Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal attractiveness

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Rojo View Post
    I'm not sure it's the norm. What you're sketching out isn't entirely wrong but it's not entirely right either. The building isn't the blueprint (probably why Mark entitled his book as such). And we're only theorizing about the blueprint anyhow.
    Rational conclusions are always open to better conclusions coming along and improving upon them. That's better than never attempting the conclusions in the first place.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
      My conclusions are not meant to be black and white. I accept deviations from the norm and draw conclusions from the averages.

      I'm not even discussing alpha vs beta. You know there are far more in that paradigm, right? Omega for example. Alpha is just a descriptor of leadership, both mental and physical. Someone must be a leader in a situation, right? Someone must win, someone must lose. That is the black and white backbone of this discussion that I think is acceptable as a straight-line conclusion.
      Uh, lets see here. You're trying to compare entire societies with dog packs... aka groups of animals who never really have more than 20 members, and who typically pick the oldest, wisest female - in opposition of the 'strongest' male dog - as the lead animal..?

      Society as a whole is NOT equal to a tribe. And Justin Beiber certainly ain't my alpha. Even the famous musicians I personally look up to sure as hell ain't my alphas, they're just people who are just doing heir job really really well. There are plumbers who are also doing their job really well, and they don't get a 'higher rank' for it in my book... Heck, if Justin Beiber said that he was 'alpha' over people of my music subculture, he'd receive multiple death threats. Alpha = leader animal. Did Obama get elected as president because he wrestled Romney and won? No? He won, and he's STILL not considered leader by some of the guys who voted for Mittens. I think you need to stop looking at human psychology as if it was a simple thing, because it sure as hell isn't.

      There aren't any alphas. There are no betas, and no omegas. It just doesn't work like that in human societies - and it's certainly a LOT more colorful than that in other animal species as well.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
        Rational conclusions are always open to better conclusions coming along and improving upon them. That's better than never attempting the conclusions in the first place.
        Sure, but you're jumping the Grand Canyon toward your conclusion.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Reindeer View Post
          Uh, lets see here. You're trying to compare entire societies with dog packs... aka groups of animals who never really have more than 20 members, and who typically pick the oldest, wisest female - in opposition of the 'strongest' male dog - as the lead animal..?

          Society as a whole is NOT equal to a tribe. And Justin Beiber certainly ain't my alpha. Even the famous musicians I personally look up to sure as hell ain't my alphas, they're just people who are just doing heir job really really well. There are plumbers who are also doing their job really well, and they don't get a 'higher rank' for it in my book... Heck, if Justin Beiber said that he was 'alpha' over people of my music subculture, he'd receive multiple death threats. Alpha = leader animal. Did Obama get elected as president because he wrestled Romney and won? No? He won, and he's STILL not considered leader by some of the guys who voted for Mittens. I think you need to stop looking at human psychology as if it was a simple thing, because it sure as hell isn't.

          There aren't any alphas. There are no betas, and no omegas. It just doesn't work like that in human societies - and it's certainly a LOT more colorful than that in other animal species as well.
          Our society is a collection of overlapping tribes. You don't belong to all of them. In your Bieber example, he is alpha to 15 year old girls, but not to you.

          I thought of a good example to illustrate my point on the changing sizes of society and how it has affected competition. I played tackle football in the country as a teenager with a group of friends. My athleticism was far better than any of theirs, so I would return all kickoffs for touchdowns, intercept tons of balls, make tough tackles, and just be hard to catch on offense. Any girl watching would be like....damn, that's an alpha. I also played for my high school's football team. There, I started at strong safety and was a decent player. My greatest strength was just my intensity because I didn't quite have the athleticism/size of many of my competitors. Someone watching me in a high school game would have said...he's alright. He's certainly not an alpha physically.

          How did society bring about this? In my backyard football game, I'm only competing with people in my country community where people live on 5 acres minimum. There's a much lower population. There were about 50-60 people in my graduating class from the elementary school there. Throw in other people who didn't go to school there, and let's say roughly 100-200 people were in this pool of my age range nearby that I could have competed for alpha status with. This metaphorically represents a primitive situation with less people around to defeat for alpha status. In the high school game, I'm competing with roughly 3,000 people for the status of alpha. Why? My high school had about 3,000 and the opposing team had 3,000. That's 6,000 people which you then divide by 2 to remove females from the sample size. In this one example, I went from having to defeat roughly 100 people to roughly 3,000. As I mentioned earlier, only a select number of people can win. There is black and white in deciding winner/loser. When you have more participants in a competition, you mostly just have more losers. The amount of winners does not change much or at all, depending upon the type of competition.

          I'm not claiming that human society has exactly what dog societies do. It's just the terminology and the concept that I am bringing over to describe humans. If we dissected a dog before we dissected a human, and we found a heart; could we not call the human blood pump a heart as well?
          Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-19-2013, 03:02 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            You need to do some world travel, Wilton. There is a whole world out there that operates nothing like your assumptions.
            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
              You need to do some world travel, Wilton. There is a whole world out there that operates nothing like your assumptions.
              If you're going to criticize my assumptions, offer a solution. Explain why they're wrong. Otherwise, it's useless.

              World travel...how unoriginal. If you're going to say that, explain which experiences would produce which changes in my outlook.

              I don't like being called young or inexperienced. I demand you show me that this world does not operate anything like my assumptions, or I'm just going to dismiss the claim.

              Comment


              • #67
                That's the thing, Wilton.

                Any evidence we provide, you'll be able to rationalize away because it's not in your experience. Therefore, you're going to dismiss any claim that another person sets up.

                Also, I don't know how to "solve" an assumption. Assumptions can be true or false (and are usually a combination) -- or you could say they are rational or less rational, with more evidence or less evidence, or what have you.

                I haven't read every response of yours in this thread in detail, but I must agree that the assumption that your experience and expression of "the world" as being "one way" certainly has some. . . shall we say that it may be reasonable to assume that it may be lacking? That there may be whole areas of information that you are not aware of because you haven't experienced or observed it?

                To be sure, this is true of *everyone* -- regardless of age or experience.

                But that being said, I've lived in at least 4 different cultures throughout my lifetime, and yes, there are similarities, but there are also often strange. . . and sometimes truly unique and unexpected differences.

                Being open to the fact that there may be something out there for you to experience -- or some information that you don't know -- why isn't that itself valid?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by zoebird View Post
                  That's the thing, Wilton.

                  Any evidence we provide, you'll be able to rationalize away because it's not in your experience. Therefore, you're going to dismiss any claim that another person sets up.

                  Also, I don't know how to "solve" an assumption. Assumptions can be true or false (and are usually a combination) -- or you could say they are rational or less rational, with more evidence or less evidence, or what have you.

                  I haven't read every response of yours in this thread in detail, but I must agree that the assumption that your experience and expression of "the world" as being "one way" certainly has some. . . shall we say that it may be reasonable to assume that it may be lacking? That there may be whole areas of information that you are not aware of because you haven't experienced or observed it?

                  To be sure, this is true of *everyone* -- regardless of age or experience.

                  But that being said, I've lived in at least 4 different cultures throughout my lifetime, and yes, there are similarities, but there are also often strange. . . and sometimes truly unique and unexpected differences.

                  Being open to the fact that there may be something out there for you to experience -- or some information that you don't know -- why isn't that itself valid?
                  Are there things that I haven't experienced? Sure. But say that I need to travel and get older to understand the world reeks of this superiority complex combined with mysticism crap (like I'm going to experience a new level of consciousness or something), and I don't like either of those.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    i wouldn't say you need to zen your way to nirvana, but some more real life experience does a body good
                    beautiful
                    yeah you are

                    Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
                    lol

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                      i wouldn't say you need to zen your way to nirvana, but some more real life experience does a body good
                      I think the problem is not what I am saying but the way many interpret what I am saying. I say something that is a statistical trend or a general concept, and some here take it like I'm speaking an absolute. For instance , "Women are more emotional than men" does not mean every single woman is more emotional than every single man. It just means that if you averaged all women out and all men out, women would be more emotional on average. Also, I'm not afraid to ask things in absolutes in order to correctly isolate a key variable, and instead of giving any kind of insight, people just want to say that everything is complicated and too difficult to ascertain. Too difficult, too complex, too absolute. All that stuff just reeks of whining. These are the same people that say I need to travel. I don't plan on traveling for any reason except for the fun of it. I don't need to find myself or experience crap. I'm a grown up and fully mature to live and succeed in this world.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I really dont think thats it wilton
                        beautiful
                        yeah you are

                        Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
                        lol

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                          For instance , "Women are more emotional than men" does not mean every single woman is more emotional than every single man. It just means that if you averaged all women out and all men out, women would be more emotional on average.
                          Every dude I've ever known has been very emotional, but most of them didn't TALK ABOUT their emotions; big difference from not having emotions. Are you saying that men don't generally experience sadness, happiness, depression, or anger? Watch just about any movie ever to see plenty examples of enraged guys swearing and getting in fights, getting annoyed and insulting someone, or telling jokes and laughing. These are all examples of emotions. Hell, even Rambo had a post-traumatic stress breakdown and practically broke into tears in First Blood when he realized he couldn't transition back into civilian life.

                          I don't think women experience more emotions than men. They just tend to talk about their emotions more because it's socially acceptable for them to while it isn't for men.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
                            Every dude I've ever known has been very emotional, but most of them didn't TALK ABOUT their emotions; big difference from not having emotions. Are you saying that men don't generally experience sadness, happiness, depression, or anger? Watch just about any movie ever to see plenty examples of enraged guys swearing and getting in fights, getting annoyed and insulting someone, or telling jokes and laughing. These are all examples of emotions. Hell, even Rambo had a post-traumatic stress breakdown and practically broke into tears in First Blood when he realized he couldn't transition back into civilian life.

                            I don't think women experience more emotions than men. They just tend to talk about their emotions more because it's socially acceptable for them to while it isn't for men.
                            I see it has men having the ability to control their emotions. Taking anger, frustration, sadness, depression, even your sex-drive and locking them in a box can be powerful. This is the very core of producing a powerful person. Becoming self-actualized, in other words achieving your own human potential, requires discipline. The only time I've witnessed women exhibit such discipline is in the caring of their children. SOME women are capable of achieving to a high level, but even the best generally suffer due to their greater need for companionship. Success requires lots of practice and focus, which means you have less to spend on friends, family, and significant others. Women are less willing to give the later up, and that's one of the many reasons their biology limits their discipline in the very long run.

                            There's nothing wrong with this, and I don't think any woman should still be considered weak who proves herself better than another man. These are just the trends I see in human life, and at the very end of the day, there are few outliers. Hell, my grandma was one of the very first women to get a chemistry degree from U of Pitt back in the 40's. She became a rocket scientist after, met another rocket scientist to whom she married, and even she quit her job so she could raise a family.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              For the record, I think feminism is basically good.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I see it has men having the ability to control their emotions. Taking anger, frustration, sadness, depression, even your sex-drive and locking them in a box can be powerful. This is the very core of producing a powerful person. Becoming self-actualized, in other words achieving your own human potential, requires discipline.
                                OK, this is just repression... I am the QUEEN of this. I can stuff anything inside and I can tell you it is not a recipe for power. It's a necessity at times, but you end up not dealing with core issues. It does not make you a powerful person. It does make you perhaps more reliable and stable. Women are GREAT at this. Many are. Do you know how many women have history of abuse that can lock all that inside?

                                I don't think it has anything to do with sex, and everything to do with how you are raised. My mother has a poker face. I heard her cry for the first time last month about my dad who is dying in a nursing home. Close to 40 years, never heard my mom cry. Not for joy, not for sorrow. She keeps her emotions locked down and taught us all to do the same.

                                The ability to let go, at the right time is actually the more powerful tool.

                                http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                                Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X