alpha chicks and beta chicks

You do know the wolf studies were all based on creatures in captivity, right?

I’m not saying that there isn’t some metaphorical truth to alpha/beta/theta/omega shit. But reification is poison. You never want to confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon.

It’s all context based. You’ve got to know how to dance to the music. I’m not saying it’s easy but, come on Gib, it’s been like a decade since I’ve been here. If you were a precocious 13 year old when we met, this is beneath 23 year old you.

More or less, yes. A predator to me. I’m beta, she’d dominate me.

Yes, I know. That’s why I put it in Sandbox. It’s got absolutely no philosophical merit whatsoever.

That’s OK but why entertain antilife philosophies?

If the question you ask is antilife, the answer will also be antilife.

Reject that philosophy. Anything you multiply by a negative number will be negative unless that number is also negative. If you aren’t a negative, why would you willingly debase yourself? I’ve never known anyone to get better by emphasizing the worst aspects of their character. So, even if you are a negative, maybe normal mathematical rules don’t apply. Because I’ve only seen that approach end in failure.

I don’t really try to be positive or negative, I just try to put threads in the right forums.

I have a thought on levels of maturity: there are three levels of maturity to be exact:

  1. The immature act immaturely because they can’t help it–they’re like children with no sense of self-control or ability to rise above petty issues.

  2. Then there’s the next level of maturity: gaining the ability to act mature but feeling compelled to do so at all times because “that’s what mature people do.”

  3. Knowing when to act mature and when not to–knowing that maturity is not compulsory but a choice–and that there are times to act like a kid and times to be a grown up.

(This is like Nietzsche’s camel, lion, and child, don’t you think?)

IOW, the most mature people will sometimes act immaturely.

This was an instance of me acting immaturely (placing it in sandbox made it appropriate… I think 8-[ ).

I think we can raise it out of the gutter and make it into a more mature discussion though (maybe even convince the mods to move it to philosophy :astonished: ). Let me try this:

You’re point seems to be that human beings–indeed, maybe animals in general–are not neatly pigeon holed into tidy “alpha” and “beta” categories, that we are a lot more versatile, malleable, and multi-dimensional than that. I agree. But in my 40 years of experience (yes I’m 40), I swear to God there are strains of people who are just categorically different from each other (and not in openly visible ways like race or sex). I think there are different genetic lines whose phenotype manifests as different brain wirings, or different algorithms running on those brains–you know, things that don’t show up on a continuous spectrum–such that there are those who instinctively know how to dominate (alpha) and those who are oblivious and submissive (beta). Again, this is just based on suspicion and not evidence, but my experience in life would suggest this is true.

^ Can we start with that?

I love categories. I think they are important.

Reifying categories is dumb as fuck.

A central question of my philosophy, one I struggle with on a daily basis is “Am I reading the text or is the text reading me?”

Does this make sense?

Sort of. You mean: are you reading the text for what it’s intended to convey or are you projecting your own interpretation on the text and reading that back to yourself?

Finally! I found a perfect mix of alpha and beta:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2EJMd7ZN7w[/youtube]

Cool video/song…

Is a person not one or the other? Are you implying a person can be both? if so… how so? in your view.

Like I said to Xunzian, I think there are certain “types”–dominant (alpha) and passive (beta)–but one can certainly be a mix. In fact, I think that’s the most alpha. The most fit human being is one who knows when to be beta and when to be alpha–whatever the occasion calls for. ← But that’s a skill not everyone has.

I just love this girl…

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTLTXDHrgtw[/youtube]

This girl’s completely Gaga!

I especially like the part where Boucher plays the violin.

My intuition tells me that the so-called “alpha chicks” are degenerate women. Basically, they are what happens when folk starts degenerating and social bonds start weakening freeing everyone from their original social roles to become . . . asocial, beast-like, freaks.

That’s pretty much what Lady Gaga and Grimes are.

Are you saying this based off what I’m calling an “alpha chick” or what you call an “alpha chick”?

You say this happens when they break with “original social roles” ← What do you mean by this? Being beta? Being home makers? Raising children?

I wouldn’t call the “alpha” chicks in this thread “asocial, beast-like, freaks” I’d be scared to go on a date with them out of fear they might rip my balls off, but that’s a far cry from being asocial, beast-like, freaks.

Furthermore, I’ve been researching Grimes a little, watching interviews with her, and turns out she’s pretty beta after all. She gets nervous in interview, thinks she’s a terrible vocalist, is shy and introverted most of the time, can sing in front of a whole sea of people but not in front of close friends and family, and becomes embarrassed to explain what the characters in her videos and songs symbolize. ← That I’d call beta.

Well, the way they sing, the way they dress, the way they dance, as well as the kind of music that plays in the background, is beast-like.

