(untitled)

Is meme alpha/beta/omega/sigma male classification legit? How do I determine who I am according to it?

You can be whoever you want to be. Why are you asking this question?

It is not legit. Don't worry about it.

Not only is it BS but it's based on broscience from people who read about canine socialization and didn't understand it, then tried to apply it to a different species (ours). The alpha thing is only observed amongst wolves in captivity, not in their natural habitat. A funny comment I read on that once is that putting animals, in this case wolves, in an enclosed space against their will where they know are being watched and have a bunch of rules to follow sort of resembles high school.... which would explain the emergence of "alpha" behaviour in humans. It was tongue in cheek but I wonder.

>>62488 Yes. It is legitimate. With a caveat. The omega / sigma male is a joke classification. Alpha and Beta males are known inherently and thus do not need classification as you know what you are. The moment humanity cannot figure the difference is the moment where there is only beta. >>62493 If you have ever been to a ghetto, or just around a group of negroes, you would know that there are instances of this caste, which line up with the alpha and beta male classificiation. However, there are times in which one of the lower-caste blacks are in near-constant struggle towards overtaking the alpha male in the group, after some time, they will either make it as the alpha's right-hand man or they will fall back in line and wait for a moment to take advantage of any form of weakness. Although, I want to point out something you said >The alpha thing is only observed amongst wolves in captivity, not in their natural habitat. You could see this as a post-ironic post-post-modern criticique of modernity. Although, based on your linguistic choices, I highly doubt you consider the mentality, position, or reasoning behind anything that does not fall in line with your own worldview. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'd imagine you are quick to ignore certain types of people without attempting to fully understand them.

>>62495 > based on your linguistic choices, I highly doubt you > I'd imagine you are Based on what, one word I used I suppose? This is some kind of attempt at meta-humour or something I assume. What else do you know about me? Come on, this fun.

Its just classification of observed behaviour patterns. Dont get distracted by Ackchyually plebs arguing over historic origin or other crap when nobody uses it like that. Alpha = dude in strong social position who acts like it because he can which usually stems from being healthy & wealthy beta = loser who copes with second place by trying to win on another ladder like virtue signaling omega = doesnt play the social game, doesnt care and does his own soykaf youre aren't set to one or the other but circumstances will narrow your possibilities. Like you cant be a strong leader if you develop a serious crippling disease. So alpha option flies out the window. But whether the disease is crippling is often make believe too. Some take small soykaf for justification to give up while others nearly die and truck on. The real trap here is believing "im this type so i must act like this". You're letting others control your behaviour at this point by giving you the box you supposed to operate in.

>>62498 >Like you cant be a strong leader if you develop a serious crippling disease

>>62499 But he wasn't a strong leader. He helped cultivate and expand an already growing path of degeneration and decline, while letting his wife and various other people influence his decision making. You should have picked a different, better Roosevelt. That would have been valid. He rejected the notion that he would be a sickly weakling his entire life and thrust himself into a being the best man he can be.

>>62500 He was widely regarded as the best president ever, won the presidential election so many times that congress put in term limits for fear he would be unstoppable, systematically restructured the american economy, and also led america to victory during WW2. Just because a beta like you doesn't like his policies does not mean he wasn't a strong leader.

>>62499 the obvious answer to this is if he can go on its not crippling...

>>62501 >He was widely regarded as the best president ever 100% of crackheads agree, crack is good! yeah ok. >systematically restructured the american economy Yet, this was generally regarded, by economic majors, as a bad move. >also led america to victory during WW2 You mean he forced the USA into a war that no one wanted until he let the Japanese attack Hawaii. >Just because a beta like you doesn't like his policies does not mean he wasn't a strong leader You are incapable of having a genuine discussion without resorting to ad homs, why is that? I'll just play along, I guess. I know more than you, I know better than you, I lift more than you, I get more ass than you, I have more skills than you, and so on. Anyways... >not liking policies means I think he is a weak leader No, I don't even like the policies of the better Roosevelt. But I know strength when I see it and sneaking around is not it.

