Initial attraction: Beta Male Body Language

Page 4 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,584

26 Jun 2012, 9:32 am

rabbittss wrote:
Blah blah blah, social Darwinist drivel.. blah blah.

Sorry, were you saying something?


Troll

Hijacked the thread.

I bit for the journymanbaiter too, grrr =(


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction


Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

26 Jun 2012, 9:45 am

Shatbat wrote:
I appreciate that you´re making an effort to help everyone around here :). That will probably come in handy for many people I´ve seen around~


Thanks, glad to know, you're a positive energy on this forum and have made several positive contributions in this thread.

HisDivineMajesty wrote:
Although you seem to detest me, you're actually right in offering a solution to the problem I've often stated.
Glad we're on the same page for that.


A few discussions or debates doesn't mean I detest someone, I don't take things to a personal extent on here like certain people do.

sgrannel wrote:
It still has instructional value. Hey, he even has a chance with the second girl, and he blows that, too. There's more going on than being a desperate "beta". The "beta" position might have been quite satisfactory if he'd played it right.


That is part of the point here, people can sometimes become so obsessed with the unattainable or compare themselves to something that they can't have at that moment that they don't realize what they can have. Sometimes people only feel underachieved because of their outlook and they can miss opportunities because of it.

lightening020 wrote:
Fact: talking about alpha and beta behavior means your not an alpha and will never be, if you really want to go there. I said it.

Look we are all born with different circumstances.

I was definitely born with an in-born temperament, 95% certain AS, I had a rough childhood, very few friends, terrible social anxiety in high school, love-shyness, and now horrible depression, loneliness, anxiety, manic thoughts, terrible insomnia, possible OCD and other health problems that can manifest when shits not right.

Its not impossible for me to be "the man", or to eventually become popular with the opposite sex, or to find my groove, but to be "alpha" in that sense as you and other guys think about it, NO. I will never be that, I was never meant to be that, and none of you will ever be that. I'm telling you what you vision as "alpha male" is a different person, and I guarantee nobody here is that.


Interesting that you view it as something unattainable when really it's just a mindset and a set of characteristics, assertive personality traits and methods that lead to success. Anyone can learn the behaviour through Cognitive behavioural therapy, hard work and self belief. It might take trial and error, it might not come as naturally as others but if you apply yourself to something, I also believe hard work can triumph. It's a matter of confronting your fears in different situations and learning to feel good about yourself. It's not being afraid to express yourself or to reach out to others. It's about taking the initiative to make things happen instead of sitting back and waiting for things to happen or for others to do things for you.

Every person experiences the same hurts, same feelings and insecurities, everyone has the same need and craving for love, self respect and acceptance. Being a success doesn't mean owning a yacht, sports car or being a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, it simply means having the self motivation to overcome and adapt yourself so you can learn personal happiness and achieve personal goals that are based on realistic expectations.

A great leader like William Wallace was not born great before a battle, he had to discuss his tactics with his peers, did that make him less of tactician?

starryeyedvoyager wrote:
While I think this whole "alpha/beta male" thing is mainly used by people as an excuse to either be a total jerk, to belittle others or as an excuse for not trying, there is a point to it: You don't get a second try at a first impression (well... sort of, there are ways, but they are difficult to execute).


There's a difference between aggression and assertiveness, aggression either pushes people away or draws people in that have a low self esteem themselves because the aggressive person will fortify their negative core beliefs. Aggressive people also tend to be using it to mask insecurities from the past.



Zinia
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 344

26 Jun 2012, 9:49 am

noname_ever wrote:
Shatbat wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
By "in general", I meant that they practiced true altruism and didn't do good when it had a side benefit for them. Doing good is easy when it rewards you.


I haven't ascertained that one myself. If a parent gives their life for their son, I'll sometimes tell to myself "well, he'd rather die for them than live with the guilt he didn't do what he could" (I know the "must take care of own genes" explanation but... I'm not that cold 8O ) but... there is people who would kill someone because it's fun, people who can give a lot while receiving little themselves, even though it makes them feel good and thus is not completely altruistic, and a lot in between. So if there is someone whose reward for helping others is the good feeling of doing something right, I'll settle for that. I just reached that conclusion btw, those last days have been really insightful :D


Feeling good for doing good is one way to interpret it, but it's only 1 way this applies.

Consider these examples.

1) I bought 2 boxes of girl scout cookies. It cost $7, which is a token amount. I did some good, but it really didn't affect me any more than tossing 50 cents into a Salvation Army pot by one of their bell ringers. There is a reward for a trivial cost.
2) I donated more to a cause, but I get a tax deduction. It's even more powerful if the items I donate for a cash value have a decent market value, but are useless to me. I don't have to go through the effort to sell them and I get the write off.
3) I can donate to the NRA-ILA. Since they lobby for laws that affect me, it is still in my self interest and not because of some inherent altruism.
4) Many parents donate to schools and get a write off. They donate to the school their children attend. By doing this, the directly benefit from their donation since it improves their own children's education. It's killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
5) Sometimes it's securing a better spot in history. If Bill Gates donations lead to eradicating malaria, he will be known even after people have forgotten him for Microsoft and his riches and long after Microsoft has been lost to history.

