Hello,

​

I'm reading this forum since some time, there is many interesting content, but something disturb me. Let me first state that I'm not in the USA but in west Europe, so maybe there is some cultural differences that may explain the disparity in experience. Meanwhile if there is strong cultural differences it would mean that our behaviour is not as much hard-wired in our genes as it's often said here, which would prove my point.

I not agree with the idea that females are hard-wired to choose the most successful males, the alpha males, because they are the most interesting partners to bread with. This seem phony to me because in my experience most of the guys who got many girls are "alphas" only if we define "alpha" by the capacity to get laid with many girls.

​

I'm in my mid 20, I'm an ex-introverted guy who has success at reverse engineering social relations, when I was 10 I saw that something didn't work and I started to dress, talk, act, like popular guys to in fine be like one of them. As I'm an intellectual guy who naturally have cognitive talent I spent my scholarship like an hedonist (doing alcohol, smoking, going to nightclubs, taking drugs...) until college where I started to work seriously because I was bored of this lifestyle.

Since then I became a successful engineer and well, I'm a survivor of my group of friends (which were all "alpha" by this forum standard). The worst of them are dead or in prison. Many are jobless, live in their mother home. Most seem condemned to stay at the low level of the middle class. Meanwhile it strike me that their only quality is their hypnotizing tongue that still make them get laid by many girls. While they are objectively losers they still get laid with many sexy girls.

​

Here is my question, how can we use ethology to study human behaviour if those who have success with girls happen to be the economic losers in a free market economy ? It seem that when coming into adulthood most "alpha" end up being at best industrial workers or construction workers.

My work make me go at many different customers who all happen to be in high value added industry (finance, engineering, law...) and I'm impressed by how the guy who success there happen to be only "beta" or "omega" if we use this forum classification. And not it's not the "alpha managers" who use the other for their personal success. I interacted with many introverted, charisma less high level managers. Their principal quality is that their brain produce working solutions and they are respected for being smart. It seem that the extroverted and impulsive alpha is an unpopular profile for jobs where millions are in our hands. I would also add that most of these guys are into long term relationship with women they married.

​

Why most women seem mainly interested in low value, night club parking gladiators who are whining for welfare in the day (or all kind of engaged idealists, artists, stray dogs, PUA, muscled cavemen...) ? If women followed some rationality wouldn't the guys working in hight value added industries be the more interesting profiles ? It seem the girls that follow their intuition are mainly attracted with caricatures of virility who happen to be unfit in an economy where success come from intelligence.

Success coming from intelligence is nothing new. If you look at the institutions of the Roman republic (which preceded the Roman empire) it was already a "free" economy where success came from successful entrepreneurship. If we talk about war, the winner of war are the smart since the Roman times also. "Beta" engineers found how to crush physically more fit herds of barbarian "alpha" with "omega" soldiers since they theorised the battle tactics of the Roman infantry.

​

EDIT : Typos corrections