[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it your opinion that the evolutionary biologist who described alpha/beta male behavior in ancient hominids was misusing the term?

In this context, misusing the term is not the direct opposite of using it correctly.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And then who will fight the wars?

Wow, first wave misandry. Stupid violent men should shut up and bow to the womansplaining.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In this context, misusing the term is not the direct opposite of using it correctly.

So, you're saying that he wasn't using it correctly in the context of discussing his field of study? Have you contacted him to let him know?

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's interesting to me to hear guys talk about alpha and beta males, particularly in the context of the Aurora Theater Shootings last week. I read something yesterday on a PUA blog calling the three men who died for their girlfriends in the Aurora theater "beta males." It's interesting, and not very scientific. In the context of most of the game/PUA theory/MRA posts on this board, so-called alpha males are more pseudoscience than actual biological reality.

Could you link this PUA blog item please. It does sound interesting and would keep people on track (i.e., it's one thing to say that someone wrote something; it's another to read what they wrote).

[Undead Bonzi]

Why do we care what some tardmonkey says on his blog about PUAs/Alpha/Beta whatever in relation to the Colorado shooting? Stupid saying is stupid and doesn't really help analyzing male/female interaction in relationships. The only thing this proves is that people on the internet can have opinions.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by Undead Bonzi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do we care what some tardmonkey says on his blog about PUAs/Alpha/Beta whatever in relation to the Colorado shooting? Stupid saying is stupid and doesn't really help analyzing male/female interaction in relationships. The only thing this proves is that people on the internet can have opinions.

Because there's three straight pages of no context here. When I let loose at someone, I want the sonofabitch to deserve it.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, you're saying that he wasn't using it correctly in the context of discussing his field of study? Have you contacted him to let him know?

I'm saying that he can't be "using it correctly" if there IS no correct usage. You used the example of "slut shaming", but if someone declared that their definition of slut was correct and everyone else's was wrong, you would probably make the same arguments that people are making to you now. I'm fairly sure that has actually happened, now I think of it.

And no, your appeals to authority don't make a difference to that. Nor does research applied to our own society when it was done on a species with a completely different societal structure to our own.

[catzmeow]

Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm saying that he can't be "using it correctly" if there IS no correct usage. You used the example of "slut shaming", but if someone declared that their definition of slut was correct and everyone else's was wrong, you would probably make the same arguments that people are making to you now. I'm fairly sure that has actually happened, now I think of it. And no, your appeals to authority don't make a difference to that. Nor does research applied to our own society when it was done on a species with a completely different societal structure to our own.

Nobody here could consistently define slut, it's a subjective term. The researchers in the primate study had a clear definition which shaped their research. There are many concepts that are subjective but are still studied.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Self-sacrifice is deferential because it's something that white-knights do for women, who will turn around and fuck some other guy after their death.

You read that on a PUA blog? Got a link? After 3 pages I'm assuming not, but maybe you could be convinced to go find it.

	Originally Posted by Marcus Septim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The men who decide to be monogamous,raise children etc,be brave. Are not fucking BETA lol If anything,it takes a lot to shoulder responcibilities!!

You mean you don't like the negative connotation of beta, or you think they don't fit the scientific definition? BTW, I get all my science from urban dictionary
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In other words, alpha male within primate and hominid species is a real phenomenon, but it is nothing like the PUA conception of Alpha Male, which is pseudoscience.

Yeah, about that. If there's nothing valuable in PUA literature why are you reading and discussing PUA literature? Is it just fun to tiptoe over to the bad side of town so you can come back and make fun of their ugly cars? If you thought it was bullshit why didn't you just ignore it?

[catzmeow]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Considering a man willingly dying in defense of women is not only taking himself out of the gene-pool but is also making the ultimate (albeit tacit) admission of his inferior genetic value when compared in the harshest light – does it make anyone think that this “protection meme” is yet another “shit test”?

Why make fun of PUA crap? Because the above is bullshit. The rest of the post is no better.

[blueback]

I don't see any reference to whether or not a self-sacrificing male is alpha/beta. Those words don't appear anywhere on the page and I don't see any synonyms or related concepts.

It sounds to me like the reason the argument is flawed is that men who die FOR ANY REASON are removing themselves from the gene pool. There's nothing new about the observation that men take more physical risks than women; that's cross-cultural and cross-generational. The specific risks tend to depend on culture and generation, but the trend is the same.

My impression of the scientific argument, such as it is, is that it's the men who take more physical risks who are generally alphas, and betas are often defined by avoiding physical risk. So, if the concepts of alpha/beta are applied to the argument at all (which your source didn't do) taking a greater physical risk would indicate alpha status, even if the risk happened to turn out badly in this case.

The alpha/beta concept isn't all that useful, but it's never made any sense to judge alpha/beta status based on one or two data points. If an alpha does something alpha, and it goes badly for him, and he ends up in the hospital, he has rendered himself unable to have sex at least for a while, so he couldn't possibly take any girls home at that moment, but it wouldn't make sense to label him beta just because he went home alone. It is exactly that tendency to step out in front and take more risks that makes a guy more likely to be an alpha. Sometimes it doesn't work out, but the overall trend of taking more risks tends to result in that status.

