Who here is an alpha male?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:47 pm

arcturus rising wrote:No, he's really not a lone wolf. That's someone who has no friends or relationships for whatever reason...fear of commitment perhaps or some kind of anti-social being...he wishes to be an island. The Omega does have a few friends, just not as many as the alpha usually has - all of those hanger ons. Like I said, the Omegas friendships are few but deep. For him, quality pawns quantity. And he is a social creature, just not such as the alpha wolf.

He may have started out by being an outcast - self imposed or otherwise and it strengthened him in such a way that he came to realize that he can stand alone (usually does but not always) It is the intent that matters. But if he needed to be, he could be the lone wolf...being in the forest all alone can be a wonderful thing. Don't you think? At the same time, he can hear the howls of the others...he doesn't need them as much as all of the others do...and his howl is different than the others.

He isn't the lone wolf but he may at times be the lonely wolf because of how he chooses to live his life...and lonely isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a great thing not to have all of those minons hanging on you. He loves his aloneness and when he chooses not to be alone, it is because it is his choice...not his need.

We got the same vision just different terms ...
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:41 pm

arcturus rising wrote:No, the Omega guy is not the last guy, the 40 year old virgin - though he probably wouldn't give a damn if he was.

Sounds to me like you're just describing your ideal guy - and I don't think omega is quite the right term.

Think scrawny, bitter, inept, hideous nerd with no self-esteem and not much to him, wishing he was popular. That's your omega right there - compliant, overly self-conscious and vulnerable, pretty much everything that seems to encourage being dominated and probably bullying. Your ideal guy sounds more like fuse, gobbo or ww3 - none of them seem to give too much of a fuck what others think and appear to like where they are. Middle to higher ranks.

So you're not into alphas, no biggie. Alphas like girls who nigh on won't be won, who don't want to have to put up with more compliant, modest males, who will only accept the guy who comes out on top. You don't seem particularly alpha female, though perhaps middle to higher rank - matching your taste in men.

Btw, alphas don't depend on minions... they tend to be friends with betas who are hardly puppets. Dependency doesn't come into it for alphas, other people come to them - but that doesn't even necessitate that the alpha requires friends. In order to be cool around people you pretty much need to be fine on your own, or a dependence and compliance out of fear of loss of friends will compromise your dominance.

You try to paint this picture of the vulnerable alpha, it really doesn't compute I'm afraid. And preference for alone time is reserved for middle to higher ranks - as distinct from having no other choice than alone time since everyone thinks you're lame...
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:21 pm

Silhouette

Sounds to me like you're just describing your ideal guy - and I don't think omega is quite the right term.

Maybe I am...maybe I'm not.

Think scrawny, bitter, inept, hideous nerd with no self-esteem and not much to him, wishing he was popular. That's your omega right there - compliant, overly self-conscious and vulnerable, pretty much everything that seems to encourage being dominated and probably bullying. Your ideal guy sounds more like fuse, gobbo or ww3 - none of them seem to give too much of a fuck what others think and appear to like where they are. Middle to higher ranks.

:lol: Silhouette, I think you need to take a course in reading comprehension. That is not what an Omega is at all.

Your ideal guy sounds more like fuse, gobbo or ww3 none of them seem to give too much of a fuck what others think and appear to like where they are. Middle to higher ranks

I really don't know these guys at all so I couldn't determine whether they are alpha, omegas or whatever.
But it's true that the Omega does not really care what others think of them (but not in a 'I don't give a shit' fashion) that's just self-denial -and they do like who and where they are. They don't actually think in terms of hierarchys - they don't need to - because they are content with who they are though they reach for more.

So you're not into alphas, no biggie. Alphas like girls who nigh on won't be won, who don't want to have to put up with more compliant, modest males, who will only accept the guy who comes out on top. You don't seem particularly alpha female, though perhaps middle to higher rank - matching your taste in men.

:lol: I don't actually label myself so much, Silhouette. I flow in and out of wherever I go. I don't consider myself to be alpha or omega...I just am...wherever I am at the moment. Though I do love my lonely and alone moments in the woods and I love wolves...but I love the wolf that doesn't travel in the pack...unless he wants to...I love the wolf that is not afraid to go it alone, though he is not a loner. I don't see myself at the beginning or at the end...I travel forward and backwards. :lol: So what does that make me?


