Alpha females

Post Reply New Topic

That was a cheesy joke from a movie or something don't worry about it. Brainfart.

I don't think people gravitate towards anything they just naturally fall into roles in any given situation. Whereas in animals the group is usually a family group so it's always the same members vying for positions etc. With humans though our situaions are so fluid and constantly changing we do it a different way, whatever suits the situiation we are in.

If you watch a group of people there's always one who is most dominant. Wait a while and follow this dominant person to their next group ineraction and there'll be a decent chance they are not the dominant person in the new group. Over time though that person will probably try and improve their position in this new group until such a time as the opportunity arises where they can take the dominant position. They don't do this consciously I don't think, it's a consquence of their dominant personality.

Just like in the animal kingdom it can be very dramatic when that happens with fights and people falling out etc. and it's generally more final due to the lack of family connection, a former high status animal may be shunned for a while but may rejoin the group at a lower status. Humans would rather never see each other again than go lower status.

I just made that up from my own observations btw don't take my word for it.

i wonder if you're ever heard the saying "opposites attract"

They do.

Alpha females often like Omega males to boss around. I'm talking about true alpha females though, not "hot" women.

"Hot" women tend to be the b*****s of "alpha" (Note the inverted commas) males.

In fact, most scientific studies show that 'opposites attract' is a myth, similarities attract much more often.

Denying the existence of leagues in the human society won't make it evaporates.

Blaming it all on the media is false....

Both apply. It ALWAYS depends on the person, and what they want in a partner though.

I theorize that i like alpha females, that they are exciting to be with, very active, creative and fun. Never met one tho, I've met strong women but they have a long way to go before i would call them alpha. In fact i don't think they exist, not in modern cities at least. Thankfully i know how to...... make one ......

Sad thing is that things as they are with the world these days, an alpha female would find herself under peer pressure to be more girlish.

An alpha female doesn't succumb to peer pressure. She's the one leading her peers into applying peer pressure to others. She's the one dishing it out. Not the one taking it.

We as in Aspies aren't, but NT's sure the hell are.

Totally. I worked in an office made up of all women, one guy who was the supposed boss and me. The actual boss was a woman who was two career rungs below the supposed boss, middle management basically, but who figuratively and literally wore the trousers. You definitely wouldn't mess with her but all the women aspired to be like her. Some would even buy similar clothes and the same car.

You are exhibiting a typical behaviour, which is to take something simplistically because it enables you to apply a blanket rule when the reality is obviously the more complex than that.

Then again none of these Alpha threads are about really finding out about our true animistic behaviour, but they are a prime example of animal behaviour in action. It is really tricky to separate yourself from you own behaviour. Commenting on it moot, because much of this behaviour isn't a conscious thing, so opinions are by the by.

If everyone wasn’t running around desiring the things they do, they probably could have a good laugh at the farce and once their have got that out of their system see things in a more objective light.

There is simply hundreds of these alpha threads. Either plain resentment or trying to make out that they know it all.

How so? What are you talking about? How can you say that humans aren't pack animals when evidence points to at least NT's being pack animals? They have a tendency travel around in groups when they can, they depend on one another, there's almost always a leader and alternatively a lowest-ranking individual. Of course there are exceptions to this rule: NT's who aren't part of a pack. All I can say to that is well duh. There's obviously exceptions to every rule, and I think it's obvious I recognize that much.

But it's safe to say that MOST (the vast majority) of NT's exhibit pack behavior.

It's not enough to say it's a blanket statement, therefore can't be true. And I could just as easily call what you said about humans not being pack animals, a blanket statement.

Generally, the alpha female's are the few who can keep up. Because they want to keep to the head of the pack, it's easier to understand their motivations and keep them 'happy' (in their own sense of the word 'happy')

Do they exist? Hell yes. Some of the top examples are CTO's and CEO's of companies.

Are they scary? No. To me, I find them attractive. It's the drive, and ability to keep up even up against males.

Because they don't live in packs, obviously. We are social animals and there are many different social strata that we can move between but we do not live in social groups the way animals do, it's similar on a micro level but not on the macro. The main difference is free will. Each Please show us the evidence to the contrarary. 0_equals_true's post was spot on.

I hope you're joking, dude. I hope to f*****g God that you are joking. If you're serious, you've totally created your own high level of completely ludicrous.

Humans quite often live in FAMILIES. The human term for PACK. Because that is what a FAMILY is.

Is that enough evidence for you? Or do I need to start taking pictures of families just do prove to you they exist?

Well obviously you'll take the side of the older poster that has been here longer, no matter what they're trying to argue. At least try to think it through before posting next time!!

Oh yes... and "free will" is a very, very, VERY debatable thing. Just because humans don't live in instinct alone doesn't mean they have any will of their own. Philosophers have been arguing about this for a long time.

Wrong. You need to take biology/zoology first.


This is not about your sense of injustice. You are quick to jump to conclusions. So thank you for proving my point. Nature isn't about this hero/anti-hero mentality, which is simply a product of your behaviour. This is not an objective stance to take. That is why humans need to be very conscientious to stay objective. No small feat.

What you are using is what called surface logic or logical skimming, as well as cherry picking. That is to say you deductive skills don't take very far. You are only using the vaguest of associations, to arrive to an answer that is superficially flawless, because it happens to suit what you want to believe. Real science it not like that, it often poses more questions than it answers. It sure as hell needs better analytical skills than you demonstrated. I would happy to agree to disagree with you if you actually shown some of that. Otherwise it is just conjecture.

One of your problems is you don't see yourself in all of this. Just because you have a neurodevelopmental condition, doesn't mean you aren't like other humans. You are a lot like the rest of us, whether you like this idea or not. ‘NT’ is just a marker. There isn't actually a specific group of NTs. There is too much diversity. Human behaviour it the common ground within the diversity, if you like.

Just because I don’t think the alpha male label applies well to humans, doesn’t mean I think there are no examples of dominance or power play. What I’m saying is human nature is very dynamic. Alpha male behaviour (a prime example is wolves) is impossible to achieve in humans, it is simply not feasible. Even were there is a very powerful leader say in politics or business, that person may be able to mate well, but still can’t achieve full alpha dominance.

Humans don’t exhibit pack behaviour. Neither do Chimps or Bonobos. They do exhibit group behaviour and some group intelligence. However unlike chimps that have distinct territories, or bonobos who live in isolated pockets, humans live in huge numbers, multiple overlapping groups of various characteristics.

If you take mating behaviour, we have a lot of sex. Most do get to mate in their life time. This unlikely to happen for beta males in a wolf pack with a strong alpha, it is simply not tolerated. In lions the alpha simply doesn’t tolerate sexually active male being in his pride. That is why there are solitary males and male prides.

I know it’s frustrating for those that are not getting sex, however our chances are still greater as humans than in some other animals. We think of bonobos as quite sexual, but really that is just because we tend see ourselves as not like animals, when we are.

We have beviours like aggressive chimp, and more egalitarian bonobos, and our own unique ones. In a way we share some behaviour with birds. The whole partnership thing and bringing up young that way is what birds often do.

We are a product of our habitat, and we also create our habitat and we have done for a long time. Civilisations are a product of our nature. Our adaption often 'tools' rather than physiological.

Whilst I agree somewhat with racoon, the free will thing is a bit of a red herring to this topic, or at least deserves it own thread. You can't prevent the influence of external factors in nature, there a potential influence from everything (don’t take that to mean if a butterfly flaps it wings is causes a hurricane on the other side of the world, that is clearly nonsense). But we are a product of our nervous system and body, I only see free will as a relative 'minds eye' sort of thing. We have definitely not superseded our animalistic behaviours.