>>62505 >100% of crackheads agree, crack is good! Being a strong leader has nothing to do with actual quality, it has everything to do with clout. Crack dealers are alphas too, by your own definition: "dude in strong social position who acts like it because he can" Again, your dislike of his policies has absolutely nothing to do with how alpha he was. His overwhelming popularity has everything to do with it. >You mean he forced the USA into a war that no one wanted until he let the Japanese attack Hawaii. Ah, and now we get to the part where you show me your irrefutable proof that he had actual foreknowledge of the attack. Maybe he should have just rolled over and let Japan maintain hegemony over the Pacific instead, that would have been a real alpha move :) Or maybe he should have simply declared war against the desires of the people he leads! Also a very alpha move! >You are incapable of having a genuine discussion without resorting to ad homs, why is that? I'm incapable of having a genuine discussion about this period, because the entire premise is silly. > I know more than you, I know better than you, I lift more than you, I get more ass than you, I have more skills than you nuh uh! I'M THE ALPHA!!!!!!! >>62503 The claim was that being crippled (he was literally a cripple) makes one unable to be a strong leader.

>>62506 Context. crippling does not mean cripple. If you lose your legs you can still continue in any office desk job but your career as a marathon runner is over. I really shouldn't have to explain it has to be relevant to the job you do to matter... if you lose something that you don't need its not crippling your job. Should be obvious af.

>>62501 It looks like theres a whole website devoted to just this question https://www.sigmagrindset.org/ It must be true, since nobody would honestly go on the internet and tell lies

It's astrology for men. Please love classifying things with simple understandable boxes. But, it should be treated the same as astrology something to read in a magazine, think is cool for a few seconds than forget about.

This Alpha/beta/sigma/whatever is just astrology for men, it's completely irrelavent

>>62488 no. since lainchan wants me to make this post longer: nope. + the whole idea of alpha males comes from theory about wolf hierarchy which has been disproved.

>>62488 most "X/human types" are true due to biases but that doesn't mean our biases are set in stone. this is the problem with personality types. most people respond differently or proportionally to what they are currently experiencing (suffering? success?). it's kind of like fight or flight or rest response. responses are biases, depending on one's current chemical levels and decisions, the bias can express itself but there are also times when these biases are nonsensical or doesn't make sense (like a person picking their action based on random generator response or due to neurological short circuitry or machine/spirits/microbes interfacing and controlling one's brain, gut or gut-brain). type classifications are not meant to be taken seriously but are a helpful metric to remind us of our or other's biases and is a good predictor of action/outcome biases. although the mistake here is when you try to "classify" a human being, it means that you're trying to degrade humans into some "terminologies" and classify them to their type's "cons" so what ends up happening is these type/classification things always end up being used to attack a person (as it makes them easier to be targeted for their biases' flaws or to take advantage of them, e.g, personality types used in business environment are used to type certain individuals and lock them to lower salary as their bias is incapable of ever "thinking about noticing the issue").

>>62515 astrology isnt entirely wrong either, its just statistical correlation between birth month and effects of it. Like being a year older when you enter first grade than other kids gives a significant advantage. No magic to predict kids will perform better here. There's a long list of correlated things to birth year including likelihood to get sick. Professional "truth telling" is just applying statistics to seem magical.

Well, dominant and submisive people definitelly exist, so if you define alpha as dominant and beta as submisive, then yes, it is legit.

>>62488 The Alpha and Beta male models are an extrapolation of behavioural patterns of wolves. Other than the inherent absurdity of comparing human society to that of dogs, the bigger problem with this it's that its only true for wolves in captivity. Wolves in the wild generally live in family units and avoid each other, the alpha/beta dichotomy comes about due to lack of resources in a confined space, leading to competition between the males. I find obsessing over this sort of thing dull in any case.

>>62488 In this world, we classify things according to parameters. However, these parameters, although many, are not all equal. The quality of a parameter of classification is equal to the amount of knowledge on the matter being classified. Not only quantity of knowledge, as in a lot of data, but also quality, as in real understanding of that data. Now, take a look at the parameters being used in that classification of manliness. Do you really think that the ones who made that parameter and make use of it are wise people? a bunch of losers on the internet worried about their masculinity? The subject matter is manliness or manhood. Manliness is a phenomenon that has to do with cultures, civilizations, divisions of labour, economies, in its history, and from a point of view of your personal life, it has to do with virtue... To understand manliness or manhood and to know which place do you take in that phenomenon, you must study at least those that take time to make an informed explanation of it, such as philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, historians... Not some random people making memes for "fun" ("fun" as in insecurity, such as the old saying in my country says "from joke to joke, the truth leans out").

>>62519 >Professional "truth telling" is just applying statistics to seem magical. That and only speaking in such empty generalities that the claims are not directly falsifiable.

>>62565 almost seems as if those worried about the alpha/beta discourse are living in captivity themselves never allow such binding parameters effect how you see yourself or others around you

What I don't understand is why in our society do people actively seek out labels and worry about classifying themselves according to one or another scheme? Given that abstract schemes of classifying human beings came about thanks to government census depts. and cooperate marketing, aren't we buying into a system of control by worrying what label we fall under?

