Well, a good portion of that time is spent shilling his books and seminars.

I don't even know, I had to stop looking at that shit before I lost my remaining faith in humanity.

BETA SCRUB

Insulting his ideology by buying into it.. you're a fuckin' genius, oddeye.

Except oddeye is not interested in mere cruelty or antagonism, Gmork. You completely misunderstand his position; Oddeye is interested in educating, not insulting. He knows that, in order to reach people, one must first speak their language. One must treat their beliefs with respect, and engage with them in ways they would understand. You do not understand this, Gmork, because in situations like this, your primary social motivation is to alienate and to troll. Oddeye is different. He is a man of purpose.

Anyway, I sit in these ways, too. It doesn't do me much good - probably because of the slouching and the social anxiety and my tendency to start telling girls about Boomer the Dog - but it is nice to know that a lesson which took all of five seconds to learn in my childhood ("don't cross your legs like that, you want your nuts to breath freely") is still bearing fruit today.

These are just comfortable ways to sit, whether you're a douchebag like this guy or not.

It's odd you mention that, OZ, because Japanese kneeling postures are similarly divided into male/female forms (narrower, knee-together being female, wider, knees apart for male), yet I've always found that the feminine form of seiza is, if anything, slightly MORE comfortable than the masculine! I suspect this is because the weight of your core is more evenly distributed with the feminine form, whereas it's resting on your ankles with the masculine.

Western cross-legged seating, however, is definitely more comfortable in its masculine form.

I'm in position #1 RIGHT NOW you miserable beta fucks.

gdork the little gamma bitch. Learn your place.

Girls need to know about Boomer.

YES, this. The science behind the concept of "alpha males" was even worse than the science behind SSRI antidepressants.

Well, there's a couple problems with that, fluffy.

The first is that, if you read the sources you quoted, the "problem" with the alpha wolf theory is not that wolves will not compete for alpha status when living amongst strangers, but rather, that wolves in the wild do not coexist with strangers - they are, according to your sources, organized primarily into nuclear families, with local hierarchies based on biological gender norms and birth order. (it is further argued that, by extension, dogs in families follow this same pattern of non-pack behavior - leading to the crux of the argument, that dog behavioral training should be altered, an argument that is largely irrelevant to our discussion and which I will not dwell upon further)

HOWEVER, even if Mech's claims are correct (and they may not be), this does not mean that Schenkel's original research was faulty, or that alpha wolf behaviors were never observed... merely that the experimental setup was flawed, and the conclusions drawn, non-reflective of wolf-and-dog societies as they typically exist in the wild. Wolves and dogs may indeed still engage in competitive hierarchical behaviors *when placed amongst strangers* - it's just that they are unlikely to do so when out in the forests, living in a stable lupine family unit!

What does this mean for humans? Well, it means that you can't use the alleged "discrediting" of the alpha-wolf theory to discredit the alpha-male theory, since modern humans generally do not exist in biological family units, but rather in large extended bands of strangers, precisely as Schenkel's experimental wolves did. The "alpha male" theory may not hold water if, say, you are into incest, and your own sisters, aunts, and cousins are to be the primary targets of your PUA skills, but otherwise I can't see much reason to bring up Mech's work.



The second problem is simply that wolves are not humans, humans are not wolves. Human behavior is better understood by looking to parallels with the great apes, not wolves, and to the best of my knowledge, no-one has yet credibly disputed the existence of alpha behaviors within wild troops of gorillas and chimps. Indeed, all the studies which I know of suggest that gorillas live in an extreme state of PUA thuggery! A gorilla PUA video would be far less pleasant than even the most cringe-worthy human one.

Here's what I think, though I don't know much at all about the wolf theory., I believe that the main reason why you can't use the alleged "discrediting" of the alpha-wolf theory to discredit the alpha-male theory is because the alpha-wolf theory, discredited or not, is an actual scientific theory, while the application of these terms to humans is folklore.

Question: Which trait has contributed more to the success of the human species? 1) Dominance and Aggression 2) Creativity

If evolution really worked the way these alphatards suggest, there would be no Stephen Hawkings, only Hulk Hogans.

>>Which trait has contributed more to the success of the human species? 1) Dominance and Aggression 2) Creativity If evolution really worked the way these alphatards suggest, there would be no Stephen Hawkings, only Hulk Hogans.


That's not true. At all. Evolution is driven by sexual selection; sexual selection is driven by fitness, and fitness is generally determined by a prospective mate's outward level of confidence and competence. This is a fact, and you can't change it just by wishing things were different.

First, evolution does NOT produce uniform populations - that is, nothing in it presupposes that one must be EITHER a Hulk Hogan OR a Stephen Hawking. Rather, there is a continuum of variations, with some "extreme" examples of the species occurring with suitable degrees of rarity.

Second, what is "good" for the human race as a whole, in the long run, is NOT the same as what is fit or favored by evolution. It doesn't matter what "contributed more to the success of the human species" (although arguably aggression and violence was better for human beings up until the last few centuries; being creative won't help much when the crops need harvesting and the wolves need killing). Evolution is blind, and dumb, and thoroughly anti-progressive; if human "creativity" worked out so well for us (and again, arguably it has not - Chernobyl, John? Global warming? ), then it was only because of a lucky accident, a luxury made possible by the strong.

