Dominance hierarchy is bullchit, fuking lol @ females

[LeoThedude]

No. It is completely normal to have this. What I am trying to understand is what the ranking system is. People talk about "social status" and the "dominance hierarchy" as important to women. I am asking how we can even define a person's social status since it varies from arena to arena. Bill Gates may be wealthy, for example. But he would have low status among men in an MMA arena or at the gym or at a conference of researchers...

We all have a hierarchy of preferences based on specific requirements we look for in mates. We seek people who meet those requirements as closely as we can and we settle after we don't expect to find "better" and/or become invested in the other person. The issue is that "social dominance" is widely considered to be extremely attractive to women and an important requirement for most women.

But I am saying it is highly contrived because you can appear socially dominant by remaining in your little arena and playing that up as representative of reality. If you pretend wealth is all that matters and you are very rich, you can make yourself seem very alpha if you selectively avoid any other arena of competition. Prime example of this is our President btw lol.

You're way overthinking chit brah, it's gonna wind up giving you cancer staying in such a mental state. You need to go out and find a hobby, preferably one that's outside that allows you to interact with other people.

[wincel]

Your mistake is thinking there is only one path to dominance and only one aspect of society/the world to dominate.

The point is you can't be dominant at them all, and all some bro has to do is convince your sloot that some arena he is good in matters, and your status is deemed beta immediately. Probably why so many sloots get unhappy in marriages and eventually start comparing their husbands.

[seanb1979]

The point is you can't be dominant at them all, and all some bro has to do is convince your sloot that some arena he is good in matters, and your status is deemed beta immediately.

Of course you can't. You only need to rise up in *one* thing these days. In such a connected society specialization is everything. You also don't need to be the best at anything to be successful. You just need to be better than most.

[TappingTheZen]

No. It is completely normal to have this. What I am trying to understand is what the ranking system is. People talk about "social status" and the "dominance hierarchy" as important to women. I am asking how we can even define a person's social status since it varies from arena to arena. Bill Gates may be wealthy, for example. But he would have low status among men in an MMA arena or at the gym or at a conference of researchers...

We all have a hierarchy of preferences based on specific requirements we look for in mates. We seek people who meet those requirements as closely as we can and we settle after we don't expect to find "better" and/or become invested in the other person. The issue is that "social dominance" is widely considered to be extremely attractive to women and an important requirement for most women.

But I am saying it is highly contrived because you can appear socially dominant by remaining in your little arena and playing that up as representative of reality. If you pretend wealth is all that matters and you are very rich, you can make yourself seem very alpha if you selectively avoid any other arena of competition. Prime example of this is our President btw lol.

I suppose sloots just choose whoever seems dominant in arenas they are interested in and communities of which they are a part. It still feels so contrived and pointless to try to win that competition. Because that hierarchy exists mostly in the mind of the female evaluating you. You can objectively try to improve your wealth to get gold diggers or your knowledge to get brain diggers or your fame to get fame diggers or whatever else to get whatever other type of girl. But it's so contrived. We are like peacocks trying to 1up each other on displays.

It's this weird thing called 'personal preference'

Each woman will judge what she deems an important 'arena' based on her preferences.

Very strange i know for people to have personal preferences, but such is life.

[jeshelton]

No. I'll brag about not playing anymore. This game is fuking stupid. I'm done trying to establish myself on some illusory hierarchy. I am done hoping to impress some female. Fuk this. Just gonna spend the remainder of my life rotting. Fuk the "hierarchy". So much of life revolves around trying to fuking 1up people in some bullchit competition for "dominance" when you can always be overthrown simply by setting foot into a new arena.

Society influences and shapes women into thinking certain arenas are important and it becomes so. It's a giant chitshow and I am done. I don't need wealth. I just need enough for what I want, and it's not much. I don't need to be jacked. I don't need to be smart. I don't need to be anything. I just need food, water, and a place to fuking sleep safely. That's literally it. The hierarchy can lick my balls.

You sound like a lot of fun to be around brah. This aura radiates towards women and sucks them in, I don't know how you've stayed single so long.

I can remember this phase from when I was 15. It will pass.

[JonV10]

No. I'll brag about not playing anymore. This game is fuking stupid. I'm done trying to establish myself on some illusory hierarchy. I am done hoping to impress some female. Fuk this. Just gonna spend the remainder of my life rotting. Fuk the "hierarchy". So much of life revolves around trying to fuking 1up people in some bullchit competition for "dominance" when you can always be overthrown simply by setting foot into a new arena.