Btw, alphas don't depend on minions... they tend to be friends with betas who are hardly puppets. Dependency doesn't come into it for alphas, other people come to them - but that doesn't even necessitate that the alpha requires friends. In order to be cool around people you pretty much need to be fine on your own, or a dependence and compliance out of fear of loss of friends will compromise your dominance.

I'm not so sure that alphas don't depend on minions. Perhaps there are some who don't - perhaps the ones closer to becoming omegas...lol...but I also think many do - they need the recognition and the support though they might not admit to it. I would even imagine that Omegas at times do - we are after all human - the Omega just doesn't need it so much nor does he thrive on it.

You try to paint this picture of the vulnerable alpha, it really doesn't compute I'm afraid. And preference for alone time is reserved for middle to higher ranks - as distinct from having no other choice than alone time since everyone thinks you're lame...

I never actually said that alphas are vulnerable but they are more vulnerable as a result of not realizing that they can be, as humans. Perhaps what I ought to say is that the men who think they are alphas are more vulnerable as a result of not realizing...........etcetera. The same goes for men who may think they are Omegas. :lol:

as distinct from having no other choice than alone time since everyone thinks you're lame..

And those 'everyone' may be in actuality, more lame than the one who is left alone. Who knows, he may be the true Omega. The supposed Alphas are a threatened bunch...that poor lame one may have much more to offer than the all the rest put together. One never knows what one might find deep below.


For whatever reason, you seem to be taking this thread too much to heart. Why is that? Do you think that you are an alpha? Anyway, they are just labels and how much do they really mean, especially since we are all capable of change. And they are just labels to portray a particular kind of person and since we are not so fixed and determined in our personalities and characters, don't worry, Silhouette, you may become a flowing Omega at some point...maybe you already are but don't know it. But labels are just not important. And look what they just did. This is why they really are so stupid - and of course, I'm just as guilty of perpetrating a farce here.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:58 pm

tentative wrote:

I agree that we all have certain roles where we may act out alpha behaviors. I have never chosen a leadership role (not alpha) but I have been a leader in several circumtances and may god help you if you fucked with me
Cool, tent, very cool.
You bring out the 'herd mentality' in me. omg, I hate the herd mentality. You make me want to follow you. [-o<
You've ruined me for life.
Only kidding of course. :lol:
I hope. :o :-? :oops: :roll:
You may actually be an Omega guy, tent.
At the very least, a true alpha. Aooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
I don't know...I'm just playing.
The below is an alpha male - a true one.
TENT - HOWLING AT THE MOON.jpg
TENT - HOWLING AT THE MOON.jpg (17.41 KiB) Viewed 1630 times
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15303
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:07 am

arcturus rising wrote: :lol: Silhouette, I think you need to take a course in reading comprehension. That is not what an Omega is at all.

Why? So I can catch up on the course you've been taking on trashy faddish articles? I don't know where else you could be getting your ideas on omega males other your own overly romantic imagination.

The human male equivalent of "the one who eats last" is not the endearing "loser" who has attractive self-knowledge and charm to make up for his rejection of the modern rat-race and wealth, sports and competition. Have you seen much of the world? There are males who are even more compliant, shy and inept than what you have in mind - they are the real omegas of society. Pop-culture doesn't properly cover them - what it covers is males who actually have something to offer (just not in the traditional "man" sense), and it's only the more appealing of this lot that meets your descriptions: middle/low ranks at the least.

arcturus rising wrote:I flow in and out of wherever I go. I don't consider myself to be alpha or omega...I just am...wherever I am at the moment. So what does that make me?

Playing hard to get? lol. This is what so many women do: try to deflect labels at all costs in favour of portraying mystique, not realising that they only reinforce such labels in doing so. And it works - it's as appealing as it is maddening.

arcturus rising wrote:And those 'everyone' may be in actuality, more lame than the one who is left alone. Who knows, he may be the true Omega. The supposed Alphas are a threatened bunch...that poor lame one may have much more to offer than the all the rest put together. One never knows what one might find deep below.

Dominance ranks have very little to do with "hidden talents" or whatever else you might have in mind when suggesting "more to offer". I'm sure the middle/lower ranked dream boy of yours has plenty "deep below", and that's not exclusive to his rank at all. You probably think of alphas as always completely superficial - no doubt through lack of real experience? Who exactly is threatening the "alpha bunch" by the way?

arcturus rising wrote:For whatever reason, you seem to be taking this thread too much to heart. Why is that?... and of course, I'm just as guilty of perpetrating a farce here.

