I Want to Talk to a Pretty Girl

[NTW]

I had once a friend who was very often seen in the company of pretty girls, some of them spectacular beauties.

He didn't hide his 'secret'. He tried with every pretty girl that crossed in his path. 99% of the times -well, perhaps not that much, but most of the times- he was rejected. But sometimes he was not... And there is a very substantial difference between 1% and 0%. It's the reward for trying...

 

[Rick21383]

To me, your post seems foolish, having so confidently swung and missed in your assumptions about me. I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of swinging in the dark carried over to your confidence in pu theory...

This isn't pu theory bro... this is basic psychology.

You go right ahead convincing yourself that this doesn't happen though...

 

[psparky]

Thanks for the support on the Alpha's, people.

I date the Alpha female of our group, she is tall and beautiful and gets even better looking when she talks. Her inner beauty shines. Thats a rarity.
I"m not the tallest or the best looking in our group, but I am the Alpha male...Big personalilty, big smile and a bunch of other intangibles allow me to be the big buck on the hill. I am only 5'-8"...she is 5'-9" in bare feet. In heels she is 6'-1 or 6'-2". In her own words..."baby, you are 6'-8" to me. Ok, I can live with that. And let me tell ya, I had to go through a lot of sub par women to get to her! What a journey!

But ya, we all kinda go by rank. Girls are always going to get the highest rated buck possible, and guys are always going to try to get the highest rated female possible.

Now here's the thing...what does highest rated mean? That's left up to the individual. Is it best looking? Most money? Most dominant? Best personality? Sexiest body? etc...or is it just the way that one person can make you feel like no one else can?

And like I said...its not just with women. Its at work, at the motorcylce track, at the football field, in the house, outside of the house, in the elevator...everywhere.
If you don't believe this, you need to watch more of the nature chanel. Human beings are almost identical to wild animals...especially our instincts.

Obviously everyone can't be the alpha...but you need to find the "alpha" of your ranking...it just won't work otherwise.

To the original poster...HOWS IT GOIN WITH THAT LADY!?

 

[Rick21383]

Girls are always going to get the highest rated buck possible, and guys are always going to try to get the highest rated female possible.

This is absolutely true and there are several factors that contribute to a person being "alpha". It's not just about looks either... I've seen overweight guys, short guys, etc. clean up with women because they have off the charts charisma, for example.

With the exception of height and looks (actually even looks can be improved simply by dressing well & grooming oneself properly) these attributes CAN be picked up, even if they aren't innate.

That's why I have no sympathy for people that claim an alpha male "doesn't make sense in human society". They're clueless and unwilling to admit how the real world works when it comes to social interactions and members of the opposite sex.

 

[nuuskur]

The definition of an alpha personality seems quite elusive here. I can agree that women like strength in men, not just physical, but mental strength as well, the ability to provide and protect and social skills.

Going for the highest rated buck? I would go for the woman I enjoy spending time together with not the one that is the most popular among any given group of women or the highest rated buck, then again, she would be the "highest rated buck" to me. It is so individual, it's just impossible to pinpoint. Generalisations could be made, but basing one's view of the world ON those generalisations is faulty, in my opinion.

 

[psparky]

This is absolutely true and there are several factors that contribute to a person being "alpha". It's not just about looks either... I've seen overweight guys, short guys, etc. clean up with women because they have off the charts charisma, for example.

With the exception of height and looks (actually even looks can be improved simply by dressing well & grooming oneself properly) these attributes CAN be picked up, even if they aren't innate.

That's why I have no sympathy for people that claim an alpha male "doesn't make sense in human society". They're clueless and unwilling to admit how the real world works when it comes to social interactions and members of the opposite sex.

Apperantlly we agree!

Alpha: Strongest, most dominant in pack of animals or humans.
Beta: 2nd strongest, 2nd most dominant in pack of animals or humans.
Omega: Weakest, most timid, most passive in pack of animals or humans. (often does not mate or reproduce! facts of life)

 

[Pythagorean]

It's hard to argue against dogma. I'll just leave this article full of actual research and not personal anecdotes here;

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/

 

[psparky]

Nothing on this thread is factual...its all opinion. If you have a strong opinion on something, then stick with it.

Just like when I have a strong opinion on something, I stick with it.

Its just discussion on the fascinating topic of relationships and sexuality.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well it can be factual. Rather than depending on the "authority" of self-proclaimed "alpha males".

 

[psparky]

Well it can be factual. Rather than depending on the "authority" of self-proclaimed "alpha males".

Are you male or female? I honestly can't tell.

I'm actually more of an "authority" on alpha females.

 

[nuuskur]

That just made my day :D Wow, anyway..

Statistics does not generate facts :)

 

[Pythagorean]

Are you male or female? I honestly can't tell.

