This is the only important point: unless sexual ac...

2009-11-25T13:26:18.976-05:00

This is the only important point: unless sexual access to females is randomly distributed in the male population, my case stands. Everything after that is just having fun, like trying to succeed where Wittgenstein failed and defining a "game".

So with the understanding that my running points about status seeking behaviors and arms races stand, here I go.

Inbreeding Inbreeding doesn't damage genes. In fact, quite the contrary. It lowers phenotypic quality because of matching recessives, but since it also removes unhealthy recessives those children that do survive are relatively pure genetically. In any case, once you start outbreeding the differences become moot.

Alpha husbands. As someone who does not take Roissy's worldview as normative (quite the contrary), I freely admit and in fact champion the monogamous side of human nature. I want to see those traits that make people husbands valued highly. I want to see those traits that lead to good quality sperm discounted.

I don't disagree with you here. Rather, my point is that the more emphasis put on the "alpha male" instead of "good husband" route, the more energy that gets wasted in the arms race over positional goods like social status and sexual access to females.

My objection was more along the lines of "you keep...

2009-11-25T12:58:23.318-05:00

My objection was more along the lines of "you keep commenting on alpha males but women have different views on an ideal man."

You have run into exactly the problem I thought you would. In past times you'd be entirely right, however 100-400 years past an alpha was a male born into a high-ranking family. Genetic goodness was actually being bred out by inbreeding among the socially higher-up families.

"Better genes" just pushes the problem back to what is "better"? If we take the common idea of tall, chiselled, strong then while that may appeal to certain base parts of women's brains, however when it comes to selecting partners and fathers the alpha male in that situation tends to be more intelligent or at least wealthy. Few women want to work two jobs to keep their trophy husbands at home because they know said guys will go looking for other women while they are at work. On the other hand, a rich man will work extra because he thinks his trophy wife is financially (more if they have children) tied to him.

I have a problem with both your definitions:
1) Alpha males could be rapists or a beta male with really low standards and no shame.
2) Physical attractiveness is a small part - important initially - but conversation and personality are important too, as is confidence.
Or, looked at another way, I know people who are much less good looking than me (and I'm no alpha) but are really witty, funny and cheeky and sparkling conversationalists, they have women eating out of their hands, women who are way out their league and who I couldn't get.

I guess that's my real problem with your definition of alpha - I thought I knew what you meant, and I did, but I have seen too many charming men wander off with beautiful women they had no right to on a purely physical (or genetic) basis. And I have seen way too many women flirt, sleep with and even marry men because the man is rich, successful or famous, not because he is good looking.

Comments on The Faith Heuristic: The Definition of an Alpha Male

This is the only important point: unless sexual ac...

My objection was more along the lines of "you keep...