Alpha fucks/Beta bucks | PurplePillDebate

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

As the study pointed out, during ovulation when women have the highest libido and chance of getting pregnant women in general are more attracted to masculine characters.

I think this is merely a semantic difference.

By itself this study would suggest that women would have a tendency of some strength to have children with the masculine people through either cheating or normal relationships and pair off with the less masculine men either after or before, which is what the idea of "alpha fucks/beta bucks" really is.

The study doesn't really suggest that though. You can infer that from the study, but I think you have to take a couple leaps in logic without much other support.

For one, I'm more attracted to certain types of women, but I'm not going to go outside my relationship to have sex with them. Just because humans have an innate desire to do something, it doesn't make it "natural." We're gifted with a conscious mind that can control our unconscious mind and prevent us from making poor decisions.

I think a sounder argument is that our sexual (innate) desires exist in equilibrium with our conscious desires. In primitive times, if a particularly attractive man goes out and impregnates 20 different women, there's no way he can care for all of them. Child rearing is an intensive process, and the likelihood that those children will survive to reproductive age is relatively small. Equally, if a women follows alpha-fucks/beta-bucks by sleeping with one man and trying to get another to rear it, she's taking a massive risk. Not only is she putting her child's life in danger, she's putting her own life in danger.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Equally, if a women follows alpha-fucks/beta-bucks by sleeping with one man and trying to get another to rear it, she's taking a massive risk. Not only is she putting her child's life in danger, she's putting her own life in danger.

That's why many women keep beta orbiters.

They are male 'friends' she keeps around for emotional support and possible financial assistance if she gets pregnant with an alpha that disappears after conception. This is not a conscious decision on her part, it is an unconscious one. She hamsters this away with the rationalization that she just likes having male friends or some such nonsense (thereby ignoring the fact other females are arguably much more likely to satisfy her needs for actual friendship).

It is true child rearing is a very intensive process, but a relatively good looking women, even if she's a single mom, can usually find a beta provider if she lowers her standards of masculinity down low enough. The implication being, if she's good enough to be fucked by the alpha, she will most likely be able to find a beta bucks provider if her reproductive strategy fails to ensnare the alpha of her choice. Her beta orbiters validate this conclusion by continuing to hang around her without any sort of sexual contact. She is quick to complain about any perceived mistreatment by her alpha to her beta orbiters, subconsciously implying and giving them hope that she may branch swing at any time to them if they stick around.

And if she has a fair amount of self-confidence about her appearance, she doesn't even need the beta orbiter parachute as she fucks alpha after alpha. Plus, Government (husband replacement) is always there to catch any single mother at risk of falling completely to the ground, thereby subsidizing this behavioral strategy, and further reducing beta sexual value in the process, to alpha's continued advantage and female sexual strategy in general.

Welcome to the epidemic of out of wedlock births, brought to you by feminism and welfare. This would not be so common if the risk was as great as you claim. People adapt quickly to their environment, that is what makes us a successful species. If you subsidize arguably bad, but effective, strategies people will pursue them. Betas have lost much of their importance in society, especially as women pursue careers of their own in direct competition with other beta males for resources. And if you happen to be a lower income beta, like much of the reddit population according to demographic research, good luck.

Exhibit A:

Male/female suicide rate 3 to 1:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/06/11/mens-suicide-rate-is-3-times-that-of-women/55897.html

I theorize that many males are voluntarily culling themselves from society as they see their sexual market value drop near zero. Others are simply going their own way, and pursuing other frivolous interests like video games, cars, guns, etc. Thus, we also have an epidemic of men who are extending their own adolescence, because women are too busy being emancipated and riding the alpha carousel.

[–]moobearpig 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]moobearpig 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like lack of fucks is a risk factor too to me.

That's jumping to conclusions. It seems like the previous article was mistaken on something. After some more digging, here are the statistics that I found (from Stats Canada):

Persons aged 40 to 59 (not young people) have the highest rates of suicide (45% of all suicides in Canada in 2009)
For both men and women, married people were the least likely group to commit suicide
Single men were much more likely to die from suicide than those who were married
Among women, widows had highest rates of suicide
While marriage provides a protective effect across all age groups, suicide rates among the divorced and widowed are particularly high for those aged 40 to 59 years. Divorced people in this age group have a suicide rate 1.7 times higher than divorced people of other ages.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm

The most salient factor in cause of suicide is not the sex, but the companionship that comes with close relationships. Also (just my own speculation), because women are more likely to seek help, they are more likely to reach out to their friends and family for support if they have no spouse. That could be a potential factor in why single men are more likely to commit suicide than women.

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

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

I think this is merely a semantic difference.

