Dispelling the "stone age alpha" fiction

[AttackFormation]

I posted this in another thread, but I figure this deluded idea is widespread and ingrained enough that it deserves its own thread to negate. I'm personally sick of this and other poorly conceived, malignant ideas coming out of the PUA community that do nothing but hurt young, vulnerable minds and their relations with other people. Like Tyler Durden in the movie "Fight Club", these ideas are a destructive, deluded extreme masquerading as "truth" and "solution" that attract the ignorant and vulnerable.

------------------------------------------------------

I disagree completely with strength and size having anything to do with "stone age alphas".

- Humans live and hunt in cooperative groups
- Humans don't wrestle or outsprint prey
- Humans don't rely on natural implements to kill or incapacitate prey and defend themselves from predators

Stone age humans used traps, ambushes, tracking, dogs and a both instinctive and culturally developed tool use. Speed wouldn't be relevant for these methods, and increased size would be a negative as it just means that person consumes more resources that could've gone to feeding a second person instead, giving you hunters in 1 position instead of 2. Similarly, during conflict between groups of humans, it would be the tribe with the greater numbers of more culturally and mentally advanced humans that won.

Humans have never been a species relying on simple physical attributes to get the job done. That's the very reason why we evolved from stronger, bigger, tougher, faster apes in the first place. Attributing the success of "alpha males" to these attributes is putting the cart before the horse. In the stone age they were a remnant of our ape ancestors, not the reason why humans thrived. "But strong, big and fast males can push the other males around!" - no. Why? for the same reasons they can't do so today: a real fight has no rules, but the tribe does. So not only would he risk being killed in his sleep, shot in the back while out hunting, or just plain drawn a weapon upon and killed while standing in front of the guy trying to act tough - he also risks the condemnation and intervention of the tribe. To put it bluntly, if you think being an alpha human male is about being strong, fast and big, you're simply slinging sh!t at the actual fields of evolutionary biology and anthropology. The only reason why those attributes have any relevance at all culturally (not sexually, see last paragraph) is because the things humans actually use, artificial weapons and dirty tactics, are too deadly and effective to be allowed for use in civilian life.

My personal theory on why these traits have persisted in humans despite being in decline compared to our ape ancestors because of their none or negative correlation to survival and procreation, is that they are a form of sexual selection in the way a peacock's tail is. "Hey baby, imagine how good I have to be to get away with a handicap like this *flexes biceps*. All these genes could be yours. You know you want me". It's essentially a physical incarnation of risk-taking, which males typically display a higher degree of.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

You only read surface level stuff. You’re just wrong. There’s a reason why women like bigger, stronger, and more muscular guys. And it’s in favor of natural selection just like how a peacock’s or widowbird’s tail might seem detrimental. It’s actually not though.

 

[sosousage]

human are animals, and strongers animal win. sure now its little different. it probably wasnt alpha male who made the world go forward, it was some nerdy beta x 1000000.

so beta wins here, but apart from influence on technology, its alpha who were strongest INITIALLY.

initial human and human alike beings (aka cavemen) depended on their strength. before they actually knew how to make a trap they had to use bare fists and stones to not die starving before they evolve enough to create smart use weapons.

 

[AttackFormation]

initial human and human alike beings (aka cavemen) depended on their strength. before they actually knew how to make a trap they had to use bare fists and stones to not die starving before they evolve enough to create smart use weapons.

"Cave men" were not "human-like beings". Jesus christ, are people actually this ignorant? cave men were humans. How do you think they survived in colder climates? by scratching pelts off dead animals with their fingernails? do you think they defended themselves from sabre-toothed cats by trying to punch them? By the time humans migrated out of Africa, they had already become just that - humans. They had tools, not the "bare fists and stones" that prior hominid species had. It was the most prolific and proficient tool users that evolved into humans because of that and other facts that their (mutant) brains/genes allowed, not humans who evolved like out of spontaneous generation and then scratched their heads figuring out how to start creating better tools like the first mission of a video game.