The most altruistic example above is #1 and it's generally done because it doesn't affect the giver much.


I think that altruism can be most easily identified by intention. For example, if someone buys girl scout cookies because they're a pedophile and like interacting with little girls, and they've got a chocolate addiction--then it's not a very altruistic act if the person is thinking, "oh, look at those little girls, I want an excuse to talk to them even though I know my parole doesn't allow it." Right?

Also, I think altruistic behavior, and also psychopathic behavior (with the lack of empathy), are effected by our brain chemistry. It can feel good to be altruistic. And I watched a documentary (and read another article) on psychopaths in which the scientists thought that psychopaths produced less stress hormone, so they never learned to avoid hurting others to avoid shame?

But, I still think altruism can be identified by intention to a degree. Like, if I saw a little old lady trying to get on the bus with a bunch of heavy bags--I could think:

"I will help her because it will make me feel good."

"I will help her because it will make me look good."

Or, "I will help her because she looks like she's struggling, and she might hurt herself, and she wouldn't like that."

So--I think the last intention is the most altruistic.

But I don't really split hairs when it comes to helping others. I think it's usually good, regardless of the intentions, especially if helping others is part of a person's ethical system, and something they will consistently do through their lives.



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

26 Jun 2012, 9:55 am

thewhitrbbit wrote:
First impressions are huge, like it or not, that's how it is.


I just want to stress this point and say that Initial attraction is the most important step as well, having the ability to create initial attraction and making a good first impression is definitely critical. Having that ability also means you will attract more types of women so you will have the ability to be more selective. You can't even know if you are compatible with someone if you can't get a foot in the door. It also helps in other aspects such as creating friendships and gaining employment.



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,584

26 Jun 2012, 9:55 am

Zinia wrote:
Personally, I've come to believe that most of us cannot fully escape our socialization, and even good, deep thinking people will have their attention peaked by superficial crap that has nothing to do with the actual value of a person.

Very insightful. =D
Your whole post was concise, very reality based w/no hint of mindless buy-in to prefab-stereotyping.

You know Zinia, I'm kinda turned on by you right now. =)


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction


Last edited by 1401b on 26 Jun 2012, 10:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

26 Jun 2012, 9:59 am

edgewaters wrote:
Shatbat wrote:
tit for tat relies on infinite iterations, or not knowing which the last one will be, because otherwise betraying in the last one is always the best option too.


Right but most situations in life are at least potentially iterated (if not outright iterated) and there's no way of knowing which the last iteration will be. Often the iterations are in ways you don't see coming.


I'll give you an example, there was this forty-something woman, who while on holidays was wooed by a young twenty-something man, and after a while entered a relationship with him. She fell in love with him. After around one year and a half he asked for her life savings for a business he was starting, and she provided. Then he vanished.

I believe the core of the issue is that, unlike the normal prisoner's dilemma, in life it is always possible to stop playing with the other, at either party's will. So they run the risk of being betrayed and left without possibility of retaliation, in every interaction. And betrayal pays especially well when an iteration with high stakes comes.

There are things, like contracts, that are made specifically to penalize betrayal so much that keeping one's word becomes the best option. And when there are no contracts, trust is all we got.

EDIT: Yup, I'm getting too carried away and deraling the topic. Do you guys mind?


_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill


Last edited by Shatbat on 26 Jun 2012, 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

noname_ever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

26 Jun 2012, 10:03 am

Zinia wrote:
But I don't really split hairs when it comes to helping others. I think it's usually good, regardless of the intentions, especially if helping others is part of a person's ethical system, and something they will consistently do through their lives.


It's not altruism though if the rule is that I will do good if it benefits me. You can apply the same motivations that supposed "nice guys" get assigned (they're only nice because they want something) to most people who do good works. There is a benefit for them.



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

26 Jun 2012, 10:05 am

Shatbat wrote:
I'll give you an example, there was this forty-something woman, who while on holidays was wooed by a young twenty-something man, and after a while entered a relationship with him. She fell in love with him. After around one year and a half he asked for her life savings for a business he was starting, and she provided. Then he vanished.


Yes but there's no telling whether he might not encounter her again in another context. Maybe his business will fail, and he'll go for an interview at his dream job, and guess who the interviewer is? Weird things happen in life, I've learned that. What goes around has a way of coming around, and you won't ever see it coming when it does.

Also reputation is important, and not really accounted for in the prisoner's dilemma. One who is known to betray, will be excluded from any opportunity demanding trust (unless the other party intends to betray, which they won't feel bad about doing to a betrayer). A single minor betrayal could carry an opportunity cost literally thousands of times larger than the actual yield.