So you're playing that card are you? I suppose if you " :lol: " at everything that seems a bit serious and treat everything as a farce then you can go through your life without ever really needing to know anything, and without ever having to worry about being laughed at - because you beat everyone to it. I know this is all just another dubious classification of many.

I laugh a lot and always walk around with a big smile, but I choose to take some things seriously because I want to immerse myself in knowing more and I want to take the risk of emerging the fool. All because I like life.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Faust » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:37 am

Please, kids. I'm begging you. I have to read every single post on the godforsaken thread. Please remain cordial to each other. If I actually have to more than skim this thread-about-nothing, I'm gonna be in a very bad mood.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:26 am

And Faust shows everyone who's boss with his Alpha Dominant nature
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Faust » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:28 am

Not at all. You've all got me by the balls, here. I have to read this stuff.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:10 am

Faust wrote:Not at all. You've all got me by the balls, here. I have to read this stuff.

Touché
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Gobbo » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:37 am

I get your model, but since you aren't removed from society and its groups you are not outside anything. The alpha and beta don't need 3rd party confirmation, they are defined off one another fine. By not feeling you fit into either you have much in common with what've just said about fuse.


I'm not talking about myself. I used myself as an example to illustrate a point, but I'm not meta. That is not to say the position doesn't exist.

There was an episode of Star Trek where Data had to play this game against a Galactic Grand Master. Data knew he could not win - he did not have the computational power to out-whit the master's years of experience. Data plays a strategy wherein he plays for a stalemate. The match ends with no winner. In this case Data plays the part of the meta because through his actions he illustrates the nature of winning and losing - of the entire game itself - without ever doing either of those things. He knows from the start he is not engaging in the game, but rather demonstrating the game. Neither the Alpha nor the Beta can be said to do this.

This really isn't hard to get. It's like saying the referee is beta cause he's not the winner of the game. Does that make sense to you? He didn't alienate himself from the game to be cool - it cannot exist without him. Someone has to full that spot. The fact that we're talking about this arises instances of meta. That's why threads like this get so many responses. Everyone here is driven by that elucidated need to win, but in philosophy there is no winner. The tension you feel here, with everyone unsure if they are winning or losing the discussion - that is meta.
User avatar
Gobbo
Choronzon
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:23 am
Location: The Belly

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:32 pm

Faust wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:And Faust shows everyone who's boss with his Alpha Dominant nature

Not at all. You've all got me by the balls, here. I have to read this stuff.

Lol I was thinking the same thing WW3 :P , though Faust is right, he is in fact being as compliant as he is showing dominance. He is wrong about this being a "thread-about-nothing", it is about everything that underlies everything that goes on in this forum and in all other social interactions anywhere. In fact, it's possibly the most philosophical thread on the forum. Feel free to laugh if you don't get why this is.

It's strange what happens in systems that man has set up: tools can be used to maintain positions of dominance without the bearer requiring much natural dominance at all. For other animals, tool usage is still at a minimum or non-existent, so they can't interact with anyone on grounds much different than natural dominance. Humans can use the technologies that everyone is, by choice, embedded within to artificially control with much more precision from afar, with guns and other instruments of harm at the end to ensure it all stands up (more tools to sway things in favour of the system of tools).

So the question becomes whether or not these people who have earnt modern positions of power are the higher ranks now - regardless of their natural dominance. The appearance suggests that this distortion is now the case, though it explains a lot about contempt for authority on the grounds that it doesn't seem deserved. Somehow it seems difficult to respect someone just because they have some powerful privileges, when they don't come across as naturally powerful. I use the word "natural" in the sense that whilst tool manipulation is natural, the assertive force behind the tool manipulation doesn't necessarily demand respect.

Perhaps it's debatable whether the traditional and animal power structures, based on natural dominance, inspire more respect from the submissive. I'm inclined to think they do. Afterall, natural social situations cause ranks to emerge according to natural dominance and group members respect the most dominant male.

Cases of hatred or resentment toward dominant males emerge between natural social groups (not including artificial social situations), not within. The only exceptions might occur when a beta emerges as a challenge to the alpha, resulting in one of them losing, and also when middle ranks might be a dick with their rank, taking out their frustrations toward higher ranks on lower ranks.

