I can understand how the dominance concept seems reasonable because it does seem self-evident. Nature does seem to be a struggle between individuals over scarce resources with dominance seemingly a cost-effective way of keeping friction and violence to a minimum. I started out in dogs believing it myself. As an apprentice trainer and then early years as a professional, I thought I was seeing countless owners floundering with their dogs because they were trying to befriend their dog rather than trying to be a pack leader. But once one grasps that it would require thoughts to make it work, I don’t think it is reasonable to see it as reasonable. Recently I’ve been quoting at length from “Design In Nature” which makes the point that the structure of anything is the default response to the mandate of flow in a world of resistance and in order to maximize efficiency over time. Now let us turn to mainstream behaviorism to see how it compares to the constructal law. In an argument presented in Psychology Today blog linked below:….

Dario Maestripieri, Ph.D 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/social-dominance-explained-part-i

……… the author states: “Dominance doesn’t exist because it’s beneficial to the species, the community, or the family. Dominance is established within a relationship because it has a “net” benefit to each individual, which means that its benefits are greater than its costs.”

Dr. Maestripieri is trying to set up a logical framework whereby the dynamic between two individuals is unrelated to the dynamic within a family, a community, or within the species, and yet this is in direct contravention of the constructal law. The relationship between two individuals cannot in its persistent structure be independent of the pack, the species, the ecosystem, or nature at large, because all structure whether it be waterways, plant anatomy, lightning bolts, physiology, anatomy, neurology, civilization, or aesthetics, conforms to the constructal law. Using the tools and language of mainstream science, “Design In Nature” inarguably lays the dominance theory to rest because the “net benefit” to any individual is whether they can participate in the flow of whatever system they are affiliated with. There cannot be a benefit to one relationship, that can fall outside the scope of other benefits to other constituents of that system. To participate in flow, each and every individual must be aligned in their behavior and their personality around the central flow pattern of their group, hive, flock, school, swarm, etc, etc. Otherwise, the physiology and neurology of any living thing is composed so that they will feel overwhelmed by resistance. It’s the law.