 

[sosousage]

"Cave men" were not "human-like beings". Jesus christ, are people actually this ignorant? cave men were humans. How do you think they survived in colder climates? by scratching pelts off dead animals with their fingernails? do you think they defended themselves from sabre-toothed cats by trying to punch them? By the time humans migrated out of Africa, they had already become just that - humans. They had tools, not the "bare fists and stones" that prior hominid species had. It was the most prolific and proficient tool users that evolved into humans because of that and other facts that their (mutant) brains/genes allowed, not humans who evolved like out of spontaneous generation and then scratched their heads figuring out how to start creating better tools like the first mission of a video game.

most of their initial tools depended on strength.. they didnt make a crossbow/gun/bow in day one. they crushed each other heads with stones instead and same they did with animals

even if they had anything different from stone it still dependent on their strength didnt it


Btw your theory goes across adam and eve theory.

 

[Macaframalama]

Nonsense. Without the tactical virtues of men bigger, stronger and faster than you, you wouldn't have the luxury of speculating what alpha means in the first place.

 

[AttackFormation]

I'll chime in on this, considering that you're basically countering every comment I made in another thread.

You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean I am either. The only error I'll concede is that the term "stone age" is not entirely accurate. Technically, the stone age marks the advent of stone tool development that displayed the cognitive abilities that eventually gave rise to civilization. In this regard, you are correct that such innovation took a lot of steam out of the bigger, stronger faster alpha survival concept.

That said, humans simply did not appear with such innovation and cleverness. It had to be developed over a long period of time. There is more than ample evidence that shows how much more primitive species/ancestors relied on brute strength, which is evident in the remains of bones that have shown to have been broken and healed excessively in males. This is what you would expect to see when hunters have to get in close for the kill when hunting large game. After all, you can't seriously expect to stab a buffalo without getting kicked around a few times....

So, while "stone age" might not be entirely accurate, there was certainly a time in which strength was required for survival before innovative techniques and organized hunting tactics were developed. Most people, when talking about getting laid like a DJ, don't care to make issue of such technical distinctions in epocs as we are here.

As for the "bigger males push around the weaker ones" argument, you can't tell me this sh*t isn't true even today, let alone throughout human history. Cognitive abilities have certainly changed the script on this sort of thing, but I'm not going to buy the idea that a dominant, human male 10,000 years ago was willing to share his choice of women or his prime slab of meat with the weaker adult males just to be a nice guy and likeable by all in the tribe.

I'll agree that it depends on the terminology you use. When I say "PUA stone age alpha male", I'm referring to the claims that humans used to exist in this way. Certainly if you go far back enough in the evolution of organisms that became humans, you would find creatures without the sophistication that humans have. That's a given. But those ancestors are not humans, and that's the point. We are different, the same things that apply to a group of (hypothetically carnivorous) gorillas don't apply to a tribe of humans. Those innovative techniques and hunting tactics are (among other things) the reasons why we can and do define humans as humans and not simply extant survivors of primitive ancestors. Which (unlike the other replies, for which I have my doubts) I'm sure you knew.

"Most people" need to make such technical distinctions in order to not make a wrong point. If they're too stupid or ignorant to do so, I'll call them out on it so other guys don't fall for the same garbage. I care about helping those who can be helped, not "most people".

Well, the thing is that humans are a cooperative social species. Does that mean the "dominant male" would let someone fvck his woman in front of him, or not mind that his meat gets plundered? of course not. But it does mean that what the group perceives as being fair will have an impact on his decision - because if it doesn't the other members will break off and leave or punish/kill him. His big chest muscles won't protect him any more from a few arrows during a "hunting trip", a rock smashed into his skull while he sleeps, or a spear gutting him through his spine when he turns his back after he's done with his pushing around any more than the smaller, weaker male. He may be able to push certain males around (again at the risk of being killed unless his "pushing around" entails killing them and anyone else who might want revenge) when he has the consent of the group, but that merely proves the point I'm making. This is what I was referring to when I said that these physical attributes are only "relevant" to the extent that we make them. The things that humans actually do when they mean business - the things that they did 10 000 years ago when they wanted someone dead or crippled - are banned in our civilization for the very reason that they are too lethal. Fistic violence may also be banned, but you won't get the same charge for punching someone's gut as you will for burning their house down while they're asleep.

 

[sosousage]

I'll agree that it depends on the terminology you use. When I say "PUA stone age alpha male", I'm referring to the claims that humans used to exist in this way. Certainly if you go far back enough in the evolution of organisms that became humans, you would find creatures without the sophistication that humans have. That's a given. But those ancestors are not humans, and that's the point. We are different, the same things that apply to a group of (hypothetically carnivorous) gorillas don't apply to a tribe of humans. Those innovative techniques and hunting tactics are (among other things) the reasons why we can and do define humans as humans and not simply extant survivors of primitive ancestors. Which (unlike the other replies, for which I have my doubts) I'm sure you knew.

