Alphas & Betas Exist

[Tony_1693]

Alpha is simply a word to describe a man or woman who defaults to taking the dominant role in social and professional situations. Alpha is a legitimate word with a legitimate definition. If you're denying that alphas and betas exist, then you're denying the existence of passive and dominant men/women in general. Of course these types exist and we all know that.

There's no reason to start dissecting the construct of alpha/beta into all of this theoretical minutia that nobody recognizes or really cares about. It's simply a word to describe something just as all words are used to describe something. Just use the word by its definition and call it a day.

If you ask someone what 2+2 is and they answer it as 5, then that's an indication that they're stupid, right? When you call someone stupid, is it a normal jerk reaction to dissect what stupidity is from every theoretical angle? "Oh well, 100 is the average IQ, but so and so has determined that IQ isn't an accurate measure of intelligence. We have to also consider his social intelligence and anxiety levels at the time in which he was asked this question... etc etc etc. " Does this mean that the person isn't stupid? Does this mean that stupidity doesn't exist? No, the person is still stupid regardless of how you dissect the definition or the origin of the word. We all know what the word stupid means and we all recognize that stupidity exist.

Everyone seems to have these alpha rules too. "True alphas abide by this or that, and if they don't, then they're not alpha." It's all bullshit. There's no generic cut out of what constitutes a domineering personality. There are many distinct personalities, and for that reason, domineering and assertive traits are showcased in different ways.

It's just mind boggling as to how many people simply deny the existence of dominant and passive men/women.

[ASEXY]

Yeah, it's kinda ridiculous how some people, especially users on here, try to deny that alphas and betas exist. It may be a "social construct" but it still exists even though there are no written rules and whether people like it or not, and the same thing is true about other topics as well. *Shrugs* www.istockphoto.com/.../man-shrugs-shoulders-gm124579998-17490025

[Jayson101]

The whole POINT is that it's a social construct! Leftist academics are like "this is a social construct so it's not real" ... how does something being a social construct delegitimize it? Or make it just terrible? A house is a social construct and it keeps the rain out

[ASEXY]

@Jayson101 Houses are tangible, and concepts like alpha and beta are intangible but still exist and function within society. Anything being a social construct doesn't delegitimize it or make it terrible.

[Aguamarina]

Agreed.

"If you ask someone what 2+2 is and they answer it as 5, then that's an indication that they're stupid, right?"

I literally laughed after reading that. Lmao.

[HamAndCheese]

Perhaps the Ministry of Truth just had its way.

[Levin]

This is a very normative cultural American thing, where 'domineering' gets conflated with 'assertive', and it's considered even a good thing to be domineering. It's an egoistic thing, it proves that you have the biggest balls. However, from my perspective, if you're trying to be domineering, you're just actually being a dick, you're not considering the other person in your interactions, they're just a pawn in your ego games. And it likely does stem from some form of insecurity, maybe of not being good enough, fear of being dominated yourself, etc. Contented people don't feel the need to harm others. That shouldn't be confused with passivity, one should always be active in one's endeavours and be honest, and do what one wants to do in a given situation. That's more about assertiveness.

With regard to alpha and beta, I do think it is valid. People think things are invalid when they're not precise (scientific thinking), however, actually, it's still accurate, though not precise. I think it's more to do with your state of consciousness in a given moment. People may be in a lower state of consciousness in a given social situation. Negative thoughts, fears, anxieties may predominate. On the other hand, one may get that sense of flow, lightness, even invincibility, when one is 'rocking' a given situation. That's more alphaness. Or it may indeed be some of the other obscure names given.

The whole stupidity from this whole thing comes from pigeonholing other people. To give a personal example, I'll fully admit that certain situations make me feel uncomfortable, on the other hand, I rock others. Let's not forget what Rudolf Steiner says about the purpose of life in general. Where those kind of lower states of consciousness exist in a person in a given situation, they indicate places where the ego requires some work yet for improvement, then maybe one day, mastery for take place. So we're all working on ourselves in many facets of our lives. If you can project this wonderful masterful image on an interpersonal and public level, as many can; but personally, you're falling apart, then yeah, that proves my point.