>>62576 People love feeling special. Note how all classification systems have tier lists. You classify yourself as part of the cool kids and insider trade over the other inferior caste

>>62585 MBTI doesn't really have a teir list, at least not a global one. But obviously everyone is going to view their "type" as the best.

>>62488 I was trying to post an answer saying that alpha/beta stuff is only legit if you consider true that masculinity is an immovable and obligatory goal for a man and also this cool vid if you speak french https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb7zlAkiSGw

>>62498 >Like you cant be a strong leader if you develop a serious crippling disease Baldwin 4 The Leper King disagrees.

>>62586 rarity is part of mbti , no better tier list to feel special >>62590 contrarians focus on exceptions instead of getting such statements are about trends... topic in first place just observing behavioral trends in people and categorizing them

>>62566 Why is all of that necessary? Is it not enough to state that manliness is whatever outcome is typically produced by the Y chromosome? I don't think a man is capable of being anything other than masculine, even if that involves wearing dresses and putting on makeup, as that's still an expression of the Y chromosome. >>62488 No, it's snake oil. Let me explain to you the evolution of these terms from conception to the butchered state they are in today. The alpha/beta divide was created by men that were looking to fuarrrk a lot of young women. Their collective experiences gave birth to the alpha/beta divide. Behaviour that attracted young women was put in the alpha category, behaviour that repulsed them in the beta category. Most of the 'alpha' behaviour really involved manipulating insecurities of women to get them to fuarrrk you, as well as socially dominating other men. When the movement hit mainstream after years of growth, the masses did not engage with pages of theory and instead misinterpreted much of what was said. This resulted in today's "alpha" bros you find online - completely socially inept and huge assholes. Very loneny too I'm sure. Some men realised they can't be alpha because they're too ugly, too socially awkward or simply don't desire to be so. Now, instead of accepting being 'beta', they coined a new term: Sigma. Sigma was what every beta in denial thought they were. Anyhow, if you'd like to now know why it's all bullshit, here it is: - The only women who are into 'alpha' guys are literal bottom of the barrel women that you wouldn't want in your life. - Women have increasingly become aware of manipulative behaviour, rendering it a drawback rather than anything else. - Probably most funny of all: a big component of 'being alpha' is lifting weights and looking after yourself. Results from 'acting alpha' are oftentimes results of just looking better and improving your general social skills. Unfortunately for alpha bros, that usually comes bundled with a bunch of maladaptive adaptations. If you're looking for a theory to explain women, the blackpill is far more accurate. But even then, there is far more that goes into it than just looks.

>>62591 True , every generalization has exceptions but I think this alpha/beta is cope by folks who don't wanna put in the work. I don't see the difference bw alpha beta and chad vs virgin. Not saying coping is bad , but people should always try some for of self improvement. Not the generic cold showers, no fap and journaling.

>>62593 you forgot sigma and i think that's the crucial part of it- they glorify their own part as outsiders not playing the social roles game to convince themselves to stick to it. If you cant win the game don't play it sounds quite sensible given you do have an alternative. The alpha/beta/sigma stereotypes are repeated like a mantra to keep themselves on the course as counterweight to the media programming normalizing behaviour patterns they don't want to participate in.

>>62592 i dont think a multivocal reality such as manliness, manhood or masculinity can be reduced to such an univocal definition. I dont think any complex phenomenom x can be reduced to a simple definition y, not even its essence. I think masculinity derives its essence from the role that a determinate type of homo sapiens is compelled to fulfil in a determinate set of circumstances due to historical reasons. There probably are conditions in which a given set of homo sapiens do not produce a need for what we call masculinity. Also, every possibility produced by our genes must be given an occasion for its effective display. For example, if we take a homo sapiens with y chromosome but from its birth we put it in a dark room, paralized, but giving it nourishment and letting it grow, the outcome its not typically a masculine individual, but a husk of a human. This is, in fact, reflected in your definition, when you say: "typically produced by Y chromosome", and in fact, the "typically" clausule is the most important one in the definition, because what the Y chromosome a-typically produces is not masculinity, such as in the previous example i gave. Then, what makes that outcome "typically" occur is everything else other than the Y chromosome, that being, circumstancial and ambiental factors, mainly socio-economical and historico-cultural determinations. So, in your definition, what looks like the most essential term (y chromosome) ends up being the least essential term, by that same definition. In fact, Y chromosome is not even a necessary condition for masculinity, because a person without it can, in fact, be masculine. All in all, that definition is not sufficient nor necessary.