"Most people" need to make such technical distinctions in order to not make a wrong point. If they're too stupid or ignorant to do so, I'll call them out on it so other guys don't fall for the same garbage. I care about helping those who can be helped, not "most people".

Well, the thing is that humans are a cooperative social species. Does that mean the "dominant male" would let someone fvck his woman in front of him, or not mind that his meat gets plundered? of course not. But it does mean that what the group perceives as being fair will have an impact on his decision - because if it doesn't the other members will break off and leave or punish/kill him. His big chest muscles won't protect him any more from a few arrows during a "hunting trip", a rock smashed into his skull while he sleeps, or a spear gutting him through his spine when he turns his back after he's done with his pushing around any more than the smaller, weaker male. He may be able to push certain males around (again at the risk of being killed unless his "pushing around" entails killing them and anyone else who might want revenge) when he has the consent of the group, but that merely proves the point I'm making.

such perfect cooperation didnt exist in first day of human existence, and nor did spears/arrows. only STRENGTH!


And then, most work places, most hunts, most tools, all were dependant on STRENGTH!

strong units simply were more efficient than weaklings, unless that weakling made something smart


but being strong doesnt exclude being smart, so you could have strong alpha male who actually invented something apart from being the strongest guy

 

[AttackFormation]

such perfect cooperation didnt exist in first day of human existence, and nor did spears/arrows. only STRENGTH!


And then, most work places, most hunts, most tools, all were dependant on STRENGTH!

strong units simply were more efficient than weaklings, unless that weakling made something smart


but being strong doesnt exclude being smart, so you could have strong alpha male who actually invented something apart from being the strongest guy

Jesus christ....

 

[sosousage]

Jesus christ....

you cant counter my points.


smart tribe full of alpha STRONG males will beat smart tribe full of weak/normal beta males without problemo.

btw i have degree in history

 

[zekko]

I can see why bigger, stronger men have an advantage, and why women would be attracted to them.
But I also think that attraction is more complicated than that. If you look at how important tools have been to man's survival, why wouldn't women be attracted to intelligence as well? And I think some women are attracted to intelligence, at least to some extent.

You also have the case of women being attracted to people like rock stars, and some of those guys were emaciated and/or effeminate. I don't think it's solely the fame that attracts them, women are often drawn to artistic men, to creative cleverness. Clearly that is something that has come about apart from the "women like big, strong men" idea.

Anyway, I think the point is attraction can be complicated, and you can't always predict what a woman will be attracted to, even though men want to try and turn it into a predictable equation.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Let’s put it this way: females like males. More testosterone = more maleness = more attraction. Side effect of testosterone are enhanced muscle growth, stronger bones, BIGGER bodies. Plus, it makes you more likely to recover from injuries, at least in lions anyway. Also, with say peacocks and widowbirds for example, they have increased resistance to many diseases. It’s representative of something else underneath.

Test also changes your behavior as well. That’s why ‘game’ exists. In terms of who is the most ‘alpha’ in nature, that title belongs to the animal who is most aggressive. The problem with being that way in a fight or chase is that it is extremely taxing on your body and you get extremely tired really fast.

Plus, human lifestyle changed very rapidly, faster than progressive evolution could take place.

Plus, since humans backs then were all about endurance, it is expected that all men were that way. Someone who is big and strong has the same endurance as someone who is weak and small. You are just wrong.

 

[AttackFormation]

When a kitten sees a feather floating across the floor, it will tend to crouch down, prepare to pounce and then thrust at it, biting and batting at it. This kitten has never seen the wild. It never had to hunt for food. It was not taught to do this by its parents. It just knows. It's a primitive instinct. The kitten does not need these skills to survive, and yet these instincts persist nonetheless.

The fact that a "human" can be technically defined as having the traits & cognitive abilities that distinctively set us apart from the alpha ways of the animal kingdom and our most primitive ancestors is fundamentally irrelevant, because it does not mean we are entirely free and clear of being subjected to our own primitive instincts in similar ways a kitten is subjected to their own instincts. We are still part of and a derivative of the animal kingdom, after all.

