In my psychiatric training, I felt the Freudian analysis that emotions are divided into id, comprised of ancient primate drives to dominate and the superego, representing the prohibitions of society was self-evident. Starting my career in a prison observing dominant-submissive relationships approaching the model of master and slave, I observed the extraordinary aptitude of a slave to suppress his id and read the mind of his master in order to remain obedient. It occurred to me that, during our 6 million hominid evolution, the bipolarity of superego and id was the result of the internalization into a single human mind of the formerly external dominance-submission relationships seen in primates.
I then become familiar with the theory of sexual selection that female birds could compete with each other for the ability to select traits in males (the peacock’s tail) and that this process could proceed rapidly. I have named this extraordinary phenomenon “selection inclusion.” I reasoned that, if selection inclusion could arise in one dimorphism (male and female) it could arise in another (dominance and submission). I noted that individual primates possessed the capacity to be either dominant or submissive with different individuals and thus this dimorphism consisted of flexible temperaments within individuals.
Then the following two scientific events plus a cluster of conjectures crystalized into the notion that a process of selection inclusion between dominance and submissive mentalities initiated the hominid family.
1) The demonstration that foxes could be rapidly domesticated by selectively mating animals who were not too aggressive and not too submissive.
2) The demonstration that the original founding social system of all eusocial insects (primarily ants, bees, and wasps) was invariably monogamous.
3) The suggestion that near equality of male-female size in 4.4M old Ardipithecus ramidus plus small canine teeth in males indicating diminished aggression both pointed to a monogamous social system. The suggestion that the energy squandered by male sexual competition was transformed into productive provisioning of offspring in monogamy could provide the reason for the sudden flowering of hominids in the face of the decline of apes. And finally the suggestion that the evolutionary mechanism of monogamy in Ardipithecus was sexual selection: those females who happened to choose and stick with less aggressive males who would provision them were simply more prolific.
The domestication of males by this processes of sexual selection then provided a ripe culture medium for the temperaments of dominance and submission to undergo their own process of selection inclusion resulting in the dominance mentalities of subgroups within groups to agglutinate together into a super-dominance entity with the function of enforcement and obedience to the rules required for the maintenance of a monogamous social system. Those subgroups that underwent such a process of selection inclusion of their now equalized dominance and submissive mentalities into the collective dominance and submission to justice again prevailed on account of their superior fecundity.