National Geographic Agrees the Human Alpha Male is Real--What Does PPD think?

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matrix20028 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

On one hand, you're correct. A natural Alpha in his natural state isn't consumed by internal struggle with his Alpha-ness. He doesn't spend copious amounts of time culling Beta or other non-Alpha traits from his self-consciousness. He does not make this aspect of his psyche the analytic focus of his life.

He is, indeed, who he is.

But this is a half-truth, in the context of Red Pill philosophy. And you are incorrect about applying scientific studies to the mating behaviors of humans. I'll attempt to explain why.

There are born Alphas, and there are born Betas, and there are born every other variety of types described by the complex classification system propounded by some Red Pill thinkers.

Not that it's a unified system. There is no central leadership, no governing body overseeing the development of Red Pill thought. There are professors of this philosophy, there are silent theorists, and there are the seekers. Then, of course, there are those that dismiss us. Such is the way of every open-source system. There is the underlying architecture, the framework of the system. And then there is whatever people make of it.

This is why I say some Red Pill thinkers. I, personally, don't put much thought into this sort of classification. As you expressed, I find it pointless to dwell on. I use the terms "Alpha" and "Beta" in discussion and debate, because these concepts are easy enough to understand and everyone in the Red Pill community can use them to convey their ideas. But I don't think of myself as "Alpha" when I wake up and look in the mirror, in the same way I don't think "Asshole" or "Below-Average Height" or "Above-Average Posture". I am not defined by one facet of myself. I am myself in entirety.

Nevertheless, if you look for a way to group individuals by shared traits, of course you'll find that way. You'll find many ways. This is why we have brunettes and blondes and redheads, and the concept of race, and jocks and skaters and nerds and stoners, and righties and lefties and innies and outties, and alphas and betas and lions and tigers and bears. Oh my, that's a long list, and of course it doesn't even scratch the surface of the way we categorize the people we meet, the ones we know, the ones we have known. You form an instant assessment of every person you ever meet, and this assessment is modifiable, of course, but still this person fits a category in your internal classification system. To deny this is to deny your humanity, it's what we do, you see. It's how we socialize with our own, it's how we determine us vs. them when we break ourselves down to the most primal level of being.

Because we are human, and we classify, and we group together, naturally some of us will develop classifications in common with one another. And we'll discuss these shared ideas we have, ideas about the classes or castes or categories of our fellows. And so there we have it.

A natural Alpha in his natural state isn't consumed by the quest for Alpha, it's true. And a naturally right-handed person isn't consumed by his right-handedness, nor is a blonde consumed by her blondeness. But then some of us, from inside, look out and think, "Hey! Not everyone is like me in this way." And others of us, from outside, look in and exclaim, "Why am I not like that? Why is that person not like me, in this way?" And we study. And we analyze. And we discuss. And we all do this for varying lengths of time, until we are satisfied.

You advise: "Look within. Seek balance." Good advice; of course, this is already what we are doing. Some seek balance through spirituality, some through secular philosophy, some through the scientific method, and many do so in other ways, as well. My method is my own, just as yours belongs to you. They may intersect, but personal motivations are unique to the individual.

Of course, not all professing to be Red Pill thinkers have this self-improvement and -realization in mind. There are hatemongers in every group, although I think the Red Pill is more insulated from this than some because hatemongers generally seek positions of authority from which to spew their bile, and as I noted earlier, the Red Pill community has no such position. All we have are our peers; some are respected professors who have proven their minds an asset to our community, and some are not. But by and large, we pursue understanding. And some of us, myself included, even pursue wisdom.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]matrix200210 points11 points12 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

so don't try to improve yourself or rise above your station?

If you want to improve yourself, then go ahead. I don't see a problem with it.

But, I think this "alpha-male" obsession is counter-productive.

It's a locker room/lord of the flies type thinking.

You aren't being yourself, you are trying to be an "alpha-male".

If a girl treats your poorly or is rude, just walk away and find someone who is a decent person.

That is not alpha or beta, that is common sense.

Can you attract girls by being a fake, alpha type?

Probably.You may win the battle, but you will lose the war.

She will be superficial and uninteresting, maybe attractive, but that gets old fast.

Why do husbands cheat on super-model gfs or wives?

Because their attraction was superficial and shallow.

I would rather date interesting, decent, and kind women than fake girls.

You are trying to learn. I am saying un-learn.

You are not alpha, you are not beta.

The more you strip away, the clearer everything becomes.

