70% of the Women go for 15% of the Men?

[Mrlonelyone]

This is ****ing stupid. Its quite clear we can go back and forth on this until the last Indian crosses the Trail of Tears. To be honest, I don't even use or care about the words "alpha" or "beta" because I know that they are inadequate. I just am using them for the sake of this discussion. You'll never catch me in real life calling someone "alpha" or "beta". This is also quite an irrelevant discussion because you're obviously not getting the point of my post about Obama or other Presidents I mentioned.

 

I also know how the real world operates thank you very much, so don't act like I'm some little kid who plays with Legos all day..

 

 

 

If you knew the real world you would not write like a frat boy.

[fortyninethousand322]

I hear this a lot in dating forums.

 

Do you think the maxim is true that the top 70% of women out there only go for the top 15% of the men and the only time a "regular" man can score a woman in the top 70% is when she's ready to "settle"? Adjust the percentages as necessary, but is something like this going on?

 

No, but 10% of men are dating more than one woman at a time, who is only dating them. Among the under 40 crowd there are about 105 men for every 100 women. So you can see how the numbers can get skewed.

 

10.5x2= 21. So, 94.5 men for every 79 women thereabouts? Not a good ratio.

[dasein]

Yes being president of the United States of America (Or Prime miniters of Great Britain, or Paramount leader of the PRC etc) makes one an Alpha Male by default. A weak willed, submissive, person more apt to be lead than to lead, a beta, would never even want the job.

 

I disagree, and attribute it to "like elects like," and though I disagree with the "alpha" moniker generally as applied to human beings (most real "alpha males" in animal kingdom terms in my mind are in jail for violence or headed that way), no there hasn't been anything resembling an "alpha" president in a long, long time. We are a nation of betas electing betas to public office. Romney was the closest thing to an alpha male we've had as a candidate in awhile, and look how he terrified voters with his shiny white "successfulness." Did his best to tone it down, didn't pan out with the mob of beta voters. "Alphas" end up playing sports, racing cars, working outdoors, in the military, buying companies, litigators, in real estate, stock brokers, high end sales, etc., much more than in politics, which they generally disdain as the domain of the weak. None of my friends who fit the alpha profile even loosely would ever consider politics.

 

And LOL that Bill Clinton, Obama or any other machine Democrat ever is an "alpha male." There are lots of alphas in boardrooms, but few if any in statehouses. Note the glaring differences between the few alpha pols like Ahnuld and Jesse Ventura and all the rest. Nietzsche would call politicians the modern "priestly" class and that's the furthest thing from historical alpha male.

 

But please, the term is really inapplicable to human beings, and we should take comfort in that.

[MissBee]

I hear this a lot in dating forums.

 

Do you think the maxim is true that the top 70% of women out there only go for the top 15% of the men and the only time a "regular" man can score a woman in the top 70% is when she's ready to "settle"? Adjust the percentages as necessary, but is something like this going on?

 

To be honest, since venturing to LS (which I only came to originally because of heartbreak, but stuck around), was when I started reading all kinds of, what is to me bizarre, "dating science." In my general real life, neither I nor my friends discuss things like: alpha and beta males, 70% of women and 15% of men and all the other things I see on LS that people seem thoroughly invested in. And all my friends, males and females, seem to date and do just fine. We all have our complaints about the opposite sex and we all generalize when we're venting....but some of this stuff, I'm like who has ever heard of this? I haven't. People have been dating and marrying for decades and it didn't seem this complicated.

 

I don't know the criteria for "top 15% of men" or what qualifies a woman as a 70 percenter. I really don't worry about percents in dating. I just worry about me. I know what I like and what I don't, I meet men and I decide to spend time with them based on that. Sometimes I score big and he's great, sometimes he's not and I move on...and then you meet another. People like what they like and it seems that people in this forum hate to hear the idea that there is someone for everyone...I get it...but for me, that's how I see it and so far it has been proven true. I don't care about an imaginary top 15% or what have you. I like who I like, who meets MY standards, and take it from there. Way less headache than worrying about percentages and percentiles and the "competition" and all that jazz.

 

I don't think those who are successful in dating even think about these things...it seems to be that those who aren't spend tons of time stewing about these things and creating an entire pseudoscience around it which seems not to help them anyway.

