Ask them? "Excuse me sir, could you please list all the things that you're completely unaware of?" That'll work. Nonsense: you're not establishing - unsupported claims don't count. Oh right. Unsupported inane rambling in other words. In the immortal words of B. Bunny Esq. "What a maroon".
Right, and alpha cows probably don't feel subordinate either. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue. So betas are simplistic, which is why they don't realize their status? By that argument, in ancient times, "alphas" were subordinate to things like nature (i.e. without antibiotics, disease often "wins" and dominates) and were simply too ignorant to realize their own status. Thus they were really betas.
You thought I meant in terms of the cow leading the herd. In those terms the beta cows feel that they're betas, and alpha feels it's alpha. But, I meant that all cows have no idea they're beta to the ranchers. Even many dogs don't know they're betas to their owners, if the owner doesn't understand that he can't indulge the dog too much. Often they are, but they may just be too weak and cowardly to actually take the necessary steps to observe reality as is and face the consequential humility. That's an accurate observation, humans and their artificial constructs can't overcome nature.
Fair enough. But by the same argument there are far more alphas today (per your definition) than there ever have been, since we have far more control over nature today than we ever have.
Like what for example? Height? Ok: Since great emperors and other mass murderers tend to be short, and the minions chosen to enforce their edicts and muscle their enemies tend to be tall and strong, you would assign greater height and strength to "beta" males. Right? You did that, was the observation. I'm asking what you would say about doing that. So? The situation was a man unknown to his contemporaries, short and feeble, with no children, whom you appear to be willing to assign alpha status based on the anonymous influence of his ideas on future generations. Are you? ? So you are unable to identify either alpha status or high masculinity in real life examples. Yet you insist on a correlation, apparently on theoretical grounds. Now would be the time to present that theory. You need to identify masculinity in such a way that "high masculinity" makes sense as a term, and can be assigned to a man without knowing whether or not he was an alpha male. Then you describe "alpha" status without reference to any of that stuff you used to define "high masculinity". Then you set these two independently derived classifications side by side and demonstrate correlation.
Actually, I apologize, I should have only said the first statement was accurate. The rest may be accurate to some extent, depending on whom we were speaking of in the past. The fact is that another consequence of non-tribal based civilizations, beside feminization, is a forgetting and a rejection of nature. Nature is a reflection of the past, such civilization promotes a forgetting of the past. In a sense not only are people becoming subject to fewer and fewer alpha males, based on the ration of beta t alpha, and the state taking over as proxy, but in that they are losing control over their own nature a consequence of ignorance of it or rejecting it, making it so that they even without being led by a state or alpha males, they would still be slaves to nature. Yes, we understand the past where it doesn't concern humans better than before; such knowledge being encompassed in all the non-human sciences, and so through certain advanced technology we can control the elements like we never could be before, but nature is almost entirely indifferent to this, while our concern is as at least as focused on the effects of our own knowledge or lack of knowledge of ourselves as it on the outward world. The fact is, that men who actually take the time to understand there own nature and the nature of other men, are the most likely to be the one's actually in control.
Yes, height is one example, but as you then (sort of) allude to there is the affects of the Napoleon complex to factor in. Once technology reached a certain level the physical aspect lost a some of its importance, though certainly not all, and intellect, which was always extremely important for humans and their forerunners, became even more important. Male intellect is oriented towards innovation, female towards perpetuation, it stems from their separate reproductive roles as I explained earlier in this thread. That's a loaded question. Let me ask you a question: are you living in the first or third world? If his work was profound enough. (Though, it's not entirely clear to me if the profound work would need to have profound impact to, in a sense, designate him an alpha male after death, or if he may claim to be one even though his work hasn't yet, and yet may not, have any effect on society. But, it's really not important, a great intellect isn't concerned with labels such as that when applied to himself.) Most past philosophers over one hundred years past that are still being read have reached that status, and of course many we'll never hear of. It's more difficult with statesmen because it's harder to tell how much influence others had on him, and I'm far from an expert in historical statesmen. But, after reading my OP, it shouldn't surprise you when I say that I can actually give the name of very few modern alpha males. Peter Sloterdijt is one example. That's true. When it comes to apes or some primal men, one may see how a male who is large, skilled and not just intelligent, but with a masculine intelligence, is the one most likely to be the alpha. In modern day, it becomes more a matter of masculine intellect and courage than anything.
