alpha chicks and beta chicks

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.

Well, then you’re arguing a different point to me. All I’m arguing in the OP (if you can call it an argument) is that alpha chicks scare me (using music as an example). I’m not trying to make any claims about who’s superior and who’s inferior.

If you’re talking about who makes better artists, I’m still not convinced being beta or alpha has any effect.

Alright then. I assumed you are claiming they are superior because that’s what the word alpha implies. If you simply mean intimidating . . . that’s fine.

Here’s the polar opposite of intimidating:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-fWDrZSiZs[/youtube]

She even says all she does is cause trouble and destruction. That’s . . . cute.

She also says " I am in love"

and love does strange things to women… and men.

Even the ‘toughest’ female mellows for her man, at least until the honeymoon is over and stranger still

some last the distance and some don’t.

youtu.be/b-I2s5zRbHg

a beautiful and an amazingly talented woman

Well, alpha (to me) implies dominant, and that can be construed as superior, if by superior we mean higher up on the hierarchy. But I agree that being higher up on the hierarchy doesn’t always mean being fit for that position.

It’s like being an ice cube in an oven.

sigh

You gotta laugh… HA!

No, you got to show your emotions. Whether it’s a laugh or a sigh is irrelevant. That’s what women do. The world must know how you feel about it.

(:

Xunzian

That’s an interesting way of expressing it. If I understand what you mean by the latter,
I think that you are probably more ahead of the game then many of us are. I would say that you are already conscious of the fact that as you read, you may be at certain times already forming an opinion or have a personal opinion or bias as to what you are reading and that may be influencing you in what you seem to feel is a more positive way (you automatically agree with what you read) or a negative one, where you automatically disagree with what you read ~~ again, if that is basically what you mean by “reading me”.

It’s not an easy thing for many to withhold judgment on whether the writer is right or wrong by simply reading the text in a detached way and doing the real “thinking” about it later on. We “go into” books or texts with our own pre-conceived ideas even though what we actually wish for, hope for, is to see another’s point of view, another way of thinking, another theory or hypothesis and to gain more knowledge than we’ve had before.

This is the way the human mind works. It needs to be slowed down a bit so we can better understand what it is the writer is trying to say instead of imagining what we believe he is trying to say.

Yes, it does because I am aware of my own propensity to get ahead of myself and to allow my own thoughts and opinions to at times rise up and influence me in the journey of my reading - instead of simply reading without “knowing” where the author is going or wants to go…

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we don’t reflect on what we read ~ later on or as we go on- but without pre-judgment.

Am I wrong?