Society influences and shapes women into thinking certain arenas are important and it becomes so. It's a giant chitshow and I am done. I don't need wealth. I just need enough for what I want, and it's not much. I don't need to be jacked. I don't need to be smart. I don't need to be anything. I just need food, water, and a place to fuking sleep safely. That's literally it. The hierarchy can lick my balls.



I think it's a primitive obsession by both genders because men used to historically fight in direct combat to establish dominance for mates. I am saying that entire structure is obsolete because anyone can kill anyone now and everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. It is ridiculous to try to judge who the "most dominant man" is. I gave a good example of 4 men who were each exceptional in their own arenas, but incompetent in the others'. Who is at the top of the hierarchy?

Tf man... if I knew you irl I would slap you and beat some sense into you. Women are humans just like us men, they are attracted to certain things just like we are be it consciously or subconsciously. You are just overthinking this chit probably because you spend to much time alone, this is dangerous for you because you are so thoughtful. I've been there, being alone you begin to come out with ideas probably as cope. Thankfully I've realized this leads to a sad existence, I don't want that and it was on me to change. Put some effort, enjoy yourself and look for people you want to be with.

[JoeDelts]

If we're talking misc hierarchy:

Chad>all

[fcnz32]

But who was averages? Your argument is very flawed because you amounted the people in your example to a singular dominant trait. Arnold = physical power, Einstein = intellect, etc... But the real world doesn't work like that. Let me try and get on your level...

If Arnold looked exactly the same but had level 10 autism do you think he would attract others to the same level? No! Arnold also scores well in intellect, confidence, articulation, and several of whatever other traits you want to associate with "dominance" or attraction or whatever. So you see, putting both in the same room, Arnold doesn't have to be smarter than Einstein for his intellect to still count for something and still figure into his average rating. As I already pointed out, a zero in intellect WOULD severely hurt Arnold, but that's just not his case.

So if you want to keep being super cynical then it's more accurate to say that people are gauging your average rating and they do so unconsciously, and very imperfectly. It's not like we get some exact number in our head when we look at someone. This is to everyone's advantage as all we have to do is present ourselves in a way where our perceived (and situational) "average" isn't terrible in order to get some base level of respect. You don't have to go around beating everyone at everything. If we were watching Einstein and Bill Gates solve the same math problem and Einstein did it faster, would everyone now think that Bill Gates is dumb?? No!

I think competition can be a great thing, but I think today, we are too hung up on who wins and who loses.

Classic projection. YOU are hung up on who wins and who loses. Just worry about yourself and try to be as well-rounded as you can. Improve your strengths and your weaknesses and it will literally be enough, mathematically and statistically speaking. Or stay stagnant and overly cynical and rot. Your choice.

[wincel]

Tf man... if I knew you irl I would slap you and beat some sense into you. Women are humans just like us men, they are attracted to certain things just like we are be it consciously or subconsciously. You are just overthinking this chit probably because you spend to much time alone, this is dangerous for you because you are so thoughtful. I've been there, being alone you begin to come out with ideas probably as cope. Thankfully I've realized this leads to a sad existence, I don't want that and it was on me to change. Put some effort, enjoy yourself and look for people you want to be with.

That's the thing man. I don't think I want to be with people anymore lmao. It's like watching peacocks compete for who has the fanciest feathers.

[Better Unborn]

they'd pick stalin because the other 2 were just smart dweebs

[EarlA]

That's the thing man. I don't think I want to be with people anymore lmao. It's like watching peacocks compete for who has the fanciest feathers.

I thought you are an incel?

[wincel]

But who was averages? Your argument is very flawed because you amounted the people in your example to a singular dominant trait. Arnold = physical power, Einstein = intellect, etc... But the real world doesn't work like that. Let me try and get on your level...

If Arnold looked exactly the same but had level 10 autism do you think he would attract others to the same level? No! Arnold also scores well in intellect, confidence, articulation, and several of whatever other traits you want to associate with "dominance" or attraction or whatever. So you see, putting both in the same room, Arnold doesn't have to be smarter than Einstein for his intellect to still count for something and still figure into his average rating. As I already pointed out, a zero in intellect WOULD severely hurt Arnold, but that's just not his case.