I was pointing out that the study was gender specific. I wasn't trying to say anything about semantics. I'm actually not sure what you're implying there.

The study doesn't really suggest that though. You can infer that from the study, but I think you have to take a couple leaps in logic without much other support.

I don't think they're leaps of logic. I think that directly follows. I guess we just see that differently. Now, on the other hand I would agree that the strength of the tendency is unknown.

Equally, if a women follows alpha-fucks/beta-bucks by sleeping with one man and trying to get another to rear it, she's taking a massive risk. Not only is she putting her child's life in danger, she's putting her own life in danger.

The risk is a lot smaller than you think. Assuming there are no crazy differences between the two men, all the woman has to do is sneak in some sex without getting caught.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Why on earth do you think I'm talking about "the last two hundred years"?

Evolution is PURELY about reproduction, nothing other than sexual counts.

Are you trying to say only sexual selection is significant? I'm not sure how else to read this, but that doesn't make any sense.

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations seemed to think....

As you said, we're talking about evolutionary considerations that existed thousands of generations ago, not three or four, so what does Adam Smith have to do in this?

. it was probably less previously, but surely more than the near 1% you put out as the 5000 vs 6 example

Let's do the math. In your example, the average woman has 2-5 children (let's call it 3.5 children). You propose two strategies for male reproduction. Strategy #1: Man has no investment in childcare, results in 100 children of which 50 survive to reproduce. Strategy #2: Man invests in raising his children, successfully raises 3.5 children which survive to reproduce.

Strategy #1 is obviously the more successful strategy in this made up example, and everyone would follow it if it were possible. However, only approximately 1% of the male population can ever possibly achieve this result, and the other 99% are stuck with Strategy #2. As the average person has 3.5 offspring (assuming close to equal splits in gender ratio, this mathematically has to be true in your example), then there must be roughly 100 followers of Strategy #2 for every 1 follower of Strategy #1 (assuming that the average Strategy 2 follower has 3 kids, and the average Strategy #1 follower has 50 kids, then the average person will have 3.47 kids. Close enough.)

For women, then, there will be astronomical pressures against ever selecting any follower of Strategy #1. If a woman has kids with a #1 follower, then the end result will be 1.75 surviving children. Of these 1.75, .875 will be female, and can have no reproductive advantage from the genetic strategy of their father. The other .875 will be male, but only .008745 (1 in 100) will be able to successfully follow Strategy #1. (Your example also requires assuming that only the children of a Strategy #1 follower can ever hope to follow Strategy #1.)

So, the end result: If a woman mates with a Strategy #1 follower, she can statistically expect to invest in 3.5 children, of which there will survive .875 female children who will each have 3.5 children, .866 male Strategy #2 children who will each have 3 children, and .008745 male Strategy #1 children who will each have 50 children. If a woman mates with a Strategy #2 follower, she can statistically expect to invest in 3.5 children, of which there will survive 1.75 female children who will each have 3.5 children, and 1.75 male Strategy #2 children who will each have 3 children.

A woman who chooses a follower of Strategy #1 will therefore have a reproduction rate of 6.124 in the second generation, and a woman who chooses a follower of Strategy #2 will have a reproduction rate of 11.375 in the second generation.

In your example, no woman would ever choose an alpha. Because it reduces her genetic fitness by a staggering 50%.

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Archipelagi3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Getting the children with the high libido and having them taken care of by the intelligent high endurance guy is always going to be a better strategy than sticking with just one of them.

(1) Why? (2) How can you prove or disprove this trait ever existed? (3) How can you prove or disprove this trait exists today?

it's possible it's a remnant from earlier days when males would beat each other up for the right to have more babies.

(1) When was this? (2) How can you prove a trait like this survived?

I think the issue here is that you're extrapolating a proposition from a single very small study. Good theories and propositions are based on dozens, hundreds, or thousands or pre-established ideas, theories, and scientific knowledge.

This is a debate sub, and you really haven't given us much material to debate. You posted one study, which none of us have read. Then you posted a theory that the study is supposed to support, however the theory is a giant jenga puzzle of logic. You remove one piece and the whole thing could come toppling down.

[–]Archipelagi5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacobman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

Since it's your proposition, maybe you could explain how you get from A to B.

Woman wants to have sex with masculine guy more when ovulating --> higher chance woman has sex with masculine guy when ovulating --> higher chance woman has child of masculine guy when ovulating --> higher chance woman has child of masculine guy

Now combine that with

Woman wants to be a ltr with feminine guy --> woman is more likely to be in a ltr with feminine guy --- combined with above ---> woman is more likely to be in a relationship with feminine guy if she cheats and if she does cheat and get pregnant, it is more likely to be with a masculine guy OR a woman is more likely to have a child with a masculine guy and if they breakup she is more likely to get into a relationship with a beta guy after

That train of thought to me is why I think the data makes the likelihood of a woman having a baby with an alpha and settling down with a beta greater than would be expected without such results as those shown in the study.

