The people of the US and Canada need each other. I fully understand why Canadians don’t like us right now, in general. But this shit that’s happening in the US, is happening in a lot of places. “Turn back the clock, make it simpler again.” Garbage rhetoric for people that do not like the progress that has happened in the last 60-70 years. And I apologize, I just assumed you are Canadian.
Also the age old mentality of if you have to tell people how alpha you are you're probably not alpha at all. A strong man doesn't need to project, he's just strong. A weak man needs everyone to think he's actually strong when he's not.
Alphas only exist when held in captivity that they can't escape from, as they live on what their captors give them. So by calling themselves Alphas, they are just saying they are prisoners in a system they're not in control of, which is hilariously the opposite of what they want it to mean.
Really interesting video. Learning that the "alpha wolf" concept is a myth based on outdated studies of captive, unrelated wolves.
And in the wild, wolf packs are family units led by a breeding pair (the parents), not dictators, with "alphas" simply being the mom and dad. The idea of brutal dominance struggles for leadership is incorrect, as wild wolves cooperate.
Even worse are the people talking about the "sigma wolf" or lone wolf as if it's something to aspire to be. Lone wolves are much weaker as they do not benefit of the safety of the pack and do not eat as well as pack wolves. They also tend to be more aggressive because they need to take more risks to survive. If you think that being ill tempered and unable to form social bonds is aspirational, you're not going to be a happy person.
You know, they remind me of fiddler crabs: they put up a great show, but they can never back up their "alpha-ness" and have this odd propensity of scuttling away the moment they encounter actual strength.
I also find it amusing these preening, macho turbo douches seem to be big believers in the kind of skin care regimens they deride women for and I find it even more amusing so many are on TRT but have fuck all to show for it beyond male pattern baldness (and chick pea testes).
I could only imagine how painful it must be to be the manifestations of physical and even spiritual insecurity.
No. The rational analysis is we are in the same position as these captive wolves. We live in an artificial controlled environment
We are not wild. Still applies.
What's interesting to me, and I'll probably get flack for pointing this out, is that alphas do exist. But they are a symptom of social dysfunction in wolves. I wonder if any of that could be mapped to our own society? How often are we forced to compete with individuals who we don't have a familial bond with? Could that not naturally lead to heightened aggression and other negative trends?
I've also always been fascinated by the dude bro podcasters that tout this shit as gospel. As if being a piece of shit were excusable just because it was a "natural" outcome. Why do some people think it's OK to act in ways that are condemnable as long as they can prove "it happens in nature?" I thought we were supposed to be rising above our base instincts, not slavishly serving them? If it was discovered tomorrow that rape was something humans used to do "in nature," it would still be a horrible crime. It's just such a weird, empty headed way to look at things.
Those kinds of people just like to say "natural" to make it sound like their shitty beliefs are rooted in ancient and fundamental truths. Same with "traditional". Doesn't even really matter if they're either of those things, they're post-hoc justifications to begin with.
Sure, but it's not like the only options are monogamy or rape. There's plenty of polyandrous species in which the female willingly has sex with multiple males.
Sorry, I had to. But in all seriousness, bonobos. And plenty of humans today still have intercourse with multiple male partners, albeit often not with the knowledge of everyone involved.
Arguing that the shape of the penis implies human mating behavior in prehistory commonly involved rape is making the evidence fit the conclusion, not the other way around.
Although it is unlikely we'll ever know for sure, there's plenty of theories that paleolithic humans engaged in mating strategies involving multiple partners to e.g. improve genetic diversity and help prevent infanticide.
Ha, but in all seriousness I was hinting at the prevalence of aggressive male sexual behaviours and rape and intolerance of female infidelity throughout cultures today as a hint to what prehistoric mating behaviour of humans mightve looked line.
You know, I also cited modern human behavior as an indicator for prehistoric human mating behavior twice, but when you put it like that, I guess it doesn't really make that much sense to infer prehistoric mating behaviors from how humans are acting today. Why would we assume that because rape is normalized and female promiscuity is denigrated by many modern cultures, this means it's human nature to do these things? That's just the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy that alpha-bros use.
Ok so the takeaway is that in the wild pack leaders are the ones who are strong, smart, and successful enough to survive, attract a mate, and protect and provide for their offspring, but when unrelated individuals are forced into a social group they will vie for dominance until a leader emerges?
Can you help me understand what exactly is being debunked? It sounds to me like highly fit individuals are more likely to end up as leaders. Isn't that sort of the entire essence of the idea of the 'alpha male'?
How does the knowledge that the pack leaders are generally the breeding pair challenge the understanding of animal social dynamics?
The common understanding is that within social animals, heirarchical structures commonly form and tend to follow a pattern in which individuals with more fitness are more likely to occupy higher positions within that heirarchy. If wolf packs are typically led by the breeding pair, and a successful breeding pair by definition is likely to consist of relatively high fitness individuals, how does this not support the common understanding of these social heirarchies?