Edit: grammar

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points7 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (135 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points9 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (126 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine19917 points18 points19 points 12 years ago* (97 children) | Copy Link

we are monkeys

No we aren't. Like not in a "I don't really think you can say that" kind of way I mean in a "We factually aren't monkeys" kind of way. We are primates, and even within primates there are extremely different social structures within groups. In many there's a strict hierarchy where males are concretely the dominant sex, in others there is more egalitarian social groups such as in Bonobos, and in no fucking way does science indicate that our social hierarchy is analogous to chimps except in the junk psuedoscience that fills up these low budget mini documentary bullshits on "educational" networks slowly diminishing in their integrity due to the rise of internet media and related independent productions which fills history channel with shit about aliens and discovery and natgeo with speculation by whatever desperate academic assholes who want their 15 minutes of fame

WE ARE HARD-WIRED, BIOMECHANICAL AUTOMATONS carrying out the directives of ancient genetic algorithms. We are also expert at deluding ourselves otherwise.

God dammit, really, this is from the blog and not the vid but you're gonna side with someone who holds such a fatalistic, I'm-not-in-control-of-my-reality view on human experience? I would say that sort of determinist outlook isn't very red pill at all. Then again, with your obsession with bullshit evo psych, maybe it is

BP thinking seems to hold that it matters at all how you "want" to be treated by strangers and that you are entitled to be treated how you want by people who have no obligation to you.

This convoluted version of the golden rule is sort of an example of Kant's categorical imperative. And again no we don't, taking the same shoddy logic I can say RP goes by a sort of categorical imperative in terms of feeling entitled to be treated in a certain way, as a man, and not treating women with the same level of respect, because they're a woman, and men should be treated this way because we say so and women should be treated this way because we say so and that's the way it goes because science, moral rational philosophy etc

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

In many there's a strict hierarchy where males are concretely the dominant sex, in others there is more egalitarian social groups such as in Bonobos.

I hear this argument all the time. Monkeys behave one way, chimps behave another, bonobos behave another, and baboons behave yet another. How can we know for sure which "monkey" our behavior is closest to? And does it even make sense to compare ourselves to monkeys?

The truth is it doesn't matter whether our behavior is closest to chimps, closest to penguins, closest to jellyfish, or something else entirely. The point is that is that our behavior can be observed, and predicted, just like chimps, penguins, jellyfish, and other animals. We are animals driven by our biological imperatives.

Want proof? Why the hell do so many humans engage in sex even when there's birth control involved? Why do we "lust" after it? Why is widely considered a "basic human need"? Because it feels good? Why have human evolved to get pleasure from sex, when so many species haven't? Because our biology is telling us to reproduce, whether out conscious brain really wants to our not.

The question isn't "does biology determine our behavior" it's "to what extent can biology determine our behavior". The first question is rubbish. The second question is the question that's interesting to discuss. It's the question of how much does biology factor in, and how much does "freewill" and "societal influences" affect it. Let's have a discussion about that.

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

We are animals driven by our biological imperatives.

No we're not. This idea is similar to the "drive theory" of the 1920s which was rejected at the time for being at best incompatible with observed results, and at worst entirely unfalsifiable.

The point is that behavioral science for a long time thought that behaviors were just a way of satisfying basic needs and desires, and they based a lot of their research on this idea. But problems started arising when they compared someone's behavior in satisfying a direct physical need (e.g. eating) versus indirectly satisfying the need (e.g. collecting money). What happened was that people would often forego food for more money, and so the drive theorists tried to come up with new biological drives like a "status drive" and "money drive", but it all just collapsed into a big unfalsifiable heap.

That's why these days you won't find a single behavioral scientist who suggests that behavior is drive by biological imperatives. There are of course biological components to our behavior but they are no more or less important than learnt or cultural components. It's not like our social conditioning is pushed to the wayside whenever it contradicts our supposed biological imperatives.

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Actually, redpillers don't care much about the cause of behavior, whether it's biological or societal, or whatever. What they do is observe a reaccuring pattern in human behavior, and then find a way to use that information to determine the best course of action for their own behavior. For instance, as a RPW I might observe a pattern like "a lot of men don't like girls who sleep around a lot", and then I use that information to decide not to sleep arount a lot. Sometimes it's interesting to think about what might be the cause of the pattern that we saw, but really at the end of the day the cause is irrelevent. We really have no investment in it being caused by biology, or sociey, or alien invasion. What's more important is what action we take to best optomize our success in relationships because of that pattern.

[–]mrsamsa5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FleetingWishStepford Girl1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]permajetlag"That Guy"-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

We are primates

...and it's a show about primates, apes to be specific, or hominids if you want the scientific name. They use gorillas and chimpanzees as their examples. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are hominids.

An objection was made to the claim: "national geographic agrees"

That objection was, "it's a show about monkeys"

But it's not. It's a show about apes. I note that you didn't feel the need to correct the blue piller who made that mistake. Hmm.

OP ignored the mistaken scientific nomenclature in the objection, because OP wasn't trying to be hopelessly pedantic. OP responded with, "we are monkeys."

That's where you felt the need to jump into the conversation. Not to correct the blue piller who got it wrong, but to correct the red piller that just went with it - but who is still right in spirit.

