How can 'alpha fucks beta bux' be evolved behavior? Wouldn't betas go extinct in one generation of that?

CFRProflcopter · 2014-01-27T11:28:39+00:00

THANKYOU FOR ASKING THIS!!! I've been thinking this myself and did some research.

First;

http://www.nutrizionista.it/pubblicazioni/sex_differences_in_the_brain.pdf

this scientific article shows that males with lower testosterone (beta males) are far better at spatial awareness and mathematical logic. Low testosterone males are a lot smarter then their high testosterone counter parts.

Then I found this evolutionary psychology blog (Which actually argues against Red Pill Theory).

http://evolvify.com/alpha-male-narrative-myth/

key points:

There is no good reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes between tens of thousands to two million years ago.

humans evolved in largely egalitarian bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death

I personally think this is a revision the red pill needs to take, it would actually strengthen the red pill argument.

human ancestors likely lived in dominance hierarchies sometime in our distant past, but probably prior to the evolution of the hominin (human) line (Boehm 1999; Debreuil 2010). These works indicate that whatever “alpha” dominance tendencies evolved in our remote ancestors has most likely been evolving in the opposite direction for a couple million years

Most Great Apes operate in a hierachal "alpha - beta" society. Humans have been evolving away from this for the last few million years.

Without going into tedious detail, it’s unlikely that the alpha-male behavioral type (however imprecise that classification may be) is particularly adaptive. Traits that confer significant reproductive advantage tend to spread through a population rapidly. That basically means that traits that consistently vary widely among a species are probably not under significant selection pressures. If being alpha was the ne plus ultra of mate wooing strategies, there would be a whooooooollle lot fewer “betas.”

Here he is getting to the crux of your argument. He's right, why are there so many beta's if alpha's where the only ones getting laid?

If evolved human dominance behaviors have been decreasing over time, we would expect to see something else evolve to replace it. Because of the evolution of hominin brain size and cognition across the paleolithic, we might expect that whatever trait evolved via sexual selection related to these developments. Indeed, humor and intelligence appear to be more attractive to women than testosterone-related masculinity when it matters most — during female ovulation (Kaufman, et al. 2007). Greengross & Miller (2011) also found that humor relates to intelligence, and predicts mating success. Further, their data showed that Christopher Hitchens was right, and that males use humor to be selected by women.

So going back to the first paper I showed, this is saying women are attracted to intelligence which is a low testosterone/natural beta trait.

So why does being a masculine alpha lunk head still get you hundreds of women? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWY5Z69ckSY - this guy sleeps with about 35 women a year by doing nothing but increasing his masculine traits. He's actually quite stupid as you will soon see.

Masculine or “alpha” behavior is attractive to some women sometimes. It appears to be a retained trait from multiple millions of years ago, that was once advantageous, but has lost its significance with respect to the population as a whole. I’ve personally experimented with gender stereotypes enough to know that the opposite of masculinity can be attractive to women as well. When successful, either approach will lead to massive selection bias.

So even he eventually admits that masculinity is still attractive, but beta traits (being intelligent and funny) are also attractive.

This is actually brilliant news for the red pill. Red Pillers aren't natural Alpha's. This is a natural alpha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0IAUwtyquE

He's a fuckwit and stupid, he will have a lot of sex but some women would never find him attractive. On the contrary a natural beta is basically your typical redditor. Intelligent, is in a STEM field, but submissive, avoids confrontation and often depressed. Drowns his sorrows in games and porn.

This is where the Red Pill has a huge advantage; most red pillers are natural beta's (if we where alphas we wouldn't need the red pill in the first place!) We have the intelligence and humour women will find attractive, but since we've been made aware of the type of alpha traits women like, we can emulate them to our own advantage through developing GAME and working on our appearance.

Someone who has succesfully assimilated into a red pill lifestye should have the advantage of intelligence and a natural ability to pull out beta traits when neccessary, but the knowledge and training to act alpha when it's appropriate.

I need to find a few more studies in relation to this theory before I discuss it in TRP, yet I think it will definitely strengthen the Red Pill Theory as a whole. It will also test if they really are open to logical discourse, if they flat out tell me to go away I'll know they are as ego driven as the rest of reddit, but I trust they wont.

648262 · 2014-01-27T08:59:39+00:00

You're not born alpha or beta.

nninja · 2014-01-27T11:21:23+00:00

Alpha and Beta are loose descriptors of behavior and have nothing to do with genetics. Your entire premise is flawed and not arguable.

TehGinjaNinja · 2014-01-27T17:46:58+00:00

The dynamic of "beta bux" is not that betas don't get sex, it's that they have to pay for it. Said payment may take the form of dates, gifts or "commitment", but the point is that they are being used as a resource.

"Alpha fucks", by contrast, highlights the fact that women provide Alphas with sex eagerly, and without requiring a commitment of resources, because they are genuinely attracted to the Alpha.