And that's the point. Even though these physical alpha traits are no longer a necessity for survival and have not been for a very long time, even arguably predating the stone age, it does not change the fact that we are hard wired to recognize it.

The Pharaohs of Egypt, Genghis Khan, The Vikings.... they may have all been paranoid about the prospect of being murdered in their sleep in the middle of the night, but none curtailed their aggression to appease. They brought down even more brutality, violence and oppression to dissuade it.

Absolutely right about the instincts, we are animals. Women like a good washboard, that much is clear as day. Where we disagree is the role of these physical traits. What I'm saying is that for as long as humans have existed, being strong, big and tough has not been naturally selected for, but it has been sexually selected. Humans didn't develop tools like fire and fire-hardened spears after they evolved - their ancestors already had them, and the line of homo that would become modern homo sapiens even became weaker and frailer over time as far as we can tell. Humans have never needed or had any real reason to be big, strong and tough out of a survival perspective either for inter- or extra-human conflict and in fact such a society could be less effective because there are fewer members per resource, leading them to get supplanted by more efficient groups whether by war or displacement, and that's the problem with the PUA "alpha male". Yes, for ancestors that lived millions of years ago before the development of stuff like tools, social cooperation and language, the PUA "alpha male" did have a better chance of survival like today's gorilla alpha. But that was not the case for homo sapiens, whose females continue to have that sexual selection but for who the survival value of those traits is marginal on the individual level and arguably (even probably) negative on the group level.

I also think it's a little dishonest to compare whole civilizations to small groups. The vikings, pharaohs and mongols are themselves comprised of these small groups, and are more like one tribe moving in to enslave or wipe out another than a tribesman worrying about whether he'll be killed in his sleep.

 

[AttackFormation]

what are your soruces for all of this?

I can't list any off the top of myhead because I've read multiple ones about each topic intermittently for years. You can google something like these sentences and read for yourself:

- Timeline of hominid tool use (and the appearance of homo sapiens)
- Humans became weaker over time
- Sexual selection vs natural selection

Other things are just logical conclusions, like the fact that hunters who consume less resources can afford to have greater numbers than hunters who consume more and that being big, strong and tough does not make a difference for survival (ie. natural selection) in humans who have always used quite advanced tools, abstract thinking and social cooperation. Dunno what else you'd wanna know since you didn't specify anything

 

[sosousage]

youve made oversimplifications to make your absolute assertion. youre looking at just the surface of a much more complex web to come to incorrect conclusions.

strength is a cornerstone to the survivability of most mammalian predators. and yes we are predators, our eyes face forward like binoculars, we consume other animals, we hunt etc.

the disconnect you seem to be having is that there are different advantages to physical strength, overall hardiness and intelligence. in a world where there is nothing but what is immediately available in nature, strength and other physical attributes are the order of the day. neanderthals for example, were shorter, stockier and incredibly robust. their skeletons have been found with deep puncture wounds, fractures etc in individuals that survived their wounds. in their world, might was right. they werent using bows and arrows to hunt. they were simply overpowering whatever prey they could however they could.

cromagnon man were the earilest iteration of modern humans. taller, sleeker, more intelligent. they invented more complex things to make life easier which also meant they could hunt larger game much more safely. more complex social structures etc. yet that didnt mean strength didnt have its place. strength isnt needed just for predators. i would even argue its primarily needed against other humans. pretty much all mammals fight for reproductive rights. whether its to the death or through established dominance is respective to each species. sexual selection IS a form of natural selection. natural selection being the precursor to sexual selection these things are not mutually exclusive

and to top it off,different species of hominid interbred. its been oficially proven that modern homo-sapiens are a mix of at least more than 2 earlier hominids. neanderthals being the biggest one. which plays an integral role in even our MODERN attraction and survival right down to our immune systems and propensity for diseases

so while it can be argued that intelligence mitigated our need for strength as the primary advantage to survival, it doesnt eliminate it as a still neccessary function. human beings nearly died out completely in 2 different ice ages. if it werent were the traits of our hardier neanderthal ancestors, it likely wouldve happened. in spite of our earlier intelligence

theyre both equally important. or at least were, at some point. i dont see what the hang up is. just play to your own strength

Dam if we died in ice age, I wonder which animals would end as most sophisticated ones instead of us

 

[AttackFormation]

You cannot fight off disease, migrate thousands of miles, fight off brutal winters, famine, drought or any number of other hardships mankind has suffered through over thousands of years by being weak and sickly. It's not just all about capturing food, or fighting off another male for the hottest cave babe. Strength is relative to survival no matter how you want to slice it.

