Lol I was thinking the same thing WW3 , though Faust is right, he is in fact being as compliant as he is showing dominance. He is wrong about this being a “thread-about-nothing”, it is about everything that underlies everything that goes on in this forum and in all other social interactions anywhere. In fact, it’s possibly the most philosophical thread on the forum. Feel free to laugh if you don’t get why this is.
It’s strange what happens in systems that man has set up: tools can be used to maintain positions of dominance without the bearer requiring much natural dominance at all. For other animals, tool usage is still at a minimum or non-existent, so they can’t interact with anyone on grounds much different than natural dominance. Humans can use the technologies that everyone is, by choice, embedded within to artificially control with much more precision from afar, with guns and other instruments of harm at the end to ensure it all stands up (more tools to sway things in favour of the system of tools).
So the question becomes whether or not these people who have earnt modern positions of power are the higher ranks now - regardless of their natural dominance. The appearance suggests that this distortion is now the case, though it explains a lot about contempt for authority on the grounds that it doesn’t seem deserved. Somehow it seems difficult to respect someone just because they have some powerful privileges, when they don’t come across as naturally powerful. I use the word “natural” in the sense that whilst tool manipulation is natural, the assertive force behind the tool manipulation doesn’t necessarily demand respect.
Perhaps it’s debatable whether the traditional and animal power structures, based on natural dominance, inspire more respect from the submissive. I’m inclined to think they do. Afterall, natural social situations cause ranks to emerge according to natural dominance and group members respect the most dominant male.
Cases of hatred or resentment toward dominant males emerge between natural social groups (not including artificial social situations), not within. The only exceptions might occur when a beta emerges as a challenge to the alpha, resulting in one of them losing, and also when middle ranks might be a dick with their rank, taking out their frustrations toward higher ranks on lower ranks.
In line with artificial social situations, I enjoyed your anecdote about Star Trek and games in general. It’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that you’re talking about a different thing.
In your example, Data’s forcing of a draw is an assertion of dominance, just not one powerful enough to result in achievement of dominance. He wasn’t just demonstrating the game, anyone who played it would be doing that whether they won, lost or drew even in a friendly match. The difference in Data’s case is his assertion of the most effective strategy available to him. Nobody won but then the game-dominance was established right from the start with Data’s knowledge of his superior.
So once again, like I said to WW3, dominance isn’t necessarily related to winning or losing a battle on limited grounds (e.g. game rules, philosophical debate), it can be implied by gestures separate to the game or philosophical argument. So whilst there may not be winning or losing in some philosophy, there can still be dominance and submission even in a philosophical “draw” or whatever you want to call it. A referee is like a moderator who is protected from competing in the same limited way as the teams or forum members. In these cases, all have to comply to their role just as the competitors or forum members have to comply to their’s - in order for a specific game/subject matter to be distinct from mundane life.
So philosophical proficiency and game results aren’t enough on their own to indicate alphaness in general. Alphaness is an all-round thing that isn’t restricted to games or specific subjects.