Old_Gobbo wrote:
on page 9, Old_Gobbo wrote:I am a Meta.

I'm not talking about myself. I used myself as an example to illustrate a point, but I'm not meta.

In line with artificial social situations, I enjoyed your anecdote about Star Trek and games in general. It's not that I don't get it, it's that you're talking about a different thing.

In your example, Data's forcing of a draw is an assertion of dominance, just not one powerful enough to result in achievement of dominance. He wasn't just demonstrating the game, anyone who played it would be doing that whether they won, lost or drew even in a friendly match. The difference in Data's case is his assertion of the most effective strategy available to him. Nobody won but then the game-dominance was established right from the start with Data's knowledge of his superior.

So once again, like I said to WW3, dominance isn't necessarily related to winning or losing a battle on limited grounds (e.g. game rules, philosophical debate), it can be implied by gestures separate to the game or philosophical argument. So whilst there may not be winning or losing in some philosophy, there can still be dominance and submission even in a philosophical "draw" or whatever you want to call it. A referee is like a moderator who is protected from competing in the same limited way as the teams or forum members. In these cases, all have to comply to their role just as the competitors or forum members have to comply to their's - in order for a specific game/subject matter to be distinct from mundane life.

So philosophical proficiency and game results aren't enough on their own to indicate alphaness in general. Alphaness is an all-round thing that isn't restricted to games or specific subjects.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:47 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Faust wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:And Faust shows everyone who's boss with his Alpha Dominant nature

Not at all. You've all got me by the balls, here. I have to read this stuff.

Lol I was thinking the same thing WW3 :P , though Faust is right, he is in fact being as compliant as he is showing dominance. He is wrong about this being a "thread-about-nothing", it is about everything that underlies everything that goes on in this forum and in all other social interactions anywhere. In fact, it's possibly the most philosophical thread on the forum. Feel free to laugh if you don't get why this is.

It's strange what happens in systems that man has set up: tools can be used to maintain positions of dominance without the bearer requiring much natural dominance at all. For other animals, tool usage is still at a minimum or non-existent, so they can't interact with anyone on grounds much different than natural dominance. Humans can use the technologies that everyone is, by choice, embedded within to artificially control with much more precision from afar, with guns and other instruments of harm at the end to ensure it all stands up (more tools to sway things in favour of the system of tools).

So the question becomes whether or not these people who have earnt modern positions of power are the higher ranks now - regardless of their natural dominance. The appearance suggests that this distortion is now the case, though it explains a lot about contempt for authority on the grounds that it doesn't seem deserved. Somehow it seems difficult to respect someone just because they have some powerful privileges, when they don't come across as naturally powerful. I use the word "natural" in the sense that whilst tool manipulation is natural, the assertive force behind the tool manipulation doesn't necessarily demand respect.

Perhaps it's debatable whether the traditional and animal power structures, based on natural dominance, inspire more respect from the submissive. I'm inclined to think they do. Afterall, natural social situations cause ranks to emerge according to natural dominance and group members respect the most dominant male.

Cases of hatred or resentment toward dominant males emerge between natural social groups (not including artificial social situations), not within. The only exceptions might occur when a beta emerges as a challenge to the alpha, resulting in one of them losing, and also when middle ranks might be a dick with their rank, taking out their frustrations toward higher ranks on lower ranks.

Old_Gobbo wrote:
on page 9, Old_Gobbo wrote:I am a Meta.

I'm not talking about myself. I used myself as an example to illustrate a point, but I'm not meta.

In line with artificial social situations, I enjoyed your anecdote about Star Trek and games in general. It's not that I don't get it, it's that you're talking about a different thing.

In your example, Data's forcing of a draw is an assertion of dominance, just not one powerful enough to result in achievement of dominance. He wasn't just demonstrating the game, anyone who played it would be doing that whether they won, lost or drew even in a friendly match. The difference in Data's case is his assertion of the most effective strategy available to him. Nobody won but then the game-dominance was established right from the start with Data's knowledge of his superior.

