Dispelling the "stone age alpha" fiction

[Macaframalama]

Sure



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

Pending the collapse of society, physical strength isn't as necessary for the general population as much as it is for military personnel, LEO, etc. You're basically outsourcing your survival to those agencies, while failing to at least attempt to properly prepare yourself. The stronger, still take from the weaker everyday, despite LEO. Hand to hand combat is still taught to both. Both still have a measurement of physical requirement that must be met to join.

 

[AttackFormation]

Health and resource dependence? Maybe in the context of modern medicine or perhaps in regard to the genetic disposition for certain diseases, but historically? What kind of "resource dependence" are we talking about here? The Shaman who slapped you across the face with a tree branch to exorcize the sick demons from your body? The doctor that covered you in leeches to "cure" multiple sclerosis? The burning of witches? Ethnic cleansing? Lobotomies? Electroshock therapy? The sh*t that has been performed in the name of health has been horrid.



That is not natural selection. That's cultural interference, which is what I had referred to when mentioning MRIs and penicillin, or how technology has minimized the need for physical strength in many facets of life.... I'm not arguing against that. But, that has nothing to do with the persistence of primitive instincts. The topic here is why such instincts persist in spite of these things.

You mentioned that you cannot fight off disease, famine, drought etc. by being weak and sickly, and that strength is relative to survival. So I pointed out that physical strength ie. having big muscles is not the same as health. Of course being sickly is worse than being healthy. I also said that "stronger" hominids with bigger bones and bigger muscles would've been disadvantaged in case of famines and ice ages and the like, not advantaged, because they need more resources per individual. That's the resource dependence I was talking about.

If you're talking about why those instincts persist then we're talking about two different things. I'm not trying to argue about their existence, or say that women should or shouldn't act on them. I'm saying that by the time humans had evolved, those instincts were there as a remnant from earlier ancestors, not because physical strength was still decisive or even important for survival. About natural selection, I made that statement in response to you saying that "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." You concluded that natural selection was ultimately going to determine who lives and dies, so according to your conclusion it would've been natural selection which determined that the weaker humans survived and the more physically robust ancestor and cousin species didn't.

Pending the collapse of society, physical strength isn't as necessary for the general population as much as it is for military personnel, LEO, etc. You're basically outsourcing your survival to those agencies, while failing to at least attempt to properly prepare yourself. The stronger, still take from the weaker everyday, despite LEO. Hand to hand combat is still taught to both. Both still have a measurement of physical requirement that must be met to join.

Both still have a physical requirement that must be met to join, precisely because being a regular human does not require that physical standard due to technology, which is the point of this thread. And the physical standard it does require has more to do with endurance, which is in stark contrast to the kind of "alpha male" pictured by the PUA community clubbing bears to death with his bare hands. Want to see the difference? check out a roided-out sprinter and compare him to a marathon runner. If society collapses physical strength will become less important than it is now, not more, because the laws preventing humans from using weapons will be gone. Training in unarmed combat is a luxury of peace and order and would become less, not more useful, if we actually lived in a society that had no effective laws.

 

[Macaframalama]

Both still have a physical requirement that must be met to join, precisely because being a regular human does not require that physical standard due to technology, which is the point of this thread

You do realize that physical violence is still quite prevalent in modern society correct?

And the physical standard it does require has more to do with endurance, which is in stark contrast to the kind of "alpha male" pictured by the PUA community clubbing bears to death with his bare hands.

Endurance is considered a special strength on the strength spectrum. Strength endurance. http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Forum/tabid/84/forumid/15/threadid/78/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Wether the activity is Anaerobic, glycolytic or aerobic in nature does not matter. It is still a strength that has to be trained to maintain.

If society collapses physical strength will become less important than it is now, not more, because the laws preventing humans from using weapons will be gone.

While much rarer, there are still accounts of hand to hand combat during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Training in unarmed combat is a luxury of peace and order and would become less, not more useful, if we actually lived in a society that had no effective laws.

This is just moronic, that I don't even know where to begin. We have tons of ineffective laws. Just look at the violent crime rates. You are seriously out of touch with reality and would probably be a safe assumption to say that you have grown up sheltered. Out of curiosity, have you ever been in a physical altercation yourself?

 

[AttackFormation]

This conversation ends right here if you really think I don't understand the difference between muscles and the immune system.

You conflated them in the first place bro, just wanted to point that out. But this conversation can be over anyway, I've gotten my message across.

