Page 5 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Winternight
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 64

15 Oct 2009, 6:17 pm

There's no arguing that humans don't live in packs. And if you had honestly taken serious biology and zoology, I don't think you'd be arguing what you are now.

0_equals_whatever, your argument basically says: Humans exhibit pack behavior, but isn't truly pack behavior for some reason I'll remain unclear about, so instead will write some long lecture to seem more educated than I probably am.

I stopped taking you seriously at all when you made the claim that humans can't be Alpha Males.

Pack behavior is exhibited in this very thread. You're seen as someone with more posts by raccooneyes, thus easier to stand beside, and I'm the lone wolf, so I am to be argued against regardless of what my argument is. You could have argued that elephants are the fastest flying creatures on the planet, and raccooneyes still would have been compelled to agree with you. A bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

16 Oct 2009, 7:07 am

Wrong again, humans have never exhibited pack behaviour.

I have quite bit of interest in pack behaviour in wild dogs such as dingoes and in wolves, because there are certain behaviours that domesticated dogs can exhibit that don't happen in the wild. This shows our influence on dogs and potentially other animals.

You clearly don't know what pack behaviour is. You are using very lapse and vague assertions.

Saying that human exhibit pack behaviour is like say sheep exhibit shoal behaviour. Just complete nonsense.

Dude that fact that you are on the internet arguing with me, and you have a roof over you head means you are not a lone wolf, but frankly it irrelevant how you think of yourself.



Seanmw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,639
Location: Bremerton, WA

16 Oct 2009, 1:34 pm

for the record i think the whole thing is silly.
i'll just repeat what i said about alpha males to save typing anything new because it's pretty much the same arguement anyhow


Seanmw wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Seanmw wrote:
we're not really pack animals. there's no designated alphas. though it's true some have characteristics which we in our folly and categorization nightmares, might extrapolate as far as to call "alphas" with wolf packs in mind. but i think labeling people as such is silly. and people who do are just trying to find a place and explain either their own seeming superiority or lack thereof in society.

would you call bill gates an alpha just because he reeks of huge societal success? according to your typical "alpha" criteria, prolly not. in that sense anyone who can get their hands on a few million dollars or write some good computer programming is an alpha, our criteria goes out the window, and we ultimately feel foolish.

even some now famous actors were never considered the alphas of their day.
something to consider in your "equations".

just my thoughts. i'm not infallible in my reasoning however, i welcome oppositional debate on the subject.


Bill Gates IS an alpha male , it's true that he's geeky genius and socially inept , but He IS an alpha male. Being a genius makes you an alpha because intelligence was always a major component in human's survival.

Just refer to my famous knight and bard post http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt86199.html


in that case admittedly anyone can be an alpha-male if they so choose. and in that case the definition of alph-male is truly speculative with many fragmented definitions. there's the traditional sense, the apparent new intellectual type, and i guess many other variations depending on which other dimensions of excellence or success you want to gauge them as an alpha in.

i was doing some reading on bill gates story of success even. in fact several "alpha's" sucesses apparently according to traditional and intellectual definitions and alot of their success in each case had nothing to do with their skillsets even. it turned out to be irrelavant in the face of random chance and was decided by opportunity more than innate talent. if not for the chain of random dumb luck events that acted as stepping stones along the way their genius, or other "alpha" traits would've counted for nothing as they never would've been recognized, let alone seen the light of day. not to mention alot of it was based on insane amounts of hard work also, once again, not anything at all to do with inherent qualities. something that anyone could do. seriously

so in short most of what makes up the "modern alpha" are not even specific to a person. about 2/3 of the process is dumb luck creating awesome opportunities for advancement & hard work to further such advancement into what we percieve these days as alpha status.

whereareas a maybe 500 hundred years ago an "alpha" might've just been some guy born to riches and good enough with a weapon to keep it.

alpha definitions seem to me a dumb label at best. an excuse. "oh, i'm not doing as well as that guy, he must be an alpha and i'm just not. it is the natural order of things an i must accept it. whine whine whine etc...."

even in wolf packs the betas and lesser wolves can become alphas if the alpha dies or loses a challenge to a rogue wolf. rogue wolves were often castoffs from other packs. nowhere near alpha status.

trying to say things are set in stone and comparing us to pack animals seems to me absurd. we share biological characteristics with the beasts as living beings, true. but not much more in my opinion. and we've noticed their tactics and applied it in war, or rather stole that tactic from the germans small "packs" or "squads", but we take many patterns and things from nature these days and recreate it as our own, so it's nothing special.