So once again, like I said to WW3, dominance isn't necessarily related to winning or losing a battle on limited grounds (e.g. game rules, philosophical debate), it can be implied by gestures separate to the game or philosophical argument. So whilst there may not be winning or losing in some philosophy, there can still be dominance and submission even in a philosophical "draw" or whatever you want to call it. A referee is like a moderator who is protected from competing in the same limited way as the teams or forum members. In these cases, all have to comply to their role just as the competitors or forum members have to comply to their's - in order for a specific game/subject matter to be distinct from mundane life.

So philosophical proficiency and game results aren't enough on their own to indicate alphaness in general. Alphaness is an all-round thing that isn't restricted to games or specific subjects.


(response to yours in bold specifically)
Yes but that may not be the case as well.

Then you have social recognition based on isolated group values that may not favor alpha dominate traits and in turn favor a beta, in which case the beta would dominate... and be the alpha? But would that really be what we consider to be an alpha male? Not necessarily, because they can just be creating a social qualifier based on emotions, perhaps they would favor a genetically weak, unintelligent, un-sexy person. Because you know people aren't necessarily rational nor do what would be best for them, the group, or whatever.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:05 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Then you have social recognition based on isolated group values that may not favor alpha dominate traits and in turn favor a beta, in which case the beta would dominate... and be the alpha? But would that really be what we consider to be an alpha male? Not necessarily, because they can just be creating a social qualifier based on emotions, perhaps they would favor a genetically weak, unintelligent, un-sexy person. Because you know people aren't necessarily rational nor do what would be best for them, the group, or whatever.

Yes, I agree as discussed in the 3rd paragraph of my previous post that you quoted.

I meant to imply that we come across problems of authority acceptance when, for example, "betas in general" become more complied with and thus "become the new alphas". Think of times where leaders have come across as undeserving of their leadership, where others - perhaps yourself - could do a much better job. I think I remember a small-scale example from another thread that's relevant to you: your new boss who inherited his position from his dad, or something?

Systems are in place that ensure undeserved ranks emerge and are protected. At least they could be inspiring of respect through natural dominance, but being naturally of lower rank in uncontrolled social situations, they come across as unable to do so. But the human use of such systems and tools can allow them to assume positions of leadership anyway.

So I might be so bold as to hypothesise that human's proficiency in tool use may have a direct correlation with authority rejection.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:52 pm

BlurredSavant wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
BlurredSavant wrote:Can I join your wolfpack?


There is no wolfpack :D


Yeah, but one plus one makes two, and then you have a wolfpack!


I don't think you can...
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Blurry » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:55 pm

Damn it! I'm so let down.
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch
User avatar
Blurry
fuck
 
Posts: 4423
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby statiktech » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Lol I was thinking the same thing WW3 , though Faust is right, he is in fact being as compliant as he is showing dominance. He is wrong about this being a "thread-about-nothing", it is about everything that underlies everything that goes on in this forum and in all other social interactions anywhere. In fact, it's possibly the most philosophical thread on the forum. Feel free to laugh if you don't get why this is.


...I don't get why that is. Unfortunately, I find your statement to be more tragic than humorous.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Gobbo » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:36 pm

So once again, like I said to WW3, dominance isn't necessarily related to winning or losing a battle on limited grounds (e.g. game rules, philosophical debate), it can be implied by gestures separate to the game or philosophical argument


If that is the case, and there are no self-evident rules, then these gestures must be, somehow, evaluated. So we're back to to having a referee.

Stalemates of syntax.
User avatar
Gobbo
Choronzon
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:23 am
Location: The Belly

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:24 am

Old_Gobbo wrote:If that is the case, and there are no self-evident rules, then these gestures must be, somehow, evaluated. So we're back to to having a referee.

Stalemates of syntax.

Lovely assonance but the "rules" are self-evident. Behaviours are continuously evaluated at least subconsciously to distinct effect, whether subtle or dramatic, even when there is no "referee" or conscious recognition of what's changing. It's probably a lot clearer when you look at unconstrained social interaction rather than game performance and results. It's just absorbed from a young age (probably pre-natal in some ways even) until second nature...

Do you mean you need a referee to pick out similarities and differences to proposed structural models? Because that's no different from any conscious philosophical analysis.

statiktech wrote:...I don't get why that is. Unfortunately, I find your statement to be more tragic than humorous.