But if she's having sex with both men, then there's no guarantee who's child it would be.

This comes down to fertility. If she only has sex with the masculine guy during the small fertility window, the chances that she has the masculine guys baby are very high. That's very easy to pull off and her biology leads to her to want the masculine guy at just the right time.

Either way, this is a difficult argument to make. You can't read a study about attraction and then conclude something about child rearing. The two aren't directly related because sexual attraction is only one component of child rearing. You can't ignore the conscious component.

Sex leads to children, so it seems very relevant. On the other hand, you're right, there are conscious parts to involve too. She may decide against having sex with the attractive, yet unstable, guy or having an affair with such a man at some point. However, that's just one situation. The attraction itself tweaks the probabilities in favor of this happening. I'm not saying that the study suggest that the probabilities are tweaked heavily in favor of this or even significantly, but it does seem to suggest a tendency of some strength is likely to exist.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The issue with your reasoning is that you're making too many logical assumptions. Assumptions are required for science and for debate. Without them we wouldn't be able to establish much at all. However assumptions also introduce error into any science and any logical argument. The more assumptions you make, the more compound error you introduce. If you assume 5 things that you believe to each be 75% true based on logic, the combined result will only have a 23% chance of being true.

Each arrow you posted above involves assumptions. Individually, each one is a very sound assumption, however when you realize that each assumption is dependent on the assumption before it, you realize that the possibility for error increases quite rapidly. That's why in both science and debate, we try to minimize the number of assumptions we make. You can take a scientific paper and make two, maybe three assumptions to infer something. However when you're making a dozen or more assumptions, the error builds exponentially.

If I were to address specific assumptions, I'd start with your assumption that this whole concept is a result of natural selection. There's no real gain here for women. They don't gain anything by giving their children slightly more masculine traits. Paleolithic humans were communal and relied on several things for survival. Having big muscles or high levels of testosterone really wouldn't be very high on the list of desirable traits. It doesn't help with persistence hunting or intelligence, which were the two skills early humans needed the most. So if not a selected trait, why does this exist? Scientists are beginning to think that an increasing number of traits are the result of "drift." But that's another topic.

Secondly, you assume that women have a higher chance of mating with a more masculine individual because of these hormonal fluctuations. Why? People don't necessarily always go after the individuals they find most sexually appealing, especially with the consequences I've mentioned previously. Again, this kind of assumption isn't illogical on its own, but when combined with all the others...errors build.

You see what I'm getting at?

does seem to suggest a tendency of some strength is likely to exist.

But there's also a tendency for men to go after women that aren't "wife material." Birth control has allowed us to go after sexually desirable individuals without consequences. The only difference between men and women in this scenario is that women have slight deviations (very small, from the article you linked) in how attracted they are to masculine traits based on monthly cycles.

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there are many assumptions in the reasoning line I put up there before. I'm also not claiming that the pressure with alpha/beta/masculine/feminine/whatever has to be very large. I'm just saying that at some strength the study implies that it exists.

People don't necessarily always go after the individuals they find most sexually appealing.

No, but they more often do. I'm approaching this whole thing on a statistical basis, which is what you have to do when talking about large sets of data with variation among them. Talking about how not every data point is the same is pointless.

If I were to address specific assumptions, I'd start with your assumption that this whole concept is a result of natural selection. There's no real gain here for women. They don't gain anything by giving their children slightly more masculine traits. Paleolithic humans were communal and relied on several things for survival. Having big muscles or high levels of testosterone really wouldn't be very high on the list of desirable traits. It doesn't help with persistence hunting or intelligence, which were the two skills early humans needed the most. So if not a selected trait, why does this exist? Scientists are beginning to think that an increasing number of traits are the result of "drift." But that's another topic.

I'm not sure what drift is, but it's possible it's exactly what I'm about to bring up. Even if strength and libido aren't desirable for our paleolithic friends, which I highly doubt for both of those, these types of things can still be evolutionary remnants for a time when they were important. That doesn't mean that they will stop affecting sexual outcomes, unless the changing circumstances start placing a large negative pressure in the opposite direction, again which I would have a lot of doubts about.

The only difference between men and women in this scenario is that women have slight deviations (very small, from the article you linked) in how attracted they are to masculine traits based on monthly cycles.

I do agree that the differences seem to be quite small. Originally I thought the 15% was a difference in attractiveness ratings, but later I found out that it was actually the difference between how many times the masculine was chosen over the feminine. I still maintain that the effect I mentioned seems like the logical conclusion even if it's a small effect in the end.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think there are many assumptions in the reasoning line I put up there before.

