RAD huh? Thanks, em.

Okay, now it's monkey time.

I'll try and put the punch line right up front first.

Within socialization as competitive sexual selection, developmental experience can significantly influence the individuals' competitive capabilities.

Okay, now I assume we all know of or can readily access information regarding Harlow's macaques (Harry Harlow).
Some of his rather disturbing experiments did reveal much; however, the environment he created was far from natural and not conducive to observing social behaviors.

I recall first reading of this way back in '75 b.c. (before computers) an article based on work done by the Oregon Primate Institute ( hope i got the name right ) and furthered later by others.
Briefly, the social groups of macaque monkeys (Maccaca) exhibit a culture of dominance having a dominant male with lieutenants and a dominant female. The sexes maintain seperate groups with the females and juveniles making a generally cohesive unit.
The requirements of maintaining the social position for the dominant female cause her to intercede in the social learning of her offspring, typically interfering in competitive play conflicts among the young to her offsprings immediate benefit. However, sad but true, the offspring develops impaired or maladaptive social skills which prove detremental upon maturing to independent status.
These socialy incompetent males are mainly denied reproductive opportunity. (I dislike the anthropomorphic label which has in the interum attached itself to the subject.)
This is an example of acquired behavioral characteristics interacting with competitive sexual selection. The obvious evolutionary benefit of this is to reduce inbreeding. If the offspring of the two dominants were viable then the likelyhood of it becoming dominant would seem great.

Now then, humans do not generally have a culture of dominance. I have termed human culture MARO, mutually assured reproductive opportunity. This I restate, is in the general sense of evolution and the entire social population, not in the special sense of the individual.
Essentially, all humans have roughly equivalent chance to reproduce. This operates within some range of opportunities for members and ignores individual health issues.
So first, this sugests some differences between a culture of dominance, where competitive performance is the determinant of reproductive opportunitty and the nature of human society.
In human society social membership, not social status is the determinant of reproductive opportunity. Some of the lowest status members manage the highest rate of reproduction.
So here it is again, the process of socialization is also the competitive arena for humans. The other things are mostly just convention. Achievment and maintenance of social membership is the competitive process.
Freud referred to the early developmental stages as psycho-sexual stages because he perceived them as libidinous and etc., in fact then, they are competitive.
And then there's dependence, dependence as a bimodal drive.
Well, the library closes in five minutes so I gotta do spell check.
till next