The reason why humans have no real alpha males

Post Reply New Topic

Very interesting




https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RKh6N-sMBkA

Very interesting. It makes me think what if the reason why NTs attack or excloude ASDs is because the ASD person is percieved as an aspiring alpha. But that wouldn't explain the same thing being experienced by female ASDs. But then what if that group attack of beta males has become a central feature of socialising for our species?

Humans self-selected towards a more domesticated form, but that doesn't mean alpha/beta nonsense is relevant.

Correction: It is no longer relevant for humans, never been relevant for wild wolves, but it is still very relevant for most primates, and humans are primates, not canines. I think no primatologist denies the existence of alphas/betas.

In the studies of social animals, the highest ranking individual of a dominance hierarchy is sometimes designated as the alpha. Males, females, or both, can be alphas, depending on the species. Bee queens are certainly alphas (and the mothers of entire hives).

I gues he/she (?) Is confusing the idea of alpha/beta males in primates with the alpha/beta dichotomy used in the red pill community.

Pretty much.

The problem with this discussion is that many people think it must be a dichotomy between absolutely selfish Alpha behavior and absolutely selfless Beta behavior, so when the selfish Alpha loses, selfless Beta behavior becomes the recommendation. In reality, I think the highest status men are the ones who are able to balance both. I don't think the coalition of chimps ganging up on an Alpha can really be called "Beta" in a selfless sense, nor would I call the Alpha of a species absolutely selfish, since even in social animals, the top of the hierarchy often has the most responsibility. For example, alpha gorillas are the first to defend their troop from an animal attack. Strength and dominance are still called for, just don't destroy potential allies in the process.

If the extreme male mind theory of autism is true, then it could very well be true that much of the disabilities from autism come from exaggerated neurology meant to facilitate male dominance. I.E., not caring about social values, obsession with the external world, need for control of surroundings, anger issues. Traits that could have been used for a powerful, dominant man, but find themselves in a feeble, low competence one. The Betas need true Alphas to survive, yet ironically detest pseudo-Alphas for not being Beta. Bully to the weak and courtier to the strong as they say.

It's basically Nietzche's Master vs Slave dichotomy, down to a biological level. Nietzche himself seemed to be pretty autistic, though I think he attributes this more to nurture than nature, not realizing he's in fact the odd one out.

^^ Actually, the alpha male chimp is not necessarily the strongest male but often is the male with the most allies. It does ring a bell, no?

If the supposed "alpha" chimp has allies, doesn't that make it part of a coalition? The video says "coalitions" are the tool of "beta"s. So really, even that supposed "alpha" chimp is really just a Master Beta, isn't it?

In nature, the one thing that matters above all else, is survival. Nature doesn't really care how you survive, whether it's using strength or brains, whether it's alone or in groups. Survival is survival, and something either works, or it doesn't.

Despite the flimsy disclaimer, this still just sounds like the "it's totally biology!" section of red-pill literature, with "wolf" scratched out, and "ape" scribbled in. Though I do love the inclusion of the idea that women can be alphas too, but the example we're given is "bees!"...

Yes, I should have been more clear that I meant in humans. I assumed the context of the thread made that clear.

Anyways, didn't you brag about blocking my posts?

I bragged about the blocking functionality, you were the demo.

I am pretty sure primatologists call the first chimp as alpha, he is the leader, all others follow him. The alpha uses his coalision to overthrow a previous alpha, and to maintain his status.

Chimps aren't nice at all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVAiY1k ... eofHistory




Pretty much.



No, it's in your head.



I said, it depends on the species, humans don't have real alpha/beta in any gender.



Be glad that I didn't mention spiders.

I didn't watch the video and I'm not into this type of terminology or mindset, but I'm curious who supposedly determines which humans are "Alphas" or "Betas"?

Is that the person themselves, or a societal judgment, or a partner's judgment?

I'm perplexed.

I'm sure my idea of an Alpha male, for instance, would be society's idea of a Beta.

Are there at least such things as "Alpha Autistics" and "Beta Autistics" if such a horrible term must be used?



* I realise this thread is about Alpha / Beta not really existing, but I'm curious about the background of these concepts and where or how they originated in popular culture. If that's a derail, just ignore thanks.

The alpha/beta male classification is related to online mens rights communities. A prominent one being "The Red Pill" Reddit community. It's absolute nonsense.

If an alpha needs a coalition to achieve dominance, then it's not really much of an alpha, is it? If the group is the reason for success, it was the group that succeeded, not the individual.

Furthermore, if, as you agree, survival is tantamount, then a "beta" who continues to survive, while "alphas" are systematically replaced one after the other, is the one achieving the goal. And survival is what counts, right?

Claiming it's in my head is lazy gaslighting at best.

But speaking of perception, behaviors often get projected onto animals based on various human biases. What the average person calls an "alpha" is typically just a hungry animal competing for resources, and succeeding.

It is quite possible that the reason there are no Real Alpha Males in humans, is cos there's no such thing as "alphas" in the first place.

Red-pill or not, I still generally only hear "alpha" talk from the kinds of people who seek power, and want to justify taking it.

I like spiders. Mantises, too. I just found it interesting that you seemed to liken male alphas to apes, but female alphas to bugs. The fact that your follow-up to "bees" was "spiders" is equally interesting.

Having said that, what exactly is the point of this discussion? So humans have no "real alpha males". So what? Why does this matter? Who cares? I mean, neat "fact" or w/e, but, other than file it away with the number of dimples on a golf ball, how is this of interest or benefit?

Simply put, what's your angle here?

The guy in the video proposes that there is no alpha in humans as there is in primates. That is the alpha has an exclusivity in mating with the females of the group. In humans there is no such alpha in the sense of exlusivity of mating opportunity. In humans that becomes more egalitarian.

The video proposes that this shift towards a more egalitarian mating oportunity in males, lead to the evolution of our species. By steadily eliminating those with alpha tendencies we domesticated ourselves. If I understand correctly.