So, if a guy is the kind of person who instinctively takes a big risk like use his body as a bullet shield, then the odds are pretty good he does risky leader stuff in other situations too. Making him more likely to be an alpha than a beta.

As for the actual argument advanced by your source, I can see the point. A person who volunteers to get killed prior to producing viable offspring is removing themselves from the gene pool. However, determining whether or not a guy is alpha or beta has never rested on how their actions affect their genes, the judgement depends on the actions in and of themselves (technically female response to the actions). Even if a guy is sterile he could still be alpha.

Alpha and beta are social constructs, not genetic constructs. The potential effect on the next generation is merely a symptom. A better alpha/beta analysis would be to poll the women who witnessed the situation and determine whether or not they responded favorably to the action of the men. Since the response seems to be universally positive, that action would indicate alpha status. Alpha doesn't mean spreading one's seed upon widely dispersed fertile fields. Most guys who are generally considered alpha go out of their way to avoid fertilizing anyone's fields. Alpha means that a guy is in social demand. The fact that what he did got him killed is irrelevant.

[setsume]

There are biological dispositions toward alpha and beta traits:
Testosterone: Higher libido, more muscle mass, more aggression (ability to take risks)
Vasopressin: Pair bonding

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[LadySpock]

Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's interesting to me to hear guys talk about alpha and beta males, particularly in the context of the Aurora Theater Shootings last week. I read something yesterday on a PUA blog calling the three men who died for their girlfriends in the Aurora theater "beta males." It's interesting, and not very scientific. In the context of most of the game/PUA theory/MRA posts on this board, so-called alpha males are more pseudoscience than actual biological reality. First, alpha male behaviors amongst hominids aren’t the same as alpha male behaviors among other species: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I work in criminal justice, my husband is military. The guys I work with and my husband are true alpha hominid/primate males: they are peer-bonded males with self-selected leadership who protect the boundaries of their territory from incursions by hostiles. Equivalents to chimp male behavior can be observed quite clearly in modern human society in groups like gang members, cops, and military personnel. Alpha males are selected by their peers (you can’t fake alpha status with other males). They win this status via demonstrating competence, focused aggression, and building a team of other male supporters (demonstrating leadership qualities). In primate and hominid society, this is a democratic process. There’s one winner but the losers often get killed. There is no replacement for competence and leadership in this process. Beta status isn’t as good as alpha, at least in chimpanzee society, but there is evidence that lower ranking males actually won “the game,” genetically speaking, in our ancestors. Recent research suggests that biological pair-bonding between lower ranking male hominids and monogamous females began around 4.4 million years ago and laid the foundation for the modern family: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . There were two ways to win the battle of the seed spreading. One way was the alpha chimp method of promiscuity and spreading of genes via screwing as many females in your “tribe” as you could. The other way was for a lower ranking male to woo the fidelity of a female by being a provider, and have more offspring with one female who was pair-bonded to you. Some of the more current research suggests that this latter method “won” the genetic lottery and that is why families exist among humans. This scenario not only won in terms of numbers, but it is also theorized to have won in terms of providing a healthier diet for the family involved, leading to higher levels of brain development and escalating human evolution into higher-level thinking. It’s much more complex than the beta/alpha false dichotomy espoused in MRA forums and amongst PUAs. I think that Athol Kay nails it when he says, to men: “Alpha Traits create attraction…Beta Traits create the pair bond…You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta….” The problem with a lot of the MRA/PUA posts is simple: Alpha hominid males have historically been the ones at the dangerous edges of the tribe protecting the tribe from harm with their male peers. The alphas would have led the other males in diving in front of bullets to save the tribe. You’re either a hero, or you aren’t. Last friday at midnight, there were five alphas in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater: John Blunk, Matt McQuinn, Alex Teves, Allie Young, and Stephanie Davis. Three of them were male, two were female. Allie Young (female) was the first person to stand up in the theater, warn other people, confront the gunman. She was shot in the neck (perhaps one of the first people to be shot). Stephanie Davis risked her life to save her friend (Allie). John Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alex Teves laid down their lives for other people: true alpha behavior. No offense, but if you have to try and fake alpha behaviors, you aren’t alpha.

It appears that we have something in common .... I work in Criminal Justice and my husband is a US Marine.

This topic comes up repeatedly. Despite the fact that you have dispensed some solid info, I suspect it will end the same way it always has because the reality is alpha and beta are not really useful terms for understanding humans...especially in today's society.

I don't necessarily believe in alpha and beta humans but I do know this:
There are those of us who lead and protect and there are those of us who save our own asses and follow. Some of us are female and some of us a are male. In today's society where things are usually physically easy (there are grocery stores, police, and medicines) it may be harder to see who is who. Some folks may assume that those with the money and big homes are the leaders. I think that's an incorrect assumption.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In today's society where things are usually physically easy (there are grocery stores, police, and medicines) it may be harder to see who is who. Some folks may assume that those with the money and big homes are the leaders. I think that's an incorrect assumption.

Well put.

Peeps like to find easy answers, especially if they suspect the question is hard. Also...I think people actually like to FEEL things. More than they like to be right, that is. So all they have to do is latch on to a particular "answer" and pretend it is incontrovertible. Then, when someone controverts it, they can get angry, or when someone...verts it...(that joke is starting to break down) they can get happy.

We're the weirdos. We generally try to avoid feelings because they get in the way of being right.