Initial attraction: Beta Male Body Language

Post Reply New Topic

Yet you have a picture of a Cardboard Tank. . .

I'm guessing you're generalizing.
Otherwise how would you decide if you were trying to date a man or a woman (or tree for that matter) if you didn't somewhat judge by appearances?
Everything after that is splitting hairs over shades of grey.

Also, one can't "not have anything to do with[...]". These ppl walk in front of your car at a light, you MUST dodge them. They may ship food to your store; they may have made the road; they can certainly crowd around your favorite stomping grounds; they may have made your computer; put up the power lines; posted on a thread you responded to.

If one doesn't make some judgment on first sight, how could they possibly progress on any level? Do you want to talk to them again? Do they have a gun at you? Are they a salesperson? Are they available to assist you? Are they in the computer department?
I'm assuming you have *something* to do with a computer, you're typing on one.

You're stuck, get used to disappointment because they are everywhere and, I suspect, they are you. They certainly are me to a point.
Everything after that is splitting hairs over shades of grey.

So, I've seen you use this term repeatedly at what line do we go from "actions resulting from behavior caused by biological effects" to "social Darwinist drivel"? Also, if this is accepted decorum in discussions, perhaps I shall start replying to those of your posts I disagree with using the phrase "aww, egalitarian we are all special snowflakes circle-jerking".

I think you're making an assumption not in evidence there - I don't think people believe that they can tell with perfect accuracy from a single interaction whether people are "good" or "bad" and they're not even necessarily using those sorts of evaluations at all (can just as easily be a simple case of avoiding personality types that they've had bad experiences with in the past, such as evading extreme extroverts, for instance).

We all wear blinders, we have to. Could you interact with everyone, always at the same intensity? Most extroverts can't even manage that.

You'd have to find a post I've made that that is applicable to in the first place. You'll find out however, I don't believe in egalitarianism, but Fatalism. You simply have no choice in your life as to what your life is like. It is either awesome, crap, or mediocre. You can't change it, it's simply the way it is. You are either meant to wind up with some one, or you aren't. You are either meant to get hit by that bus, or you aren't.

But what this is doing is assigning blame to the people who were fated to be "beta". Social Darwinism is the greatest plague ever to be inflicted on the earth.. well.. except for Ayn Rand.

Actually, it's not assigning blame to anyone, merely pointing out that there are genetic dead ends. Darwinism says that the best adapted creature will survive, thus ensuring the survival of the species whereas the worst adapted one will fail, thus leaving more resources for the adapters. A bit cold and unfeeling yes, but evolution does not have feelings or compassion, it just is.

Yes, it allows you to call people who aren't a**holes "Genetic dead ends".. Social Darwinism is simply a pernicious and destructive sociological philosophy like Game Theory and Objectivism.

Ragnar Redbeard called, he wants his ideas back.

Nope, its best adapted species, not individual creatures. One of the most succesful groups of species on the planet - far more succesful than us and the rest of the primates in terms of land inhabited and biomass - is ants. Evolution saw fit to neuter almost their entire population, and yet they are still massively succesful. It's the reproduction of genes, not individuals, that defines evolutionary success. This is why many strategies sacrifice the individual's reproduction or even existance to the good of the gene.

So, in your mind natural selection seizes to exist within a group of the same species? There is no such thing as one group of individuals being better genetically suited to an environment. For instance, one ant colony more suited to live in certain surroundings than another?

Evolutionary success is defined by the genes of the best adapted individuals of a species reproducing more. We could have a few stick insects within a group that had a mutation giving them a bit better camouflage , which meant they survived longer to reproduce and thus pass on their mutation to offspring, and over time most stick insects will have the camouflage gene. It's what happened with humans and our ability to tolerate lactose.

Far from all individuals in the human species have the exact same genes, even identical twins don't. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -identical

It's to do with the genes that are suited to an environment, and they are shared among multiple individuals (if they're succesful genes, anyway).



Right, but, the individual isn't important from an evolutionary perspective, what matters is the genes. Individuals are just vehicles for the genes. This is why evolution has resulted in things like ant drones who cannot reproduce. There was an advantage for the genes to do so, over genes that did not do so (there are actually primitive ant species in a few isolated areas, who do not have drones or any other specialized castes, but they are no match for the more evolved species with their hives, castes, and neuters). Obviously evolution has utterly terminated the reproductive success of the individual here. But it's a succesful strategy because the individual still contributes to the success of the same genes.