>every generalization has exceptions What a delightfully self-contradictory sentence! >>62600 >they glorify their own part as outsiders not playing the social roles game to convince themselves to stick to it. to be honest it looks like they're actually looking for ways to motivate themselves to participate in the rat race without the rewards of pussy.

It's all depend on the context. In some group you can be an ''alpha'' and in another one a ''beta'' or a ''sigma''... That's not something immutable. So be yourself and be the one YOU want to be. Adapt, improve and don't try to be something that don't correspond to you inner self just because you want to be some ''memetype'' in the eyes of others.

>>62610 generalizations do necessarily have exceptions due to the complex nature of reality and the comparatively simple nature of our concepts of it

>>62623 Indeed, *every* generalization has exceptions, except for that one!

>>62605 Thanks for the detailed response. I'll clarify my point first and then respond to yours. I suppose my conception of masculinity is rather different from how it is typically conceptualised. I'd define it as a tendency to prefer certain responses over others due to the Y chromosome. So for instance, and I don't necessary mean this is true, I just need an example: An XY person may prefer toy soldiers over toy dolls. In an otherwise equal environment, the very preference for toy soldiers over toy dolls, caused by the Y chromosome, is masculinity. By 'typically', I mean that lets say, among 1000 XY individuals in a perfectly equal environment, 800 prefer toy soldiers over toy dolls. I would call that 'typically' masculine, maybe quantifying it to be 80% masculine. Now of course environment and individual differences play a huge factor. If we were to categorise every action and preference as to how masculine it was according to the example I gave above, I'm sure there would still be many masculine women. I'm sure many women would exhibit a preference for masculine responses overall despite their lack of a Y chromosome. I understand something like this is very difficult to empirically measure. Personally I don't have a problem with that, as I don't really have a burning need to know what masculinity really is, or even a desire to act according to it as opposed to how my genes naturally make me want to act. >Also, every possibility produced by our genes must be given an occasion for its effective display. I think it's difficult to say just to what extent the gender chromosome is completely arbitrary or absolutely influential. My only argument would probably be that the wealth of physical differences also suggests behavioural differences. I remember reading about women having a greater amount of cross-hemisphere communication than men. I don't know if something like that for instance can be explained only by social conditioning and hormones. Anyhow, in the case that it is influential, I don't think even shutting an individual away like in your example would necessarily turn off their masculine thought processes, for instance. As for your point that it's environment that produces masculinity: I suppose to some extent it's true. I think with certain extreme types of environments women could be conditioned to behave like men, and vice versa. To state that every individual is capable of acting against the tendencies of their chromosomes given an extreme enough environment is a leap of faith I think. I'm sure you can make most people act like men or women, but I don't think that necessarily changes what they internally tend towards. I also don't have faith that we will be able to produce an extreme enough environment where such a thing could occur. I do completely agree with you that the modern concept of what is masculine is a bastardisation of culture falsely applied to biology to justify power.

>>62630 Actually its a feature, "every generalization has exceptions" can delightfully apply to itself. As the previous guy stated errors exist because generalizations are simple abstractions of more complex reality and thus cant be accurate. However some statements are as simple as reality itself which permits them to be error free. For example "everyone needs to breathe to live". (watch contrarians chip in but what if i artificially oxygenate myself with a machine, youre just hooked to a artificial breather then smartass)

>>62630 Aah I get it , every generalisation has exceptions is in itself a generalisation.

>>62675 >>62668 i think it would apply better to realities like formal logic or maths, and not all of them, since their content is co-substantial with the generalizations themselves (language-language relation, and not language-non linguistic object). In this way, for example, the set of all prime numbers, or any ordered pair, would be a generalization that has no exceptions. To think that reality is made such that every entity withholds a perfect linguistic definition or exhaustive concept, is to reduce reality to only a part of it, that being, our thought and our language. everything is composed of parts and is part of something bigger, in an infinite scale up and an infinite scale down, or at least a very long one. Every single step of that ladder is somehow relevant to the being of that entity, some more, some less. This is why entities cannot be exhausted by concepts or terms, because to understand them, you will always have to move outside of them, into their parts which themselves are also entities, or into a bigger, complex whole, with other parts and all. In fact, the thing i said before, that formal-language entities may be exhausted by concepts that way, may not be true either, because to understand them fully you would need to know the history of formal logic, and the system of formal logic itself, which would require not one generalization, but many, a system of them, which itself is in constant development. The reason why "every generalization has exceptions" is, itself, exceptional, in that it has no exception, is the same reason why Socrates says with truth that "i only know that i know nothing". Its because, being a generalization, is not absolute because it references a complete whole, not leaving anything relevant outside. On the contrary, it is absolute because it precisely references that excess that no generalization can withhold, but this excess is not a positive entity, like the references of other generalization, but the pure negativity that permits our knowledge t always grow bigger.

