{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01487778958554729, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005313496280552604, 'mean_word_length': 4.850931677018633, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reification of social systems

In his 1991 book, Intraspecific Variation in the Social Systems of Wild Vertebrates, Dale Lott1 reviews the evidence that a single social system does not characterize a species. Rather, he says, the longer a species is studied and the wider the range of habitats in which it is studied, the more variation is discovered. I strongly recommend this book as a concise review of recent studies on nonprimate vertebrates for anyone needing a comparative perspective on a question that deeply concerns students of primates. The clarity of Lott's exposition led me to ask several questions. If differences in the behavior of populations can be described in terms of differences in the behavior of individuals, what is gained by speaking in terms of a social system? What is a social system anyway? Is it possible that the social system is a concept that might actually get in the way of understanding social behavior?