Women select men based on their ability to climb socioeconomic hierarchies, or more specifically on the traits that predict the ability of these men to climb these hierarchies
The correlation between a man having multiple sexual partners and having a high socioeconomic status, relatively speaking, is roughly 0.9 i.e. almost all of it
The term "alpha male" is kind of warped online, but the phenomenon exists in human males
If what you are saying was true then women would leave men for other men of higher stature as a point of practice. But we can see that is not true and most relationships are not based on public success, but personal connection.
Fun fact: they did a study awhile back that suggests that the pill seems to fuck up the way women select their partners. Women who are off the pill tend to be attracted to more traditionally masculine males - and women who are on the pill tend to be less interested in sex in general iirc, and more likely to be attracted to less masculine men.
.
Which would make sense, I suppose - chemically inducing your body and brain into thinking it's infertile on a regular basis is bound to fuck around a thing to two.
.
If accurate, this would contribute greatly to how women choose to value specific traits in their partners
.
.
-Women are still more likely to instigate divorces, as well, and are equally likely to cheat iirc.
Haha yeah women instigating around 80% of divorces leads to two amusing hypotheses:
- women are overly sensitive
- men are impossible to get along with
.
Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle
That said, cake didn't even make the argument that women exclusively choose based on socioeconomic status - or even for life partners if I can read today (which there's no guarantee of).
.
He said men with higher socioeconomic stature are more likely to be able to attract and engage with more sexual partners than other males.
.
.
And that's not really something that can be argued against - there's evidence of it all over the place.
.
Leonardo DiCaprio, Justin Timberlake, Brad Pitt, Hugh Hefner, Harry Styles, Justin Bieber, Donald Trump, etc etc etc.
.
There's a reason the NFL player getting all the cheerleaders is a stereotype
.
Men that are in positions of power and/or have resources get more access to women [and vice versa, to a degree]
.
When Bruno Mars was a nobody he sang about how he should have treated one woman right. Now that he's popular he sings about the many, many girls he fucks.
Men typically unconsciously find younger women attractive - healthy, likely fertile, higher energy to make and care for lots of babies. Also vaguely less likely to have health issues in the offspring.
.
Women typically unconsciously find men with socioeconomic status attractive - resources, protection, safe place to make lots of babies.
.
Whether we follow that or not is another matter entirely.
Lol I'm not in the eastern timezone but 10:40 hardly seems a weird time to be up and about. Last night I was up until 5:30 and my excuse is that I suck at sleep
.
How was the party?
As I implied earlier, it depends on what you mean by "alpha male"
Sexual selection in humans is primarily determined by the females
That's self-explanatory. Think about it for 30 seconds and you can figure this out
Then the question becomes something like "What is it that women are selecting for?"
Have a look at the Magic Mike films, which made about $289 million at the box office for one example. Sure, some were gay males, but not all obviously. (Then you could ask "What is it about those films that gay men are selecting for?", but that's a separate issue for now)
As for science, Darwin talked about sexual selection. Some of his thoughts are outlined here, along with links to several studies if you're interested: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702796/#!po=24.0741
Over the last few decades almost all research studies have found that men are much more eager for casual sex than women are (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to desires for short-term mating with many different sexual partners (Schmitt et al., 2003), and is even more true for wanting to have sex with complete and total strangers (Tappé et al., 2013).
In a classic social psychological experiment from the 1980s, Clark and Hatfield (1989) put the idea of sex differences in consenting to sex with strangers to a real-life test. They had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask, "I've been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?" Around 75 percent of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0 percent) agreed. In terms of effect size, this is one of the largest sex differences ever discovered in psychological science
The argument could then be "That's socially constructed"
Again, just think about it for 30 seconds. The cost of sex is not necessarily the same for women as it is for men
Women can get pregnant, and they're typically smaller and weaker. Again, not socially constructed. The difference is lower body strength is about 50%, and in upper body it's more like 75% for average men and women
There are many reasons why the majority of rapists are men, and this is one of them
You don't like to pay attention do you @karlboll? Did you want to try thinking about what @Cakelover is talking about instead of trying to misdirect the conversation?
@adam44 I have and I've been politely trying to explain that without scientific research confirming the existence of "alpha males" in wolf or human society these are subjective opinions and not facts. Without such a basis you might as well be discussing who built the canals of Mars or what colour phlogiston is. The metaphorical rug has been pulled away under the term "alpha male" and any discussion based on its validity is mere opinion.
Looks like @Cakelover responded with quite a few facts. Good thing you say they have no validity. I almost read all of them and wasted valuable time on educating myself. Phew that was close.