If you say to me, yeah, I'm the fucking man! Then you're just in fucking denial. Or you're a sociopath. Or you're trying too hard, which indicates that you're not as wonderful as you think you are. Please give all this 'alphaness' to exercise your ego a fucking break. Life is clever. It will find a way to fuck you over if you're not being honest with yoursel

[HotJealousy]

I agree there are definitely people who are naturally either dominant or passive, however I wouldn't say you're either one or the other, I'd say it changed depending on the situation.

For example I'm dyslexic so put me in a story writing class and I'll be silent, I'll take a passive role as I know that writing is a weakness of mine, however as I'm a huge geek, sit me infront of a computer and I'll be dominant and tell people what to do because I know that computers and code are my strong point.

I'd say that alpha vs beta is more of a hierachy which is upheld with traits such as ability and confidence and when you are in a group where you deem your skills to be sufficient enough to be at the top of the hierachy then you'll take the dominant role. I'd say the generic alpha male meerly has more confidence and therefore places themselves higher up the hierachy depsite their lack of ability and a passive male will underestimate their ability and place themselves lower down the hierachy.

[Water_Bottle]

I feel like this is an attempt at social commentary made by a person who has never read a Sociology or Psychology book in their lives. We have a word for what you're defining which is Charisma. Long before you were born humans knew about charisma and thus your new terminology has no value because you're not describing anything new and your descriptions are exactly the same thing.

Why do people want to rebrand everything so that their little YOLO brains can wrap around them?

"There's no reason to start dissecting the construct of alpha/beta into all of this theoretical minutia that nobody recognizes or really cares about."

And ironically you've dissected basic Charisma, again an idea significantly older than your existence, into a construct of alpha/beta as theoretical minutia picking apart a general idea that really doesn't require your help.

Even more ironically you state the following:

"If you ask someone what 2+2 is and they answer it as 5, then that's an indication that they're stupid, right? When you call someone stupid, is it a normal jerk reaction to dissect what stupidity is from every theoretical angle?"

And yet you've gone about talking about Charisma without once using the word charisma because you've decided 1 + 1 = 3 in which there is no founding concept. It's gibberish at best. I don't know understand how you could talk about proof of stupidity while also proving yourself obscenely ignorant.

Wild.

[Tony_1693]

It's a legitimate word with a legitimate definition. I use the word appropriately by its legitimate definition and feel there should be no stigma attached to it.
https://i.imgur.com/JyZ5kXz.jpg

Charisma has nothing to do with dominance.
https://i.imgur.com/qebq4WK.jpg

I've never studied sociology or psychology past introductory courses to fulfill my general ed requirements. I'm an engineer and never claimed to have any extensive foundational knowledge. Most people don't have extensive knowledge of sociology of psychology. That's my point. Lets use the word by its very definition and call it a day.

What I used what was called an analogy which is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

__

If you have to call someone stupid and insult them in an attempt to validate your point, then that usually means that you really don't have much of an argument at all.

[freakyzeaky]

Not everyone can be leaders and leaders are in the small minority. Without followers, there would be no leaders and both have their pros and cons. Alphas are also very polarizing. Donald Trump is an alpha and he is as polarizing they come. Not necessarily a bad thing, but just explains why alphas get their fair share of haters.

I don't put a lot of stock in it because everyone has varying degrees of traits that make up alphas and betas. The same goes for masculinity and femininity. A woman can be aggressive, but that does that make her masculine? A man can be kind, gentle, empathizing, peaceful, but does that make him feminine? One minute man might apologize to his wife for something he did that was wrong and try to improve and in the next stand up to her, put her in her place, and then screw her brains out after they make up.

Nothing is as black and white.

[Gaspuschen]

I agree much more with you than this sham. People are a lot more multi dimensional than this mytake accounts for and no one is entirely dominant or submissive

[btbc92]

"Alpha is a legitimate word with a legitimate definition. If you're denying that alphas and betas exist, then you're denying the existence of passive and dominant men/women in general. Of course these types exist and we all know that." Load of bull. If you want to resort to stereotypes and do nothing meaningful for your life, then your wasting your time. Immature people believe in this crap and that's why they are so unsuccessful in life. Successful people ain't worried about who's alpha and who's beta! Look at Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, etc. They don't look nor behave anything like what you are describing, but they are successful. Running businesses, expanding and making historic changes.

