let's see some action!

 

[LUH 3417]

It's interesting to consider social outcomes between humans and what the correlation between success (physical, social, hierarchical, sexual, etc) might be with their neurochemistry and hormone levels.

An oft-repeated mainstream claim is that 'alpha males' or more dominant types receive more 'happy hormones' like serotonin. Obviously if you read Peat you suspect the opposite is true, or maybe everyone's misattributing this to dopamine or testosterone or some combination of things or something else entirely.

The serotonin = top of the ladder idea persists. There are clips online (which I can't link yet, new account) of the controversial but often insightful Jordan Peterson talking about lobsters, where he talks about dominance hierarchies and serotonin / SSRIs. The implication is that "winning" lobsters have higher levels of serotonin, and you can treat losing lobsters with anti-depressants and make them act more like the dominant lobsters.

But from the readings of Peat, wouldn't one expect the opposite? I.e. that losing lobsters / non-dominant organisms would have high levels of serotonin in order to make them "fall back" and recuperate, lick their wounds, hibernate, not expose themselves to further trouble, live to fight another day, etc.

So what is the actual correlation with serotonin and social hierarchical dominance? And if it's not serotonin getting bolstered by the winners of a given species' society, then what is it?

Edit - let's try posting the Peterson clip:

Edit - to be clear, I definitely agree with the general thrust of what he's saying. My confusion is from the specificity of the mechanism, i.e. serotonin.

I'm not sure if this answers your question but look into someone eyes who has lots of dopamine and then look into someone's eyes who has lots of serotonin and see how you feel and what the difference is.

 

[AnonE]

I'm not sure if this answers your question but look into someone eyes who has lots of dopamine and then look into someone's eyes who has lots of serotonin and see how you feel and what the difference is.

What would one expect the difference to be? Anyway to use this as a "self diagnostic" to check your own status? I've been told at times my eyes can fluctuate between different intensities of brown to even a slight green-brown color.

 

[LUH 3417]

What would one expect the difference to be? Anyway to use this as a "self diagnostic" to check your own status? I've been told at times my eyes can fluctuate between different intensities of brown to even a slight green-brown color.

When someone's eyes are really shiny and their pupils are really big it's easier to get lost in that person's and eyes and fall in love with them (for me). When someone has small tiny dots for pupils and is looking it my eyes I find their eyes very vacant and they feel soulless to me.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

edit: random thoughts about Peterson... I don't know if he has ever been into a fight but he does not look like he trains for one. Nor I have heard him talk about being in any physical fight.
Though he talks about dominance type stuff a lot.
Seems like he uses a lot of intellect to to bypass the need to fight as he knows all the science behind why it happens.
Maybe being an authority on what makes people fight, using verbal skills to manipulate one to not want to fight him.
If more serotonin makes 1 dominant(he has admitted to using ssri's and pushes them), he lives in Canada where you can fight consensual or set up a legal fight. Let's see him fight someone. Enough with the talk buddy, let's see some action!

Lol! Peterson is a real life version of a keyboard jockey.
The stuff he says about every male coversation having violence behind it and other riduculous bs is such a joke. Firstly because he would never talk that way about women and secondly because he is a reedy weakling who sounds like kermit the frog

 

[member 6316]

When someone's eyes are really shiny and their pupils are really big it's easier to get lost in that person's and eyes and fall in love with them (for me). When someone has small tiny dots for pupils and is looking it my eyes I find their eyes very vacant and they feel soulless to me.

I know what you mean I have seen this also but I dont fall in love with them . are you saying people with high serotonin are gentle and people with high dopamine soulless ? If thats the case I completely agree with you -high dopamine people seem emotionless like they dont care about anyone ... thats why schizophrenia is caused by too much dopamine.

 

[LUH 3417]

I know what you mean I have seen this also but I dont fall in love with them . are you saying people with high serotonin are gentle and people with high dopamine soulless ? If thats the case I completely agree with you -high dopamine people seem emotionless like they dont care about anyone ... thats why schizophrenia is caused by too much dopamine.

Wait I thought high dopamine = large pupils? I just know when my cats pupils are small she looks aggressive and like she is plotting something but when her pupils are huge, she's being vulnerable and wants me to pet her. I also have two friends who have big pupils when I am around them and when we speak they're really engaged and interested in the conversation. Maybe you can't reduce two states (dilated or constricted pupils) to two feelings (loving or disinterested) but for me, huge pupils are expansive and make me feel like I can get lost in the depths of that person's soul. It's not a soulless nothingness, but a magnetic somethingness. the large pupil people I know do come off as sort of emotionless and schizophrenic sometimes, but they also write and paint. The two people I know who typically have tiny dots for pupils are emotionally volatile and aggressive in how they socialize with people.

 

[member 6316]

Wait I thought high dopamine = large pupils? I just know when my cats pupils are small she looks aggressive and like she is plotting something but when her pupils are huge, she's being vulnerable and wants me to pet her. I also have two friends who have big pupils when I am around them and when we speak they're really engaged and interested in the conversation. Maybe you can't reduce two states (dilated or constricted pupils) to two feelings (loving or disinterested) but for me, huge pupils are expansive and make me feel like I can get lost in the depths of that person's soul. It's not a soulless nothingness, but a magnetic somethingness. the large pupil people I know do come off as sort of emotionless and schizophrenic sometimes, but they also write and paint. The two people I know who typically have tiny dots for pupils are emotionally volatile and aggressive in how they socialize with people.

in my opinion its the opposite.

People with high serotonin look more friendly and you can trust them but people with high dopamine look evil to me.

High serotonin can cause you to be alert and more aware of your surroundings since its putting your amygdala in overdrive and thus your pupils get larger so you can see better (detect threats) .

But maybe we are both wrong. It could be caused by anything doesent have to be neurontransmitters.

 

[LUH 3417]

in my opinion its the opposite.

People with high serotonin look more friendly and you can trust them but people with high dopamine look evil to me.

High serotonin can cause you to be alert and more aware of your surroundings since its putting your amygdala in overdrive and thus your pupils get larger so you can see better (detect threats) .

But maybe we are both wrong. It could be caused by anything doesent have to be neurontransmitters.

Hmmm. How come your pupil gets really big on psychedelics (high dopamine state)

 

[member 6316]

Hmmm. How come your pupil gets really big on psychedelics (high dopamine state)

no idea maybe psychedelics increases serotonin too.