Talk:Sociality

Are humans presocial?

Do humans really belong to the list of presocial species between birds and insects? Were humans presocial at any time? Shouldn't that period of time be specified? Proski 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we Presocial Now? 71.233.230.223 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we are, probably between communal and quasisocial would be the best fit.58.178.149.198 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically I gather we humans are not as social as some other animal species?--78.60.103.193 (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but be careful not to generalize based on norms in Western societies. Ringbang (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that eusociality could apply to humans baffles me. Do we really have a caste system based on ability to reproduce? Non-reproductive adult humans can't even be easily told apart from anyone else; they're not a separate biological category.

Kindnesstheorist (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's far too high on the scale; we're nothing like ants and bees. Many contemporary human cultures, including hunter-gatherer cultures, which seem to reflect Paleolithic cultures most closely, living in kin groups (bands) of about 30–50 individuals, are quasisocial, as my lay understanding goes. Modern Western cultures are better described as communal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aroskej (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eetd02 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Classification into presocial and subsocial

How come jaguars are considered presocial in one paragraph, and in the next, it says sub social animals care for their young. Jaguars care for their young so I do not understand this. 23.226.171.190 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Mammals Section

I feel like there should be a mammals section in this article, and potentially a corresponding non-mammals section. This article is linked to philosophy articles about ethics.

What do you think? 2A0A:EF40:8F5:B901:903B:9ABC:FAAE:437 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The distinction is not relevant, and the article does not relate to or link to philosophy. More Walls (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Some Thrips are Eusocial

The cladogram under Subsociality doesn't reflect this. There are eusocial thrips, therefore they should be bold and italic with a label indicating there are also eusocial species, like with Hymenoptera. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but they seem to be there exactly as requested. Remsense ‥ 论 14:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are on the cladogram. However, unlike Hymenoptera and Blattodea which have notes about eusocial species within those groups, Thysanoptera doesn't. It should mention that thrips are eusocial.

Also, I just noticed that under Blattodea it says *including* eusocial termites, but under Hymenoptera it says *apart from* eusocial species. Not sure which is correct but one should be changed. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe jaguars are not the best example of an animal to use for Presociality

In more recent years it has been found that male jaguars occasionally form cheetah-like coalitions, so maybe this could be reconsidered? https://panthera.org/newsroom/new-study-documents-first-male-jaguar-coalitions-challenging-regard-species-strictly

Alternatively you could simply use an animal that is definitively Presocial, like a leopard, to avoid this dilemma. ~2026-27945-07 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)