This is true, however one of the defense mechanisms used by the genes is the self-preservation instinct, which when applied on a genetic level explains why people are more inclined towards altruism with close family.





The individuals are the carriers of the genes, and the very very short view on evolution is the battle between indvidual gene configurations to best continue the species existence. As I said, we are not genetically identical, and from an evolutionary perspective our different gene configurations compete.

In nature, competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive.

You have to ask - why are our gene configurations different?

The answer is the evolution of sexual reproduction and its triumph over parthenogenesis, which allowed for the individual to transmit genetic makeups in their entirety, with no deviation or compromise with some other individual. Sexual reproduction put an end to that, in favour of cooperative compromise on genetic contributions. Even the fact we are not precise clones (as reproduction was once done) is a product of the evolutionary success of genetic compromise, and this is encoded for in the genes themselves.

I find that fatalist philosophy of yours utterly damaged, does it mean we're puppets of our environment, who should resign ourselves to our lot instead of trying to make things better? I don't like that. I believe we can make a change in ourselves and in our situation, that we should make the best of our situation, and make our own life instead of letting our life make us. Lack the drive to do it? Then work on it.

And social darwinism and game theory... sometimes I dislike the conclusions those philosophies make, and even though I trust in the altruism of some members of the human race, I believe those two help to make baseline models, a starting point, from which all the details can be worked out.

What leads you to believe that humans are altruistic in general?

The struggle against entropy is, ultimately fated to be futile. The Universe, as understood by physics, will eventually do one of two things, crunch in on itself, or spin into freezing nothingness. Everything we do is futile, all the books we write, all the movies we make, all the babies we have, all the bridges we build are ultimately going to become nothing. It is the struggle, regardless of that futility which defines us, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that ultimately, it is futile.

Social Darwinism, Game theory and Objectivism all three tell the person who has more, that they are uniquely gifted and worked, worked I say! to get all they have.. while everyone else is just lazy and if they would just work as hard as you did.. they would have more to. People believe this, even if they were in fact born into it, because it makes them feel superior to others. It doesn't encourage cooperation, let alone altruism, but in fact works in opposition to it.

Please keep in mind, that when the initial social Darwinist craze swept the United States in the 20's, we sterilized thousands of people who scientists deemed to be carrying unwanted genes, and had it not been for some conscientious objectors to this, we likely would have expanded the program to epic proportions. Autistic people were among those who were sterilized, and who's to say that wouldn't have eventually included all "On Spectrum" people. This was done in direct contradiction to the founding documents of the nation. Yes, it may be useful to some extent to understand these baselines, but at the same time these theories encourage such demented thinking because they tap into the worst aspects of humanity rather than the best.

TRIPLE POST AHEAD I am starting to believe this forum can't handle long answers.

Nothing. That's why I wrote some members of the human race.



That is true. It scares me, how everything I will ever accomplish will ultimately mean nothing, the moment I die. But I'm not dead yet, so why not make the best of it? Otherwise I'd just lay down and die.

I do not know about objectivism. About the other two... some people are born with more, and some people are born with less. But I believe hard work can ultimately trump those initial advantages, I remember one tennis player was interviewed about how did he make it to the top, and he answered how there were those really amazing, tennis naturals who could do everything so much better than him, but it came so easy they didn't put a lot of effort to it, and at the first signs of hardships they left. And hard work is something you do during your lifetime, not something you are born with. Sure, if they both work hard, the gifted ones would probably do better. But they didn't. Game theory I like reading about, prisoner game, nash equilibrium and such. Let's take prisioner game for example, the best strategy is always betray, as it gives great rewards if the other doesn't, and is not as bad as remaining silent if the other one betrays. But it assumes that everyone thinks always only about himself, maximizing their gains at the cost of others. What if there were some people, with some grade of altruism, who thought about others and instead of following the absolute best strategy wanted to keep things more fair? I'm aware I can't expect this from everyone, but I can surround myself with altruistic people, people I trust, people who are willing to take one for the team, as I'd be willing to if it benefits all of us in the end. Like how a nash equilibrium is not necesarily the best outcome, but the one who is more stable, if there is somebody I trust I may choose a non-stable state that benefits us both the most, even though if one of the parties decides to defect the other has to pay dearly. I still have some faith in some part of humanity, as I've said before, the hard part is trusting someone enough that you put yourself in a situation of vulnerability with them, in order for the two of you to archieve something grander, that may be a good friendship, or it may be in the context of love, but look how game theory is not limited to the worst of us, but also to the best of us.