>>62656 >By 'typically', I mean that lets say, among 1000 XY individuals in a perfectly equal environment, 800 prefer toy soldiers over toy dolls. I would call that 'typically' masculine, maybe quantifying it to be 80% masculine. This deals with child development and gender roles observed. Americans are toxic with the barbie/GI joe (historically) divide, which encourages toxic violent masculinity and airheaded superficial "Prettieness." By Comparison, Europeans have more gender neutral toys (i.e. lego/playmobil) which are more androgenous and require a more nuanced appreciation of gender roles in society, typical "girl" and "boy" roles vs. hypermasculinity etc. The toy soldier analogy is also pertinent to command ideaologies, and may contribute to strong leadership principles if it does not take into account gender. Some prominent female military leaders were known to preffer toy soldiers (leadership development) to dolls (typical maternal/caretaker role development). "Alpha Chads" are usually equated with characteristics of toxic masculinity and pick up artist methods, while providing no substance to a relationship. The generally accepted idea is that their self improvement is externalized to show off in society, while the "Sigma Chad" is usually equated with internalized self improvement, and high levels of self control. In essence, it deals with ego and deception. Being an "Alpha" is justbeing a shallow manipulative asshole, while being a "Sigma" is being a well developed adult (i.e. "Can get with stacy but chooses not to..." ). The whole "Sigma grindset" meme is basically a play on the antithesis of being well developed to being maladpted to an absurd level. It's all buzzwords like someone saying they are "Asexual polyamorous" to describe the fact that they are staying celebate until marriage, while also having a lot of close friends that they go out on dates or hang out with.

>>62677 > By Comparison, Europeans have more gender neutral toys (i.e. lego Nah, lego is for boys. Girls play with barbie dolls here too.

>>62677 I did mention that the only reason I gave the toy soldier analogy is because I needed some analogy. I appreciate the breakdown but I didn’t really intend for what I said to actually represent reality. I also don’t really think anything sigma related is really any better than the typical alpha Chad. If anything I’d say it’s even further divorced from the truth. The entire “can get with Stacy but chooses not to” is never actualised in anyone identifying as sigma. It’s all one big cope. The inform was supposed to originally teach men to stop competing in fringe hierarchies and compete in the main ones: athleticism and social dominance. Other hierarchies are for betas. What sigmas do is the exact thing inform taught not to do, which is rather funny to me and jusy shows how the “””sigma””” “””chads””” are unaware of any theory. Anyhow, it is all bullshit.

>>62488 What is real is that some men are charismatic, natural leaders and so on, most people aren't, there are social drop outs, the social equivalents of hobos and sigma is just a cope from them. Feel free to use the names you want. High status men, alpha, whatever. That was for social life. If you want to talk about sex in particular, yes, men would date almost any women while women only go for the top 5% and don't even acknowledge the existence of the others. Feel free to call the desirable men alpha, the normal ones betas and the ones who stopped trying omega. It's bullshit sociology, but again, all of sociology is bullshit.

>>62708 >It's bullshit sociology, but again, all of sociology is bullshit "I'm saying bullshit but hey look at that stuff other people are saying it's bullshit too" is not very persuasive. Most women are trained from adolescence not to give up sex too easily, while most men are trained that they have to have as much sex as possible or they're worthless. Everything bad about dating hinges on the fact that more men are willing to fuarrrk random women than women are willing to fuarrrk random men (btw I really don't recommend it). This is one of the ways Empire controls us. Men and women are kept sexually frustrated their whole lives, because of bullshit social norms. This is why 'free love' is so transgressive. Ever watched Die Hard? Ever wonder why he specifically points out a swimsuit model on a calendar and looks at it while he's in a supposedly high-pressure situation?

>>62501 >led america to victory during WW2 tell me thats a joke.

>>62709 >Most women are trained from adolescence not to give up sex too easily We have an old one here. How was Vietnam? I like your picture. In the good old days, people were afraid to be in the fist of a conspiracy that wanted them to reproduce. > 'free love' is so transgressive The 80's have called. What is now transgressive is to stop oversexualized men in their fetish outfit from touching 5 year old children.

>>62712 Wow, SICK burns! You've really pwned me!