I counted 12, although you could probably split some of them up. I would list them, but you've already listed them yourself. Every single arrow in that post leads to another assumption. Anything that isn't directly from the study is an assumption. Everything. They're logical assumptions, yes, but that alone doesn't give your proposition merit.

To prove something like this without making a dozen large assumptions after reading a study that already makes a whole host of assumptions...it simply isn't possible. Good logic and inference is not and never will be a replacement for science.

No, but they more often do.

In the era of birth control, yes, but what does that really say about us as a species?

I'm approaching this whole thing on a statistical basis.

Statistics can only provide so much insight. It can be influenced by a whole host of factors and variables that are constantly changing. To really understand human behavior, you have to understand the brain. Looking at behavioral statistics gives you a rudimentary understanding of humans. It's "soft" science.

These types of things can still be evolutionary remnants for a time when they were important.

But that's an assumption. There's no proof any of this is true. It's not really valid debate material for either of us.

I still maintain that the effect I mentioned seems like the logical conclusion even if it's a small effect in the end.

Just because you use good logic, it doesn't mean your conclusions are logical.

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

To prove something like this without making a dozen large assumptions after reading a study that already makes a whole host of assumptions...it simply isn't possible.

Considering that I'm not demanding large probabilities out of anything, I don't think I am making large assumptions as you claim. The only assumption I'm making is that it happens sometimes. That's not going to add up to any sort of significant probability of error. However the probabilities of how much "more likely" may be small. I never claim that they can't be.

Statistics can only provide so much insight. It can be influenced by a whole host of factors and variables that are constantly changing. To really understand human behavior, you have to understand the brain. Looking at behavioral statistics gives you a rudimentary understanding of humans. It's "soft" science.

Well good luck with that. Seriously though, good luck with that. I know people are working on it. Right now, in many areas behavioral statistics are the best we have. Either way you always should base your decisions and current opinions on the best you have.

But that's an assumption. There's no proof any of this is true. It's not really valid debate material for either of us.

I'm just playing your game where you say that it couldn't even make sense. I'm saying, you're wrong, it could make sense. Anyways, bed time. It's been nice talking with you. I enjoyed the discussion.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

So the "alpha fucks" part is self-explanatory, then, but I still don't get what "bucks" means in this context... Is that slang for raising kids somehow?

I think I get what you're referring to, though, in terms of sexual selection strategy. But taking the first study you linked at face value, all it showed was that at a certain point in women's menstrual cycle (of an undefined but "more fertile" period), some women had a very slightly increased chance (15%) of preferring a beefier dude's body than they had preferred at a different point in their cycle.

Whoever conducted that study has theorized that this effect is (1) an evolved tendency (2) that makes it a minuscule amount more likely that a woman will get pregnant with a more beefy dude than a less beefy one. It does not provide support for any kind of "cuckold strategy," because that isn't remotely addressed. If the effect found by the study is in fact an evolutionary effect, then (regardless of the source of the pressures that caused it to develop) it is still not a prevalent strategy, and is only displayed in the population at a very low frequency.

As for the second study, it doesn't appear to have any relevance to "alpha fucks/beta bucks". It seems like the study's findings were largely the same for men and women (with some small variations in the samples, like men spending more time looking at both men and women in a couple, while women spent more time looking at just the men in the couple). It also doesn't appear that there is any reason to believe that any effect found by the study is one of sexual selection, as it equally applies to selection in general. People tend to want things that other people want -- be it houses, fashion, pet breeds, or potential mates.

So, if those studies support a claim that a phenomenon of "alpha fucks/beta bucks" exists, then what those studies show is that: (1) it is a minority strategy and not a description of average behavior, and (2) the effect is not gender-specific, but may have slightly different prevalence rates in men and women. However, even these conclusions are fairly useless, because there is nothing to establish what the "effect" involved here even is.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

bucks = $$$ (or some form of support)

It does not provide support for any kind of "cuckold strategy," because that isn't remotely addressed

The logical conclusion from just that data would be that it would make "cuckholding" more likely to happen. I agree, it could be displayed at a low frequency, but it certainly would seem like it would be a tendency, even if a small one. I guess if you assume that it is a tendency, the unanswered question would be how strong is the tendency measured by relationship outcomes. That's not addressed obviously. Also, cuckholding isn't necessary for "Apha fucks/Beta bucks" to work though. A woman could have a kid with one guy, break up with him and then get into a ltr with another.

As for the second study, it doesn't appear to have any relevance to "alpha fucks/beta bucks".