 

[Macaframalama]

I've gotten my message across.

Yes, I'd say you've conveyed your ignorance quite well.

 

[AttackFormation]

You do realize that physical violence is still quite prevalent in modern society correct?

Endurance is considered a special strength on the strength spectrum. Strength endurance. http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Forum/tabid/84/forumid/15/threadid/78/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Wether the activity is Anaerobic, glycolytic or aerobic in nature does not matter. It is still a strength.

While much rarer, there are still accounts of hand to hand combat during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


This is just moronic, that I don't even know where to begin. We have tons of ineffective laws. Just look at the violent crime rates. You are seriously out of touch with reality and would probably be a safe assumption to say that you have grown up sheltered. Out of curiosity, have you ever been in a physical altercation yourself?

Sure.

That's semantic. We both know what we mean when we make a distinction between strength and endurance.

And I can assure you that had either combatant had a choice, they would have much preferred to have a weapon in that situation.

You pended the collapse of society. The thing is that "society" is what prevents people from arming themselves with weapons in the first place. Hand to hand skills would become less valuable if everyone was walking around with a couple of guns strapped to themselves, not more. Similarly if your country was invaded tomorrow, you would not be thanking yourself for practicing unarmed combat unless you are either a veteran with war training already or some kind of schizoid who lives in an alternate reality. I do martial arts myself.

 

[Macaframalama]

That's semantic. We both know what we mean when we make a distinction between strength and endurance.

No, it's not sematics. Endurance is a special strength on the strength continuum. Like your example of the marathoner vs the sprinter. While, sprinting is primarily anaerobic in nature, all three energy systems are still activated, with the glycolytic and Aerobic energy systems working to lesser degrees. Many, many, many endurance athletes train limit strength, despite their sports being aerobic in nature.

And I can assure you that had either combatant had a choice, they would have much preferred to have a weapon in that situation.

Obviously, but technology and tools fail.

You pended the collapse of society. The thing is that "society" is what prevents people from arming themselves with weapons in the first place.

The United States is very much an armed society and despite that, plenty of ppl are stabbed or bludgeoned to death every year, not to mention unarmed assaults.

Similarly if your country was invaded tomorrow, you would not be thanking yourself for practicing unarmed combat unless you are either a veteran with war training already or some kind of schizoid who lives in an alternate reality. I do martial arts myself.

I would be thankful for any and every kind of training that I had aquired in the past. Being prepared and trained for uncertainty doesn't make you a schizoid, it makes you self-reliant, rather than outsourcing your survival to other men in law enforcement.

 

[Trainwreck]

Cave man topics are the dumbest most pointless **** I see on this board.

 

[Von]

People assume that Alpha = Stronger...

That Alpha are allowed to evolve... that those who evolve had the ''power'' = Strength... more muscular, more taller etc etc...

But that's actually totally wrong.

Any Biology class especially in University and about Genetics/Animal/Diversity.... they would tell you ... Alpha = ADAPTATION.

The Alpha are does who past their genes down, those who survives are those who CAN ADAPT to their environment (and what's throwed at them)

Look,Money,Status = Increase ADAPTATION FACTORS (give you more ressources to control)

Muscular/Strength = Increase your ADAPTATION Power (especially if you are challenged by someone, or hunting)

Brain = Increase your adaption skills (especially in resolving issues)..

So you want to have ADAPTATION Capacities.

How? By working on your Health, Intellect, Look, Money, Status, Humour.... becoming a DJ, an improved version of yourself.

The one who survived = those who could ADAPT to a setting = those who developped the skills and eventual CONTROL of their setting.

Status = Guy in Control of the Setting
Money = Guy who profit of the setting
Look = Guy who can develop above the setting

Why are girls attracted to the Guys who seems to be above everyone ? Why they attract to the guy who seems to be in control, control of others, control of his environment?

Value = Guy with what you want, the guy in control.

Because it's the guy who can adapt the most... who is capable the most of using ressources and himself to adapt. He's Alpha

Be valuable : Develop your skills
Be like the Caveman: Strong, Flexible

Be a DJ, Be Adaptable, Be Alpha

 

[Fruitbat]

Has anyone actually adressed the issue?

Of course being a foot taller doesn't mean you will catch more ox, or build a better hut.

The issue is, can you beat the other men? The main fear for early human was as much tribe B locating your tribe, killing you and raping your wife repreatedly and killing your (and her) kids than a sabre toothed tiger.