Oh yeah, that's the other card you can pull: "I pity you" rather than " :lol: ". Pity away! I suppose you've not considered that thought requires intention to think, and intentions depend on environment, including social circumstance. That is to say your rank correlates with your philosophical outlook and thoughts in general, including your resort to pity and AR's resort to laughter.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby statiktech » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:32 pm

Oh yeah, that's the other card you can pull: "I pity you" rather than " :lol: ". Pity away! I suppose you've not considered that thought requires intention to think, and intentions depend on environment, including social circumstance.


Infants think without intention. We've gotten into a habit of over emphasizing intent, which is a mistake in my opinion. 'Intentions' are probably the easiest way to misunderstand motives.

That is to say your rank correlates with your philosophical outlook and thoughts in general, including your resort to pity and AR's resort to laughter.


I said nothing of pity. I just don't get your statement and think you've missed out if you meant it.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:11 am

statiktech wrote:Infants think without intention. We've gotten into a habit of over emphasizing intent, which is a mistake in my opinion. 'Intentions' are probably the easiest way to misunderstand motives.

Anything other than a reflex response is going to imply intention, no? I'm not going to analyse a cry of pain in terms of intention, despite a tendency to attract help that can ease and/or stop the pain - that wasn't really "intended" prior to the cry.

But anything else? From the most complex plan to the simplest movement with the vaguest idea of what such a movement might achieve - there is intention.
Whether someone else can accurately deduce these intentions is another matter. A poor judge of intention is going to easily misunderstand someone when thinking in terms of intention. The best judge may still fail to understand somebody's true intentions simply because they are not privy to the exact workings of another's mind.

Someone can be a poor judge of what they themselves "really want", being derailed by artifical ideas of morals and principles for example. Inexperience may result in unintended outcomes, one may not have learned a connection between intention and action on that intention. Yet intentions based on what IS known are always going to be there. The only way motives can differ from intentions is through accident: "unintentional motives"(?) if there are such things.

Intention is just a word for that which goes on in someone's mind before they act in a certain way, which is associated with such action. Most might say the idea or notion causes the action. It's just the causal model applied to the human mind and body: intention being the mind bit and action the body bit. And aside from reflex and accident, the two are associated and imply something about one another. Get to know these implications and you only get better at understanding motives. The better you get, the more important intentions become to understanding action.

Why is this all a mistake of over-emphasis?

statiktech wrote:I said nothing of pity. I just don't get your statement and think you've missed out if you meant it.

Tragedy -> suffering -> pathos -> pity. The link isn't obscure no matter how mildly you think it tragic that I've missed out on supposedly more philosophical threads on this place.

Assuming intention is as important as I make out, and that intentions depend on environment including social circumstance, then a thread about social circumstance is going to be important. It will underlie intention to philosophise, for this forum to even exist. And I find the examination of this forum's existence precedes the examination of other threads that start from the point that this forum exists, as though not challenging the assumption that it does. Assumptions demand philosophical exploration do they not?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby statiktech » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:14 pm

Silhouette wrote:Anything other than a reflex response is going to imply intention, no? I'm not going to analyse a cry of pain in terms of intention, despite a tendency to attract help that can ease and/or stop the pain - that wasn't really "intended" prior to the cry.


No, I don't think so. An infant's first movements are intuitive as far as I can tell. He doesn't recognize that he can 'move', or that he has control of a bodily apparatus beforehand.

But anything else? From the most complex plan to the simplest movement with the vaguest idea of what such a movement might achieve - there is intention.


And absent any notion of what is to be achieved? What then?

Whether someone else can accurately deduce these intentions is another matter. A poor judge of intention is going to easily misunderstand someone when thinking in terms of intention. The best judge may still fail to understand somebody's true intentions simply because they are not privy to the exact workings of another's mind.

Someone can be a poor judge of what they themselves "really want", being derailed by artifical ideas of morals and principles for example. Inexperience may result in unintended outcomes, one may not have learned a connection between intention and action on that intention. Yet intentions based on what IS known are always going to be there. The only way motives can differ from intentions is through accident: "unintentional motives"(?) if there are such things.

Intention is just a word for that which goes on in someone's mind before they act in a certain way, which is associated with such action. Most might say the idea or notion causes the action. It's just the causal model applied to the human mind and body: intention being the mind bit and action the body bit. And aside from reflex and accident, the two are associated and imply something about one another. Get to know these implications and you only get better at understanding motives. The better you get, the more important intentions become to understanding action.

Why is this all a mistake of over-emphasis?