There is literally examples of "alphas" or leaders in various groups of animals, this is nonsensical.
.
Even wolves, who do not necessary have alphas in the way we traditionally viewed it, have specific wolves that are the only ones permitted to breed iirc
.
Even if I don't recall that correctly... lions and primates and elephants, oh my. Many species of primate have a clearly defined dominant or alpha male. He is the leader, the one most in charge of decided when and where they go, and the only one permitted to breed with the females -- unless the others choose to fight.
.
Elephants have matriarchs.
.
Even horses have been observed having entire herds of female horses abandon a stallion for a stranger if their original stallion loses a battle. And, odder still, the females have been observed stopping the losing male from drinking water.
.
Taking issue with the terminology in this case is somewhat bizarre when it's a clearly observable and provable thing that occurs.
So, my point here is that none of these studies quoted actually use the term "alpha male" since it's an obsolete term. If you think it should be I suggest gathering up all this evidence and writing a cross discipline meta study arguing for the term to be defined.
@garlog and others ..
Facts are defined by academia. Things, connections, contexts etc exist that have not yet been defined. If you're using a scientific term such as "alpha male" that have been disproven you are arguing without the basis of facts with academic underpinning. That's called speculation.
For instance, the Phlogiston Theory stated that things burn because they contain Phlogiston, a fire like element, and when all the Phlogiston had left the fuel it stopped burning. This theory was replaced in the 1700's with the Theory of Combustion after the discovery of oxygen. This changed how lanterns and stoves where constructed. A modern wood stove is based on the Theory of Combustion while an open fireplace is based on the Phlogiston Theory. An open fireplace works but is less efficient than modern burners because it is based on a flawed theory. Likewise, the theory of the alpha male is based on flawed data and conclusions can no longer be drawn from it.
So your point is that, because wolves were disproven to have alpha males according to the definition a scientist applied to that term... the terminology ceases to have meaning - or exist at all?
.
You claim a scientist created the term. You claim they gave definition. You claim he then realized wolves didn't fall into that category - something he could only do because the term had a clearly spelled out definition
.
.
And as for the rest of your point about these studies... which ones, exactly? Are you claiming there hasn't been a single scientific study done other than the Wolf one that used the term "alpha" to refer to the most dominant in a group...?
@xvarnah Yes, that's what I'm saying.
David Mech introduced the idea of the alpha to describe behavior observed in captive animals in his 1970 book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," but rejected that idea in light of research into the behavior of wolves in the wild in his 1999 paper titled "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs".
>facts are defined by academia
Again, reevaluate.
There is a pen beside me right now. I have done absolutely no science or academic work to determine this, but I know for a fact that this is a pen. Facts don't magically spring forth from the institution known as academia, they're observed in reality.
As for the term "alpha male", 99% of the time people are using the general definition of the term, not the specific scientific definition, so your argument about the validity of the scientific term is mostly pointless anyway.
So, just to reiterate:
A scientist created a term.
He gave that term a clear definition.
He attempted to apply that definition to wolves.
After some studying he realized that wolves did not fit the definition of the term, and therefore the term could not be applied to wolves specifically.
.
The term itself still has a definition. This definition has in all likelihood been used in scientific scenarios, research papers, articles, and common vernacular.
.
But because this term does not apply to wolves specifically, the original group he was planning on using it for..... In your eyes, the term ceases to exist.
.
Am I following this goblin road correctly?
My last comment is a repeat of what I said in my previous comment - and you agreed with that comment. So I'm afraid Adam is correct in this case - you're the one not paying attention
The correlation between a man having multiple sexual partners and having a high socioeconomic status, relatively speaking, is roughly 0.9 i.e. almost all of it
The term "alpha male" is kind of warped online, but the phenomenon exists in human males
.
Which would make sense, I suppose - chemically inducing your body and brain into thinking it's infertile on a regular basis is bound to fuck around a thing to two.
.
If accurate, this would contribute greatly to how women choose to value specific traits in their partners
.
.
-Women are still more likely to instigate divorces, as well, and are equally likely to cheat iirc.
- women are overly sensitive
- men are impossible to get along with
.
Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle
.
He said men with higher socioeconomic stature are more likely to be able to attract and engage with more sexual partners than other males.
.
.
And that's not really something that can be argued against - there's evidence of it all over the place.
.
Leonardo DiCaprio, Justin Timberlake, Brad Pitt, Hugh Hefner, Harry Styles, Justin Bieber, Donald Trump, etc etc etc.
.
There's a reason the NFL player getting all the cheerleaders is a stereotype
.