So an intellect that was oriented to sex with as many partners as possible - perpetuation - would be less masculine, and one that was oriented toward clothing design and the latest fashions - innovation - would be more masculine. Poetry is highly masculine, and herding cattle is for betas. It's becoming clearer now, this idea of yours. So the doing of philosophy is highly masculine, if one is universally read after death. That's comforting, for the dweebish and much-mocked social outcasts found haunting the halls of the average university philosophy department - posthumous alpha male status, while it carries none of the perks conventionally presumed to accrue to that most praised and envied of creatures the alpha male, is possibly better than nothing. Presumably this criterion of being universally read long after death for one's influential presentation of innovative and profound (i.e. masculine) thinking would carry into other fields - so we find, at the top of the alpha male pyramid, such pinnacles of influence as the author of the "Tale of Genji", the author of "Pride and Prejudice", and others of the same status. Yes. So we'll wait on that. Whenever you're ready.
Modern man is more in touch with nature than it has ever been. We have NEVER prioritized nature over our own survival. Never. Nowadays we are so rich by any objective standard that we can afford to prioritize nature over comfort, because our survival is no longer in question. In terms of our understanding of nature, our willingness to prioritize it over our comfort, and our acceptance of it into our lives in significant ways, we have never been more "in touch with nature." (Despite the voluntary choices people make to live in places where there isn't much in the way of nature.) Again, in terms of power of the individual man, we are getting more and more alpha males, not fewer. The definition of "alpha" has always been the highest ranking member of a community. With more and more communities people can be a part of (due to the ability to commute, the ability to fly, the ability to participate in on-line forums) there is a consequent increase in number of alpha males. (And females, but we'll ignore the opposite sex for now.) And again we are in a position where we are no longer slaves to nature. Indeed, we can even choose to prioritize nature over our own comforts, rather than accept whatever happens. The ozone layer, the climate, the Colorado River, the Amur tigers, the gray whale, the white rhinoceros, the mountain gorilla and the Przewalski's Horse would all tend to disagree with you. Agreed. And we have more people like that today than we have had in the past, due primarily to the benefits of education.
Natural man and woman are innate within the DNA. If the hair has a wave in it, we trace that to the DNA. But a major thing like personality of sexual differentiation is defined as the exception to the rule. It does not make sense, since that should imply very few things are based on the DNA including what we see in animals. Education is an external output that is not part of the DNA. This does not always lead to natural selection, like instinctive action, but rather it often leads to artificial selection, which makes men and women unnatural. For example, say your natural inclination was to be an artist. This is who you are inside and exists beyond anyone needing to tell you; inside and innate. Through education, and external influence, others decide you should be a lawyer. Although this is not innate, if you are smart enough to become a good lawyer, that does not mean this is now natural to you, no matter how good it looks on the surface. Monkey see and monkey do is not the same as an isolated monkey doing what is natural inside. Being the lawyer, may earn you a better living and have selective advantage in culture. But since art is your true nature, it will come up somewhere along the line since it is innate. It may come up as overcompensation where you begin to hate this externally, to avoid the conflict. To give up all the security of a lawyer, may require you hate art. Or one may have an obsession with art museums. The result over a larger scale is more unhappy people projecting and blaming each other. This results in social division. If each person was able do what came natural to them and earn a living, although diversity would exist, people would be happy without any need for compensation with petty conflict. If you are happy inside nagging stops. Young lovers do not nag the world because this is an innate state of inner connections. Social division is a good litmus test of unnatural induction into fake men and fake women who need fads to bury the discontent. This may sell more merchandise and make people need alternatives and outlets for their discontent, less they fall into depression. The next question is what do natural men and women look like? Form and function will coordinate and mesh like gears. When the gear do not mesh, there is more friction and less mechanical advantage for both.
The later in comparison to the former would perhaps be more masculine, but only if his designs were actually innovative. I know little of the long term history of the matter, but I'm almost certain that there has never been an innovative clothing designer in the last 100 years, whose designs caught on. But, of course there's no way of knowing how many innovative non-influential clothing designers there have been. Perhaps Jane Austin was more masculine than the average woman of her time.
The zipper, the wet suit, the pressure suit, the bikini, the sweatshirt, the pantsuit, velcro, a whole slew of fabrics, trousers and shirts tailored for women, even shoes mass produced for left and right feet separately almost make the century cut. By your criteria, she was an alpha male. We have gone from alpha males who were not alpha at any time in their lives or in their society (tribe) after death, to alpha males who were not males. Emily Dickinson, influential non-procreative innovator, alpha male.