I don’t care what they are in real-life. The way they present themselves in their videos, and their music, is beast-like.

Proves my point. When civilization dies, people gradually become more and more tribal.

Is she shy? Well, it’s only a matter of time before she overcomes what little shyness is left in her and goes completely beast-like.

It’s a matter of overcoming one’s brain, one’s fears, which is difficult for people who are very introverted, but not impossible. Give them enough time, several generations perhaps, and they will devolve into beasts. Unless they go extinct in the meantime, which I think is more likely.

There is nothing positive about it. Recklessness isn’t strength.

Women can be reckless . . . I don’t understand how that makes them “alpha”.

Alpha males – leaders – aren’t simply extraverted. They are also introverted. They are close to being ambiverts, maybe leaning somewhat towards the extraverted side, but still close to ambiversion in comparison to reckless people who are pure extraverts.

Shameless women, women who have overcome their introversion, aren’t alpha, they are just annoying beasts.

Maybe the word beast is too strong to adequately describe these women. Pest would be more fitting.

No, beast is just fine… a beautiful, sexy, talented, brilliant, crazy beast :romance-heartsthree: :romance-heartstiny: :romance-hearteyes:

Women are by their nature slaves. Similar to children, though better. Slave is someone whose own choices are so poor in relation to other organisms that these other organisms have no choice but to limit their choices to some degree. We can say that slaves are organisms that have a significant degree of undeserved freedom. Now these slaves, I mean women, have been emancipated, and their inclinations, previously deemed to be inferior and in need of restraint, are now free for all to see. And I really think it’s sad to see males being attracted to them.

I believe in evolutionary diversity. I believe that while the average woman may fit your stereotype (or maybe not), there are bound to be deviants who fit the roll of alpha quite well (without being doomed to make poor decisions). Madonna, for instance, made an incredibly successful life for herself as an artist, and is obviously highly intelligent. I’m not sure how she makes for a wife or a mother, or anything else outside the public awareness of her life–so maybe there she fouls up big time–but I definitely think she’s different from the stereotypical childish female hysteric you seem to have in mind.

I don’t know what you mean by alpha, other than extraverted or shameless or popular or rich.

How does Madonna compare to Napoleon or Caesar? Pretty poorly, right?

Madonna is just a singer. Okay, maybe also dancer, actress and songwriter of some sort. But how does her art compare to the best of art we have? How does her music compare to Mozart, for example? Pretty poorly, right?

How is that better than being a mother loyal to some worthy husband?

She’s an attention whore, obedient to the whims of the greatest number of people. How is that a success?

People do not live in a bubble, independently from the rest of the world. When there are other people, there will be social hierarchy, unless they are uncivilized of course, and that means you’ll have your role defined, not only by your natural inclinations, but also by external circumstances.

I mean dominant. Specifically in this thread, I mean I think she would dominate me on a date or in a relationship (which doesn’t have to mean abusive, just wearing the pants).

Right, but I’m comparing these alpha girls to other girls, not to men. I’m thinking that what makes a person “alpha” or “beta” is highly genetic. Both men and women can acquire the alpha gene. If a woman acquires the alpha gene, she’d probably end up something like the first three women in the OP.

Again, let’s compare her to other women in the music industry.

This is a poor example for me because I’ve never been a big Madonna fan nor a Mozart fan–if you ask me, they’re equally boring. But I have no doubt Madonna is a very talented singer and song writer, compared to guys and girls.

I understand what you’re trying to say: that women trying to be alpha leads to disaster because they’re trying to act a part that they weren’t meant for, so it won’t be done nearly as well. But surely that doesn’t necessary hold for every pursuit in life that they might strive for. You really think singing or other art forms degrade when the women performing them try to be alpha? Would Madonna have been a better artist if she had more of a beta personality?

If she’s not fit for it, she’d make a terrible mother/wife.

While I think she is an attention whore, I don’t know about obedient to the whims of her fans; but success here can be measured by fame and fortune. I’m guessing though, you’d prefer to measure success by the quality of her art. ← But there too, I’m not convinced it’s of poor quality.

It’s the “natural inclination” that I’m questioning. I don’t think all women trying to be alpha are doing so against their “feminine” nature. ← That’s where my point about biological diversity comes in. There naturally will be some women who are genetically alpha, and if they are situated in a society that demands strict adherence to sex roles, that will be a disaster. They will be conflicted between their natural calling and society’s unyielding expectations.

That’s part of the problem.

Alpha males are superior to beta males but “alpha” females aren’t superior to “beta” females, in the same way that criminals are not superior to beta males.

Criminals can dominate betas . . . does not make them superior and it certainly does not make them alphas.