There's a quite specific version of an alpha that permeates the red pill community that only happens in wolves on captivity. But you're right that the theme of a dominance hierarchy is far from debunked. This is a case of two culturally/politically motivated sides both trying to have a naturalistic fallacy work for them which requires both to misrepresent the truth.
But like chimps do this right? There’s an alpha male and he has his like bros who back him up, or challenge him. I dunno why people just use that as an example? Also rather fitting that these alpha bros are just behaving like chimps…
My favourite thing from all of this is the concept of the Sigma. Alphas are cool, sure, but they need to be charismatic and likeable but none of these losers are. So they invented the Sigma, which is like the cool loner Alpha, to paper over that glaring issue with their whole theory.
As it turns out, it has always been the case that caring and empathetic individuals are the leaders that people look up to. Yes, sometimes that means being strong, but not strong for one’s own sake— rather, being strong for others sake as well.
I think the sad reality is that, for many people, as a certain Yale-educated entertainer once said, "deep down inside, [they] secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule [them] like a king!"
Humans are far too complex to label a person a general 'alpha' when there are simply too many contexts that we put ourselves in. A tech CEO, an athlete, a socialite, a math genius and an artist can all be "alphas" in their niche and be a nobody in another.
One thing I've noticed about people who blather on about being an "alpha" is that they tend to be scared of putting themselves in unfamiliar situations or are hyper controlling about their environment. Because they know their alphaness is very context dependent.
For this I admire people who are willing to put themselves in unknown situations and just figure things out and learn in a humble manner. People like that tend to become more "alpha" than anyone else in my mind, if I had to use the term.
I don't like this video. Not because I like the concept of the alpha male, far from it, it's because, ultimately, it's meaningless. It's trying to imply the coinage of the term alpha male is responsible for the concept of alpha male, when it's not true - the idea that there's a class of men that are more successful in society for their attitude is far older than the usage of the term alpha male and attempts at making a naturalistic argument by invoking animals or some natural order. David Mech didn't invent the concept of alpha male, the name just became very popular. Even if you point out that the original study is flawed, it doesn't erase the reality that the concept exists in a different dimension - even if Mech had never coined the term, the concept would continue to exists, likely adopting another nomenclature. Going around telling people that the original study doesn't accomplish anything, because the people who use the term won't care, it's a hopeful etymological fallacy, the belief if you can contest the origin of the name and make the years and years of context that built around it go poof. At best you make a stupid gotcha that no one cares about.
This really should have hit on the fact that gender is socially constructed, and that while the concepts of alphas, betas, and even sigmas are based on a bad understanding of wolf behavior, those concepts are now divorced from their origin. Alphas, betas, and sigmas are new gender classifications.
The people who group men into alphas, betas, and sigmas are operating with four gender categories (because, of course, they lump all women together). Because gender is socially constructed.
Or I could just not do that, that's kinda the point of the video. We all get to choose what social groups we are part of, and as it turns out, most people dont want to choose to be around jerks. Acting like some unhelpful tough guy is the opposite of being at the top of a heirarchy, except if you self select into a group of other people who like selfish jerks.
One could say people who talk about alphas are all just betas in the weird social group they put themselves in of other people who believe in alphas.
it is genuinely funny to see them label themselves as such, considering on how easily offended they are to everything
Canadian politician - an alpha bro - just released a video saying people should be “Offended” that the government wants to feed kids.
What a snowflake
The people of the US and Canada need each other. I fully understand why Canadians don’t like us right now, in general. But this shit that’s happening in the US, is happening in a lot of places. “Turn back the clock, make it simpler again.” Garbage rhetoric for people that do not like the progress that has happened in the last 60-70 years. And I apologize, I just assumed you are Canadian.
I am - and I miss all the beautiful American democrats and independants who didn’t elect the baby that is currently piddling in our pool
economically sure, but otherwise, fuck off with that rhetoric.
we got enough shit as it is over here, last thing we need is the additional toxicity brought on by the US culture.
An alpha male is the weak man's idea of what a strong man should be. Been said about Trump a lot lately but it applies to all of them.
Also the age old mentality of if you have to tell people how alpha you are you're probably not alpha at all. A strong man doesn't need to project, he's just strong. A weak man needs everyone to think he's actually strong when he's not.
This right here.
Alphas only exist when held in captivity that they can't escape from, as they live on what their captors give them. So by calling themselves Alphas, they are just saying they are prisoners in a system they're not in control of, which is hilariously the opposite of what they want it to mean.
It's astrology for boys.
"Did you hear what Bruce did? Totally water sign alpha, right?"