You've answered your own question. We tend to treat 'intent' as if it were the whole origin, or primary importance, of an act. Motive and intent are two entirely different things, and that distinction is precisely where a majority of misinterpretation takes place. A "causal model" explains very little if you consider that there is no causal mechanism -- meaning 'intent' is not something wholly predictable or determinate. In fact, I think intent becomes far less significant when we really begin to understand our actions.

And intent is not the 'cause' of an action. It is, at best, an approximation of an expected outcome.

statiktech wrote:Tragedy -> suffering -> pathos -> pity. The link isn't obscure no matter how mildly you think it tragic that I've missed out on supposedly more philosophical threads on this place.

Assuming intention is as important as I make out, and that intentions depend on environment including social circumstance, then a thread about social circumstance is going to be important. It will underlie intention to philosophise, for this forum to even exist. And I find the examination of this forum's existence precedes the examination of other threads that start from the point that this forum exists, as though not challenging the assumption that it does. Assumptions demand philosophical exploration do they not?


The "tragic" part was hyperbole. It was a "joke". I actually think your assertion is a little ridiculous and unfounded. I agree that social context is important. However, I disagree that any real notion of an "alpha" is at all relevant to modern social contexts. And I don't think intention is much of what you make it out to be at all.

Why would you come to ILP to challenge the assumption that ILP exists? Do you go to the pool to question the existence of water, or to swim?
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Silhouette » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 pm

statiktech wrote:An infant's first movements are intuitive as far as I can tell. He doesn't recognize that he can 'move', or that he has control of a bodily apparatus beforehand.

In the infant's case, I agree it is imprudent to posit any pre-meditated intention. My mention of the word "intention" was all related back to philosophy, so infants are somewhat irrelevant in this case. When I said "thought requires intention to think, and intentions depend on environment, including social circumstance", this was in reference to philosophical thought - as consistent with how I followed up with this: "That is to say your rank correlates with your philosophical outlook and thoughts in general".

I am not so naïve as to put all action down to intention - as shown by my recognition of things like reflex reactions lacking intention. You could put much infant movement down being to at least very similar to reflex reaction - to excess energy and simple immitation. There is more cognition going on, but you get my point about its seemingly mechanical nature.

statiktech wrote:And absent any notion of what is to be achieved? What then?

There is also exploration and absent-mindedness, yes. Exploration could be intention to explore, though absent-mindedness is unintentional. Going back to my reference to philosophical thought, absent-mindedness is no more applicable to what I meant than infants. Is there such a thing as being accidentally philosophical?

So seeing as philosophical thought requires intentional thought, and intentional thought depends on social environment, it is entirely reasonable to base one's philosophy on one's social standing/rank/role.

statiktech wrote:Motive and intent are two entirely different things.

What is the difference between intent and motive?
And is there a difference between intent and motive in philosophy?

Is motive what drives one to do something, which can be unintentional? At this point I could point out that strictly, intention only implies simple tendency or inclination - which may or may not be pre-meditated or consciously or morally desired. This gives it much more of the same feel as "motive" - though intention is generally used as pre-meditated and conscious as I'll use it. Moral intentions can differ from what one "really" wants - I think this highlights much of any difference between intent and motive. Someone's motive might be something they didn't intend to act upon - in philosophy, someone might not intend to think in accordance with their social rank but that would be their motive for philosophising in the way they do. I would regard this as very poor philosophy, since good philosophy has a solid understanding of what went into such philosophy - otherwise it is not very deep and often very presumptive. So perhaps I should rephrase my 2nd question to "is there a difference between intent and motive in good philosophy?"

statiktech wrote:A "causal model" explains very little if you consider that there is no causal mechanism -- meaning 'intent' is not something wholly predictable or determinate. In fact, I think intent becomes far less significant when we really begin to understand our actions.

And intent is not the 'cause' of an action. It is, at best, an approximation of an expected outcome.

You will notice that I said "Most might say the idea or notion causes the action". Before this I explained how I see causation (as, here, applied to intention): "a word for that which goes on in someone's mind before they act in a certain way, which is associated with such action". My view fits in with intent being "an approximation of an expected outcome" - except intention consistently does seem to coincide with action that attempts to satisfy that intention. In order to treat intention on its own, without it coinciding with any corresponding action as normal, one has to intend to keep one's intentions contained with plenty of frontal cortex action. But normally it is more than just an approximation of an expected outcome.

