1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Story of your incel

Discussion in 'Love & Sexuality' started by Caamib, May 15, 2017.

  1. Caamib

    Caamib New Member

    Ruryse and fschmidt like this.
  2. Ruryse

    Ruryse Active Member

    Thank you for posting it, @Caamib . I remember reading your interesting article earlier on, I think @fschmidt linked to it on another forum, or maybe I've stumbled upon it through a Google search. I think societies work in a way that people who feel the most comfortable among each other will occupy most positions, including leading ones. In other words, it means average people (especially intelligence wise). While I believe that the base structure and content of societies were more or less the same throughout the ages, the behavior patterns always have certain fads that come and go, and here's where I feel that you make many valid points, ones that ring true. I just see it as something that's a result of a more continuous dimension among people, especially the dimension of what we call intelligence, regarding both males and females, instead of thinking in distinctive categories like the alpha, beta, omega or co-alpha. I can't see a possible and relatively long lasting triumph of small groups of people with high above average intelligence, whether it's a victory in power or anywhere else. The more people are in a group, the higher the chance for the same global behavior patterns to occur, in relation to the above mentioned dimension. And even if the members of the small group remain faithful and respectful to each other, they don't exist in a vacuum. The majority of average people will always kick them out of position, even supported merely by their sheer numbers. So in my opinion, theories that assume that certain previous societies were more fruitful for the outlier are idealistic.
     
  3. crypticletter

    crypticletter Member

    Are you serious? Puppets like that are never true leaders, especially when it comes to politicians. A president or prime minister is nothing but a tool in the hands of the bunch who promoted him. A talking and traveling robot, not much more.
     
  4. Caamib

    Caamib New Member

    Huh? Are you aware that I'm not talking about every single politician? Whose puppet would somebody like Putin be? I am aware that some politicians were/are puppets, which is why I mention an example of the one I think is not.

    I will reply to Ruryse when I have more time.
     
    Ruryse likes this.
  5. Reewier

    Reewier Member

    So that's why women are all over Elon Musk! I just couldn't understand... don't know much about him, I just can't stand the guy. He's the new Steve Jobs.

    Except...

    I'm a bit confused. Are these guys really alphas then, or they are omegas enjoying the current circumstances where they can be the most successful type?
     
  6. Caamib

    Caamib New Member

    As explained in the article, both omegas and alphas are still sought after. However, given the facts that 1. there is a lot less alphas than omegas 2. omegas tend to change more women since they are unlikely to marry them, so they reproduce more it's obvious that omegas are overall more successful. Alphas tend to marry a wife or a succession of wives but omegas just go from one drunken sex to another.
     
    Reewier likes this.
  7. Caamib

    Caamib New Member

    The kind of men that are not sought after in modern Western society are betas and coalphas.
     
    Reewier likes this.
  8. Ruryse

    Ruryse Active Member

    @Caamib , do you think you could do a basic classification of all the male types on the Big 5 personality traits? It would be interesting to see whether an alpha or omega is someone with low, mid or high Openness to experience or Conscientiousness levels, or are they generally high, medium or low on the Extraversion scale. For example, in the case of a co-alpha, I would assume he would be at least moderately extraverted, to seek the company of fellow co-alphas he can co-operate with.
     
    Reewier likes this.
  9. crypticletter

    crypticletter Member

    Can you imagine a KGB officer having much freedom? It's probably one of the most rigidly monitored forms even among soldiers. And there's no way out for someone who once served in a security agency, at least not alive. Such a person must be used to being commanded.
     
  10. Reewier

    Reewier Member

    Does that mean though that omegas might get into leading positions like a Fortune 500 CEO? That would suit their sneaky nature, wouldn't it.
     
  11. Reewier

    Reewier Member

    I would love to see something like that. It could make the whole categorization less anecdotal.
     
  12. fschmidt

    fschmidt Member

    I can try answering this. The terms "alpha", "beta", etc actually describe roles. But we can assign these labels to men based on what role they are best suited for. I don't see any correlation between your "Big 5" personality traits and these labels. For example I am mostly co-alpha but I am more introverted.
     
    Reewier and Ruryse like this.
  13. Ruryse

    Ruryse Active Member

    How do you decide on what role a man is best suited for?
     
    Reewier likes this.
  14. Are there categories like these for women as well, or we're supposed to fall in one homogeneous bunch?... :) I'm asking because I don't feel like most girls around me, but I also don't want to be 'changed' by twits.

    "But women have no natural inclination to a single type of man. They simply go for the type of male that is most successful in terms of producing offspring."

    I honestly don't feel I'm like it. :eek: Including the exaggerated makeup thing or the sexual clothing mentioned on the website. I agree that natural can be the most beautiful thing on a woman. I believe it actually helps her to attract the right kind of man. I would rather be alone than to go with whoever is considered popular or successful, if I don't like him... I guess I'm giving away too much with it now, but so what. :)
     
    Ruryse likes this.
  15. fschmidt

    fschmidt Member

    That's a semantic question. The "alpha", "beta", etc categories were designed for male primates. But women obviously differ in dominance and one could make up categories for them too.
     
    ListenNighGlint likes this.
  16. It is! :) I would actually even think that the order for women might be the opposite of men, too... meaning dominant women wouldn't be the more gender typical, more desirable ones to pair up with alpha males.
     

Share This Page