>>62488 >Is meme alpha/beta/omega/sigma male classification legit? All classifications are wrong, but some are useful. >How do I determine who I am according to it? The one that you feed. >>62708 >there are social drop outs, the social equivalents of hobos and sigma is just a cope from them Some social drop outs are omegas, yes; but others really are sigmas. The class weakling may be an omega from the perspective of the football team, but a sigma when it turns out he can hack anybody's phone. The class dunce may be an omega from the perspective of the chess team, but a sigma when it turns out he can draw, carve, & juggle chess pieces. >while women only go for the top 5% Women do not "go for" men in the first place. Men go for women, that is the natural order of sexual polarity. Only because men are no longer going for women, are women's psychologies short-circuited into the erratic malfunctions you documented. Of course the only reason men are no longer going for women is that the State has made it illegal to go for women, which short-circuit men's psychologies into such erratic malfunctions as cutting off their own dicks. >>62709 I want to recommend you a book: Sex, Food and Rank: In Humans and Animals (Derek Ellis, 2011). I can't find a copy on libgen, but some quotes when directly searched show up in Google Books. I will quote you two disparate paragraphs, each of whose continuations you can follow up on if you so choose. >DOMS, even though only ritual elected DOMs in the form of aldermen, expect ritualized subordination from SUPERSUB professional engineers, except precisely at the moment of skill-wielding. At that moment, and that moment only. the DOM needs to be convinced that the SUPER-SUB is in control of his skill. The DOM gives him superior status then. Temporarily. Immediately afterward, the SUPER-SUB must quickly revert to his proper SUB status, wherever it may be in the ranks. >The superior female, Imo, was young, only one and a half years old and a Subordinate. This was a fortunate chance, not only in indicating how intelligence can be divorced from assertiveness and the qualities which make for Dominance, but also in allowing the scientists to see whether both high or low rankers learned from her. The wheel that she had invented rolled down the ranks to her friends and young monkeys, but not up to the older and more dominant apart from Imo's mother. High rankers take little notice of lower rankers except to chase them away. Lower rankers are forever watching the next higher to them. Inventions are unlikely to move up the ranks. That is, until the next generation enters and takes over. Meanwhile if the skill is useful or attractive to the young, it will pass around through imitation or play. Even a young runt is likely to be copied by inquisitive peers, whereas a Subordinate adult will be copied by very few. >>62712 >In the good old days, people were afraid to be in the fist of a conspiracy that wanted them to reproduce. Both can be true. The elites push the castration of some of their pets while pushing others of their livestock into breeding pens. >What is now transgressive is to stop oversexualized men in their fetish outfit from touching 5 year old children. Both can be true. The elites push the rape of children ala Project Monarch to condition compliant, alienated, dissociated drones while repressing the natural sexual bonding between man and woman, which would result in competing loyalties away from the eunuch State Institution Jannisaries. >>62713 >Wow, SICK burns! You've really pwned me! I don't think noticing someone's age, or the age of their beliefs, is inherently insulting. Nor do I think Delilah's pointing out of age was done in a particularly insulting way. I agree Acid Burn's post sounds like it was written by an elder stating elder beliefs. I agree both with Acid Burn's points and Delilah's counterpoints. The opposite of a Great Truth is Another Great Truth and history is a pendulum.

>>62715 >Women do not "go for" men in the first place. Replace "go for" with "settle for" then. It doesn't invalidate his point. >Of course the only reason men are no longer going for women is that the State has made it illegal to go for women Women go for the top 5% (or 10%) because the modern welfare system allows them to live off the state indefinitely while they keep trying to find that mythical 6 foot 6 pack billionaire who randomly wants to marry an overweight 35 year old single mom. >Delilah >Acid Burn The names are randomly generated. Same name doesn't mean the same person. >>62709 >Most women are trained from adolescence not to give up sex too easily Because once they have a baby they are stuck with it. Sex is a much bigger commitment for women than for men. And if the father doesn't stick around then it's the girl's family who are financially liable to support her as a single mom. That's why families traditionally "train" their daughters to be chaste until they have a firm commitment (marriage).

>>62732 >Women go for the top 5% (or 10%) because the modern welfare system allows them to live off the state indefinitely Most women aren't in the welfare system. Also, I think most men also only go for the top 5 or 10% of women, at least when it comes to looking for gf/wife material. I know for a fact that a lot of the nerdy girls in my high school got no attention from boys at all, and fat girls could only attract Mexican guys. One girl who I consider attractive had to basically do all the work of wooing her bf, who's skinny and extremely nerdy. They've been together for almost 6 years now and they seem very happy together.