We see this dynamic in some other primate species. Females will primarily mate with the tribe's dominant alpha, but will "cheat" by also granting sexual access to other males who provide them with material and social support (betas).

It seems that in humans, however, this process got flipped with the beta-provider male becoming viewed as the primary mate, and females becoming inclined to cheat with the alpha-dominant male. This is likely due to the fact that raising human infants is relatively resource intensive compared to other primates.

Patriarchal societies developed as a way to resolve and prevent the conflict promoted by this dynamic. Patriarchy is often falsely described as "rule by men", but what it really means is "rule by fathers", which is a significant difference.

Instead of society being divided between beta-providers and alpha-dominants, patriarchy created a system in which men are forced into an alpha-provider role. Under patriarchy a man is required to provide for his mate and offspring, and is granted dominance over them, and status in society, so long as he fulfills his role as provider.

For men this prevented the constant, and often violent, competition for dominant status which would lead to more mating options. For women this was the best of both worlds. The dominance of their men over them made those men attractive, and those attractive men were also willing to provide resources to help raise their young.

Unfortunately that social contract has been cast aside in the name of feminism. This makes women less happy, and men less inclined to commit resources to them.

DevilishRogue · 2014-01-27T10:51:55+00:00

Women can and do sleep with betas. They just don't desire them sexually as much as they do alphas. Furthermore, a lot of alpha guys adopt beta behaviors when they have children, alpha and beta aren't fixed states.

sh1v · 2014-01-27T18:46:29+00:00

I'm kind of tired of the alpha-beta dichotomy being applied to human evolution. Dominance is for the most part a learned trait.

Even if every man on earth had identical DNA, a heirarchy of dominance would swiftly develop with clear winners and clear losers. Not everyone can be "alpha" even if everyone were genetically descended from alphas.

such-a-mensch · 2014-01-27T19:04:13+00:00

Isn't this question easily answered by marriage?

When a "beta" gets married to the girl who's with him for the bux, he's still going to tap that ass and inevitably there's going to be a baby. Some TRP'ers would even argue the anchor baby theory here.

When the woman chooses her "alpha" conquest, she's likely either younger and actively avoiding pregnancy or she's passed what the RP'er's would call "the wall" and odds of the "alpha" impregnating her are lower given the drop in baby producing hormones.

Now all of that is mass generalization but I don't think you've got much of a question here.

All air quotes are because I don't think those labels apply as easily as some others around here do. There's a lot more nuance to human behaviour than simply a couple of categories.

RRBeachFG2 · 2014-01-29T16:52:21+00:00

Beta trait males aren't born, they're molded by society

nninja · 2014-02-02T02:08:30+00:00

Put 6 alphas together in a room, you'll eventually have one alpha and 5 betas. That's how I understand it.

strangestdude · 2014-01-27T20:45:08+00:00

IMO...

Evo psychology = untestable post hoc explanations.

Social philosophy rather than science.

IIHotelYorba · 2014-01-27T11:32:41+00:00

The simplest explanation is alpha fucks beta bucks is short for alphas get sex by offering sex, betas get sex by offering money. Alphas believe in their own self worth, betas don't and think they must barter.

By definition betas are not so low on the totem pole that they don't have sex. This plays into the reason I still like the term alpha and beta is it describes the human behavior very well. "Beta" isn't a man on the outskirts of humanity like "omega," he's actually close enough to alpha socially to be in the same social circles.

roe_ · 2014-01-27T19:50:39+00:00

The key to the puzzle is to understand "alpha" and "beta" as divergent sexual strategies:

(Perhaps gross oversimplification follows - there are mixed strategies):

alpha = lots of short-term, one-off encounters = lots of kids, but lower probability of survival for each kid due to low paternal investment

beta = long-term partner = fewer kids, higher probability of survival for each due to high paternal investment

Mixed strategies:

higher alpha, lower beta = long-term paternal investment with opportunistic extra-pair mating

lower alpha, higher beta = faithfulness to primary partner with mate-guarding to ensure paternity certainty

In terms of testosterone (as mentioned in "reals_before_feels" post) - in baboons, lower testosterone is associated with stricter mate-guarding.

(Edit: Note that a great deal of TRPs emphasis on "alpha" is consistent with our cultures current acceptance/encouragement of short-term and opportunistic mating & sociosexual unrestrictedness - as opposed to society's previous encouragement of "patriarchal" high paternal investment & faithfulness, pushing towards the "beta" end of the spectrum)

Title	How can 'alpha fucks beta bux' be evolved behavior? Wouldn't betas go extinct in one generation of that?
Author	reginaldtato
Upvotes	10
Comments	83
Date	January 27, 2014 8:45 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1w9mgc/how_can_alpha_fucks_beta_bux_be_evolved_behavior/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-can-alpha-fucks-beta-bux-be-evolved-behavior.286309 https://theredarchive.com/post/286309

Comments