Men that are in positions of power and/or have resources get more access to women [and vice versa, to a degree]
.
When Bruno Mars was a nobody he sang about how he should have treated one woman right. Now that he's popular he sings about the many, many girls he fucks.
.
Women typically unconsciously find men with socioeconomic status attractive - resources, protection, safe place to make lots of babies.
.
Whether we follow that or not is another matter entirely.
and also legit all of that seems true
my excuse is that there was a party
.
How was the party?
Sexual selection in humans is primarily determined by the females
That's self-explanatory. Think about it for 30 seconds and you can figure this out
Then the question becomes something like "What is it that women are selecting for?"
Have a look at the Magic Mike films, which made about $289 million at the box office for one example. Sure, some were gay males, but not all obviously. (Then you could ask "What is it about those films that gay men are selecting for?", but that's a separate issue for now)
As for science, Darwin talked about sexual selection. Some of his thoughts are outlined here, along with links to several studies if you're interested: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702796/#!po=24.0741
In a classic social psychological experiment from the 1980s, Clark and Hatfield (1989) put the idea of sex differences in consenting to sex with strangers to a real-life test. They had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask, "I've been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?" Around 75 percent of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0 percent) agreed. In terms of effect size, this is one of the largest sex differences ever discovered in psychological science
Again, just think about it for 30 seconds. The cost of sex is not necessarily the same for women as it is for men
Women can get pregnant, and they're typically smaller and weaker. Again, not socially constructed. The difference is lower body strength is about 50%, and in upper body it's more like 75% for average men and women
There are many reasons why the majority of rapists are men, and this is one of them
.
Even wolves, who do not necessary have alphas in the way we traditionally viewed it, have specific wolves that are the only ones permitted to breed iirc
.
Even if I don't recall that correctly... lions and primates and elephants, oh my. Many species of primate have a clearly defined dominant or alpha male. He is the leader, the one most in charge of decided when and where they go, and the only one permitted to breed with the females -- unless the others choose to fight.
.
Elephants have matriarchs.
.
Even horses have been observed having entire herds of female horses abandon a stallion for a stranger if their original stallion loses a battle. And, odder still, the females have been observed stopping the losing male from drinking water.
.
Taking issue with the terminology in this case is somewhat bizarre when it's a clearly observable and provable thing that occurs.
You should probably reevaluate this, it's a little ridiculous.
Facts are defined by academia. Things, connections, contexts etc exist that have not yet been defined. If you're using a scientific term such as "alpha male" that have been disproven you are arguing without the basis of facts with academic underpinning. That's called speculation.
For instance, the Phlogiston Theory stated that things burn because they contain Phlogiston, a fire like element, and when all the Phlogiston had left the fuel it stopped burning. This theory was replaced in the 1700's with the Theory of Combustion after the discovery of oxygen. This changed how lanterns and stoves where constructed. A modern wood stove is based on the Theory of Combustion while an open fireplace is based on the Phlogiston Theory. An open fireplace works but is less efficient than modern burners because it is based on a flawed theory. Likewise, the theory of the alpha male is based on flawed data and conclusions can no longer be drawn from it.
.
You claim a scientist created the term. You claim they gave definition. You claim he then realized wolves didn't fall into that category - something he could only do because the term had a clearly spelled out definition
.
.
And as for the rest of your point about these studies... which ones, exactly? Are you claiming there hasn't been a single scientific study done other than the Wolf one that used the term "alpha" to refer to the most dominant in a group...?
David Mech introduced the idea of the alpha to describe behavior observed in captive animals in his 1970 book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," but rejected that idea in light of research into the behavior of wolves in the wild in his 1999 paper titled "Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs".
Again, reevaluate.
There is a pen beside me right now. I have done absolutely no science or academic work to determine this, but I know for a fact that this is a pen. Facts don't magically spring forth from the institution known as academia, they're observed in reality.
As for the term "alpha male", 99% of the time people are using the general definition of the term, not the specific scientific definition, so your argument about the validity of the scientific term is mostly pointless anyway.
A scientist created a term.
He gave that term a clear definition.
He attempted to apply that definition to wolves.
After some studying he realized that wolves did not fit the definition of the term, and therefore the term could not be applied to wolves specifically.
.
The term itself still has a definition. This definition has in all likelihood been used in scientific scenarios, research papers, articles, and common vernacular.
.
But because this term does not apply to wolves specifically, the original group he was planning on using it for..... In your eyes, the term ceases to exist.
.
Am I following this goblin road correctly?
and yeah im also hoping we dont end up on opoosing sides ha
noble leader is called positive alpha
quess who is rarer