This whole myTake is full of arrogance and ignorance. Disappointing.

[Tony_1693]

There's no arrogance in this at all lol. I don't even use the terms in my real life at all. I just see it on gag nonstop and thought it would be a good discussion.

[Tony_1693]

Steve Jobs was very alpha in my opinion. I've read a lot about him. Whole book on him that's pretty interesting.

[btbc92]

That's not Alpha or any of that crap. It is people who decided to not be like the norm and focus on building their lives while innovating others. Anybody can do that. But they need the right kind of support, education, and guidance. They have to have the desire, motivational push, and dedication besides the right plans and course of actions to implement those goals into actions.

[btbc92]

Everybody is capable of doing it. No matter how long it takes, success doesn't have a time limit. It's whether or not you choose to do it, or get left behind.

[btbc92]

There are plenty of people who are willing to teach you and guide you through life to help you succeed. If one chose not to take it then that is that person's problem. Not the rest of the world to baby sit.

[Tony_1693]

By the standard and legitimate definition, Steve Jobs was the epitome of it. I'm not really looking for life advice here lol. My point of this take is that people should just use the terms by their definition. I have mentors in my personal life and I'm pretty well off and successful, but that's not the point of my take.

[btbc92]

People shouldn't use it at all. We're not animals. We're human beings with feelings and emotions. With rationality of the knowledge that is either common or supernatural. It doesn't matter. Life doesn't revolved around it. It's people who want's to feel like they belong somewhere or wants to tear others down like a pyramid scheme to separate people. Everybody is cut from the same cloth and eventually head towards the same direction: death. People using it period is where my issue lay at.

[Tony_1693]

People can use the word if they want. Like I said, it's a legitimate word with a legitimate definition. I just don't see it as offensive at all. It's just a word to describe a social dynamic. It's just a word lol.

[btbc92]

Social dynamics doesn't exist. It's constructs designed to keep certain people in line. Your right people can use it if they want. But it says a whole lot about who they are about. That's the point I'm making.

[Tony_1693]

It's a word to describe something. That's all it comes down to. It has a legitimate definition.

[btbc92]

Doesn't matter if it is. Doesn't benefit people. Only waste time. While people got to live.

[Tony_1693]

Im not talking about whether or not it benefits people in this take. I'm simply acknowledging that it's a word with a legitimate definition and people should use the word by its definition and call it a day.

[btbc92]

And like I said, for what? Nobody cares about that. That's what you have to realize. If people don't get the definition, they got the internet.

[Tony_1693]

I don't think there should be a stigma. If I'm trying to describe something that describes alpha or beta behavior, then I'm just going to use the word by its definition. I don't need a discussion about wolves everytime I use the word appropriately. That's the point of my take. It's a legitimate word.

[Anon-ymous1]

I would only say that you don't actually know the people you listed, and as such, you don't really know what they're like behind the scenes-- you only know their public personae. They are almost certainly alphas in their own way. You think they got to where they are in life by being nice to people? Unlikely.

[btbc92]

@Anon-ymous1 The whole point I am stating is that the terms alpha male and beta male is crap. Period. It doesn't matter in real life. It shouldn't be done at all. They are who they are and that's that. No need for labels. It'simmaturity.

[btbc92]

I've listed these people because outside people think they have to be the definition of that garbage to get where they are. They're just people. Like the rest of us. That's it.

[Anon-ymous1]

If you say so.

[88flowers]

He's right though. There are Alphas and Betas. They exist in the entire animal kingdom, including humans. You may not like it, girlie... but it's real. The laws of nature don't end where humans begin.

[Anon-ymous1]

@88flowers What you said.

[btbc92]

@88flowers We are not animals. You want to live by the social normalcy that's you. I know better than that. I don't follow the world. That's how a lot of people are unsuccessful.

[FýrdracaDócincel]

Y'know, I'm just gonna say it.

I've noticed a bit of a difference in how you go about this whole thing NOW as opposed to back on your Chico/Banana account.

Back then you seemed a little quick to say "this is what constitutes for that, and if you don't fit this model EXACTLY, then you're a pussy and inferior." In fact, I lost a good bit of respect for you at the time because of that.