The sigma still defines himself by what he isnt. Only the Hamza male stands independent of the hierarchies.

>>62733 >Most women aren't in the welfare system. While this is true, all of them have a safety net under them. Why date a husband material who offer material safety when you can date a biker? More important: men adapt to the society they live in and get the behavior they need to have in order to get their sausage wet. Back when you needed to offer material and affective security and strong signs of commitment to score, this was what we did. Now it simply don't pay so we stopped doing that. That's were all the good men went: they were only pretending to get something in return and it's gone. Now you are either an alpha and have to repel women to get some air, a beta and you have to fight your way to an overweight, aggressive women with std who will leave you anyway, or you stop trying. And this is where it become more than an individual issue: 1: birthrate are at a bottom low 2: men start to work less and less hard. They don't have to provide for more than themselves after all. >most men also only go for the top 5 or 10% of women, at least when it comes to looking for gf/wife material. We have no shortage of men who would gladly marry any bellow average women if they just don't cheat. That's the problem.

>>63229 >1: birthrate are at a bottom low better than places like Nigeria that are getting fuarrrked over by their high fertility rate. >We have no shortage of men who would gladly marry any bellow average women if they just don't cheat. That's the problem. This is not so obvious. Has anybody actually measured this?

>>62733 >Most women aren't in the welfare system. Having a low paying job or working for the state doesn't make you a (net) tax payer. Men pay the taxes and women spend them. https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax/ >I know for a fact that a lot of the nerdy girls in my high school got no attention from boys at all Nobody is getting married in highschool. >I think most men also only go for the top 5 or 10% of women, at least when it comes to looking for gf/wife material. You have to put this in context though. Men decide who they marry but women decide who they start dating in the first place. This is the mess that the feminist sexual liberation movement has created for us. A 7/10 woman can sleep with a 10/10 guy by dropping her panties. A man is not going to turn down free sex. He's never going to marry her though. So the 7/10 woman ignores the 7/10 guys and keeps sleeping with 10/10 guys in the hope that one of them will marry her. Then she ages out of her fertility window and suddenly not even the 7/10 guys are interested anymore.

>>63233 > Men pay the taxes and women spend them You could say the same in the "good old days" when women were excluded from having their own economic agency. If anything, this statistic probably decreases the more feminist a country is. >A man is not going to turn down free sex. I'm a man and I have done this. >So the 7/10 woman ignores the 7/10 guys and keeps sleeping with 10/10 guys in the hope that one of them will marry her. This is an oft-repeated claim with little justification. I think most 7/10 guys also ignore 7/10 women.

>>63231 You had to compare us to Nigeria. Is this enough to convince you of how south things are? >Has anybody actually measured this? <- >>63234 In the good old days, women were as productive of men, you can't say the same now. I have a problem with feminism because instead of telling the women to do the hard industrial jobs with the men, it tell them to be chair-keyboard interfaces. This, of course come at the price of the birth rate. >I think most 7/10 guys also ignore 7/10 women Most 7/10 guys are desperately try to score a 3/10 despite trying their best. Why do you think incel is a word to start with?

>>63234 >I think most 7/10 guys also ignore 7/10 women. >>63233 >Men decide who they marry but women decide who they start dating in the first place. If women are responsible for starting the relationship then you can't blame men here. >If anything, this statistic probably decreases the more feminist a country is. Not really https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries. The more choice women have the less likely they are to choose work. That's why you know more female programmers from india/china/iran than scandinavia. You also have to undo your corporate programming here and remember that work is not fun. Men work because women won't have sex with a bum. And the more money/status you have to better chance you have of getting a quality woman. Women work because they feel like it or they've been tricked into doing it. There is a very big difference in motivation there. >I'm a man and I have done this. Your white knight larping doesn't invalidate the actual point. Either quote the full argument and counter it or just admit you are wrong.

Here's one version taken years ago. I don't remember where. Probably 4chan. Whether or not it is "legit" depends on the context of your inquiry. It is natural to classify and sort by archtypes, and I myself do support this listing. However, it is easily corruptable. "Sigma Male Grindset" memes are a satric example of the flaws of this designation. Meanwhile, you have redditor types and pseudo-intellectual low-IQ mongoloids chiming in saying "ASHKULLY Alpha Males in wolves are actually disproven by so and so in the year 19XX and are based in an error first recorded by [LITERALLY WHO] back in 18XX."