_________________
+Blog: http://itsdeeperthanyouknow.blogspot.com/
+"Beneath all chaos lies perfect order"


Winternight
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 64

16 Oct 2009, 1:41 pm

Quote:
Dude that fact that you are on the internet arguing with me, and you have a roof over you head means you are not a lone wolf, but frankly it irrelevant how you think of yourself.


I meant lone wolf as far as the thread itself goes. I was showing you that it applies in all human interactions.

Now your argument comes down to "humans don't exhibit pack behavior, they don't, I say they don't"..... there is obviously no convincing you. So it's not worth my time.



Seanmw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,639
Location: Bremerton, WA

16 Oct 2009, 1:48 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Winternight wrote:
Humans quite often live in FAMILIES. The human term for PACK. Because that is what a FAMILY is.

Wrong. You need to take biology/zoology first.

Winternight wrote:
Well obviously you'll take the side of the older poster that has been here longer, no matter what they're trying to argue. At least try to think it through before posting next time!!

:? This is not about your sense of injustice. You are quick to jump to conclusions. So thank you for proving my point. Nature isn't about this hero/anti-hero mentality, which is simply a product of your behaviour. This is not an objective stance to take. That is why humans need to be very conscientious to stay objective. No small feat.

What you are using is what called surface logic or logical skimming, as well as cherry picking. That is to say you deductive skills don't take very far. You are only using the vaguest of associations, to arrive to an answer that is superficially flawless, because it happens to suit what you want to believe. Real science it not like that, it often poses more questions than it answers. It sure as hell needs better analytical skills than you demonstrated. I would happy to agree to disagree with you if you actually shown some of that. Otherwise it is just conjecture.

One of your problems is you don't see yourself in all of this. Just because you have a neurodevelopmental condition, doesn't mean you aren't like other humans. You are a lot like the rest of us, whether you like this idea or not. ‘NT’ is just a marker. There isn't actually a specific group of NTs. There is too much diversity. Human behaviour it the common ground within the diversity, if you like.

Just because I don’t think the alpha male label applies well to humans, doesn’t mean I think there are no examples of dominance or power play. What I’m saying is human nature is very dynamic. Alpha male behaviour (a prime example is wolves) is impossible to achieve in humans, it is simply not feasible. Even were there is a very powerful leader say in politics or business, that person may be able to mate well, but still can’t achieve full alpha dominance.

Humans don’t exhibit pack behaviour. Neither do Chimps or Bonobos. They do exhibit group behaviour and some group intelligence. However unlike chimps that have distinct territories, or bonobos who live in isolated pockets, humans live in huge numbers, multiple overlapping groups of various characteristics.

If you take mating behaviour, we have a lot of sex. Most do get to mate in their life time. This unlikely to happen for beta males in a wolf pack with a strong alpha, it is simply not tolerated. In lions the alpha simply doesn’t tolerate sexually active male being in his pride. That is why there are solitary males and male prides.

I know it’s frustrating for those that are not getting sex, however our chances are still greater as humans than in some other animals. We think of bonobos as quite sexual, but really that is just because we tend see ourselves as not like animals, when we are.

We have beviours like aggressive chimp, and more egalitarian bonobos, and our own unique ones. In a way we share some behaviour with birds. The whole partnership thing and bringing up young that way is what birds often do.

We are a product of our habitat, and we also create our habitat and we have done for a long time. Civilisations are a product of our nature. Our adaption often 'tools' rather than physiological.