But since you got back, I noticed you're backing off from that mindset and focusing more on how different kinds of people can show those traits in their own ways.

I didn't think that was necessary to say at first but this really made me want to say I'm liking what I see here.

[Tony_1693]

I don't ever really remember that at all tbh. Any specific scenarios?

[FýrdracaDócincel]

'fraid not. That statement was made based on the overall vibe I got/get from you. Though I do remember you quickly resorting to "pussy" and "genetically inferior." Granted, you were talking about more feminine guys, but your point was the same.. the guy in question was extremely "beta."

Now you just seem more level-headed. I don't think I've ever seen you legitimately pissed this time around, whereas last time you were more fiery.

[dizmuhjam]

Well I agree. Its kinda sad that this has to be discussed since its so logic and makes so much sense that its weird when people argue and deny it.

It makes as much sense as if someone says "Humans need air to breathe" and then there is always this one shithead that tries to argue "wait thats wrong" while its a simple fact we're talking about.

[Tony_1693]

My exact thoughts.

[karahiri]

the problem here is that no one calls a passive woman "beta woman". Alpha and beta are terms to exultate and insult men, primarily. That is why I have problems with the word. Men and women use it to generally put other men down. What's the point in that? If everyone was the dominant type, nothing would ever get done. Nobody denies the existence of dominant people, passive people, and all the other types in between- but people can refuse to acknowledge terminology that seems to be harmful to a group of people.

[Bandit74]

I just want to start by saying, I am mostly fine with people using the terms alpha/beta to describe people and have even used those terms myself on a few occasions.

That being said, I have never seen anyone actually deny the existence of dominant or passive people. They are just against labeling everyone as either an alpha or a beta.

Most people are somewhere in the middle and won't be a perfect embodiment of an alpha or beta so to try to put people into one of those two categories generally won't work.

"There's no generic cut out of what constitutes a domineering personality."

Thats the other issue.
Since there isn't exactly a high authority that determines what specifically qualifies a person as alpha/beta it will often mean different things to different people.
So when someone says "True alphas abide by this or that, and if they don't, then they're not alpha." you can't really objectively say they are wrong.

[Tony_1693]

Well, I can object to the fact that people are very different from one another and showcased dominance is going to be displayed in different ways because of this. You can't disqualify what an alpha or beta isn't on an absolute level by certain showcased characteristics in certain individuals. You can't say that "True alphas are all strong and silent types because it's just false.

Alpha has a legitimate definition and my whole argument is that we should use the word by its legitimate definition and call it a day.

[Tony_1693]

"Alpha is simply a word to describe a man or woman who defaults to taking the dominant role in social and professional situations."

[Bandit74]

Doesn't that make it very context specific?

"Alpha has a legitimate definition and my whole argument is that we should use the word by its legitimate definition and call it a day"

A definition isn't necessarily set in stone, or meant to tell people how they "should" use the word. It is just documenting the different ways a word is typically used by people at that time. However, if enough people start using a word differently then the definition will be changed accordingly.

A lot of people assosiate the term with being a leader so when they say someone isn't a "true alpha" I think they are saying that that regardless of how dominant they are, that person is not the type of person who would gain their respect or support.

[Tony_1693]

That's deviating away from what it an alpha is by definition and that's my point of the argument. Just use the word by its definition. The definition still stands regardless of the context of a scenario.

[Bandit74]

But very few if any people are going to be the dominant person in all situations. So doesn't whether or not a person is an alpha depend on the situation and who they are surrounded by?

[Tony_1693]

Don't you know people are naturally passive and naturally dominant? I understand that people are multi dimensional in their personalities but there are still some people who you would generally consider dominant and submissive right?

[Bandit74]

In my experience, most people are somewhere in the middle, but yes there are some who are far enough on either extreme that I could fairly describe them as either dominant or passive. However, even the people who I would describe as generally being dominant have been passive when around people who have more authority than they do.

And if we are going to follow your suggestion of just using the dictionary definition, Oxford does seem to imply that whether or not a person is "alpha" depends on context.

"Denoting a person who has a dominant role or position **within a particular sphere**"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/alpha

[Tony_1693]

Sure, but the definition itself isn't changing. You can't just say that true alphas are strong silent types when literally no definition describes alpha to be that. An alpha can be a strong silent type but it's not only to be of that characteristic alone. It can be showcased in many different ways for everyone has different personalities.