I'm actually more of an "authority" on alpha females.

Does my sex actually matter?

 

[psparky]

Does my sex actually matter?

Just curious...I might give me some insight on your opinions. Also...what's your rank? Are you more Alpha...mid-pack...or Omega?

 

[nuuskur]

Asking something like that is a sign of personal insecurities, and That is a fact, no judgment, though. Proceed..

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's hard to argue against dogma. I'll just leave this article full of actual research and not personal anecdotes here;

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/

Taken together, the research suggests that the ideal man (for a date or romantic partner) is one who is assertive, confident, easygoing, and sensitive, without being aggressive, demanding, dominant, quiet, shy, or submissive. In other words, a prestigious man, not a dominant man.

In fact, it appears that the prestigious man who is high in both assertiveness and kindness is considered the most attractive to women for both short-term affairs and long-term relationships. This research should offer some assurance that the genuinely nice, passionate kid who learns a culturally valued skill can be immensely attractive.

Further, seeking to become a prestigious man is not only the surest route to success with women, but achievement in any area of life.

Thus, I think a much more effective and healthier route for men having difficulty attracting women is not to attempt to cultivate the traits of the stereotypical, dominant “alpha,” but to cultivate the traits of the prestigious man. This means developing a skill that brings value to society, and cultivating a stable sense of identity. Such a route will not only make you more attractive to women, but will also create the most satisfying life for yourself in general. In my view, attempting to don the persona of the “alpha” is analogous to building a house of cards. There’s no stable foundation supporting your worth.

Good article. I've seen a mass of hapless guys trying to become the "dominant" male by turning themselves into what boils down to being a kind of Moe from the Three Stooges.

 

[Pythagorean]

Just curious...I might give me some insight on your opinions. Also...what's your rank? Are you more Alpha...mid-pack...or Omega?

*sigh*

I am a straight male, my wife is a bisexual female. We are swingers, we are entrenched in the polyamorous and kink communities. Needless to say, I have lots of hands on experience with human sexuality. Your labels are so idiosyncratic as to be useless to our subculture.

 

[psparky]

*sigh*

I am a straight male, my wife is a bisexual female. We are swingers, we are entrenched in the polyamorous and kink communities. Needless to say, I have lots of hands on experience with human sexuality. Your labels are so idiosyncratic as to be useless to our subculture.

Interesting. I am a one woman kind of guy. What suprises me is that you off all people should undstand the hierarchy.

I agree to disagree with you. Your idea of love is sleeping with the world. Not mine.

 

[Pythagorean]

Interesting. I am a one woman kind of guy. What suprises me is that you off all people should undstand the hierarchy.

I agree to disagree with you. Your idea of love is sleeping with the world. Not mine.

Have you considered the possibility that I find your understanding of the hierarchy limited and static, when in actuality it's much more dynamic and versatile than you give it credit for?

I have the advantage of having experienced more than one lifestyle and I've found that different subcultures have different customs and values. In my current subculture, intellect and open-mindedness are valued over dominance and material value (not to say dominance isn't valued, but it's merely a contributing factor).

"Sleeping with the world" is a pretty bad mischaracterization... but that is the crux of our people; most of society doesn't get it; meanwhile they are cheating on each other and keeping their sexual fantasies bottled up.

 

[mesa]

I am routinely surprised by some of the content I find on PF and the last few posts on this thread are certainly no exception. I applaud you Pythagorean for your candor and straight forward nature in order to help others understand a culture few of us get to see. You are a good Scientist.

 

[lisab]

I am routinely surprised by some of the content I find on PF and the last few posts on this thread are certainly no exception. I applaud you Pythagorean for your candor and straight forward nature in order to help others understand a culture few of us get to see. You are a good Scientist.

It surprises me, too. Especially on a science forum. Part of a being (or becoming) educated in science is learning to honestly (and sometimes painfully) question things "everyone knows to be true". It takes maturity to do that, though.

Pop-psych fads, such as the "alpha male", are great for making a few authors a lot of money. Live long enough and you'll see these fads come and go.

 

[Rick21383]

Pop-psych fads, such as the "alpha male", are great for making a few authors a lot of money. Live long enough and you'll see these fads come and go.

This doesn't make any sense. Are you claiming that there are not certain traits which most women find desirable? (i.e. confidence, charisma, etc.)

This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

and possessing these traits is what we're calling "alphaness"... Which part exactly do you not agree with?

 

[nuuskur]

I find someone who is so damn attached to this whole alpha-beta-omega theory heavily injected with insecurities and self-awareness issues. What women find desirable is of no concern to me.

 

[Pythagorean]

This doesn't make any sense. Are you claiming that there are not certain traits which most women find desirable? (i.e. confidence, charisma, etc.)