So if you want to keep being super cynical then it's more accurate to say that people are gauging your average rating and they do so unconsciously, and very imperfectly. It's not like we get some exact number in our head when we look at someone. This is to everyone's advantage as all we have to do is present ourselves in a way where our perceived (and situational) "average" isn't terrible in order to get some base level of respect. You don't have to go around beating everyone at everything. If we were watching Einstein and Bill Gates solve the same math problem and Einstein did it faster, would everyone now think that Bill Gates is dumb?? No!




Classic projection. YOU are hung up on who wins and who loses. Just worry about yourself and try to be as well-rounded as you can. Improve your strengths and your weaknesses and it will literally be enough, mathematically and statistically speaking. Or stay stagnant and overly cynical and rot. Your choice.

I guess my question is who is the alpha in that lot? Because it seems like we can't even quantify an "average" to rank them.

[wincel]

I thought you are an incel?

I am...or was. I guess I am volcel now.

[TappingTheZen]

I guess my question is who is the alpha in that lot? Because it seems like we can't even quantify an "average" to rank them.

But it's not that simple because its subjective. So really, if you had 100 different girls, you would probably get a bunch of different answers as to whos cawk they would want most, and that's fine... why does this sit so badly with you?

[LikeAMachine]

It is such a millennial thing to, instead of getting better, go on the internet and complain.

[wincel]

But it's not that simple because its subjective. So really, if you had 100 different girls, you would probably get a bunch of different answers as to whos cawk they would want most, and that's fine... why does this sit so badly with you?

I just don't get it is all. It seems like there isn't a real practical hierarchy. There is just an illusory one we create via artifical systems. Take Einstein, for example. He was dominant because he happened across some important discoveries. But does that matter? Does competing for that matter? Bill Gates happens to have a lot of dollars which he obtained from creating a software company. Does that matter? Does any of this chit matter? We made it matter.

We all seem to agree these games are important, and it's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy that they become important since a lot of females will select you based on how you measure up in those arenas. But I am saying in reality, there is no hierarchy except in the mind of whatever sloot is evaluating you. In reality, you are just another lifeform with strengths and weaknesses.

I suppose the ultimate universal measure of success would be the number of offspring you spawned. But in that model, the most alpha people are like those IVF doctors who fraudulently impregnated hundreds of women with their sperm. In that model, those men are more alpha than Bill Gates or Einstein. Fuking lol. Seems hard to reconcile that with what we would normally label "alpha" or "dominant" on the hierarchy.

I just think we spend so much of our short lives constructing and playing these stupid games, and competing for status and a bigger slice of whatever pie without appreciating the slice we got or realizing how contrived the game is.

[spadelexus]

Here is how it works Op...

To aquire women you need at least one of these:

1. Looks
2. Money
3. Status

At the top of the food chain are guys with status. Then come guys with money, then guys with looks at the bottom.

An argument can be made that for sex, guys with money trump all...as they can simply buy pussy faster than high status/high looks level guys can "game" girls into bed.

However since most girls aren't pros this scenario sums it up best (although another argument can be made that for $1 billion dollars a guy can turn a nun out)...

Imagine a slightly above average 6/10 American girl who is a Phish head. She gets three invitations from three guys asking her out on a dinner date that will be followed by sex. The invitations are from:

1. 60 year old bald/fat billionaire
2. 9/10 GQ model
3. Trey Anastasio (the lead singer of phish who is also old/ugly as phuck)

Trey gets the date erry time. You can apply the same logic to famous athletes, movie stars, bosses etc...

Despite what gets tossed around many different forums including this one. The most attractive trait a man can have is the ability to lead, command attention, and get respect from other men.

An 8/10 male janitor isn't smashing the 8/10 secretary. Her 5/10 boss is.

So to answer your question: Stalin gets the girl.

[fcnz32]

I guess my question is who is the alpha in that lot? Because it seems like we can't even quantify an "average" to rank them.