A mechanism can be approximated, though obviously the human body is proving very complex to model so it's not as precise as it could be. Intention is neuron firing, giving a picture of the intention (one's outcome approximation), which also involves firing down the spinal cord and to the relevant muscles, and also activation of the limbic system such that the right chemicals are released for such action. There is stuff that reliably goes on in between the intention and the action. Whilst I am skeptical of the whole "causation" thing, it fits in this case just as well as any other case where the word is used.

statiktech wrote:Why would you come to ILP to challenge the assumption that ILP exists? Do you go to the pool to question the existence of water, or to swim?

I don't go to the pool to philosophise (well, I probably philosophise everywhere), and I don't go to ILP to swim. It's not a good analogy. Of course philosophy can involve challenging the assumption of the existence of anything, even itself. There's nothing abnormal about coming to ILP to challenge the assumption that it exists - I'm not expecting it to disappear if I conclude that it shouldn't exist, though I do expect good philosophers to have challenged the existence of anything and everything. It's a valid philosophical concern to consider at least the way in which philosophy forums exist - what the dynamics are that go into such a social environment - since socio-environmental factors effect every single philosophy that constitutes it.

Silhouette wrote:Oh you're back, that's a shame.

Though maybe not - you do afterall provide a reliable source of... "stuff" to argue about. A useful chap yet :)

Btw, did no one notice that Saturd (can't mention his name lest he looks it up, now!) never came back after that belittling post of mine?

So what prize do I get? Cash?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Gobbo » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:36 am

Lovely assonance but the "rules" are self-evident. Behaviours are continuously evaluated at least subconsciously to distinct effect, whether subtle or dramatic, even when there is no "referee" or conscious recognition of what's changing. It's probably a lot clearer when you look at unconstrained social interaction rather than game performance and results. It's just absorbed from a young age (probably pre-natal in some ways even) until second nature...


So you're saying the rules being self-evident are that we can feel emotion/unconscious? Cool. We still look to society to frame it, or else how does it arise consciously? I'm not saying there must be an actual referee, obviously.

It's way clearer when you look at unconstrained social interaction. I agree.

In your example, Data's forcing of a draw is an assertion of dominance, just not one powerful enough to result in achievement of dominance. He wasn't just demonstrating the game, anyone who played it would be doing that whether they won, lost or drew even in a friendly match. The difference in Data's case is his assertion of the most effective strategy available to him. Nobody won but then the game-dominance was established right from the start with Data's knowledge of his superior.


No. Just because the individual can present a rational, logically based argument to himself about why he has 'asserted dominance' or whatever it does not mean that it's even available - at all - to anyone else. Someone in the audience sees a draw, cause it is a draw.

Case in point: you ever get beat in an argument by laughter? You present some super argument that impresses even you, and then other person farts and everyone laughs. It trumps you. The discussion ends. It doesn't matter that logically you won cause you didn't win; the fart one. Same thing. Data didn't win. No one won.

This is... Wittgenstein, as far as I can tell. Otherwise anyone can be alpha as long as they're delusional enough to see everything they do as some 'assertion of dominance.' Hey man, I didn't win the game, and he took my girl, and for some reason I shit my pants -- but, like, logically if you consider all this stuff, really I asserted more net dominance so technically I won. Hey, guys? Are you listening? Guys, where are you going?

"Away from your private language rubbish."
User avatar
Gobbo
Choronzon
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:23 am
Location: The Belly

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Jakob » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:04 pm

Silhouette wrote:Let's characterise an alpha male as:
Arrogant,
Self-centred,
Uncaring,
Unapologetic,
Selfish,
and fine with it.

This is also a pretty good sum up of a slave morality.

Fent wrote:We should add:
Domineering,
Attractive,

pride in acting violently.
the will to be terrible.
Last edited by Jakob on Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Who here is an alpha male?

Postby Jakob » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:17 pm

statiktech wrote:
And intent is not the 'cause' of an action. It is, at best, an approximation of an expected outcome.

When does affect become intent?
As it becomes conscious - what? By which criteria does an "it" arise?

Intent becomes intention when an outcome is contemplated.
In kung fu one does not hold an intention, but I would say that there is an intent, a wide awake alertness to an opening to deliver (give) a blow (energy), to "act".

I would say intent to act is prior to the conception of a goal.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users