There are type-A personalities that are naturally dominant and will naturally assume the dominant role. There are other men who are naturally passive and will naturally assume that passive role. Sure that varies from situation to situation, but to suggest that they aren't leaning on one side of the fence is asinine.

[Tony_1693]

I've witnessed both sides of the spectrum having been in the Marine Corps and in Undergraduate Engineering. There were more alphas in the Marine Corps. There were more betas in undergrad engineering.

[greycadillacs]

When any boy starts talking about how "alpha" he is, that's annoying. There was a phase this site went through when being alpha was an obsession. Maybe it's still going on, I haven't been on here lately. But yes, there are certainly dominant and passive personalities that will reveal themselves in social and other situations.

[Tony_1693]

Yeah, I still see it all the time. That's why I made the take tbh. Any guy who guys on and on about how alpha he is would get annoying. I agree

[frozenhorizon]

I think the reason people deny it is because there are not two distinct categories that people fall into in this sense. There are lots of different qualities that make someone a "leader" or not, that people try to associate with "alpha" or "beta", yet very few people actually perfectly fit either of those sets of traits. Most people including guys have a mix of the traits depending on the situation, their mood, etc., so they check some of the boxes and not others. And different people have different quirks about which boxes their personality checks. It's not like someone is always passive or active. And most people are not 100% confident or unconfident either. It varies by situation. Thus I disagree with you, it's not very useful to describe a whole person as alpha or beta. Contextually it can make sense to describe a certain action though. Like "man that was so alpha of u" or something. But as a person I don't think anyone is really one or the other.

[frozenhorizon]

Feeling like u might be trollin though, lol

[frozenhorizon]

I mean I also would only say "man that was alpha af" ironically, because it's funny

[TerraRane]

Hahahahaha nope! The guy who researched this retracted everything when he realised the alphas and betas he recorded in the wild were just parents and children.
There is literally no scientific backing which can be duplicated.
(Unless of course you are also implying Alpha and Beta are fluid titles that can change over time. If not, there is research specifically against that)

[Tony_1693]

Do you think it's rational to sit back and start dissecting the very origin of the word into this theoretical minutia? It's just a word to describe behavior within a social dynamic. Of course there is fluidity in a sense but some people generally lean towards one side or the other. My point is tonjuse use the word by its legitimate definition and call it a day.

[LegateLanius]

People are dominant and submissive in varying situations. You my take fails to consider that despite not wanting to "dissect into minutia" that your way of thinking in this is wrong. No one has ever existed that is completely dominant or submissive in their life. Your IQ argument has no basis in fact judging a fish by how it can climb a tree is asinine. IQ means nothing. If it did, entire countries would be considered mentally challenged. Alpha has no standardized definition except for the Greek letter and also the beginning. Beta is just another Greek letter. Those types do not exist and no one is ever completely polarized.

[ChronicThinker]

I mean, yes, they do. It's just nature. Whether you want to label it "alpha and beta", "weak and strong", "passive and dominant" it exists.

[Tony_1693]

My point exactly.

[ChronicThinker]

Indeed, and well put it was.

[amel23]

I think alphas r too busy busting their ass off and proving their worth to themelves than to go spending time classifying themselves they r confident and they do what they have to do and don't just look at others like followers they just think about themselves and how could they improve the unlimited power within them and unleaching it more than rising their confidence on how others r its more about war within urself that shines from the outside

[smølf]

Confident is a feel created by positive experience. Alpha and dominant is not the same.
A criminal bastard can be a dominant ass whole, without being an Alpha.

Alpha is not being dominant, but being the natural born leader.

If you can lead and make people follow your lead, then you are an Alpha, otherwise you are only inspiring to be one.

[Idazle34]

for writers in a writing community they do exist. The alpha is known to be the authors go to person when writing a novel or book. They help the author throughout the entire writing process, telling them how to improve in one area, or another, also giving the author ideas on how to make the plot better. Betas come in after the novel or book is finished giving new input on the story and how it can be improved.