Depends. Which computer is computing the average? Is it computer 1 who puts slightly more weight on physical appearance? Or computer 2 who puts slightly more weight on wealth and resources? Oh wait! Comp 1 was almost done computing, but then Arnold just said he has a beach house. Increase resource score! Comp 2 didn't notice at first but Einstein looks pretty cute behind that mustache! Increase physical rating! Comp 2 and Comp 1 have different criteria for cuteness? Wtf?! Arnold and Einstein keep talking and doing different things! Not letting comp 1 or comp 2 completely finish rating! Rating is dynamic, never fully arriving to a number. Keeps fluctuating, ahhh! Resulting scores aren't even fully comparable because algorithm is not the same! All we can feel is that numbers are fluctuating close to the same ranges! Step aside computer 1 and 2...you suck. Introducing human computers 3 to 7,534,589,256 to figure this out...

[Didlid]

Read the first part.

Here's some news OP: Different people have different taste. They'd go with whoever they found the most attractive.

[TappingTheZen]

I just don't get it is all. It seems like there isn't a real practical hierarchy. There is just an illusory one we create via artifical systems. Take Einstein, for example. He was dominant because he happened across some important discoveries. But does that matter? Does competing for that matter? Bill Gates happens to have a lot of dollars which he obtained from creating a software company. Does that matter? Does any of this chit matter? We made it matter.

We all seem to agree these games are important, and it's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy that they become important since a lot of females will select you based on how you measure up in those arenas. But I am saying in reality, there is no hierarchy except in the mind of whatever sloot is evaluating you. In reality, you are just another lifeform with strengths and weaknesses.

I suppose the ultimate universal measure of success would be the number of offspring you spawned. But in that model, the most alpha people are like those IVF doctors who fraudulently impregnated hundreds of women with their sperm. In that model, those men are more alpha than Bill Gates or Einstein. Fuking lol. Seems hard to reconcile that with what we would normally label "alpha" or "dominant" on the hierarchy.

I just think we spend so much of our short lives constructing and playing these stupid games, and competing for status and a bigger slice of whatever pie without appreciating the slice we got or realizing how contrived the game is.

Again you're thinking way too deeply into it.

As long as we have preferences, there will be some kind of illusionary 'hierarchy' because we will rank our potential mates accordingly, it's not a big deal.

Bro, just have fun, talk to women, don't have expectations and have confidence in yourself, otherwise you only run the risk of pushing yourself further into this unhealthy mindset and living a depressing life.

I'd also take spades advice with a pinch of salt, as y'know.. he was caught frauding and paying for sex.

[wincel]

Depends. Which computer is computing the average? Is it computer 1 who puts slightly more weight on physical appearance? Or computer 2 who puts slightly more weight on wealth and resources? Oh wait! Comp 1 was almost done computing, but then Arnold just said he has a beach house. Increase resource score! Comp 2 didn't notice at first but Einstein looks pretty cute behind that mustache! Increase physical rating! Comp 2 and Comp 1 have different criteria for cuteness? Wtf?! Arnold and Einstein keep talking and doing different things! Not letting comp 1 or comp 2 completely finish rating! Rating is dynamic, never fully arriving to a number. Keeps fluctuating, ahhh! Resulting scores aren't even fully comparable because algorithm is not the same! All we can feel is that numbers are fluctuating close to the same ranges! Step aside computer 1 and 2...you suck. Introducing human computers 3 to 7,534,589,256 to figure this out...

Comp 2 sloots on all of them, gets preggo, and then marries bill gates for the money. Then divorces him and enters into a les relationship with computer 3 is the real answer.

[wincel]

All of them are alpha in their own way. Having confidence, a will to power, passion for their work, and a fun energetic (or dark, even) personality. Things that make you stand out from people who don't want conflict, are willing to let people walk over them, who want to be average in all facets of life, etc.

Dude, go out and talk to women. Have fun with hobbies. Make a mark on the world. I see life is a competition, but it is a fun competition. Your mindset is what is the problem here, you aren't perceptive, intelligent, or special for having a chit attitude towards life.

We are all just apes on a rock going around a mediocre star. Our competitions are like the special olympics. All of our accomplishments mean dick.

[LoganBrown]

You need to take some fkin time to work on yourself dude.

Get out of this mindset and do the things you think all these other "Chads" do and quit sitting around complaining.

Guarantee you'd be happier if you just made an effort to change rather than complain to the boards

[severagee]

Brah you're taking this sh*t too seriously. Of course there's no linear scale of "dominance" where women all choose those at the top. But at the same time, some men simply are higher in status than others and therefore more attractive when only considering those qualities.