Nobody's denying that, but this is a different claim from there being an alpha "controlling the room" - besides it's a bastardization of what alpha, beta, and omega mean in behavioral biology - the equivalent of an alpha in human social structures would be heads of household, community leaders (including criminal and gang leaders) - that would make just about every male in my social circle, including myself, an alpha male - when we go out together for fun, who's the alpha male now? Nobody's controlling resource distribution between us, decisions are made democratically, nobody's capitalizing on the females (because they're not possessions/resources in much of human society).

"Alpha males" are the members of a small group that control distribution of resources, which does often include female reproduction in their tribe/clan/gang. There are some human social structures that are similar (more traditional tribal social structures). Some species are matriarchal, like hyenas and bonobos, where it's an alpha female that controls resources. In human society at large, social structures are much more fluid and based on sociopolitical structures that change frequently. There's less emphasis on hard-wired biological traits (of course they still contribute, but not as strongly as in most other animals) and titles like alpha, beta, and omega fit only fleeting comparisons through loose associations. You won't find much scientific literature (if any) in human behavioral biology that uses those terms. And no, I've never witnessed a single male controlling a room - some people are more shy, some people are more confident, and obviously the confident people have more success because they actually try.

 

[Rick21383]

I find someone who is so damn attached to this whole alpha-beta-omega theory heavily injected with insecurities and self-awareness issues. What women find desirable is of no concern to me.

You seem to be missing the point too. People that are "so damn attached" to the whole "alpha-beta" thing do tend to be dorks that aren't going to be any better off just because they read "The Game" or watched some youtube clips of "pickup artists". I totally agree with that.

However, the people that claim this doesn't exist are clueless of how the real world works when it comes to interactions with members of the opposite sex.

Having no concern of what women find desirable is actually a good thing to have when dealing with females(in many cases). Not giving a S**t generally works to our advantage and causes girls to want you more.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nobody's denying that, but this is a different claim from there being an alpha "controlling the room"...

So, what do you think an appropriate term would be for the kind of guy being misnamed as "alpha male"?

 

[Pythagorean]

So, what do you think an appropriate term would be for the kind of guy being misnamed as "alpha male"?

I don't know for certain what people are referring to - it seems like somebody who gets a lot of tail? It's easy to lower your standards to get a lot of tail, or you could exploit statistics to your advantage and trick females with canned behaviors. Or it could be a matter of sexually aggresive females and the male's personality traits are less important (they just have to be physically attractive to the female). I think there's a problem of degeneracy: the outcome (lots of tail) can be due to any number of biological, social, circumstantial, or novelty factors - to blame a person's bed count on their character alone appears to be a "fundamental attribution error", whereby character is overemphasized and circumstance is underemphasized.

 

[Pythagorean]

You seem to be missing the point too. People that are "so damn attached" to the whole "alpha-beta" thing do tend to be dorks that aren't going to be any better off just because they read "The Game" or watched some youtube clips of "pickup artists". I totally agree with that.

However, the people that claim this doesn't exist are clueless of how the real world works when it comes to interactions with members of the opposite sex.

Having no concern of what women find desirable is actually a good thing to have when dealing with females(in many cases). Not giving a S**t generally works to our advantage and causes girls to want you more.

This is extremely heterocentric and patriarchal view of human seuxality and severely limited to only particular subcultures - in my experience, it's typically ultraconservative subcultures (I was raised in both rural Alaska and rural Oregon where this mentality is typical). My current city is culturally diverse and my chief subculture is academia, so it's much more liberal and "alpha male" archetypes aren't significantly favored over artsy, sensitive, intellectual, or feminine males.

Anyway, my greatest issue with your world view is that alpha males pertain to fixed power structures - whereas human power structures are much more fluid and circumstantial.

 

[Rick21383]

This is extremely heterocentric and patriarchal view of human seuxality and severely limited to only particular subcultures - in my experience, it's typically ultraconservative subcultures (I was raised in both rural Alaska and rural Oregon where this mentality is typical). My current city is culturally diverse and my chief subculture is academia, so it's much more liberal and "alpha male" archetypes aren't significantly favored over artsy, sensitive, intellectual, or feminine males.

Anyway, my greatest issue with your world view is that alpha males pertain to fixed power structures - whereas human power structures are much more fluid and circumstantial.

What are you rambling about? Your opinion of this behavior is irrelevant. How a cultural anthropology book defines an "alpha male" is also irrelevant.

Just because you don't like or agree with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is a FACT that males who possesses certain traits are more successful at attracting women, as well as grabbing the attention of strangers (male or female) than those who lack these traits.

"Alpha" is now used to describe this in our society.

