<p>It seems Maté simply misread the research that he cited. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16492189_Social_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Blood_Serotonin_Concentrations_in_Monkeys" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The study on this</a>, from 1984, says that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Dominant male adult vervet monkeys have whole-blood serotonin concentrations approximately twice those of subordinate adult males. </p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-15T14:48:27.917Z
Thanks for your answer. However, one study opposing an idea is no convincing evidence that something is 'wrong' or not. In such cases it's often about methodical differences, interpretation differences or environmental differences that may affect outcomes. In other words, could you explain why you favor your cited study instead of the one in the question opposing that idea? As of now it's more of a comment; a pointer for OP for further reading instead of an answer.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-15T18:40:26.553Z
I agree that one study opposing an idea is no convincing evidence that something is wrong, but that doesn't apply here because this seems more of a case of Maté (who was not involved in the primate study, and is simply citing it) simply incorrectly parsing what the research actually said; not him arguing one side of position. Additionally, there doesn't actually seem to be any studies that show the opposite, i.e. no one has actually disputed the finding in the 1984 study, e.g. that dominant monkeys have *more*, not *less* serotonin.
xdavidliu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-15T14:38:24.107Z
2017-09-15T18:41:11.213Z
2017-09-15T18:41:11.213Z
xdavidliu
<p>On page 242 of <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0679763996" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Moral Animal</a>, Robert Wright states that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In vervet monkey societies, dominant males have more of the neurotransmitter serotonin than do their subordinates. And one study found that in college fraternities, officers, on average, have more serotonin than do their less powerful fraternity brothers.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, on page 82 of a different book, <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0452279631" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Scattered: How ADD Originates and What You Can Do About It</a>, Gabor Maté states that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In troops of monkeys, the dominant, most successfully aggressive males have been found to have less serotonin than others. This would seem to prove that low serotonin levels cause aggression. However, the serotonin levels drop only <em>after</em> these males achieve dominant status. So while the relative lack of serotonin may help to <em>maintain</em> the dominant male's aggressive capacities, it could not have <em>caused</em> them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It seems that Wright (a journalist) is making the complete opposite interpretation of the primate research that Maté (a physician) is, and there doesn't seem to be any subtlety in the context that alleviates the seemingly glaring contradiction, so I'm assuming that one of these two simply misunderstood the research. Who is correct?</p>

<p>(to be clear, both of these people are citing research that others have done, not making claims based on their own research)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-19T06:51:41.893Z
low serotonin levels are linked with depression and low self-esteem, which does not fit with the dominant profile.
DesignerAnalyst
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-20T15:19:19.447Z
yes; see the answer below. This is simply a case of a single author misinterpreting a piece of generally accepted research, not an actual disputing of an idea. To be fair, Maté was simply making a tangential point about serotonin in a book written about ADHD. This mistake he made (in my opinion most likely a simple misreading error) does not greatly detract from the main arguments he makes about ADHD in the book.
xdavidliu
<neuroscience><aggression><serotonin>
are serotonin levels higher or lower in dominant vs. non-dominant primates and humans?
xdavidliu
# are serotonin levels higher or lower in dominant vs. non-dominant primates and humans?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-09-15)

On page 242 of [The Moral Animal](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0679763996), Robert Wright states that

> In vervet monkey societies, dominant males have more of the neurotransmitter serotonin than do their subordinates. And one study found that in college fraternities, officers, on average, have more serotonin than do their less powerful fraternity brothers.

However, on page 82 of a different book, [Scattered: How ADD Originates and What You Can Do About It](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0452279631), Gabor Maté states that

> In troops of monkeys, the dominant, most successfully aggressive males have been found to have less serotonin than others. This would seem to prove that low serotonin levels cause aggression. However, the serotonin levels drop only *after* these males achieve dominant status. So while the relative lack of serotonin may help to *maintain* the dominant male's aggressive capacities, it could not have *caused* them.

It seems that Wright (a journalist) is making the complete opposite interpretation of the primate research that Maté (a physician) is, and there doesn't seem to be any subtlety in the context that alleviates the seemingly glaring contradiction, so I'm assuming that one of these two simply misunderstood the research. Who is correct?

(to be clear, both of these people are citing research that others have done, not making claims based on their own research)

**Tags:** neuroscience, aggression, serotonin

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: low serotonin levels are linked with depression and low self-esteem, which does not fit with the dominant profile.  
> **username_0**: yes; see the answer below. This is simply a case of a single author misinterpreting a piece of generally accepted research, not an actual disputing of an idea. To be fair, Maté was simply making a tangential point about serotonin in a book written about ADHD. This mistake he made (in my opinion most likely a simple misreading error) does not greatly detract from the main arguments he makes about ADHD in the book.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2017-09-15. Score: 1

It seems Maté simply misread the research that he cited. [The study on this](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16492189_Social_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Blood_Serotonin_Concentrations_in_Monkeys), from 1984, says that

> Dominant male adult vervet monkeys have whole-blood serotonin concentrations approximately twice those of subordinate adult males.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Thanks for your answer. However, one study opposing an idea is no convincing evidence that something is 'wrong' or not. In such cases it's often about methodical differences, interpretation differences or environmental differences that may affect outcomes. In other words, could you explain why you favor your cited study instead of the one in the question opposing that idea? As of now it's more of a comment; a pointer for OP for further reading instead of an answer.  
> **username_0**: I agree that one study opposing an idea is no convincing evidence that something is wrong, but that doesn't apply here because this seems more of a case of Maté (who was not involved in the primate study, and is simply citing it) simply incorrectly parsing what the research actually said; not him arguing one side of position. Additionally, there doesn't actually seem to be any studies that show the opposite, i.e. no one has actually disputed the finding in the 1984 study, e.g. that dominant monkeys have *more*, not *less* serotonin.  

---