Really interesting video. Learning that the "alpha wolf" concept is a myth based on outdated studies of captive, unrelated wolves. And in the wild, wolf packs are family units led by a breeding pair (the parents), not dictators, with "alphas" simply being the mom and dad. The idea of brutal dominance struggles for leadership is incorrect, as wild wolves cooperate.
Even worse are the people talking about the "sigma wolf" or lone wolf as if it's something to aspire to be. Lone wolves are much weaker as they do not benefit of the safety of the pack and do not eat as well as pack wolves. They also tend to be more aggressive because they need to take more risks to survive. If you think that being ill tempered and unable to form social bonds is aspirational, you're not going to be a happy person.
These are the people that look up to American Psycho, they absolutely think those traits are aspirational.
Far-right misogynists: "What was that? I can't hear you over how alpha I am."
You know, they remind me of fiddler crabs: they put up a great show, but they can never back up their "alpha-ness" and have this odd propensity of scuttling away the moment they encounter actual strength.
I also find it amusing these preening, macho turbo douches seem to be big believers in the kind of skin care regimens they deride women for and I find it even more amusing so many are on TRT but have fuck all to show for it beyond male pattern baldness (and chick pea testes).
I could only imagine how painful it must be to be the manifestations of physical and even spiritual insecurity.
No. The rational analysis is we are in the same position as these captive wolves. We live in an artificial controlled environment We are not wild. Still applies.
See rattopia for our trajectory.
It doesnt help that Pokemon recently released "Alphas" which will reinforce people's incorrect ideas of what they are.
Just like they did with Evolution back in the 90's.
Yeah the evolution was a translate mistake if I remember correctly.
What's interesting to me, and I'll probably get flack for pointing this out, is that alphas do exist. But they are a symptom of social dysfunction in wolves. I wonder if any of that could be mapped to our own society? How often are we forced to compete with individuals who we don't have a familial bond with? Could that not naturally lead to heightened aggression and other negative trends?
I've also always been fascinated by the dude bro podcasters that tout this shit as gospel. As if being a piece of shit were excusable just because it was a "natural" outcome. Why do some people think it's OK to act in ways that are condemnable as long as they can prove "it happens in nature?" I thought we were supposed to be rising above our base instincts, not slavishly serving them? If it was discovered tomorrow that rape was something humans used to do "in nature," it would still be a horrible crime. It's just such a weird, empty headed way to look at things.
Those kinds of people just like to say "natural" to make it sound like their shitty beliefs are rooted in ancient and fundamental truths. Same with "traditional". Doesn't even really matter if they're either of those things, they're post-hoc justifications to begin with.
Yeah "if"...
I have bad news for you. Shape of the penis and all...
I mean, like, definitively. Like evidence from our closest ancestor. I get your meaning, tho.
It undoubtedly did given that even in our 'civilized' society it happens all the time.
But I don't really get what the shape of the penis is supposed to tell us about that.
One theory for its shape is to push competitor sperm out. Why would it evolve that way?
Sure, but it's not like the only options are monogamy or rape. There's plenty of polyandrous species in which the female willingly has sex with multiple males.
do you see any evidence in our species or our closest ancestors for that behavior?
Yeah, your mom.
Sorry, I had to. But in all seriousness, bonobos. And plenty of humans today still have intercourse with multiple male partners, albeit often not with the knowledge of everyone involved.
Arguing that the shape of the penis implies human mating behavior in prehistory commonly involved rape is making the evidence fit the conclusion, not the other way around.
Although it is unlikely we'll ever know for sure, there's plenty of theories that paleolithic humans engaged in mating strategies involving multiple partners to e.g. improve genetic diversity and help prevent infanticide.
Ha, but in all seriousness I was hinting at the prevalence of aggressive male sexual behaviours and rape and intolerance of female infidelity throughout cultures today as a hint to what prehistoric mating behaviour of humans mightve looked line.
You know, I also cited modern human behavior as an indicator for prehistoric human mating behavior twice, but when you put it like that, I guess it doesn't really make that much sense to infer prehistoric mating behaviors from how humans are acting today. Why would we assume that because rape is normalized and female promiscuity is denigrated by many modern cultures, this means it's human nature to do these things? That's just the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy that alpha-bros use.
Packs can get larger, but it's basically comparing a functional family unit or community to a prison yard.
Ok so the takeaway is that in the wild pack leaders are the ones who are strong, smart, and successful enough to survive, attract a mate, and protect and provide for their offspring, but when unrelated individuals are forced into a social group they will vie for dominance until a leader emerges?
Can you help me understand what exactly is being debunked? It sounds to me like highly fit individuals are more likely to end up as leaders. Isn't that sort of the entire essence of the idea of the 'alpha male'?
I’d suggest watching the video. It’ll give you more nuance and a better understanding than a comment section can.
No, usually the leader of a family unit of wolves is the mother & father. It's never just the male.