I didn't say it did. When reading through any sort of seduction related source I've come across the idea that you're more attractive when you have girlfriends/partners around you. This to suggests that the idea is partially valid.

So, if those studies support a claim that a phenomenon of "alpha fucks/beta bucks" exists, then what those studies show is that: (1) it is a minority strategy and not a description of average behavior

It does not show that it's a minority "strategy". I think strategy is a bad word for this btw. Doesn't tendency fit the topic better? The studies show nothing about the strength of the tendency assuming it exists. It just suggests that such a tendency should exist at some level.

So, if those studies support a claim that a phenomenon of "alpha fucks/beta bucks" exists, then what those studies show is that: (2) the effect is not gender-specific, but may have slightly different prevalence rates in men and women.

Again, the second study wasn't related to "alpha fucks/beta bucks". Sorry for the confusion. The first study, which was related, was very much a gender specific as only women have ovulation periods. Although I supposed it wouldn't be inconceivable to have something similar in the male realm.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The logical conclusion from just that data would be that it would make "cuckholding" more likely to happen.

No. This is not at all addressed in the study. It doesn't look at all at patterns of monogamy, and there is nothing in this study that would allow any sort of speculation or conclusions to that end. All it would suggest, assuming everything with the study is legitimate and repeatable, is that, for a small portion of their cycle, some women sometimes prefer beefier dudes than they do at other times. It also would equally suggest that for those same women, they prefer to fuck the less beefy dudes the majority of the time. So most of the time, they wanna fuck the dude what you are apparently calling "beta."

I didn't say it did. When reading through any sort of seduction related source I've come across the idea that you're more attractive when you have girlfriends/partners around you. This to suggests that the idea is partially valid.

You would've come across this same idea in any primer on advertising or politics. The basic concept that humans have a tendency to attribute higher value to objects based solely on a perception that other humans attribute a higher value to them is undoubtedly true. But from what I've seen from "seduction guides," their implementation of this concept often seems to be based on some kind of fairyland reasoning.

It does not show that it's a minority "strategy". I think strategy is a bad word for this btw. Doesn't tendency fit the topic better? The studies show nothing about the strength of the tendency assuming it exists. It just suggests that such a tendency should exist at some level.

No, that is precisely what the study you linked to says:

Fertile women chose the masculine version of each image 15 percent more often, on average, than women who were not fertile.

So it shows that there is a very slight increased tendency for some women to prefer non-beefy men for the majority of the time, but to prefer non-beefier men for a minority of the time that may correspond with fertility. And it is theorized (although not shown by the study) that this tendency is the result of an evolved strategy, possibly to make it more likely that, while likely to get pregnant, some ladies will sometimes have a greater preference for dudes who show some cues that they are more likely to give a woman a pregnancy. (And also I'm using the term strategy in the game theory context, not to indicate any sort of intentionality.)

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

To start off I'm only using the words alpha and beta because those are the ones use in trp. I thought purple pill was some sort of moderation between the ideas in trp and others, so I figured it was better to use those names.

No. This is not at all addressed in the study. It doesn't look at all at patterns of monogamy, and there is nothing in this study that would allow any sort of speculation or conclusions to that end. All it would suggest, assuming everything with the study is legitimate and repeatable, is that, for a small portion of their cycle, some women sometimes prefer beefier dudes than they do at other times. It also would equally suggest that for those same women, they prefer to fuck the less beefy dudes the majority of the time. So most of the time, they wanna fuck the dude what you are apparently calling "beta."

You're not talking about the whole study. You're only mentioning the attraction to masculine men during ovulation or a fling. The results did mention that, but they said that women were more likely to be attracted to more feminine men if they weren't ovulating and they were looking for a ltr. With all of those things combined, assuming that attraction leads a higher probability of sex and time together, that would suggest that to some degree it's more likely a woman will have sex with a masculine guy and get pregnant while having a less masculine guy as a partner.

But from what I've seen from "seduction guides," their implementation of this concept often seems to be based on some kind of fairyland reasoning.

What's your issue with their reasoning? As far as I can tell you, the study, and the seduction people are all saying the same thing. Perhaps you could point out the details of the seduction approach that you disagree with and that I missed.

So it shows that there is a very slight increased tendency for some women to prefer non-beefy men for the majority of the time, but to prefer non-beefier men for a minority of the time that may correspond with fertility.

The 15% is only a measure of attractiveness if I remember correctly. The amount that attraction translates to more action is uncertain. It's possible that a 15% difference in attraction means that women are 50x more likely to pursue the man. It's also possible that a 15% difference in attraction means that the women are 1.001x more likely to pursue the man.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

With all of those things combined, assuming that attraction leads a higher probability of sex and time together, that would suggest that to some degree it's more likely a woman will have sex with a masculine guy and get pregnant while having a less masculine guy as a partner.