Whilst I agree somewhat with racoon, the free will thing is a bit of a red herring to this topic, or at least deserves it own thread. You can't prevent the influence of external factors in nature, there a potential influence from everything (don’t take that to mean if a butterfly flaps it wings is causes a hurricane on the other side of the world, that is clearly nonsense). But we are a product of our nervous system and body, I only see free will as a relative 'minds eye' sort of thing. We have definitely not superseded our animalistic behaviours.
I AGREE COMPLETELY :o

it's like OMG, i wandered out of the field of ignorant masses and found someone who reflects the truths i believe in. not to say that they're only beliefs though as we have concrete reasoning to back it up and in no way superficial. but you can't really mark them off as completely infallible truths either as nothing is ever entirely certain and there may be factors we've overlooked yet. factors that most certainly prolly would not in any event point strongly enough towards true alpha/pack behavior and support winternight or le_petit_prince's case in a strong enough manner to overturn ours, but enough in such a way to prove that some of the minor details of our own case may need to be amended for better ones.

in a true debate i believe ours is the stronger case and would win out.
i posted a response on this too. add my facts and perspective to yours and it just looks all the more in out favor. as i have also pointed out to them that even the term alpha is very loose and trying to prove concrete alphas in today's society is a fools chase because by that same standard anyone can be one because the definition is so very subjective. which leads me to believe there are none if you can't prove it without saying we're ALL alphas in a way given the opportunity in life to be so.


_________________
+Blog: http://itsdeeperthanyouknow.blogspot.com/
+"Beneath all chaos lies perfect order"


Winternight
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 64

16 Oct 2009, 1:52 pm

What. Case.

...?

All you've managed to say in all of those long paragraphs is:

"Humans aren't pack animals, they don't have packs, no packs."

I mean seriously. Why don't you realize this? At least I've come forward and pointed out that in human groups there is the leader/Alpha. And even more than that, I pointed out human FAMILIES.

What is a family if not a pack? Answer that question.

What. Is. A. Family. If. Not. A. Pack.

???

And how is behavior in a human family so unlike the behavior in say, a wolf pack?

Parents. Sound familiar? Alpha Male/Female.

Spanking and Discipline. Sound familiar? Alpha asserting authority over a lower-ranking member (for better or worse)

Teenagers getting kicked out of the house. Sound familiar? A wolf pack casting out a member who then becomes a lone wolf.

Argue against that. I'd love to see you try. And don't dodge these questions. Answer them individually. Don't give me some long paragraph that dances around subjects, face these subjects and answer to them. If you aren't willing to do that I don't ever want to hear that you had any sort of argument.



SINsister
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,435
Location: Pandaria

16 Oct 2009, 2:02 pm

I'm really failing to see the point of any of this. Humans appoint themselves "leaders" of groups (in arenas like politics, for example, they often get elected to such positions) for a variety of reasons; other people either defer to that power dynamic, challenge it, or ignore it altogether - again, for a variety of reasons. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way," innit?
Personally, I prefer to walk off in a semi-perpendicular direction from both leader *and* group, but that's just me. ;)


_________________
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

~Steve Jobs


Seanmw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,639
Location: Bremerton, WA

16 Oct 2009, 2:11 pm

Winternight wrote:
What. Case.

...?

All you've managed to say in all of those long paragraphs is:

"Humans aren't pack animals, they don't have packs, no packs."

I mean seriously. Why don't you realize this? At least I've come forward and pointed out that in human groups there is the leader/Alpha. And even more than that, I pointed out human FAMILIES.

What is a family if not a pack? Answer that question.

What. Is. A. Family. If. Not. A. Pack.

???
umm, actaully i said alot more.

but your primary defense against all logic seems to be that no one except yourself "realizes" anything sufficiently :? . read over my writing again, take in the facts, i'm verily sure i said more than simply that humans aren't pack animals. i made great steps in debating my opinion on alphas as well.

a pack differs from a family in many subtle ways. human families typically don't inbreed for one. more free will for another (we don't always have to listen to the head of a family, more free will, less violent oppostion for disobedience), a pack also can consist of more than the equivalent of one family unit. a traditional family is a unit in itself of one, in a pack there is a chain of command, in a family there is a loose central authority with no further chain beyond the parental figures, people in a family may stray, join other families and return, if a wolf has left it's pack it is typically because it is in exile either because it is too weak, or has challenged the alpha, was losing, and retreated and cannot return.
that's just off the top of my head.
and that's just concerning packs.

families and packs are really quite different in more than subtle ways.

it's like saying a herd of sheep is sorta like a flock of geese in a way.
sure that fact that it's a grouping of life forms is loosely similar but they're different animals with different habits, different grouping habits, subtle different ifrastructure and lines of authority if any unique to the species.


