Scientific evidence for humans having Alpha males?

Page 3 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

30 Nov 2016, 4:22 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
And that is unlikely as bonobos ans chimps split from a core ancestor therefore it would of have to be a difference between gorillas and the ancestors of the chimp and bonobo. This would therefore not count towards the societal differences. The thing with evolution is it is completely random. Things don't develop for a species to survive. In fact it's just that animals mutations that don't work die. Theit society evloved randomly and it worked for them and cause them to thrive so it remained

Isn't drought too short to cause mutation?


Climate change is the right term for it.

Like how the Sahara desert was a green land.


Even so the ancestor you call the pro-bonobo is exactly the same as the pro-chimp so doesn't account for societal differences but might account for their ability to live in certain areas.

If your theory was correct then chimps would also have a matriacal society



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,500
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

30 Nov 2016, 4:37 am

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
And that is unlikely as bonobos ans chimps split from a core ancestor therefore it would of have to be a difference between gorillas and the ancestors of the chimp and bonobo. This would therefore not count towards the societal differences. The thing with evolution is it is completely random. Things don't develop for a species to survive. In fact it's just that animals mutations that don't work die. Theit society evloved randomly and it worked for them and cause them to thrive so it remained

Isn't drought too short to cause mutation?


Climate change is the right term for it.

Like how the Sahara desert was a green land.


Even so the ancestor you call the pro-bonobo is exactly the same as the pro-chimp so doesn't account for societal differences but might account for their ability to live in certain areas.



Yes, I know about their common ancestor -

Quote:
If your theory was correct then chimps would also have a matriacal society


But no, this was my whole point, the chimps still have gorillas in their area - the drought + the disappearing of gorillas was the evolutionary turning point for the pro-bonobos (the pro chimps ancestors of bonobos today)

As you can see in the Baboon video, this troop became less patriarchal with the death of the alpha males.

.... wait, that gives me an evil ideal. :twisted:

it is not my theory : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 73_03.html



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

30 Nov 2016, 7:12 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
314pe wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
And that is unlikely as bonobos ans chimps split from a core ancestor therefore it would of have to be a difference between gorillas and the ancestors of the chimp and bonobo. This would therefore not count towards the societal differences. The thing with evolution is it is completely random. Things don't develop for a species to survive. In fact it's just that animals mutations that don't work die. Theit society evloved randomly and it worked for them and cause them to thrive so it remained

Isn't drought too short to cause mutation?


Climate change is the right term for it.

Like how the Sahara desert was a green land.


Even so the ancestor you call the pro-bonobo is exactly the same as the pro-chimp so doesn't account for societal differences but might account for their ability to live in certain areas.



Yes, I know about their common ancestor -

Quote:
If your theory was correct then chimps would also have a matriacal society


But no, this was my whole point, the chimps still have gorillas in their area - the drought + the disappearing of gorillas was the evolutionary turning point for the pro-bonobos (the pro chimps ancestors of bonobos today)

As you can see in the Baboon video, this troop became less patriarchal with the death of the alpha males.

.... wait, that gives me an evil ideal. :twisted:

it is not my theory : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 73_03.html


Ohhh I see! apologies for the missunderstanding. It is indeed an interesting idea but you could also argue that small numbers at the time meant that injury and killing each other (much like chimps do) wasn't feasible for survival so they found oher methods (sex) and in sex women are the ones with choice.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,257
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 Dec 2016, 1:06 am

This is akin to asking for scientific evidence for water being wet, IMO.

Just look around, it's obvious that there are Alpha males. They're bigger, better, faster, stronger, healthier, wealthier.. they're the winners, the conquerors, leaders, business owners, CEO's, military generals, salesmen, professional athletes.. they get the resources and the women, respect, nice things, money etc.

Not sure how this could even be contested by anyone.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,500
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

02 Dec 2016, 3:15 am

goldfish21 wrote:
This is akin to asking for scientific evidence for water being wet, IMO.

Just look around, it's obvious that there are Alpha males. They're bigger, better, faster, stronger, healthier, wealthier.. they're the winners, the conquerors, leaders, business owners, CEO's, military generals, salesmen, professional athletes.. they get the resources and the women, respect, nice things, money etc.

Not sure how this could even be contested by anyone.


Image

"
Given that the average American male is 5'9″ that means that CEOs, as a group, have about three inches on the rest of their sex. But this statistic actually understates matters. In the U.S. population, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 percent"

Coincidence?

The truth is starting at your faces, and yet many of you are still denying it.



Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,713
Location: United States

02 Dec 2016, 7:21 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Given that the average American male is 5'9″ that means that CEOs, as a group, have about three inches on the rest of their sex. But this statistic actually understates matters. In the U.S. population, about 14.5 percent of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 percent"
While there may be some connection there, the alpha/beta divide isn't about height or money. It's about genes. For men, the "Greek letter" status is hard-coded into DNA, and nothing can be done to change it, save for Gattaca-style gene therapy. Then you have PUA. Reviled as it may be around here, it's about betas learning to behave like alphas, in order to succeed with women. Because even though women have the ability to read men's DNA intuitively (like NTs know social skills intuitively), that ability is not perfect, so the alpha behaviors can be emulated, giving betas a fighting chance. One mildly comforting thing is that betas are 80% of male population, so it's not like most of us are in the minority. (I've also heard of gammas and other ranks, but the PUA system I follow only uses the first two Greek letters.)



Outrider
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,007
Location: Australia

02 Dec 2016, 7:44 am

goldfish21 wrote:
This is akin to asking for scientific evidence for water being wet, IMO.

Just look around, it's obvious that there are Alpha males. They're bigger, better, faster, stronger, healthier, wealthier.. they're the winners, the conquerors, leaders, business owners, CEO's, military generals, salesmen, professional athletes.. they get the resources and the women, respect, nice things, money etc.

Not sure how this could even be contested by anyone.


Yeah, and even if humans don't naturally have Alpha/Beta/Omega males but anyone can potentially be either, at the very least these words are very accurate and useful for describing men who fall into the different categories.

Like I said originally, I just see an 'Alpha male' as slang for what they are, even if I don't believe they 'naturally' exist, and that it's primarily environmental factors and genetic good looks and genetic advantages (good health, good muscle building genetics, etc.) that influence whether or not you have the potential to be one.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,500
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

02 Dec 2016, 8:26 am

^And so the apes, if a beta gorilla kills the alpha, he becomes the new alpha.



Amaltheia
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

02 Dec 2016, 9:57 am

Aspie1 wrote:
While there may be some connection there, the alpha/beta divide isn't about height or money. It's about genes. For men, the "Greek letter" status is hard-coded into DNA, and nothing can be done to change it, save for Gattaca-style gene therapy.

If alpha males have greater mating success, then every male alive today is likely descended from a long line of alpha males.
If being an alpha is in the genes, then every male alive today has the genes to be an alpha.
So, the question should be: is there scientific evidence of humans having beta males?

A hypothesis that occurs to me to get around this problem is: a male's status as an alpha or beta or whatever comes from their maternal genes, so the mating success of alpha males is irrelevant. Those alpha males that reproduce with females with the alpha male gene will produce alpha males, those alpha males that reproduce with females with beta male genes will produce beta males, and so on.

This would work if the gene is located on the X chromosome and the beta male gene is recessive. Since females have two X chromosomes, a beta-male gene on one X chromosome would be masked by an alpha-male gene on the other. Males only have one X chromosome, so if they happen to get a beta-male gene on their X chromosome — and all males get their X chromosome from their mother — they end up being beta males. That would explain the continued existence of beta males, despite the greater mating success of alpha males. Presumably females with two beta male genes would be beta females and have poor mating success, but that would effect only one in four females, and the beta male gene would survive in their mixed gene sisters.

So, the question becomes: where are these genes determining a male's Greek-letter status located? Has anyone actually identified them and determined on which chromosome they exist?

Or is the entire notion on the level of the theory that vaccines cause autism? Instead of vice versa.

Image



Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,713
Location: United States

02 Dec 2016, 6:55 pm

Amaltheia wrote:
If alpha males have greater mating success, then every male alive today is likely descended from a long line of alpha males.
If being an alpha is in the genes, then every male alive today has the genes to be an alpha.
So, the question should be: is there scientific evidence of humans having beta males?

A hypothesis that occurs to me to get around this problem is: a male's status as an alpha or beta or whatever comes from their maternal genes, so the mating success of alpha males is irrelevant. Those alpha males that reproduce with females with the alpha male gene will produce alpha males, those alpha males that reproduce with females with beta male genes will produce beta males, and so on.

This would work if the gene is located on the X chromosome and the beta male gene is recessive. Since females have two X chromosomes, a beta-male gene on one X chromosome would be masked by an alpha-male gene on the other. Males only have one X chromosome, so if they happen to get a beta-male gene on their X chromosome — and all males get their X chromosome from their mother — they end up being beta males. That would explain the continued existence of beta males, despite the greater mating success of alpha males. Presumably females with two beta male genes would be beta females and have poor mating success, but that would effect only one in four females, and the beta male gene would survive in their mixed gene sisters.