I'm 240lb of mainly fat and 6'2. I've taken punches from men half my size, and there is something about frame size that makes those punches bounce off. I hear a hundred little guys waiting to tell me "I'll put you on your ass" and many will be true. However, attraction is more primal than that. You didn';t have your gym, steriods and MMA back then. We would have been about even training and diet wise. Who is going to win then?

However, I agree somewhat with OP because Alphas are, above all, leaders. We are a social species and a mans ability to lead others has little to do with his height (although it helps).

Men generally refused to be ruled as slaves from some meathead bully. This picture you roiders have of smashing pipsqueaks and getting their poon is a bit of a fantasy, because said pipsqueaks would finish you off at night in about 5 mins.

You have to trust your leaders. Real leaders lead by consent, not force. Even the most tyrannical dictators, you will find, are still fairly democratic on the inside of their organisatrion.

In fact,. the meatheads are generally first wave attackers. The real alkphas avoid that conflict.

 

[AttackFormation]

Has anyone actually adressed the issue?

Of course being a foot taller doesn't mean you will catch more ox, or build a better hut.

The issue is, can you beat the other men? The main fear for early human was as much tribe B locating your tribe, killing you and raping your wife repreatedly and killing your (and her) kids than a sabre toothed tiger.

I'm 240lb of mainly fat and 6'2. I've taken punches from men half my size, and there is something about frame size that makes those punches bounce off. I hear a hundred little guys waiting to tell me "I'll put you on your ass" and many will be true. However, attraction is more primal than that. You didn';t have your gym, steriods and MMA back then. We would have been about even training and diet wise. Who is going to win then?

However, I agree somewhat with OP because Alphas are, above all, leaders. We are a social species and a mans ability to lead others has little to do with his height (although it helps).

Men generally refused to be ruled as slaves from some meathead bully. This picture you roiders have of smashing pipsqueaks and getting their poon is a bit of a fantasy, because said pipsqueaks would finish you off at night in about 5 mins.

You have to trust your leaders. Real leaders lead by consent, not force. Even the most tyrannical dictators, you will find, are still fairly democratic on the inside of their organisatrion.

In fact,. the meatheads are generally first wave attackers. The real alkphas avoid that conflict.

Thank god dude. I was beginning to fear for the worst about this place. The only thing I wanna add is that "back in the day", that little 60 or whatever kilos guy didn't need to punch you like he does today when weapons are illegal, if he had a disagreement with you he could grab his throwing spear/bone knife/etc. and kill you against which physique is no defense. Physical size becomes less relevant when everyone's carrying weapons and have the ability to surprise attack each other, and as you say of course you won't be better at catching more ox or building a better hut because you're bigger. "Strength" back then would be even less relevant than it is today for being an "alpha", which is the opposite of what PUAs preach. But somehow this is a hard concept to grasp for the guys here.

 

[Dash Riprock]

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.

Yikes...

You can't "logic" your way out of your argument. What you're forgetting is what you're saying goes against 10,000+ years of evolution and what attracts a female to a male based on biological programming and DNA. It's like saying you can teach a Mac to run like a PC--it's how they're programmed.

Women do not have a choice as to whom they're attracted to. They do have a choice as to whom they end up with, and some do choose the beta or "weaker" male for a number of reasons that are not pre-programmed at the biological level. Generally speaking, women are attracted to (at the biological level) in no particular order--and the "why" for each one:

1- Confidence/assertiveness: Ability to make decisions to take care of the group, tribe or mate.
2- Sense of purpose/leadership: "Why are we (group/tribe/mate) following you?"
3- Strong body language: Don't f*uck with me...or else.
4- Strong physique: I can provide and protect and have good genes for reproduction.
5- Intelligence: I can problem solve.

These will never change.

It sounds to me OP, like you've lost women to DJs or alphas and are trying to justify it. Kind of like the homely fat chick saying, "Why are all guys attracted to fit, young, slim, hot women, I don't get it!!" It's in our DNA, bud.

Start working on yourself. LIFE is about self-improvement.

Good luck.

Dash

 

[AttackFormation]

Yikes...

You can't "logic" your way out of your argument. What you're forgetting is what you're saying goes against 10,000+ years of evolution and what attracts a female to a male based on biological programming and DNA. It's like saying you can teach a Mac to run like a PC--it's how they're programmed.

Women do not have a choice as to whom they're attracted to. They do have a choice as to whom they end up with, and some do choose the beta or "weaker" male for a number of reasons that are not pre-programmed at the biological level. Generally speaking, women are attracted to (at the biological level) in no particular order--and the "why" for each one:

1- Confidence/assertiveness: Ability to make decisions to take care of the group, tribe or mate.
2- Sense of purpose/leadership: "Why are we (group/tribe/mate) following you?"
3- Strong body language: Don't f*uck with me...or else.
4- Strong physique: I can provide and protect and have good genes for reproduction.
5- Intelligence: I can problem solve.

These will never change.

It sounds to me OP, like you've lost women to DJs or alphas and are trying to justify it. Kind of like the homely fat chick saying, "Why are all guys attracted to fit, young, slim, hot women, I don't get it!!" It's in our DNA, bud.

Start working on yourself. LIFE is about self-improvement.

Good luck.

Dash

I appreciate your response but this is not the discussion I started in my OP. The thread has basically been hijacked by this point. I never set out to argue anything that has to do with women or their preferences. I was talking about natural selection.

 

[Macaframalama]

Thank god dude. I was beginning to fear for the worst about this place. The only thing I wanna add is that "back in the day", that little 60 or whatever kilos guy didn't need to punch you like he does today when weapons are illegal, if he had a disagreement with you he could grab his throwing spear/bone knife/etc. and kill you against which physique is no defense. Physical size becomes less relevant when everyone's carrying weapons and have the ability to surprise attack each other, and as you say of course you won't be better at catching more ox or building a better hut because you're bigger. "Strength" back then would be even less relevant than it is today for being an "alpha", which is the opposite of what PUAs preach. But somehow this is a hard concept to grasp for the guys here.

Your mistaking physical stature for strength, which has nothing to do with strength. Stefi Cohen, a 121lb female powerlifter deadlifts over 500lbs, as well as Steph Powell. Quite a few females deadlift 400+ weighing sub 150. Tons of males pulling sub 800 weighing under 200lbs, so a large physical stature doesn't necessarily translate to strength. The average height and weight for your special forces operators are around 5"7/175lbs.

The only thing I wanna add is that "back in the day", that little 60 or whatever kilos guy didn't need to punch you like he does today when weapons are illegal, if he had a disagreement with you he could grab his throwing spear/bone knife/etc.

Where are you getting this information from? Where do you live? Here in the U.S., where weapons are very much legal in most parts, there were over 13,000 armed murders. Look at the gun related homicides in Chicago alone, where firearms are illegal.

 

[AttackFormation]

Your mistaking physical stature for strength, which has nothing to do with strength. Stefi Cohen, a 121lb female powerlifter deadlifts over 500lbs, as well as Steph Powell. Quite a few females deadlift 400+ weighing sub 150. Tons of males pulling sub 800 weighing under 200lbs, so a large physical stature doesn't necessarily translate to strength. The average height and weight for your special forces operators are around 5"7/175lbs.

Where are you getting this information from? Where do you live? Here in the U.S., where weapons are very much legal in most parts, there were over 13,000 armed murders. Look at the gun related homicides in Chicago alone, where firearms are illegal.

It's true that size and strength don't have a 1:1 correlation, but I'm using size/strength interchangeably because both of them would be irrelevant for natural selection of humans in the stone age thanks to the tools they then had.

I'm European. Of course you can use weapons in practice, but in principle they're illegal to carry/own and there is a strong culture against them (well, except if you're in the US I guess) and that's what I was talking about. I wasn't implying that you literally can't use weapons today.

 

[sosousage]

people already addressed and destroyed the premise of this post quite thoroughly

this guy is trying to say that a reference to primitive "alphas" by the community in regards to strength and physical attributes is a "malignant and deluded" idea

he goes on to say and further imply that intelligence is more important than strength and what allowed humans as a whole, to survive.

he makes the assumption that people who make the refernce point of strength and physical abilities are isolating it as the ONLY factor in what defines "alpha" (which no one has ever said that)



as if people are dumb enough to really think thats all that matters

the thread wasnt hijacked. it was just thoroughly debunked and proven how you cant oversimplify something complex.

he talks about sexual selection and uses a peacock comparison and then claims he wasnt talking about female attraction lol



it was explained by multiple posters that female (and male) attraction is something that is passed down. that the rules and culture of todays world does not negate thousands of years of sexual attraction in us. which is what those pesky PUAs are referencing in the first place.