_________________
+Blog: http://itsdeeperthanyouknow.blogspot.com/
+"Beneath all chaos lies perfect order"


Seanmw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,639
Location: Bremerton, WA

16 Oct 2009, 2:44 pm

Winternight wrote:
Quote:
Because they don't live in packs, obviously. We are social animals and there are many different social strata that we can move between but we do not live in social groups the way animals do, it's similar on a micro level but not on the macro. The main difference is free will. Each Please show us the evidence to the contrarary. 0_equals_true's post was spot on.


I hope you're joking, dude. I hope to f***ing God that you are joking. If you're serious, you've totally created your own high level of completely ludicrous.

Humans quite often live in FAMILIES. The human term for PACK. Because that is what a FAMILY is.

Is that enough evidence for you? Or do I need to start taking pictures of families just do prove to you they exist? :roll:

Well obviously you'll take the side of the older poster that has been here longer, no matter what they're trying to argue. At least try to think it through before posting next time!!

Oh yes... and "free will" is a very, very, VERY debatable thing. Just because humans don't live in instinct alone doesn't mean they have any will of their own. Philosophers have been arguing about this for a long time.
no, he makes a totally valid point actually packs are rigidly structured. humans, not so much. with packs any other pack is pretty much a rival. with humans and families there's more cooperation and sense of larger societal grouping possibilities. you don't see wolves building cities do you :lol: ? packs don't allow for such organization among wolves on as grand a scale necessary to ever pull that kind of thing off. and even if it were to happen it would be like a dark ages feudal era but instead of lords warring for kingship it would be packleaders warring for ultimate dominion of the species.

we're both different from the classic pack and too civilized. we had our dark ages you may argue, but we also have traits wolf packs would never be capable of with their sorry limitations.

and free will is very real. i'm using it to oppose your arguement even as i type. my will no one else's. decision entirely mine.

admitted, despite all i say you may have points on some levels. but so long as your arguement seems so grievously flawed, it will continue to grate on my nerves. and so for the sake of healthy debate and the vent the feeling of "WTF" i'm feeling, i feel compelled to use every bit of subjective, factual, speculative, & undeniable usages of words in my arsenal to dispute this until either you can cast enough doubt on my arguement to convince me to compromise (and it had better be staggering solid evidence of the undeniable kind with no and, if, or buts or just not alot of them so that they may be displayed to me in a convincing manner) or until you have seen a point in my reasoning. i can see vague points in yours admittedly. but you seem to hold no counsel other than your own and so far haven't admitted a good point to have been made by any other than yourselves as far as i can see, calling others misguided, stubborn, & the like.

it makes you sound just defensive beyond all reason & absolutely JADED.
i don't think i'm completely right. hell, i don't think anyone's completely right. absolutes in correctness of something as speculative as opinion just isn't possible.
but damn it if you can't find a good point in anyone but yourself and not even consider listening or taking into consideration the opinions of any others then i think i have legitimate reason to believe you to be daft in that aspect.

ultimate wisdom is in knowing you know nothing bro. i know i don't know everything, i'm not pretentious like that. i voice strong opinions that may seem like i am. but i usually try to leave a footnote in there saying something along the lines of: "hey, i could very well be wrong" :P


_________________
+Blog: http://itsdeeperthanyouknow.blogspot.com/
+"Beneath all chaos lies perfect order"


Only_an_egg
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 28

21 Oct 2009, 8:57 pm

hale_bopp wrote:
An alpha female is someone strong minded, confident and prepared to take leadership. People often get confused and consider good looking or "hot" women alpha females.

They aren't. Often its these ones who get pushed around the most by males, copy trends and just don't think for themselves.


In my personal experience, an alpha female is someone who IS in a position of leadership. She is not an alpha female until she actually has that position, regardless of her potential. It’s a power position. Like being president. You might be a potential president all you want, but you aren’t president until you are.

I was put in a position where I ws responsible for running a business. I had to oversee other people and make important decisions. Over time, I hired and trained people, and made sure the people working for me were as effective as possible. This changed me. The experience of being in charge may have chemically boosted serotonin in my system, just as it seems to have done in primate studies where a secondary monkey is artificially elevated to the #1 spot.

