Initial attraction: Beta Male Body Language

Post Reply New Topic

Troll

Hijacked the thread.

I bit for the journymanbaiter too, grrr =(

Thanks, glad to know, you're a positive energy on this forum and have made several positive contributions in this thread.



A few discussions or debates doesn't mean I detest someone, I don't take things to a personal extent on here like certain people do.



That is part of the point here, people can sometimes become so obsessed with the unattainable or compare themselves to something that they can't have at that moment that they don't realize what they can have. Sometimes people only feel underachieved because of their outlook and they can miss opportunities because of it.



Interesting that you view it as something unattainable when really it's just a mindset and a set of characteristics, assertive personality traits and methods that lead to success. Anyone can learn the behaviour through Cognitive behavioural therapy, hard work and self belief. It might take trial and error, it might not come as naturally as others but if you apply yourself to something, I also believe hard work can triumph. It's a matter of confronting your fears in different situations and learning to feel good about yourself. It's not being afraid to express yourself or to reach out to others. It's about taking the initiative to make things happen instead of sitting back and waiting for things to happen or for others to do things for you.

Every person experiences the same hurts, same feelings and insecurities, everyone has the same need and craving for love, self respect and acceptance. Being a success doesn't mean owning a yacht, sports car or being a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, it simply means having the self motivation to overcome and adapt yourself so you can learn personal happiness and achieve personal goals that are based on realistic expectations.

A great leader like William Wallace was not born great before a battle, he had to discuss his tactics with his peers, did that make him less of tactician?



There's a difference between aggression and assertiveness, aggression either pushes people away or draws people in that have a low self esteem themselves because the aggressive person will fortify their negative core beliefs. Aggressive people also tend to be using it to mask insecurities from the past.

I think that altruism can be most easily identified by intention. For example, if someone buys girl scout cookies because they're a pedophile and like interacting with little girls, and they've got a chocolate addiction--then it's not a very altruistic act if the person is thinking, "oh, look at those little girls, I want an excuse to talk to them even though I know my parole doesn't allow it." Right?

Also, I think altruistic behavior, and also psychopathic behavior (with the lack of empathy), are effected by our brain chemistry. It can feel good to be altruistic. And I watched a documentary (and read another article) on psychopaths in which the scientists thought that psychopaths produced less stress hormone, so they never learned to avoid hurting others to avoid shame?

But, I still think altruism can be identified by intention to a degree. Like, if I saw a little old lady trying to get on the bus with a bunch of heavy bags--I could think:

"I will help her because it will make me feel good."

"I will help her because it will make me look good."

Or, "I will help her because she looks like she's struggling, and she might hurt herself, and she wouldn't like that."

So--I think the last intention is the most altruistic.

But I don't really split hairs when it comes to helping others. I think it's usually good, regardless of the intentions, especially if helping others is part of a person's ethical system, and something they will consistently do through their lives.

I just want to stress this point and say that Initial attraction is the most important step as well, having the ability to create initial attraction and making a good first impression is definitely critical. Having that ability also means you will attract more types of women so you will have the ability to be more selective. You can't even know if you are compatible with someone if you can't get a foot in the door. It also helps in other aspects such as creating friendships and gaining employment.

Very insightful. =D
Your whole post was concise, very reality based w/no hint of mindless buy-in to prefab-stereotyping.

You know Zinia, I'm kinda turned on by you right now. =)

Last edited by 1401b on 26 Jun 2012, 10:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

I'll give you an example, there was this forty-something woman, who while on holidays was wooed by a young twenty-something man, and after a while entered a relationship with him. She fell in love with him. After around one year and a half he asked for her life savings for a business he was starting, and she provided. Then he vanished.

I believe the core of the issue is that, unlike the normal prisoner's dilemma, in life it is always possible to stop playing with the other, at either party's will. So they run the risk of being betrayed and left without possibility of retaliation, in every interaction. And betrayal pays especially well when an iteration with high stakes comes.