[InfoBot]

I agree. There are alpha personalities. There is a measure of personality types in the workplace that uses four colours. Red is for the dominant employees, the leaders. Blue is for technical people. Yellow and green were for happy people and tree huggers (or similar). The alpha role would be the red personality. This is commonly used in team building type events to give people an understanding of where they fit and how all personality types contribute to balance.

[thatguywhere]

http://digg.com/video/alpha-male-myth

[Tony_1693]

I'm not going to read that. It's your job to formulate an argument to oppose me with.

[thatguywhere]

This distinction is is often based on observations among other social animals (such as chimpanzees and wolves) paints a very black and white picture of masculinity. Not only does it greatly simplify the multi-dimensionality of masculinity, and grossly underestimate what a man is capable of becoming, but it also doesn’t even get at the heart of what is really attractive to women. Simply basing someone on one trait doesn't define them. For example, lets say you always chose someone in a group to lead a tale of adventure in dnd you would consider him "alpha" because he is directing the group. But lets say that besides that one thing, he actually doesn't assert his dominance in any other thing. Is he Alpha or beta? The answer is neither and these stereotypes are ruining people

[Tony_1693]

I'm not talking about chimpanzees or wolves here though. I'm talking about humans who are naturally dominant or naturally passive. There are certainly men out there who are naturally dominant and men who are naturally passive.

"There's no reason to start dissecting the construct of alpha/beta into all of this theoretical minutia that nobody recognizes or really cares about. It's simply a word to describe something just as all words are used to describe something."

[Tony_1693]

"these stereotypes are ruining people "

How?

[thatguywhere]

oh really?
Alpha/Beta calling of men is only going to get people thinking bad about themselves. A person who is dominant in one aspect of their life can easily be submissive in another. We are all multi dimensional beings and this type of stereotyping pisses me off

[Tony_1693]

Well, that's life. Reality and evoke insecurities sometimes. If using the term alpha/beta literally ruins someone, then they need to develop thicker skin. People are of course multi-dimensional within their personality and I preach this all the time. That still doesn't mean that there are not naturally dominant or naturally passive people.

[Tony_1693]

Reality will* evoke insecurities sometimes.

[thatguywhere]

if you think that there are naturally dominant or passive people then why use the term alpha or beta at all? It is misleading. The term beta sounds like an insult when you really mean passive. In that regard I agree that there are passive and dominant people but to call someone beta sounds like you are calling them a "pussy" or a loser.

[Tony_1693]

Not really. I rather use the term alpha or beta because it simply illustrates a more detailed definition.

"Alpha is simply a word to describe a man or woman who defaults to taking the dominant role in social and professional situations. Alpha is a legitimate word with a legitimate definition."

[Tony_1693]

They can take it how they want. My argument is that people should use the term by its definition and call it a day. A word so petty shouldn't trigger so many people.

[thatguywhere]

ok. then i accept the way you are using that word. I just thought it was insulting to people. Thank you

[Anonymous]

"Alpha is a legitimate word with a legitimate definition. "

Says the guy with fuck all knowledge of anthropology.

You're like an evolution denier, trying to use scientific terms because "we all know what theory means" when in fact you're speaking from a position of total ignorance.

[Tony_1693]

w0t?

[Opinion Owner]

That's not helping your case.

[Tony_1693]

Never claimed to be some anthropology expert. This opinion seems off base and that's why I was questioning it

[Opinion Owner]

Pick up a text book and learn something then.

[Tony_1693]

Did you want to have a constructive debate or just tell condescendingly tell me to read a book? You have to articulate your way so that I understand you. I'm not stupid, but you're not giving me much.

My point is that we use the word by definition and cal it a day. Nothing more than that. I don't feel there should be such a stigma to using a word to describe behavior in a social dynamic.

[Opinion Owner]

Fine - I'll put this as bascially as I can. The terms Alpha and Beta were not invented by Pick Up artists. They have an actual meaning. And it's not the one you (and people like you) insist on trying to fit to it.

It doesn't mean being a man or being a leader or not being a cuckold. It does not mean someone who "defaults to taking the dominant role in social and professional situations". That is not what an Alpha is or what the term means.

You cannot just start appropriating terms because you feel like it.

People who are ignorant of science don't get to talk about science subjects using their own terminology.
People who are ignorant of anthropology (the study of humans and their societies) don't get to talk about humans and social structures using their own terminology.