How does the knowledge that the pack leaders are generally the breeding pair challenge the understanding of animal social dynamics?
The common understanding is that within social animals, heirarchical structures commonly form and tend to follow a pattern in which individuals with more fitness are more likely to occupy higher positions within that heirarchy. If wolf packs are typically led by the breeding pair, and a successful breeding pair by definition is likely to consist of relatively high fitness individuals, how does this not support the common understanding of these social heirarchies?
There's a quite specific version of an alpha that permeates the red pill community that only happens in wolves on captivity. But you're right that the theme of a dominance hierarchy is far from debunked. This is a case of two culturally/politically motivated sides both trying to have a naturalistic fallacy work for them which requires both to misrepresent the truth.
Finally someone who makes sense when talking about this specific subject.
Thank you.
But like chimps do this right? There’s an alpha male and he has his like bros who back him up, or challenge him. I dunno why people just use that as an example? Also rather fitting that these alpha bros are just behaving like chimps…
The video has a part on apes. Definitely worth a watch. Its more complex than that
I'm a Zebra male...couldn't give a shite about those alpha lads.
Why do you have to be so black and white about it?
Genetics bro..
It would help, if we could see where you're heading. Dazzling, I say.
female zebras hide children
My favourite thing from all of this is the concept of the Sigma. Alphas are cool, sure, but they need to be charismatic and likeable but none of these losers are. So they invented the Sigma, which is like the cool loner Alpha, to paper over that glaring issue with their whole theory.
Nothing compared to Ligmas though.
As it turns out, it has always been the case that caring and empathetic individuals are the leaders that people look up to. Yes, sometimes that means being strong, but not strong for one’s own sake— rather, being strong for others sake as well.
SOME people look up to leaders like that.
I think the sad reality is that, for many people, as a certain Yale-educated entertainer once said, "deep down inside, [they] secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule [them] like a king!"
Calling yourself an alpha is just a thinly veiled excuse for being a dick.
Astrology for bros
Humans are far too complex to label a person a general 'alpha' when there are simply too many contexts that we put ourselves in. A tech CEO, an athlete, a socialite, a math genius and an artist can all be "alphas" in their niche and be a nobody in another.
One thing I've noticed about people who blather on about being an "alpha" is that they tend to be scared of putting themselves in unfamiliar situations or are hyper controlling about their environment. Because they know their alphaness is very context dependent.
For this I admire people who are willing to put themselves in unknown situations and just figure things out and learn in a humble manner. People like that tend to become more "alpha" than anyone else in my mind, if I had to use the term.
I don't like this video. Not because I like the concept of the alpha male, far from it, it's because, ultimately, it's meaningless. It's trying to imply the coinage of the term alpha male is responsible for the concept of alpha male, when it's not true - the idea that there's a class of men that are more successful in society for their attitude is far older than the usage of the term alpha male and attempts at making a naturalistic argument by invoking animals or some natural order. David Mech didn't invent the concept of alpha male, the name just became very popular. Even if you point out that the original study is flawed, it doesn't erase the reality that the concept exists in a different dimension - even if Mech had never coined the term, the concept would continue to exists, likely adopting another nomenclature. Going around telling people that the original study doesn't accomplish anything, because the people who use the term won't care, it's a hopeful etymological fallacy, the belief if you can contest the origin of the name and make the years and years of context that built around it go poof. At best you make a stupid gotcha that no one cares about.
I’m so tired of thumbnails with black tape across someone’s eyes
Why does language only seem to evolve one way?
This really should have hit on the fact that gender is socially constructed, and that while the concepts of alphas, betas, and even sigmas are based on a bad understanding of wolf behavior, those concepts are now divorced from their origin. Alphas, betas, and sigmas are new gender classifications.
The people who group men into alphas, betas, and sigmas are operating with four gender categories (because, of course, they lump all women together). Because gender is socially constructed.
If you don't believe in alphas in nature, go up to a gorilla, stare it in the eyes and beat your chest. He'll give you a lesson for free.
Or I could just not do that, that's kinda the point of the video. We all get to choose what social groups we are part of, and as it turns out, most people dont want to choose to be around jerks. Acting like some unhelpful tough guy is the opposite of being at the top of a heirarchy, except if you self select into a group of other people who like selfish jerks.
You're understanding of natural hierarchy is flawed at best. It would be real alpha if you'd open a book instead of your mouth.
I don't think you watch the video. They talk about very thing
Edit: think to thing
Ok.
But can I also have 3 snipers with their rifles trained on the gorilla's skull when I do this?
Humans are at the top of the food chain. Or the most "alpha" if you like.
...every gorilla will introduce you to the grounds they tread on if you do that
If you don't believe in alphas in inanimate objects, punch a steel girder and slam your head against it. It'll give you a lesson for free.