There are things, like contracts, that are made specifically to penalize betrayal so much that keeping one's word becomes the best option. And when there are no contracts, trust is all we got.

EDIT: Yup, I'm getting too carried away and deraling the topic. Do you guys mind?

Last edited by Shatbat on 26 Jun 2012, 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's not altruism though if the rule is that I will do good if it benefits me. You can apply the same motivations that supposed "nice guys" get assigned (they're only nice because they want something) to most people who do good works. There is a benefit for them.

Yes but there's no telling whether he might not encounter her again in another context. Maybe his business will fail, and he'll go for an interview at his dream job, and guess who the interviewer is? Weird things happen in life, I've learned that. What goes around has a way of coming around, and you won't ever see it coming when it does.

Also reputation is important, and not really accounted for in the prisoner's dilemma. One who is known to betray, will be excluded from any opportunity demanding trust (unless the other party intends to betray, which they won't feel bad about doing to a betrayer). A single minor betrayal could carry an opportunity cost literally thousands of times larger than the actual yield.

I've seen people shoot themselves in the foot countless times, thinking they're smart, only to make a train wreck of their situation. I'm sure you have too.

From a certain (pedantic) point of view altruism cannot exist.

I find a more comfortable explanation in Evolutionary Ethics.
And maybe Biological Imperatives?

Which probably gives a hint of what I look to for comfort. =/

I'm not saying altruism cannot exist, only that it is rare since people are inherently selfish, where selfish would include being in the interest of people the selfish person cares about (like their children).

]

Well, in that case we might be arriving to something. You probably believe that this is always the case, but I personally believe that if somebody wrongs other people, then they'll be likely to seek revenge, so bad things are likelier to happen to him, but he can always escape his fate. A simple example: I've heard of a lot of cases of parental abandonment, where the one leaving gets away with it. This is worth discussing further, although I'd like to reach a conclusion for this game theory discussion first If what goes around always comes around, then your statement is true. But if it is not always the case, then it is possible to betray and receive a net benefit from it.



Loss of reputation, good to have in mind. But a single major betrayal can yield more than the opportunity cost that comes with it. Also, reputations are always attached to an identity, and really skilled con-men can ditch them and make a new one if they deem it necesary.

You nicely skipped the other parts of my post, you are also assuming that every genetic configuration has value, and a lot of them do not. Consider why certain genetic configurations rarely reproduce or are able to reproduce.

Every succesful genetic configuration has value - and some of them, by design, can't reproduce. It's part of their success! Again I point to ant drones. They are a product of evolution - one of the most succesful designs ever. This demonstrates that it is the genes, not the individuals, that are paramount. Individual success can and will be sacrificed for genetic success. Most genetic strategies do not conflict with individual self-interest. But some do, and when they do, the individual always loses, because evolution isn't based on succesful individuals, it's based on succesful transmission of the genes that they (mutually) possess.

From an evolutionary standpoint, individuals are nothing more than disposable vehicles/hosts for the genes. And genes don't need to reproduce each copy of themselves to be succesful; they only need to reproduce indefinately. Thus you have your ant drone. Any particular copy is disposable, and some strategies (ants for instance) exploit this.

Sexual reproduction demonstrates that cooperative genetic reproduction, where two individuals compromise on the genetic configuration of the offspring, is far more succesful than non-cooperative reproduction, where the individual's exact genetic configuration is transferred to the offspring. Even though the latter ensures the individual's genes are transferred in their entirety, an exact copy of the original, it is not as succesful and does not serve the genetic interest. Despite the fact that half (or so) of the unique genes possessed by the individual are lost in sexual reproduction.

Has anyone written anything for us Zed-a males??

Yay for omega man.

ROFL

Impressive!

Omegaman title is a bit too cool for my breed, Charlton Heston = Alphamale++

/agree about fish -Yay for fishsticks!