Nooo, it doesn't, I promise this isn't any part of the study whatsoever. The study itself defines "long-term partner" as someone you want to move in with, and "short-time partner" as someone you might accept a date with on the spur of a moment, or have a one-time hookup with. There is no "alpha" or "beta", just that women most often want to have regular sex with a preferred outline of a body shape, and that sometimes when they are asked the same question, they choose a slightly more masculinized outline of a body shape than they did the last time they were asked the question.

There is NOTHING whatsoever about choosing a "different" dude. The women are asked the same question 14 days apart, and sometimes the women click on a slightly different outline than they did the first time.

What's your issue with their reasoning? As far as I can tell you, the study, and the seduction people are all saying the same thing. Perhaps you could point out the details of the seduction approach that you disagree with and that I missed.

If you describe a specific one, I could address it, but I don't think I can reasonably address all seduction techniques ever.

The 15% is only a measure of attractiveness if I remember correctly.

No, you've misinterpreted it. Think of it this way. At Point A in their cycle, women indicated their preference among 10 artificially generated depictions of the male form. Two weeks later, at Point B in their cycle, the women came back and once again indicated their preference among 10 artificially generated depictions of the male form. Assuming for the sake of convenience that all women were less fertile at Point A and more fertile at Point B, then for every seven women who did this study, one of the women would have indicated a preference for a figure of a male body that was slightly more masculinized than was the version she had previously chosen during Point A of her cycle.

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

There is no "alpha" or "beta"

There's masculine and feminine shapes. I'm calling them alpha and beta shapes. Everyone seems to be getting really caught up on the names.

just that women most often want to have regular sex with a preferred outline of a body shape, and that sometimes when they are asked the same question, they choose a slightly more masculinized outline of a body shape than they did the last time they were asked the question.

It's not just sometimes. That makes it sound like it's random. It's when they're likely ovulating. They asked the participants about their cycle.

There is NOTHING whatsoever about choosing a "different" dude.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If you saying that they didn't give them choices of a masculine shape vs a feminine shape, they did. If you're saying that cheating wasn't part of the study, you're mostly right, but people cheat. It seems like the results would give you some insight on who they're more likely to cheat with, especially since the short term description specifically mentioned cheating.

If you describe a specific one, I could address it, but I don't think I can reasonably address all seduction techniques ever.

I thought we were talking about the idea of having attractive women around you to make you more attractive. That is the "technique" I was referring to. It's brought up in many ways, but that's always gist of it from what I've seen.

No, you've misinterpreted it.

It does indeed look like I misinterpreted what the percentage was. I thought it was an attractiveness rating but it was actually the difference in times the chose the masculine body. That does seem to be pretty good evidence with this particular study that the effect is small enough to not make much of a difference overall. That 15% preference might get hacked down to 1% or much lower after the fact that women spend so much more time with the feminine men is considered.

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Archipelagi3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacobman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't see how a non-masculine shape relegates you to being a cuckold, or how they're even related.

But assuming that it is true, a masculine shape is not the most desired shape in most situations, so I don't see why there's an emphasis on what's attractive to ovulating women.

If The Red Pill is a guide to have lots of sex while avoiding the "pitfalls" of modern relationships, I have to ask why there is such a focus on masculinity in The Red Pill? If, as you say, masculine-looking men are the most attractive in a minority of situations, then it would follow that it's more attractive to not be masculine appearing. Not only that, but if, as you say, masculine-looking men are more likely to have children than their non-masculine counterparts, then it would follow that The Red Pill should focus on being non-masculine.

Assuming what you're saying is true, I don't see how this supports or follows The Red Pill at all.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacobman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archipelagi4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jacobman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]Archipelagi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]am_thro_way5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No worries :) As long as you seem to be respectful, any thoughts you have are great for discussion. I thought you did a pretty good job rewording. Thanks.

I completely agree that TRP tends to sound bitter and is probably a place where many frustrated men find themselves. Also, as a guy who has read through a bit of trp lately, I can't say I don't fit that mold in any way. I've definitely been frustrated in the past. For the most part though I feel like I've retained my rationality.

As far as the double standard, I have to admit that I had some trouble trying to figure out what is actually going on. My guess is that many of them just don't plan on ever committing to one woman until everyone is so old that the threat of them being left is basically zero. They probably see it as a reaction to the women rather than a choice. They would rather commit early, but they can't. It seems to fit the theory of trp without really being contradictory.

However, a lot of the stuff in trp may not even be right. It's quite possible that much of it is just "hampstering" to excuse their life choice of wanting lots of sex and not committing.

