Who here is an alpha male?

Silhouette

Maybe I am…maybe I’m not.

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

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.

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. So what does that make me?

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.

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.

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.

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.
I hope.
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.

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.

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.

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?

So you’re playing that card are you? I suppose if you " " 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.

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.

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.

Touché

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don’t think you can…

Damn it! I’m so let down.

…I don’t get why that is. Unfortunately, I find your statement to be more tragic than humorous.

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.

Oh yeah, that’s the other card you can pull: “I pity you” rather than " ". 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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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?