So, the question becomes: where are these genes determining a male's Greek-letter status located? Has anyone actually identified them and determined on which chromosome they exist?
This would be a VERY interesting thing to study. However, no scientist wants to go near it, out of fear of being accused of "misogyny", and getting permanently discredited in the academic community. As a result, this research remains confined to obscure online forums, which everyone loves to hate.

My other hypothesis for the continued existence of beta males, despite them being genetically bad, is that there is no genetic divide in women. All women have a more-or-less equal chance of reproducing, due to a sexual selection mechanism that precedes humans by billions of years. So a woman could be a carrier for either alpha or beta genes. All due to the XX vs. XY chromosome distinction, and the kind of offspring they produce when combined.

Also don't forget: the alpha/beta male genetic divide in men was suppressed for thousands of years. Whether by religion (Christianity in particular), by national laws, by social control, by family customs, by arranged marriages, or by other means. Regardless how, those measures were so strongly implemented, that they overpowered natural human instincts in both men and women, and equalized opportunities for everyone in finding a loving long-term partner. Which meant that the beta males who would have died alone without the civilization framework, all found wives to love and have children with. Many betas around today are descendants of marriages that resulted from these civilization-driven controls. Bluntly put, they were given reproductive opportunities that nature never intended to give them.

But in the last 50 years, sexual revolution spread like wildfire! Billions-year-old sexual selection mechanisms, long kept in check by civilization, came roaring back to the surface with full force. And here we are today.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

03 Dec 2016, 1:15 pm

People should avoid making up pseudo-science explanations to avoid recognizing personal failings. :roll:



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,500
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

03 Dec 2016, 2:31 pm

Translation of YippySkippy's post: me, Aspie1, Outrider, Amaltheia, goldfish and every male here who is trying to either providing evidences or coming up with a theory are all losers and trying to "to avoid recognizing personal failings" (in dating).



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

03 Dec 2016, 4:55 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Translation of YippySkippy's post: me, Aspie1, Outrider, Amaltheia, goldfish and every male here who is trying to either providing evidences or coming up with a theory are all losers and trying to "to avoid recognizing personal failings" (in dating).


To be fair though there is little scientific evidence supporting the claim



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,257
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

03 Dec 2016, 6:07 pm

Amaltheia wrote:
Aspie1 wrote:
While there may be some connection there, the alpha/beta divide isn't about height or money. It's about genes. For men, the "Greek letter" status is hard-coded into DNA, and nothing can be done to change it, save for Gattaca-style gene therapy.


Image


Aspie1:

I call BS. 5-6 years ago I was depressed, anxious, very Aspie, and sub-Beta level in all aspects of life. Fitness, finances, occupation or lack-there-of etc. Today I'm 6'2 ~200lbs ~ 11.5%bf, very healthy, wealthier than I've ever been really, confident, taking on some leadership roles at work more and more, getting what I want, dating who I want to etc etc - in general I'm a whole lot more Alpha than I've ever been and I haven't had any Gattaca-style gene therapy. Diet, exercise, natural medicines, vitamins, minerals, supplements, probiotics etc to treat and manage all that once ailed me & everything has changed for the better. I've gone from sub-Beta status to Alpha-ish by my standards and probably very Alpha by your standards all without altering my DNA. Convince yourself it's impossible and you'll surely get that result. Commit yourself to changing and improving anything and everything you can about yourself from the inside out and low & behold, after a few years of disciplined hard work, you can in fact lead a much more "Alpha" life. I'm living proof whether you believe me or not.

Amaltheia: That's the best comic I've ever seen posted on here. 8)


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,500
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

03 Dec 2016, 6:29 pm

Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Translation of YippySkippy's post: me, Aspie1, Outrider, Amaltheia, goldfish and every male here who is trying to either providing evidences or coming up with a theory are all losers and trying to "to avoid recognizing personal failings" (in dating).


To be fair though there is little scientific evidence supporting the claim


There's a historical evidence though of a long history of snarky comments ;).



Alliekit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Mar 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,182
Location: England

03 Dec 2016, 8:12 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Translation of YippySkippy's post: me, Aspie1, Outrider, Amaltheia, goldfish and every male here who is trying to either providing evidences or coming up with a theory are all losers and trying to "to avoid recognizing personal failings" (in dating).


To be fair though there is little scientific evidence supporting the claim


There's a historical evidence though of a long history of snarky comments ;).


I was just stating the truth no need to get so upset. I didn't say I agreed with YippySkippy I was simply saying there isn't concrete scientific evidence.

Since this thread asked about scientific evidence I simply answered the question.