Also, I've always thought that hampstering is a disrespectful word. It has implications of mindlessness of the person. I don't really a need by trp or whoever came up with it to come up with a new word when rationalization was a perfectly good word that everyone already understood.

[–]lokidemon731 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They probably see it as a reaction to the women rather than a choice. They would rather commit early, but they can't.

While that makes some sense, I can't help but feel that a lot of redpillers, and certainly men in general, want to fuck sluts before settling down regardless of whether or not women wanted to settle down. I think, RP theory aside, people of both genders want to have fun when they're young. So it seems silly to only call out one gender for doing it.

Also, I've always thought that hampstering is a disrespectful word. It has implications of mindlessness of the person. I don't really a need by trp or whoever came up with it to come up with a new word when rationalization was a perfectly good word that everyone already understood.

Yeah, I agree with you there. But I think this again points to a bit of bitterness. A lot of the terms they use purposefully demean women because there's a lot of anger against women in that sub. Also, it's not uncommon to hear a redpiller claim that women are mindless, incapable of reason, and intellectually inferior to men, and get upvoted for saying it. So I think the implications are very much intentional.

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

The implications are most likely intentional. I don't like it. That doesn't mean that I haven't found some intriguing ideas there to play around with in my head. I'm mostly interested in the topics revolving around sexual evolution and relationship economics. I don't think they're quite as thoroughly disproven, or proven in the case of trp, as I feel many people make them out to be.

While that makes some sense, I can't help but feel that a lot of redpillers, and certainly men in general, want to fuck sluts before settling down regardless of whether or not women wanted to settle down. I think, RP theory aside, people of both genders want to have fun when they're young. So it seems silly to only call out one gender for doing it.

I think you're pretty right about most people not wanting to commit early to something too serious. The guys on the redpill that are getting mad at women for doing the same thing they're doing are pretty much rationalizing away the double standard. Although I think there are many that are just saying without condemnation that that's how they think women are and therefore they are going to approach relationships with women assuming this. The majority do seem pretty mad and disrespectful though.

Sleep time though. It's been nice talking with you.

[–]AcatalepticPolemic6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I think to draw a meaningful "alpha fucks/beta bucks" conclusion a reliable study would have to be done to determine the relationship tendencies that actually play out. I agree, it might be a really minimal effect, but this one research at least suggests that some level of effect should be present. Also, since I haven't seen the study directly, I wouldn't put too much stock on the number 15. I believe it's a simple measure of attraction via rating, and we do not know how much a difference that will lead to in womens actions. It's possible that 15% more attractiveness leads to women being much much much more likely to pursue that person. It's also possible that it doesn't change their likelihood to pursue much.

My main objective of this post was to bring to light a study relevant to the redpill theory of "alpha fucks/beta bucks" and see if other people had experience or data that suggested the opposite. If not, from the little I know, "alpha fucks/beta bucks" seems like a likely phenomena. Only your experience could give you insight on how strong the phenomena might be.

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that it did. You said that women are not getting with men for their providing powers. I was just pointing out that there seems to be some evidence that women care more about their partners providing power (success) than men do. Considering that we're just a big product of our evolution, that finding that successful person who can provide for you to pair off with is more evolutionary advantageous for women, and that women do indeed seem to show a higher preference towards pairing off with that (successful) good provider, it seems likely that evolution is the driving force for women seeking out with more fervor men who happen to be able to provide for them better.

As far as sex goes, the original study we talked about shows that women have a pressure towards having children with the more masculine men and having a ltr with the less masculine men. There is an assumption that the more masculine men are also less liable to stick around and therefore are worse providers. I'm not saying that women don't have sex with the providers. I'm saying that the study seems to imply that women have a pressure towards having children with men who aren't as reliable. Considering women are likely in ltr with the more reliable guys and spend a ton of time with them, they're probably still pretty likely to have kids with that guy (makes sense anyways, how would the system work if the providers never passed on their genes?). The point is that there seems to be a pressure that is described by the "alpha fucks/beta bucks" idea (which is a horrible name btw. I already told someone else, but I cringe a little every time I type that).