I've seen people shoot themselves in the foot countless times, thinking they're smart, only to make a train wreck of their situation. I'm sure you have too.



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,584

26 Jun 2012, 10:16 am

noname_ever wrote:
It's not altruism though if the rule is that I will do good if it benefits me. You can apply the same motivations that supposed "nice guys" get assigned (they're only nice because they want something) to most people who do good works. There is a benefit for them.

From a certain (pedantic) point of view altruism cannot exist.

I find a more comfortable explanation in Evolutionary Ethics.
And maybe Biological Imperatives?

Which probably gives a hint of what I look to for comfort. =/


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction


noname_ever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

26 Jun 2012, 10:20 am

I'm not saying altruism cannot exist, only that it is rare since people are inherently selfish, where selfish would include being in the interest of people the selfish person cares about (like their children).



Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

26 Jun 2012, 10:42 am

edgewaters wrote:
Yes but there's no telling whether he might not encounter her again in another context. Maybe his business will fail, and he'll go for an interview at his dream job, and guess who the interviewer is? Weird things happen in life, I've learned that. What goes around has a way of coming around, and you won't ever see it coming when it does.
]

Well, in that case we might be arriving to something. You probably believe that this is always the case, but I personally believe that if somebody wrongs other people, then they'll be likely to seek revenge, so bad things are likelier to happen to him, but he can always escape his fate. A simple example: I've heard of a lot of cases of parental abandonment, where the one leaving gets away with it. This is worth discussing further, although I'd like to reach a conclusion for this game theory discussion first :P If what goes around always comes around, then your statement is true. But if it is not always the case, then it is possible to betray and receive a net benefit from it.

Quote:
Also reputation is important, and not really accounted for in the prisoner's dilemma. One who is known to betray, will be excluded from any opportunity demanding trust (unless the other party intends to betray, which they won't feel bad about doing to a betrayer). A single minor betrayal could carry an opportunity cost literally thousands of times larger than the actual yield.


Loss of reputation, good to have in mind. But a single major betrayal can yield more than the opportunity cost that comes with it. Also, reputations are always attached to an identity, and really skilled con-men can ditch them and make a new one if they deem it necesary.


_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

26 Jun 2012, 11:03 am

edgewaters wrote:
TM wrote:
The individuals are the carriers of the genes, and the very very short view on evolution is the battle between indvidual gene configurations to best continue the species existence. As I said, we are not genetically identical, and from an evolutionary perspective our different gene configurations compete.


In nature, competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive.

You have to ask - why are our gene configurations different?

The answer is the evolution of sexual reproduction and its triumph over parthenogenesis, which allowed for the individual to transmit genetic makeups in their entirety, with no deviation or compromise with some other individual. Sexual reproduction put an end to that, in favour of cooperative compromise on genetic contributions. Even the fact we are not precise clones (as reproduction was once done) is a product of the evolutionary success of genetic compromise, and this is encoded for in the genes themselves.


You nicely skipped the other parts of my post, you are also assuming that every genetic configuration has value, and a lot of them do not. Consider why certain genetic configurations rarely reproduce or are able to reproduce.



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

26 Jun 2012, 11:43 am

TM wrote:
You nicely skipped the other parts of my post, you are also assuming that every genetic configuration has value, and a lot of them do not. Consider why certain genetic configurations rarely reproduce or are able to reproduce.


Every succesful genetic configuration has value - and some of them, by design, can't reproduce. It's part of their success! Again I point to ant drones. They are a product of evolution - one of the most succesful designs ever. This demonstrates that it is the genes, not the individuals, that are paramount. Individual success can and will be sacrificed for genetic success. Most genetic strategies do not conflict with individual self-interest. But some do, and when they do, the individual always loses, because evolution isn't based on succesful individuals, it's based on succesful transmission of the genes that they (mutually) possess.

From an evolutionary standpoint, individuals are nothing more than disposable vehicles/hosts for the genes. And genes don't need to reproduce each copy of themselves to be succesful; they only need to reproduce indefinately. Thus you have your ant drone. Any particular copy is disposable, and some strategies (ants for instance) exploit this.

Sexual reproduction demonstrates that cooperative genetic reproduction, where two individuals compromise on the genetic configuration of the offspring, is far more succesful than non-cooperative reproduction, where the individual's exact genetic configuration is transferred to the offspring. Even though the latter ensures the individual's genes are transferred in their entirety, an exact copy of the original, it is not as succesful and does not serve the genetic interest. Despite the fact that half (or so) of the unique genes possessed by the individual are lost in sexual reproduction.



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,584

26 Jun 2012, 1:05 pm

Has anyone written anything for us Zed-a males??


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction


1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

26 Jun 2012, 1:39 pm

Image

Image Image

Yay for omega man.



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,584

26 Jun 2012, 1:47 pm

ROFL

Impressive!

Omegaman title is a bit too cool for my breed, Charlton Heston = Alphamale++

/agree about fish -Yay for fishsticks!


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction