Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?(techvibes.com)
techvibes.com
Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
http://www.techvibes.com/blog/are-geeks-the-new-alpha-male
19 comments
Displays of wealth probably work better than displays of smarts.
And displays of social status are better than both.
And displays of social status are better than both.
In fact, I think above a certain IQ range, people tends to make less money. Studies have shown PHDs actually on average make less than people with a master's degree.
Also, girls don't really rationally think about attraction, which is why a lot of them date better looking guys who later dump them while nicer guys get left by the side of the roads.
From my own experience, getting a master degree in Comp Sci has not helped me in getting a girl. However, working out 2-3 times a week and being more physically attractive has.
Also, girls don't really rationally think about attraction, which is why a lot of them date better looking guys who later dump them while nicer guys get left by the side of the roads.
From my own experience, getting a master degree in Comp Sci has not helped me in getting a girl. However, working out 2-3 times a week and being more physically attractive has.
The alpha male has long been achieved by means of physical prowess (meow).
First, not after high school, no. Second, being the alpha male has more to do with how other men think of you than about how women seek mates. Third, women have always found intelligence inherently attractive, and smart people who have a hard time with the ladies have always avoided acknowledging that because it would mean acknowledging they have other defects that hold them back.
First, not after high school, no. Second, being the alpha male has more to do with how other men think of you than about how women seek mates. Third, women have always found intelligence inherently attractive, and smart people who have a hard time with the ladies have always avoided acknowledging that because it would mean acknowledging they have other defects that hold them back.
I would like to see the OKTrends blog post on this.
Being physically larger and stronger makes people look to you for leadership. It's hardwired biological behavior. Maybe in a million years this'll change.
Height matters. So does general health. That's not the same as "prowess." Now, I don't deny that prowess is helpful. Julius Caesar was known as an excellent horseman and a brave leader in battle, Vladimir Putin milks his judo black belt, etc. But the claim that athleticism has traditionally been the key to power is clearly overblown. Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, and how many others? "[T]he leader of the pack has long been achieved by sweat and blood" is simply untrue.
Being a good athlete may make other kids look instinctively to you, but that's just an opportunity to learn leadership skills. Other kids have different opportunities, and after high school, those opportunities multiply and diversify. Prowess doesn't guarantee that you'll develop alpha male skills, and even in high school, there are star players who don't have much influence over their peers. Likewise, on any high school football team, you'll find one or two starters who aren't the best performers at their position but provide valuable leadership for the other players.
People really need to sort out two distinct concepts: social rank and masculinity. Geeks talk a lot about "alpha males," but they're also jealous of the beefy guy down the street who washes his Corvette shirtless and always has a girl hanging around. It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy and would have been in the Paleolithic, too. The dude is masculine. And he gets chicks (which I suspect is the common factor that creates geeky interest in both social rank and masculinity.)
While social rank and masculinity are not entirely unrelated, geeks conflate them way too much, and I think this article is a prime example. Rough, tough, strong, assertive guys can end up as leaders or followers, socially climbing or falling relative to their origins, and that's been true in every complex society, meaning the phenomenon has been around for thousands of years. Geeks are interested in both social rank and masculinity and would benefit from treating them as distinct ideas, but they prefer to lump them both under the label of "alpha male" because it sounds more intellectual (and probably less homoerotic, to boot.)
[Sorry for the huuuuuge edit after I was already modded up once....]
Being a good athlete may make other kids look instinctively to you, but that's just an opportunity to learn leadership skills. Other kids have different opportunities, and after high school, those opportunities multiply and diversify. Prowess doesn't guarantee that you'll develop alpha male skills, and even in high school, there are star players who don't have much influence over their peers. Likewise, on any high school football team, you'll find one or two starters who aren't the best performers at their position but provide valuable leadership for the other players.
People really need to sort out two distinct concepts: social rank and masculinity. Geeks talk a lot about "alpha males," but they're also jealous of the beefy guy down the street who washes his Corvette shirtless and always has a girl hanging around. It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy and would have been in the Paleolithic, too. The dude is masculine. And he gets chicks (which I suspect is the common factor that creates geeky interest in both social rank and masculinity.)
While social rank and masculinity are not entirely unrelated, geeks conflate them way too much, and I think this article is a prime example. Rough, tough, strong, assertive guys can end up as leaders or followers, socially climbing or falling relative to their origins, and that's been true in every complex society, meaning the phenomenon has been around for thousands of years. Geeks are interested in both social rank and masculinity and would benefit from treating them as distinct ideas, but they prefer to lump them both under the label of "alpha male" because it sounds more intellectual (and probably less homoerotic, to boot.)
[Sorry for the huuuuuge edit after I was already modded up once....]
It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy and would have been in the Paleolithic, too.
I don't disagree with the gist of your point, but I just wanted to observe that male pattern baldness is generally correlated with increased testosterone levels. So in a way it's masculine by definition.
I don't disagree with the gist of your point, but I just wanted to observe that male pattern baldness is generally correlated with increased testosterone levels. So in a way it's masculine by definition.
When did we last elect a fat President? When did we last elect an ugly one?
Since the invention of television and the dawn of universal suffrage, politicians have gotten taller, fitter, and more attractive. There's a reason.
Since the invention of television and the dawn of universal suffrage, politicians have gotten taller, fitter, and more attractive. There's a reason.
Bill Clinton was fat, even when he was elected. As for the general trend in favor of tall, attractive presidents, the top dog out of a field of millions is going to have most of the major helpful assets. There's no disputing that height and attractiveness are helpful.
He was 6'2" and weighed around 225 pounds. So he was chubby, but I have never met a woman who would admit to finding him ugly.
"Helpful assets" is one way to put it. But I'm advocating a stronger hypothesis: when lots of people can vote, and they can watch candidates on TV, we will not have an ugly President. We'll have very charismatic average-looking presidents, or really stupid great-looking presidents. But we won't have ugly, brilliant ones.
"Helpful assets" is one way to put it. But I'm advocating a stronger hypothesis: when lots of people can vote, and they can watch candidates on TV, we will not have an ugly President. We'll have very charismatic average-looking presidents, or really stupid great-looking presidents. But we won't have ugly, brilliant ones.
No, our genes aren't that smart. For the same reason that sex doesn't stop being enjoyable when using birth control, women won't stop being attracted to socially dominant men because the shy geeks have better earning potential.
Well, given enough time, women will prefer men who provide more advantages to her children.
Of course, "earning potential" actually doesn't matter much either, in a wealthy society where death from poverty is rare. Instead, look at the people who are having lots of kids vs. few or none. Don't underestimate the power of vertical memetic transmission, either--breeding rapidly is more viable today than ever before as a means of promoting ideas.
Genetic engineering will probably throw everything out the window long before selection pressures could do much anyhow.
Of course, "earning potential" actually doesn't matter much either, in a wealthy society where death from poverty is rare. Instead, look at the people who are having lots of kids vs. few or none. Don't underestimate the power of vertical memetic transmission, either--breeding rapidly is more viable today than ever before as a means of promoting ideas.
Genetic engineering will probably throw everything out the window long before selection pressures could do much anyhow.
I agree that social confidence (some might say dominance) remains attractive to women, but I'd also argue that geeks are becoming a little less shy as intelligence and technology is considered cool or sexy.
If we accept this writer's theory, it would be more plausible to say that women desire to get impregnated by jocks (w/ physical strength and social intelligence) but then have their kids raised by geeks (w/ money and abstract intelligence).
I've read a stat somewhere that claimed at least 10% of fathers are not raising their actual sons (and they are unaware of it). Unfortunately I can't find the study.
I've read a stat somewhere that claimed at least 10% of fathers are not raising their actual sons (and they are unaware of it). Unfortunately I can't find the study.
No.
Related side note: the researcher that coined the term alpha male recently redefined it.
According to him, the alpha male that typically comes to mind is a misconception as alpha wolves aren't alpha wolves through some violent usurpation. Rather, they become alpha males in much the same way that a human Dad does. As the oldest and provider for the familiy, he is the natural leader.
Related side note: the researcher that coined the term alpha male recently redefined it.
According to him, the alpha male that typically comes to mind is a misconception as alpha wolves aren't alpha wolves through some violent usurpation. Rather, they become alpha males in much the same way that a human Dad does. As the oldest and provider for the familiy, he is the natural leader.
From my own experience, women of above-average intelligence and education tend to seek men who are at least as intelligent and educated as they are. Within that pool they will still prefer men who are are socially well-adjusted, good looking, and rich, probably in that order of importance.
So if you're a male geek looking for love, whether your IQ is 130 or 160 (the pool of women doesn't increase much from one to the other), you need to work on your social skills. Actually you boys in the 160+ range need to work a bit harder as you spend so much time thinking about esoterica your 'game' is probably quite weak.
So if you're a male geek looking for love, whether your IQ is 130 or 160 (the pool of women doesn't increase much from one to the other), you need to work on your social skills. Actually you boys in the 160+ range need to work a bit harder as you spend so much time thinking about esoterica your 'game' is probably quite weak.
In my short life (in miami), I've experienced the following:
Young women (18-24) seem to be trending towards males with influence of some sort & a sense of humor - so if you're "well connected" but not well off, "chicks can dig that" or if you're "well known" (where people stop you on the street) & of course, if you're rich or appear to be rich.
I suppose all of them could require brains, but not all of them do.
Young women (18-24) seem to be trending towards males with influence of some sort & a sense of humor - so if you're "well connected" but not well off, "chicks can dig that" or if you're "well known" (where people stop you on the street) & of course, if you're rich or appear to be rich.
I suppose all of them could require brains, but not all of them do.
Humor and social skills absolutely require brains, though. Social status games are what our brains are built for; abstract and analytic thinking may be the intellectual power behind the march of technology, but in all likelihood that's probably just an accident, in evolutionary terms.
Wealthy men have always been the alpha males. Geek doesn't necessarily = wealthy.
It's good to differentiate between who girls are willing to date(ie have companionship and sexual relations) versus who they will marry(ie. Have kids, Pool resources, Grow old together if they are particularly romantic).
Attractiveness is so much more important when dating as the only real advantage of a dating partner over a friend is the sex. So you tend to date based on attraction. Where as when you are thinking long term, you look for a larger set of attributes, such as earning power, emotional stability, communication, etc. (Of course some people date with the intent of find a partner. But the point is easier to make if you think of it in terms of the extremes of dating for fun versus dating to find 'the one')
Either way, there are guys who are both highly intelligent and athletic. They are going mop the floor of either extreme overall anyway. So in the end, yes brains matter more now, but good luck competing with taller more attractive and nearly intellectually equivalent guys.
Attractiveness is so much more important when dating as the only real advantage of a dating partner over a friend is the sex. So you tend to date based on attraction. Where as when you are thinking long term, you look for a larger set of attributes, such as earning power, emotional stability, communication, etc. (Of course some people date with the intent of find a partner. But the point is easier to make if you think of it in terms of the extremes of dating for fun versus dating to find 'the one')
Either way, there are guys who are both highly intelligent and athletic. They are going mop the floor of either extreme overall anyway. So in the end, yes brains matter more now, but good luck competing with taller more attractive and nearly intellectually equivalent guys.
HAHAHA. Only on sites like this and reddit.
ESR writes in his 'How to be sexy' essay: "Being an alpha male in some status hierarchy changes your body language, your sex-hormone levels, and the smell of your sweat. Women home in on men with these traits [...]".
The idea is that if you're a core developer on a project, you will gain alpha-male status from it. It doesn't really matter what kind of project it is. So this is a way in which hackers can become irrestibly attractive to the other sex.
The essay is at http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/sexy.html
The idea is that if you're a core developer on a project, you will gain alpha-male status from it. It doesn't really matter what kind of project it is. So this is a way in which hackers can become irrestibly attractive to the other sex.
The essay is at http://catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/sexy.html
Quantify the advice you receive.
http://lilug.org/w/images/a/a2/Esr.jpg
Never ever, ever, ever seen the core developer for a project being an alpha male. The biggest douchebag ... ah, that's usually the alpha male.
First read "How To Win Friends and Influence People." If you apply the rules in the book and are at least an average looking guy you should not have any problems finding dates.
Add in some gym time and some pop culture into your daily RSS feeds and you're all set.
When you find a girl you like, slowly introduce your geek side. She'll think it's cute. Plus, nowadays everyone uses computers in one way or another so any geek tendencies are not going to be that big of a stretch to understand.
Really, it's not that hard.
Add in some gym time and some pop culture into your daily RSS feeds and you're all set.
When you find a girl you like, slowly introduce your geek side. She'll think it's cute. Plus, nowadays everyone uses computers in one way or another so any geek tendencies are not going to be that big of a stretch to understand.
Really, it's not that hard.
Important to realize he is using the term "geeks" to refer to smart people as a whole (not techies). After that the article makes a lot more sense.
No, I don't believe most women see a correlation between brains and money. I believe they see a correlation of displays of wealth and money. Duh.
Reminds me of a line from Revenge of the Nerds:
"Jocks only think about sports, nerds only think about sex. "
"Jocks only think about sports, nerds only think about sex. "
No.
Why is this comment at -1 while another comment with the same content posted a few minutes later is at 18?
I've seen this happen a couple of times and wondered about it. This is a particularly good example of it because there are so few comments, its likely that both are visible to most readers. "No" should universally get 0 because it adds as much to the discussion.
All I can offer is shalmanese is an old account with much karma and EliRivers is a new account with none. Also the higher scoring one was posted 4-5 minutes earlier.
All I can offer is shalmanese is an old account with much karma and EliRivers is a new account with none. Also the higher scoring one was posted 4-5 minutes earlier.
Usually "no" adds nothing to the discussion. However, in this context I read it as "Obviously, no. The post author clearly hasn't put much thought on what they wrote, so let's not even bother dissecting it". In a way, it is a constructive comment in the sense that it prevents fruitless discussion.
Of course one could just flag the post but that isn't as visible.
Of course one could just flag the post but that isn't as visible.
From here it looks like shalmanese posted first.
Because the guy who posted second down-voted the guy who posted first?
[deleted]
It's a weak correlation; there are plenty of poor geniuses. Displays of wealth probably work better than displays of smarts.