Do you get it now?

If you want to talk about natural born leaders or whatever, you should not use a term which has a different distinct definite meaning.

The ethology of the word Alpha has no bearing on humans.

[Tony_1693]

https://i.imgur.com/u2lGch1.jpg

"There's no reason to start dissecting the construct of alpha/beta into all of this theoretical minutia that nobody recognizes or really cares about. It's simply a word to describe something just as all words are used to describe something. Just use the word by its definition and call it a day."

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah - you didn't bother even trying to understand my point - just like i thought, which is why trying to discuss anything with wilfully ignorant people like you is a waste of time.

Slang terms (and that's what you're basically using here) are not a basis on which to have a scientific discussion. WORDS MEAN SOMETHING.

I wouldn't listen to a religious nut try to talk about evolution using words like "kinds" and "macroevolution" and I certainly won't listen to an ignorant ass like you try to tell us all what Alpha and Beta humans are. You're just too damn dumb to even know how dumb you sound.

[Opinion Owner]

Or to put it another way, since comprehension is not your strong suit -
" theoretical minutia that nobody recognizes or really cares about. "

WRONG. People do recognise and care about it, which is why so many people say you're talking out of your ass when you use those terms. Just because you're profoundly ignorant, don't make the mistake of assuming everyone else is.

"Just use the word by its definition "
That is precisely what we're doing - the word has a definition. An actual strict scientific term. Not the bullshit loose terminology co-opted by Pick Up Artists and their ignorant followers like yourself.

[Tony_1693]

I'm not referencing it to pickup artists at all lmao. I'm just using the word by its literal definition. Most people don't care to recognize the theoretical science surrounding the origin of the word. You're right, I'm not educated in anthropology or anything related to that. I'm an engineer. Polar opposite, right?

[Tony_1693]

"If you ask someone what 2+2 is and they answer it as 5, then that's an indication that they're stupid, right? When you call someone stupid, is it a normal jerk reaction to dissect what stupidity is from every theoretical angle? "Oh well, 100 is the average IQ, but so and so has determined that IQ isn't an accurate measure of intelligence. We have to also consider his social intelligence and anxiety levels at the time in which he was asked this question... etc etc etc. " Does this mean that the person isn't stupid? Does this mean that stupidity doesn't exist? No, the person is still stupid regardless of how you dissect the definition or the origin of the word. We all know what the word stupid means and we all recognize that stupidity exist."

[88flowers]

Tony, looks like you've triggered a male feminist.

[Opinion Owner]

@88flowers No, I'm staunchly anti-feminist. I just happen to like accuracy and I call out bullshit when I see it.

[Tony_1693]

Well then respond to everything I just threw at you instead of just dismissing it as bullshit.

[Opinion Owner]

No ass hole, I'm the educated one. You pick up a fucking book.

[Tony_1693]

I've picked up plenty. The only difference is that I studied mathematics, physics, and engineering. I don't need to be a sociology/psychology/anthropology expert to possess common sense. Name calling though? You're 36-45 years old lol.

[Opinion Owner]

If I started talking bullshit about engineering and insisting I didn't need to be educated in it because I was using common sense, you'd rightly call me out on it for being an ignorant dick.

In this case, you're the asshole who admits you've never once studied the relevant subjects, and holding your cloak of wilful ignorance ever tighter as someone points out what a complete and utter ASS you are being.

[Tony_1693]

Well, engineering is an acquired skill. However, I live my daily life and I'm perceptive of my surroundings. That's why I relate it to common sense.

[Opinion Owner]

You are wilfully ignorant on a subject and pontificating on the Internet about that subject.

That's really common too.

[Tony_1693]

Most people don't have extensive knowledge of anthropology, sociology, or psychology. That's my point.

[Tony_1693]

Just use the word by its definition.

[Opinion Owner]

No. Use the word as it applies to the subject you're discussing. And stop trying to claim something is a true in a subject that by your own God damn admission, you know nothing about.

[Tony_1693]

The dictionary told me this is what the word means, so I'm going to trust the dictionary over your philosophical theories. I don't think it's necessary to dissect a basic word with a basic definition into all this theoretical minutia