Even if every woman on the planet selected men on "sexual selection", as you say, at the end of the day natural selection is still going to determine who survives and who doesn't. Now, I'll most definitely agree that modern innovation (MRI machines, penicillin, etc.) is really starting to fvck with the process of evolution and natural selection. Nonetheless, women are still not selecting weaker men now because penicillin was invented. At least not yet.

Ah but if we're talking about disease, famine, migration etc. we're talking about health and resource dependence, not strength. A pretty crucial difference.

Yes, and natural selection seems to have determined that the weaker, frailer ones survive. Otherwise it's hard to explain why we seem to have progressively become weaker and frailer than our ancestors or related species like neanderthals.

youve made oversimplifications to make your absolute assertion. youre looking at just the surface of a much more complex web to come to incorrect conclusions.

strength is a cornerstone to the survivability of most mammalian predators. and yes we are predators, our eyes face forward like binoculars, we consume other animals, we hunt etc.

the disconnect you seem to be having is that there are different advantages to physical strength, overall hardiness and intelligence. in a world where there is nothing but what is immediately available in nature, strength and other physical attributes are the order of the day. neanderthals for example, were shorter, stockier and incredibly robust. their skeletons have been found with deep puncture wounds, fractures etc in individuals that survived their wounds. in their world, might was right. they werent using bows and arrows to hunt. they were simply overpowering whatever prey they could however they could.

cromagnon man were the earilest iteration of modern humans. taller, sleeker, more intelligent. they invented more complex things to make life easier which also meant they could hunt larger game much more safely. more complex social structures etc. yet that didnt mean strength didnt have its place. strength isnt needed just for predators. i would even argue its primarily needed against other humans. pretty much all mammals fight for reproductive rights. whether its to the death or through established dominance is respective to each species. sexual selection IS a form of natural selection. natural selection being the precursor to sexual selection these things are not mutually exclusive

so while it can be argued that strength mitigated our need for strength as the primary advantage to survival, it doesnt eliminate it as a still neccessary function. human beings nearly died out completely in 2 different ice ages. if it werent were the traits of our hardier neanderthal ancestors, it likely wouldve happened. in spite of our earlier intelligence

Neanderthals were shorter, stockier and incredibly robust and lived in a world where might made more right than in humans - they were also a species that quickly became extinct when weaker, frailer humans appeared in their area. That example if anything merely proves my point that humans had always had more effective means to survive than, and never needed to rely on, "strength". You would probably argue that means neanderthals went extinct because they interbred with humans and so we selected for their traits, but that's not supported by how distantly we're related to them and how different we are from them physically.

I'm not sure what you're referring to since you give no examples, but I'll assume it's reproductive competition in humans since that's what you mention. You're right that sexual and natural selection are not mutually exclusive, which I haven't been claiming in the first place. But you also can't imply that reproductive competition and resource competition are the same thing since you know what sexual and natural selection are. You seem to agree that strength would be sexually selected, which is what I've been saying.

I don't really get how you can conclude that humans likely would've died out if it weren't for interbreeding with neanderthals. Populations of humans with zero neanderthal dna survived just fine, and again, the fact that neanderthals would require more resources per individual because they have more muscle and bone mass than humans is a factor that would work against, not for them in an ice age. You can't conflate "strength" with "health".

 

[AttackFormation]

womens sexual attraction disproves your whole premise

No, it proves it. Womens' sexual attraction shows why scientists have made a distinction between natural and sexual selection in the first place and that what is relevant for one is not necessarily relevant for the other, which is what happened when humans evolved. Unlike the F-grade anthropology that originates in the PUA community.

 

[Macaframalama]

Otherwise it's hard to explain why we seem to have progressively become weaker and frailer than our ancestors or related species like neanderthals.

Technology and farming. It's not hard to explain at all.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

A lot of stuff we have been taught have been lies or half truths

 

[AttackFormation]

yet you post no soruces

you just have a hang up. that is all

Sure

Technology and farming. It's not hard to explain at all.

Yes, so in other words, strength was not needed because of technology. Which you might notice was my premise from the start.