You said yourself "I don't know for certain what people are referring to" so why are you even trying to argue any of this? If you don't know what we're referring to (in this context) when using the term "alpha" then it's pointless for you to say any more on the topic.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's a blatant abuse of the already defined terms with a loose association to the original terms; it's no different than a popsci author writing a book about "quantum spirituality" - alpha, beta, and omega are established terms that draw on loose associations - like poetry, it allows people to mold their own network of definitions to their established world view. It has no unified and established terminology in literature. Different pop culture authors describe it differently depending on what they're trying to sell you and laymen on human sexuality all have personal definitions based on their pop culture exposure.

It's the oldest pop sci trick in the book, really... it's called pseudoscience for a reason - because it attempts to emulate science by trying to look like it in order to establish authority when it has none.

 

[Rick21383]

It's a blatant abuse of the already defined terms with a loose association to the original terms; it's no different than a popsci author writing a book about "quantum spirituality" - alpha, beta, and omega are established terms that draw on loose associations - like poetry, it allows people to mold their own network of definitions to their established world view. It has no unified and established terminology in literature. Different pop culture authors describe it differently depending on what they're trying to sell you and laymen on human sexuality all have personal definitions based on their pop culture exposure.

It's the oldest pop sci trick in the book, really... it's called pseudoscience for a reason - because it attempts to emulate science by trying to look like it in order to establish authority when it has none.

Again you're rambling, and failing to make a single point.

I said:

1.) males who possesses certain traits (such as confidence, charisma, etc.) are more successful at attracting women, as well as grabbing the attention of strangers (male or female), than those who lack these traits"

2.) the term "Alpha" is now used to describe this in our society

What do you not agree with? Like Lisa, you are trying to argue that something doesn't exist simply because you don't agree with the concept. And you're refusing to answer my simple question. Which of the 2 points listed above do you think is false?

 

[Pythagorean]

Again you're rambling, and failing to make a single point.

I said:

1.) males who possesses certain traits (such as confidence, charisma, etc.) are more successful at attracting women, as well as grabbing the attention of strangers (male or female), than those who lack these traits"

2.) the term "Alpha" is now used to describe this in our society

What do you not agree with? Like Lisa, you are trying to argue that something doesn't exist simply because you don't agree with the concept. And you're refusing to answer my simple question. Which of the 2 points listed above do you think is false?

You've backpedaled so that there's no disagreement anymore - except that that's not how "alpha" is described by pop sci authors. Instead, they sell you unrealistic fantasies like being the only male in the room "controlling the whole room" which was the tune you were playing earlier - this plays on the biological definition (where there is generally only one alpha) and puts dominance (i,e. "controlling" the room) as the determining factor.

So you've created now a third definition to just mean confident and charismatic in order to maintain your position that alphas are a meaningful human archetype.

 

[Pythagorean]

Also, Rick, please try to remember:

PF values civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience and diplomacy while debating

 

[Rick21383]

You've backpedaled so that there's no disagreement anymore - except that that's not how "alpha" is described by pop sci authors. Instead, they sell you unrealistic fantasies like being the only male in the room "controlling the whole room" which was the tune you were playing earlier - this plays on the biological definition (where there is generally only one alpha) and puts dominance (i,e. "controlling" the room) as the determining factor.

So you've created now a third definition to just mean confident and charismatic in order to maintain your position that alphas are a meaningful human archetype.

I'm not back peddling at all. I listed 2 traits that an alpha male would typically possess. Hence the "etc". I was trying to simplify it for you because you keep posting rambling screeds that aren't even relevant to what I'm saying.

People that are considered alpha do control the room. If you haven't seen this then you've just not been aware. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen... but you seem to be taking that way too literally. I'm not saying that if an alpha male walks into a room with a bunch of people, that everyone will stop talking and immediately stare at that person like in a bugs bunny cartoon.

 

[zoobyshoe]

People that are considered alpha do control the room.

I have my own idea of what it means to "control the room." What do you mean by it?

 

[lisab]

Again you're rambling, and failing to make a single point.

I said:

1.) males who possesses certain traits (such as confidence, charisma, etc.) are more successful at attracting women, as well as grabbing the attention of strangers (male or female), than those who lack these traits"

2.) the term "Alpha" is now used to describe this in our society

What do you not agree with? Like Lisa, you are trying to argue that something doesn't exist simply because you don't agree with the concept. And you're refusing to answer my simple question. Which of the 2 points listed above do you think is false?

You've given no proof about your claims. Just because a topic is a hot seller on Amazon does not pass muster here as proof that it is generally accepted as credible.

Do you know of any peer-reviewed literature that we can discuss that would bolster your beliefs? Because I think you're forming your opinions based on feelings, not facts.