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArchipelagiAgent Smith1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jacobman[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the archetypal alpha as described by TRP would be bad husband material. theres lots of confusion in the manosphere even about this. --this is the platonic form of an alpha, a mythical figure like the HB 10 woman. any man or woman only approach them asymptotically

heartise descibes an alpha as the man who can bed the most number of most attractive women. this is the "cad" or casanova alpha, defined by ability to gain sexual access to hot women alone, and really defined BY women. others use the man's version of alpha, the leader of the pack. these definitions are in perpetual conflict, cad alphas often being woman-poaching, sneaky fuckers and wolfpack alphas often being successful leaders of men but beta with women.

the theory is that the accidental genius of roman/christian male resource monogamy was that it assured the apportionment of a woman to almost every but the most defective male, unlike polygyny, in which apex males hoard women and huge swathes of males are left out in the cold. by assuring all males had a female, this allowed for unprecedented male cooperation, which unleashed the genius of the "beta" male, gave him a stake in the future and something to build, innovate and fight for. it also creates the "breadwinner husband" model which makes every male a "situatonal alpha" to the female depending on him. you guys call this "the patriarchy" i believe. with the breakdown of this arrangement in the decadent phase of a civilization, women become freer and more powerful, men lose incentive to build and maintain, sneaky fucker cads start gathering notches and everything falls apart

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

all terms of art have different meanings to different people and in reality there are quite a few "red pills", not just one. you could also say justice has no meaning because when i use it as a minarchist libertarian i mean something so different from when a "social justice" person uses it we might as well be speaking a different language.

i came here not from TRP, but from having been involved in the manosphere for like 10 years. TRP is really more like a game forum from what i can see, i dont even read it. its not, shall we say, the "intellectual powerhouse" of the "redpill", and i dont think its a good entre for people who are genuinely interested in its ideas, but a place for discussion for people who are already steeped in them. when you read it you see the distilled horror and frustration of 1000 men who have been given the worst possible advice about women their whole lives and now feel their "eyes have been opened" to the real social dynamic thats been eluding them. a lot of the bitterness and anger you see is really men shriving themselves of the overly worshipful attitudes theyve held BEFORE trp, much in the same way a lot of feminist go nuts when they discover "the patriarchy". as they learn more, have a few successes, a lot of times they calm down and come back to a place of acceptance. if you are interested i can try to direct you to some reading, some of which is in the trp sidebar already.

[–]not_any0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So there seems to be a lot of skepticism about "alpha fucks/beta bucks" to the point where many people seem to just think it's extremely unlikely. I've seen and heard this[1] study and other similar ones many times from many sources in different fields. What is the thinking or data behind those that find the idea "beta buck/alpha fucks" unlikely? Discuss.

Since you are discussing this in terms of evolutionary advantage, let's advance to the logical conclusions based on your hypothesis.

Your hypothesis is that women have offspring with "alphas" and then raise them with "betas". Correct.

Let's suppose that was true. Since we are assuming that "alpha" and "beta" qualities are passed on genetically, over time "alphas" would be more likely to propagate than "betas".

For this to work you require 1 "beta" per woman. That means that the population of "betas" has to be high for this model to work. Assuming "alpha" traits are what gets passed on, over time there will be fewer and fewer "betas" for women to raise children with. Given enough time, eventually you will have just "alphas" and women raising kids on their own.

This is a fundamental flaw in this idea.

[–]jacobman[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's no fundamental flaw in that way. All that is required for the state to stay somewhat stable is for babies to be born in proportion to the "alpha" and "beta" population size. This seems pretty doable since in the idea we're talking about a woman would have to spend most of her time with a beta. Chances are that even if she's a lot more attracted to the "alpha" guys, she's not going to have many more kids with the "alpha" than the "beta". Maybe she has one kid with the "alpha" fling out of wedlock and one with the "beta" in marriage.

Your idea that you're putting forth also ignores other possibilities. It ignores the possibility that we're not in a steady state situation. Perhaps the "alpha" population was held in check in the past somehow. Societal rules? Low population density/options? Maybe things have changed recently and we really are pushing the betas out of genetics soon. Maybe we always have been but evolution is really slow.

Another, in my opinion, more likely alternative is that perhaps much of the "alphaness" that we're talking about is related to things that will always be present in some subset of the male population irregardless of the male biology, like who seems to be in charge or who gives off signals that they likely have higher relationship status than you (not groveling, indifference, expections, ect). The alphas might be the top 20% of attractive men or something. Afterall it's not too hard for a few guys to give their genes out to a lot of girls. Then the "betas" would simply be everyone else who is just trying to get some of the action. The rp idea would be that if the "alpha" guy doesn't work out, those other desperate guys will be the ones that women settle down with.

Anyways, it's all conjecture. I don't see why it can't be possible though. Like I said at some point, I feel like I see much more dismissal of the idea without reason than entertainment of the idea. I was curious if those that did dismiss the idea actually had some solid evidence that I wasn't aware of.

Title	Alpha fucks/Beta bucks
Author	jacobman
Upvotes	5
Comments	115
Date	October 29, 2013 10:07 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1phuhp/alpha_fucksbeta_bucks/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/alpha-fucksbeta-bucks.286677 https://theredarchive.com/post/286677

Comments