Say a woman is feeling like she's ready to start a family, who will she prefer, the young established dentist/doctor/veterinarian with his own practice, who's well-groomed and good with patients, or the fast-food worker who's struggling to make ends meet? This isn't saying the worker has no inherent worth, just that there are traits/qualities independent of personality that women find attractive. I mean you wouldn't want to date a hideous land whale right if you're a jacked bodybuilder that can do better right? Same with women. It's not some great crime for attractive women to have preferences.

You're going to drive yourself crazy if you keep diving into these incel theories trying to figure women out

[propreffered7]

Those are all good examples. It depends a little bit

Id say whoever is the best socially and can push that specific girls buttons from that point

[HoustonMiscer]

You think too much. Just do. Do him in the butt

[neuron]

I just don't get it is all. It seems like there isn't a real practical hierarchy. There is just an illusory one we create via artifical systems. Take Einstein, for example. He was dominant because he happened across some important discoveries. But does that matter? Does competing for that matter? Bill Gates happens to have a lot of dollars which he obtained from creating a software company. Does that matter? Does any of this chit matter? We made it matter.

We all seem to agree these games are important, and it's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy that they become important since a lot of females will select you based on how you measure up in those arenas. But I am saying in reality, there is no hierarchy except in the mind of whatever sloot is evaluating you. In reality, you are just another lifeform with strengths and weaknesses.

I suppose the ultimate universal measure of success would be the number of offspring you spawned. But in that model, the most alpha people are like those IVF doctors who fraudulently impregnated hundreds of women with their sperm. In that model, those men are more alpha than Bill Gates or Einstein. Fuking lol. Seems hard to reconcile that with what we would normally label "alpha" or "dominant" on the hierarchy.

I just think we spend so much of our short lives constructing and playing these stupid games, and competing for status and a bigger slice of whatever pie without appreciating the slice we got or realizing how contrived the game is.

Women will go for Arnold and Gates simultaneously because they both have money and status. It would be easier to go for Arnold because he has looks/muscles. No ones going to go for Einstein. He married his cousin.

[fcnz32]

Comp 2 sloots on all of them, gets preggo, and then marries bill gates for the money. Then divorces him and enters into a les relationship with computer 3 is the real answer.

Funny but NOPE. Sorry but you don't understand human computers like you think you do. I showed you your major argument flaw which you had no rebuttal for (average vs. singular traits) which if you are smart, should already have you second guessing your critical thinking skills in general. Please doubt yourself so that you can learn something new. I can relate to you because I am the type of person that can overthink things because i like to dig all the way down to the reality of things. So while that trait is commendable, i promise you your computing skills are terrible and simplistic. If you can accept that you have a false sense of awareness, because someone more aware than you told you so (don't like to brag but maybe this will trigger you positively), then there may still be hope for you to grow.

[wincel]

Funny but NOPE. Sorry but you don't understand human computers like you think you do. I showed you your major argument flaw which you had no rebuttal for (average vs. singular traits) which if you are smart, should already have you second guessing your critical thinking skills in general. Please doubt yourself so that you can learn something new. I can relate to you because I am the type of person that can overthink things because i like to dig all the way down to the reality of things. So while that trait is commendable, i promise you your computing skills are terrible and simplistic. If you can accept that you have a false sense of awareness, because someone more aware than you told you so (don't like to brag but maybe this will trigger you positively), then there may still be hope for you to grow.

I believe I addressed your point in post #47 and we are talking past each other. Each "computer" definitely has its own ranking algorithm at a given point in time even if it seems to be a bit fuzzy at times for them to rank people. They definitely choose a "best" guy. Well...some do. Some choose multiples lol. Anyway, that's kind of what I meant by this entire hierarchy exists mostly in the minds of sloots.

Regarding my critical thinking skills or lack thereof, I'll take your word for it brah.

[propreffered7]

I believe I addressed your point in post #47 and we are talking past each other. Each "computer" definitely has its own ranking algorithm at a given point in time. And that's kind of what I meant by this entire hierarchy exists mostly in the minds of males.

Fixed.

Look up "alpha male" for humans srs.. Science doesnt think it exists because of exactly what you said.

But some of it is definitely true. Women are attracted to certain traits

Again, i think someone who knows how to carry themselves, ask the right questions, push the right buttons at the right time would merk all of them

I would say einstein COULD use this best, but its certainly no guarantee he knows sociality as much as his logic