SSH in Animals
The SSH is more powerful than anyone imagines
Science will not only confirm the existence of the SSH one day, it is already discovering similar behavioral patterns and even physical similarities in laboratory animals.
A tacit assumption in laboratory animal research is that animals housed within the same cage or pen are phenotypically more similar than animals from different cages or pens, due to their shared housing environment. This assumption drives experimental design, randomization schemes, and statistical analysis plans, while neglecting social context.
Here, we examined whether a domain of social context—social dominance—accounted for more phenotypic variation in mice than cage-identity. First, we determined that cages of mice could be categorized into one of three dominance hierarchies with varying degrees of dominance behavior between cage-mates, and low levels of agonistic behavior in the home-cage. Most groups formed dynamic hierarchies with unclear ranks, contrasting with recent accounts of stable transitive hierarchies in groups of mice. Next, we measured some phenotypic traits, and found that social dominance (i.e. dominance hierarchy type and degree of dominance behavior) consistently accounted for some phenotypic variation in all outcome measures, while cage-identity accounted for phenotypic variation in some measures but virtually no variation in others.
These findings highlight the importance of considering biologically relevant factors, such as social dominance, in experimental designs and statistical plans….
Although scientists generally acknowledge that laboratory rodents display social dominance behaviors and may form social hierarchies, such knowledge is largely neglected in experimental design and statistical analysis. Here, we demonstrate that groups of mice often form dynamic dominance hierarchies with low levels of agonistic behavior. This finding contradicts the general assumption that mice often form stable (i.e. static) and transitive dominance hierarchies but supports early studies on social dominance in laboratory mice. We also demonstrate that in contrast to cage-identity, social dominance consistently accounts for a small proportion of variation in phenotype. If generally valid, this finding highlights the importance of considering sub-group structures related to social context that may exist within cages or groups of animals when designing an experiment.
Translation: what the scientists are saying in their obscurationist jargon is that the socially dominant mice from different populations were more similar to each other than to the mice with whom they shared a cage.
In other words, physiognomy is real, appearances are relevant to hierarchical status, and the SSH not only applies across cultures, but at least in a metaphorical sense, across species, genus, and class as well.
Of course. Empirical evidence always drags behind anecdotal evidence. One is observation noticed and one is observation noted.
To that end, the difference between "empathy" and "sympathy" can likely be relevant to animals. Ever since Vox said, females have no empathy, I have considered this notion with my dogs. It is well known amongst protection dog trainers that female dogs will family/people and male dogs will protect property. I have observed that my male dog will consistently observe potential threats and scan for outsiders. My female dog is only upset when I am upset. BUT she has learned to scan and even then she is mostly upset when my male is upset or she thinks someone else should be upset. My male Keys me into the landscape. My female reminds me vigilant when food/water is empty. And other things she notes as important. She demands attention when I pet the male. The male understands it's not his turn.
Of course, as a woman, this is potentially damning evidence that my male dog is more empathetic than I am capable of, but it does convince me that sympathy applied with a reasonably effective prediction of pattern recognition can be a decent substitute for empathy.
Anyone who has spent much time working with animals who form social groups is already aware of this, even if they don’t call it the SSH.
Look at Jack London’s stories about sled dogs. The SSH is there in both the dogs and the men.