Poor form my friend. Very poor form.

in no fucking way does science indicate that our social hierarchy is analogous to chimps

Wrong. Citation: Kenrick, D.T., Trost, M.R., & Sundie, J.M. (2004). Sex-roles as adaptations: An evolutionary perspective on gender differences and similarities. . Pp. 65-91 in A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychology of Gender. New York: Guilford

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That was my bad to an extent, I was busy and couldn't check out the vid beyond two minutes and heard them incorrectly labeling people as monkeys which didn't sit will with me and x'ed it out. Vid's pretty interesting but I stand by in saying that a bunch of it is pseudoscience at the rank of that british show Braniac. So yeah my bad in thinking they'd be taking monkey behavior as analogous to human behavior, but human behavior is nonetheless not analogous to chimp behavior, or bonobo behavior (though in some ways I kind of wish it were for the latter)

Wrong. Citation: Kenrick, D.T., Trost, M.R., & Sundie, J.M. (2004). Sex-roles as adaptations: An evolutionary perspective on gender differences and similarities. . Pp. 65-91 in A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychology of Gender. New York: Guilford

I'm reading the abstract only cus I'm not gonna read a whole scientific paper right now and see nothing about our social hierarchy being analogous to chimps. If you wanna indicate what section supports this claim then please indicate so. But even if you can give me a section to read on I can still say definitively, that human social hierarchy is not analogous to chimps, in the same way that you cannot say a chimps social hierarchy is analogous to gorillas, or bonobos, or orangutans. We are a different species, and you can note similarities but can never say we are identical to another species in any categorical way.

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]slithy-tove1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am a biological determinist

That is an interesting conversation that I would like to have with you - maybe not here if it's too far off topic.

I suspect that many red-pillians are determinists to some degree. Biological determinism fits nicely with the kind of grouping that TRP likes to do (X is likely to behave like this, while Y is likely to behave like this, and the explanation is a naturally-evolved instinct).

Blue-pillians object to (actually, it's more like they're offended by) that kind of grouping. They want to believe that everyone is different and unique and that there cannot possible be any predictive value to studies of biology. That view supports their belief that any observed differences are caused by our culture, and allows them to say that therefore our culture is inherently oppressive.

So, both sides of this have a ideological reason to prefer one view or the other.

As for me, I believe that what is determined biologically are our instincts. I believe that we experience those instincts as feelings. I believe they are separate from conscious thought, and where we have conscious control (for example, we have control over walking or running, but not over heart rate) our instincts can be overridden.

But here's the interesting thing: most people don't. They see no reason to override an instinct.

So what we observe is a great mass of people behaving the same way (with the natural variation that occurs for every trait) - it looks like biological determinism. Any individual could say, "fuck this" and do something else. But few actually do.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1996 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

I knew as soon as I typed the flip "we are monkeys" comment, someone super cereal was going to come along to correct me

Good because it's absolutely fucking wrong, you might as well say humans are sea lions that still walk on land most of the time, why would you say something not true if you knew someone would come correct you?

Yes I am a biological determinist Kant's made-up stuff has no bearing in how humans actually are they are just words describing how he imagines people should be

but the speculative bullshit of behavioral scientists does...

I think biological determinism is pretty beta, but to each their own...

You were describing blue pill thought to be of some sort of fucked up categorical imperative, because someone said they'd rather not be treated like monkeys, which you somehow took to be them asserting a sort of categorical imperative where they want to be treated a special way because of their thoughts? And then you went off on a rant how this is a specifically blue pill trait...but in no way are you making a statement that red pill traits differ, even though this is a key difference between red pill and blue pill thought...Um...yeah I'm pretty fucking lost, this is going nowhere, there's nothing to discuss here

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1995 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyanidePillSchool1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]Canned_Wine1992 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

you gave absolutely no criticism of anything i actually said, you attempted to psychoanalyze me

how does what i said resemble neurolinguistic programming at all, specifically? or "psychosis" specifically--explain EXACTLY what you mean.

having a different worldview than you isnt a mental illness or a character defect. i have spent my entire life "looking deeply" into what i am saying and have come to DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS than you--can you imagine that?

a statement that people do not have a right to expect the world to treat them the way they "wish" to be treated is not only not "psychotic" its barely controversial. what if i "wish to be treated" as if i was a supermodel? well, good luck to me, no ones going to do it. thats SPECFICALLY why the "golden rule" is framed from the perspective that you can only control how YOU treat people.

explain with specific detail how this is false, psychotic, neurolinguistic programming.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]permajetlag"That Guy"0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]permajetlag"That Guy"-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	National Geographic Agrees the Human Alpha Male is Real--What Does PPD think?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	4
Comments	64
Date	October 17, 2013 1:55 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1on68o/national_geographic_agrees_the_human_alpha_male/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/national-geographic-agrees-the-human-alpha-male-is.286698 https://theredarchive.com/post/286698

Comments