On the other hand, a few years before I’d been very sexy, the kind of woman that men reacted to a lot, but my response was that I felt mostly like prey.

As an in-charge alpha female, I did feel quite attracted to men who I felt tender and nurturing toward, even hired and trained one (without acting on the attraction otherwise) but also felt powerfully attracted to men who exuded confidence and an easy sense of personal power that I could respect.



Only_an_egg
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 28

21 Oct 2009, 9:52 pm

Now, despite my experience as an “alpha female” in a context that comes reasonably close to the analogy of alpha status in other species, there is a lot to be said for ignoring the whole concept of “alpha” status in the human realm. It’s too confusing, and I don’t think it really has significance in a dating or romantic context. A less confusing set of terms might be nice.

0_equals_true wrote some very thoughtful and clearly well-informed thoughts about the differences between the way humans live and the way true pack-animals live.

I’d like to add that we don’t generally see a subordinate human tear the throat out of the alpha male or rip off certain reproductive thingies in order to become the leader. Human males don’t usually come into a new community by killing off the previous males and then kill all the babies (Except when our leaders get the young men all programmed for war and send them off to commit attrocities in foreign lands, but that’s another discussion)!

The opportunity to become an alpha female in the true pack-sense is pretty limited. Family groups are not the same. My experience running a small business probably comes closest, and it had enough in common that I could FEEL a difference in status.

In fact, when we closed down that business, even though it made sense to do it (we had a more lucrative enterprise to run) I felt a sense that I had lost a huge chunk of my identity. That had been my little “empire” to run. My employees....

People who had plantations with slaves or hired hands probably were aphas in a similar sense. They were a mini-aristocracy in a little world of their own, and other people they could give orders to.

But these circumstances are so rare. I guess one question would be whether there truly are similar opportunities within corporations.

Still, I fail to see much connection with dating.

Peope DO respond to lower or higher status individuals in predictable ways. I think that's an easier way to talk about the topic that (I imagine) the poster really would like to address.



0_equals_true wrote:
... ‘NT’ is just a marker. There isn't actually a specific group of NTs. There is too much diversity. Human behaviour it the common ground within the diversity, if you like. .


I really relate to this thought. This is phrased delightfully. My observations for a long time have been within anthropology; that the reason to study cultural differences is that whatever is left when you factor out those differences is what is truly human!

I just love it when someone else seems to be thinking along the same lines, looking for the same common ground.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,283
Location: Houston, Texas

22 Oct 2009, 4:24 am

I am indifferent toward them.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 117,795
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

22 Oct 2009, 7:33 am

Masculine women and feminine men. I like this. I want to find myself a scrawny little male Beatles fan and take him to my apartment. I'd like to hold him against my door and give him some knock out kisses and tell him that he has to marry me and take my last name, if he wants sex from me.

Here's the song

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6869FHpbliI[/youtube]


_________________
The Family Enigma


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 117,795
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

22 Oct 2009, 7:39 am

Condoms are also very important. I want the pleasure and not the parental responsibility. If he doesn't believe in condoms, it's right to the next 130 lb Beatles fan, until I find one.


_________________
The Family Enigma


LivingOutsideTheBox
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 172

23 Oct 2009, 1:31 pm

Humans are WAY more then a ranking.

We're more like a set of sliders set from 0 to 100 :P

But..yeah... IN THEORY, "Alpha" 's and all their will-imposing will do fine around other alpha's: Mutual respect and understanding.... And lower ranks....Domination.
The reverse is true when you're further DOWN the ladder.

This theory, however, is invalid:p



fernando
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 616
Location: Mayan grounds

29 Oct 2010, 5:02 pm

Janissy wrote:
fernando wrote:
ISad thing is that things as they are with the world these days, an alpha female would find herself under peer pressure to be more girlish.


An alpha female doesn't succumb to peer pressure. She's the one leading her peers into applying peer pressure to others. She's the one dishing it out. Not the one taking it.


Yes she does. After so much research into alphaness i finally found 2 alpha females early this month, they do exist. One of them is famous, Taylor Swift. If you study her behavior on youtube videos you can clearly see her acting, her pretending to be more girly, she proves my theory.


_________________
"Whatever you do in life will be insignificant but it's very important that you do it because no one else will."