I partially address your concerns in my child reply (further indented, same thread).
Further clarification is necessary, but takes too long if I address the psychological objections from all common psychological profiles, rather than just your own. Also, I might not profile you correctly, and might address concerns different than your actual concerns. For this reason, if you want additional clarification from me, we'll have to talk.
Yes, I was not hung up on the alpha male. That is just the direction it headed based upon a reply. I more indicated there are those who seek power and they tend to rise through organizations simply because they volunteer for roles many of us would rather not do. These roles tend to be tedious, but involve decision making so they lead to an expression of power and typically opportunity to further advance. This issue will be something any Utopian dream would need to address. While i do not believe perfection is attainable, I do believe it and Utopia are both simply expressions of infinity and something we can strive towards and never reach. As such while Dan's proposal intrigues me I was playing devil's advocate and saying WHAT ABOUT people like this? The power seekers. How do we address them? Someone replied to me and took it into the females seeking powerful people direction. My initial post about power seekers was much more broad than simple biological imperatives.
I'm better with the written word myself. There's much I'd like to address here when given the moment. With my basis that I don't prescribe to materialist outlook of evolution being the prime factor in our behaviour. I would call it evolutionary dogma. Regarding the sex instinct, coincidentally, I am in the process of writing a post which includes some points about the fallacy in evolutionary/'man as animal' reductions. I will cross post the relevant paragraphs here. Your comments have inspired some further insights thank you.
We can't be truly sovereign individuals if our impulses, civilizations, relationships and everything about us is a totality of the primitive aspects of evolution.
Your comments on the sociopath I agree with (some machiavellianism shoudnt be shunned) though I dont agree with the construct itself. In some ways it is a prejudice against masculinity. Pathologizing behaviours in some instances is non-humanistic. I wrote a post about psychopathy I think you'd agree with:
https://steemit.com/psychology/@radioactivities/social-control-series-1-why-the-concept-of-psychopathy-is-more-dangerous-than-a-psychopath