>>63239 >Not really https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries. The more choice women have the less likely they are to choose work. The article you linked said they don't have senior management positions, which is different from choosing not to work. I am aware of the paradox in science/engineering roles but it's more subtle than usually explained, and it seems like choice of metric has a lot to do with it (indicating that the paradox is not very robust) https://dynomight.net/gender-equality-paradox/ >>63239 >Men work because women won't have sex with a bum. That's not why I work. Or any member of any clerical/priestly sect that forbids members to have sex. >Women work because they feel like it or they've been tricked into doing it. Weird that so many women have to work to support their kid then. >Either quote the full argument and counter it or just admit you are wrong. The "argument" is just a series of assertions of fact. One of the facts is materially untrue. The rest I am dubious about, I still think it's interesting that this "common knowledge" cannot be substantiated. >>63236 >Most 7/10 guys are desperately try to score a 3/10 despite trying their best. Again, Has anybody actually measured this? >Why do you think incel is a word to start with? Because a tiny fraction of self-pitying dudes on the internet came up with the word, and then a psychopath killed people and got on national news.

>>63281 The actual details of the wolf studies matter because without controlled observation it's just memes plastered over the concept of social hierarchy, a fictional explanation of reality that people accept because it satisfies their biases like astrological signs or online personality quizzes. The social hierarchy of wolves in the wild is based on family ties. The alpha beta classification applies to unrelated wolves that have been forced together in a confined space. While this experimental design is perhaps relevant to modern human society, it makes more sense as a pathology than an aspirational ideal.

>>63283 >While this experimental design is perhaps relevant to modern human society, it makes more sense as a pathology than an aspirational ideal. This is probably the best explanation of this entire idea.

>>63282 >That's not why I work. Or any member of any clerical/priestly sect that forbids members to have sex. Contrarian take "look at the outliers" yeah irrelevant when he was making a generalization about avg people. And its been noted decades ago that women only date up but few accept lower earnings than themself. Which is also now a disaster with academia catering to women as it shifted the ratio of graduates. Now you get more women than men with degrees = lots of spinster in production as they are unwilling to "settle for men lower educated than themself" even if they have meme degrees like social studies&lib arts which is daycare tier compared to a machinist.

even if wolf&dog social heirarchy is fully and completely understood there's a tenuous chain of reasoning to make it completely relatable to human society, if its related at all. Interesting? sure. Thought provoking? probably. But ultimately dogs are dogs, very different creatures than you and me (except those who we'll never know, being as we are on the internet). More relatable might be studies of various monkeys, good book I read was called 'Chimpanzee Politics', gives a fun study of the history of a little captive chimp community. No doubt not 100% what wild chimps are like (but hey, where are the wild humans these days either?), but still fairly interesting short history imho. Social heirarchy definitly exists in humans, sometimes a bit difficult to talk about and study directly though. Everyone has skin in the game and generally is incentivized to misrepresent it, perhaps even have mental blocks that get in the way of true understanding...

>>63282 >Again, Has anybody actually measured this? Now that we live in a cyberpunk dystopia and privacy mean being spied on only by a plethora of corpos and not by the government, we have statistics about everything. >Because a tiny fraction of self-pitying dudes on the internet came up with the word, and then a psychopath killed people and got on national news. Good old time when only social outcasts were incels. That was 10 years ago. It's the new normal and so it become a societal problem.

>>63315 tinder & co are 80% men in terms of userbase, its so bad those site famously botted fake women profiles to pretend they get women to match with, so where are the women? Well clearly majority of women don't use these sites so the data actually cant tell what most women do. What you might be looking at is proof that only women interested in quick sex use these apps to get a hot guy to bang or they simply pick higher because the 1 women on 4 guys ratio means every women could get top 25% dude and 3 losers are left out. tldr: using dating app data applies a selection bias just as you wont find steak fans in a vegetarian restaurant.

>>63315 The thing though is, you can't measure personality on a dating app. How? You have to spend some time with someone to get a sense of personality outside of the stuff you pick up under one second, and the nature of these apps doesn't allow that. Your personality on there begins and ends within the 3 sentence description you give yourself there. So really all this says is that looks only matter on dating apps, but if you take real life into account it wouldn't look that bad. I am certain people care about looks, but anyone who actually knew someone over time would know you get attached to people with time if they are someone you connect to.

>>63315 >its the new normal so it became a societal problem You are aware that many "societal problems" are either manufactured or exaggerated, right? Just because its in the zeitgeist doesn't mean its actually that common or more common then it used to be. That said, I do think there is something to it. A lot of men (and women) never seemed to have learned how to court a partner sexually or romantically.