[Mrlonelyone]

I disagree, and attribute it to "like elects like," and though I disagree with the "alpha" moniker generally as applied to human beings (most real "alpha males" in animal kingdom terms in my mind are in jail for violence or headed that way), no there hasn't been anything resembling an "alpha" president in a long, long time. We are a nation of betas electing betas to public office. Romney was the closest thing to an alpha male we've had as a candidate in awhile, and look how he terrified voters with his shiny white "successfulness." Did his best to tone it down, didn't pan out with the mob of beta voters. "Alphas" end up playing sports, racing cars, working outdoors, in the military, buying companies, litigators, in real estate, stock brokers, high end sales, etc., much more than in politics, which they generally disdain as the domain of the weak. None of my friends who fit the alpha profile even loosely would ever consider politics.

 

And LOL that Bill Clinton, Obama or any other machine Democrat ever is an "alpha male." There are lots of alphas in boardrooms, but few if any in statehouses. Note the glaring differences between the few alpha pols like Ahnuld and Jesse Ventura and all the rest. Nietzsche would call politicians the modern "priestly" class and that's the furthest thing from historical alpha male.

 

But please, the term is really inapplicable to human beings, and we should take comfort in that.

 

 

Wrong. If someone is so socailly inept that they can't be an alpha leader without being a criminal than they aren't much of an alpha.

 

 

Even among great apes, if a male chip out right rapes a popular female chimp. The other chimps eject him from the group. If a male chimp beats a baby chimp to death, do you think the females see that and think "Oh that's sexy I wanna get with him".

 

You have to look at animals we have shared a common ancestors with, in the last 10 million years, to get a valid idea of what an alpha male human would be like. They would be politically adept, and socially skilled. They would be good at building alliances to control resources. They would be good at solving problems others can't fathom. Yes, physical attributes would play a role, but they aren't the whole game.

 

Consider George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Both were big and tall sure. Washington had dentures for his entire public life and Lincoln had a high pitched voice. What made them alpha (and if G Washington wasn't alpha then who the heck is?) was their political, and diplomatic abiliites with a good helping of wartime command.

 

Heck I'd even say that Rod Blaogojevich, one of Illinois disgraced governors, was alpha. Even in going off to jail he was alpha.

[dasein]

Wrong. If someone is so socailly inept that they can't be an alpha leader without being a criminal than they aren't much of an alpha.

 

No, you are wrong, and fallaciously anthropomorphizing. But if we are going to talk about animal "alpha" designations, let's not always limit to higher functioning animals where the designation becomes less apt, but to canine and feline packs where it actually means something.

 

The only remotely equivalent human social structure to such packs is tribal despotism, not democracies, theocracies, or any consensual or third party (God) social structures.

 

Even among great apes, if a male chip out right rapes a popular female chimp. The other chimps eject him from the group. If a male chimp beats a baby chimp to death, do you think the females see that and think "Oh that's sexy I wanna get with him".

 

Sure, despots can be overthrown, and it's a function not of their popularity or any particular vicious acts, but of their power and raw domination of the pack.

 

You have to look at animals we have shared a common ancestors with, in the last 10 million years,

 

Of course you want to look at animals where the alpha designation is less apt because it's the only way your argument stretches close to anything sensical. Inapt.

 

to get a valid idea of what an alpha male human would be like. They would be politically adept, and socially skilled.

 

No, they would exercise dominion over environments and resources by brute force or constant threat of it. Persusasion, consensus, teamwork, none are "alpha." You are talking about some other type of quality and misusing very limited terms as so many do today with the "alpha" designation.

 

(and if G Washington wasn't alpha then who the heck is?)

 

Genghis Khan, Viking Earls, Napoleon, Alexander, Achilleus, Beowulf, Xerxes, historical slaving societies, Idi Amin, ancient Aryans, Charles Manson, Saddam Hussein, generally folks we regard as "evil" in enlightened times. The "alpha" designation of human beings seeking mostly self-rule, freedom and consensus, would always be a negative in remotely accurate usage.

 

Of course you are free to misuse terms however you like. The term "alpha" has a specific meaning, not to be confused with "popularity," "rule of law," "democracy," "persuasiveness," or any other terms describing human represtantive politics relationships.

Edited July 17, 2013 by dasein