i even went further and explained that what we think of humans today, is not always how we were. strength WAS the main factor in our past at some point. there were different subspecies of hominids that lived differently than the next. that were different eras in development in how humans lived. we were not always hunter-gatherers and not always lived in large tribes or civilizations.

i even conceded that strength is not currently main factor in male survival or even utility, but that its an irrelevant point. female attraction has changed very little for that to be completely eliminated.

op doesnt understand that sexual selection is a by product of natural selection. these things dont exist independantly

what does that even mean? it means that an early giraffe, whos neck grew just a few inches more than the others, (natural selection) would reach more leaves, eat more, be healthier and stronger to escape predators, to fight off rivals and ultimately to mate and on it goes. females will instinctively be attracted to males with longer necks (sexual selection) her offspring need to survive too

strength worked the same way until the era in which we began using tools, developed language, formed complex social structures etc

the reference puas and the community make to physical fitness holds true. female attraction proves this despite how smart we are the things we've invented. but no one ever said you have to turn into a caveman to get the girl

like i said, op is just a nerd with some kind of hangup. a fail nerd at that.

not like weak guy with spear is any better than alpha big guy with spear. all the first tools and weapons were also strength dependant. even today, stronger workers are more efficient

 

[AttackFormation]

I mentioned peacocks specifically to distinguish sexual selection from what I was talking about before someone would bring it up. But despite my effort to do so, you don't have the reading comprehension to note that and instead you made the opposite association, which is why you keep babbling about what being alpha meant in terms of reproduction and not survival. You also say things like "humans were not always hunter gatherers" which is making me laugh as I'm typing this, did you actually mean that?

strength worked the same way until the era in which we began using tools, developed language, formed complex social structures etc

So in other words it was part of natural selection for hominids but not for humans, who merely inherited the sexual preference. And thus the story of a human "alpha" necessarily being the strongest, biggest, toughest, fastest, meanest guy is not true, which coincidentally, is the same thing you learn in your first biology class. Thanks for compressing my OP into 1 sentence.

If you by some miracle concede this but then go on to ask what kind of a nerd would care about it, since it doesn't directly relate to how you can get your d!ck wet, no one's forcing you to discuss it

 

[ubercat]

Idk this whole debate seems kind of binary. Poor people live on Junk Food these days and rich people have PTs. Why wouldn't you choose to be strong, fast and smart. And I doubt all that learning about weights sports martial arts etc has made me dumber.

And the weapon argument seems a bit of a Furphy. If the little guy pulls a knife the big one is going to pull one too at which point the big guy is going to win.

 

[Von]

Idk this whole debate seems kind of binary. Poor people live on Junk Food these days and rich people have PTs. Why wouldn't you choose to be strong, fast and smart. And I doubt all that learning about weights sports martial arts etc has made me dumber.

And the weapon argument seems a bit of a Furphy. If the little guy pulls a knife the big one is going to pull one too at which point the big guy is going to win.

Not true... you know nothing of martial arts

The big guy might be slower (his muscle could be in the way of his agility and speed)... the smaller guy could actually be stronger (actually most of the olympics pro athlete in boxing, judo, wrestling etc... are small guys BUT WIDE lol).

I would put my money on the small guy cause of speed and waist control.

Weapons have made the ''fight easier, less personnal, less skills ressources''.... Anybody can kill someone with a gun... a kid could kill a Navy Seal or Special Force etc... (happened)... remember a video about this russian guy who at 11 years old in Stalingrad blew up with his german submachine gun a Nazi.

Before you had to fight to win, now you pull a trigger... the more skill you have the better,... but in a lot of cases you'll never see who you kill face to face.

A lot of elite soldiers are actually slim guy.

It's all about how you train.

A bodybuilder might be actually really weak and slow compared to an average joe... it's just his muscle are trained for a specific style of competition.

I put my money on the little guy... cause if he's picking a fight with a big guy... the little guy is crazy... crazy is good in a fight,,, it put fear in your enemy eyes... fear leads to making mistake... mistake leads to losing... losing means death

 

[Macaframalama]

the more skill you have the better,..

10/10 I will pick mastery and the guy that is more technically proficient. All grappling and throwing is based on manipulating the leverages and momentum of your opponent. I had a 120lb female fireman throw me once. Keep in mind I weighed about 325 at the time. Lol