Third, you're falling into an anthropic argument here, Mr Holmes. Who says evolution isn't producing more Hulk Hogans than it is Stephen Hawkings? For all we know, that's exactly what it's doing. After all, we only see the universe as it is, not as it might have been - it could well be that our "Stephen Hawkings" are actually mere grunting savages compared to what our species COULD have been, had it not been shackled by Darwinian evolution. Pointing to the existence of a few dozen "geniuses" (defined relative to your typical human being) hardly "proves" your claim that evolution never occurred.

Finally, fourth - and this is something which I've mention to you before, John, so please try and remember this point - Stephen Hawking is probably T̲H̲E̲ ̲S̲I̲N̲G̲L̲E̲ ̲W̲O̲R̲S̲T̲ example you could use if your intention is to juxtapose an allegedly "beta" scientific mind against your stereotypical "alpha male". Dr Hawking is a notoriously lecherous old pervert whose sexcapades could put John Waters to shame; he's the PUA of Professors, an unrepentant chauvinist, and even with his wheelchair, I can guarantee you that he gets more ass than most of us here.

Excellent Evil Homer shtick

My "shtick" is pointing out the facts, John. You're too old and too intelligent to still be making errors like that.

I saw a really great documentary on him back in highschool, where the man himself talked about how he'd wagered a subscription of nudie mags against a fellow scientist over whether or not black holes existed; I cannot find it right now, so here's a different Hawking anecdote:

http://geekologie.com/2012/02/stephen-hawking-regular-at-freed om-acres.php

This is not up for debate, Mr Holmes. Hawking is brilliant, creative, sensitive... and a complete Bro. If it weren't for the wheelchair thing, you'd hate him.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010320233851/http://www.kent.wednet.e du/staff/trobinso/physicspages/Web/1999PoP/Hawking/Didyouknow.html

Homer, your shtick is a long, intricate argument against something that I didn't actually say. Your writing is at a much higher level than your reading. Now II'm supposed to spend two or three days arguing about what the argument is. Fuck that. I've only got a few good years left.

So what did you "not say"? Where, precisely, have I misinterpreted your argument?

What I read were two statements: "Which trait has contributed more to the success of the human species? 1) Dominance and Aggression 2) Creativity" (a rhetorical question, whose answer I assume you consider to be "Creative"), and...

"If evolution really worked the way these alphatards suggest, there would be no Stephen Hawkings, only Hulk Hogans." (by which I assume you to mean that in your opinion, evolution does NOT favour confident, aggressive sexual partners, and also, that you believe Dr Hawking to be an example of a noble, sexually non-threatening beta)


I then gave you four reasons why those statements were incorrect. What did I misread?

Well, for one thing, you apparently misread the part where I said I was unwilling to have this argument with you, to mean that I WAS willing to have this argument with you.

Magnesium actually came pretty close to restating my argument.

>>Modern-day social darwinism. They believe we still (assuming we ever really did) live exactly like a cartoonishly simplified version of chimps. It's a symptom of people leaving religion but still needing a short and simple list of absolute rules to live by (and, more importantly, to control others with).

My only point about evolution is that it's more complex than these guys think it is, and so an actual counterargument would be about how evolution is NOT more complex than these guys think it is. You're not even talking about these guys at all.

>>What I read were two statements: "Which trait has contributed more to the success of the human species? 1) Dominance and Aggression 2) Creativity" (a rhetorical question, whose answer I ASSUME you consider to be "Creative"), and...

>>"If evolution really worked the way these alphatards suggest, there would be no Stephen Hawkings, only Hulk Hogans." (by which I ASSUME you to mean that in your opinion, evolution does NOT favour confident, aggressive sexual partners, and also, that you believe Dr Hawking to be an example of a noble, sexually non-threatening beta)

You're leaving THE TEXT behind. When you argue against what you ASSUME I'm saying, you're not arguing against what I'm saying. Some of it may resemble my argument, but you're leaving me with the futile and exhausting task of sorting it all out, and, I repeat, fuck that. Either you're doing it on purpose as a fairly sophisticated trolling technique, or you have some kind of mental disorder. Fuck that, either way.

Go back and read THE TEXT. I never said that having sex would straighten out Eliot Rodger, or do anything for Eliot Rodger beyond teaching him something about sex, that it's not necessarily the "heavenly" (his word) experience that he imagined.
Now, you could argue that it wouldn't teach him that, but anything else is not arguing against me. I never said anything else, and therefore, i never said anything else.

Stick to THE TEXT, or GTFO.

>>>>>"If evolution really worked the way these alphatards suggest, there would be no Stephen Hawkings, only Hulk Hogans." (by which I ASSUME you to mean that in your opinion, evolution does NOT favour confident, aggressive sexual partners, and also, that you believe Dr Hawking to be an example of a noble, sexually non-threatening beta)



I believe Dr. Hawking to be distinguishable from Hulk Hogan. What I'm implying is that evolution is more diverse than these guys seem to think it is, and, for humans, diversity is a good thing. I'm not implying that Stephen Hawking is good. Or, for that matter, that Hulk Hogan is bad.

>> you apparently misread the part where I said I was unwilling to have this argument with you, to mean that I WAS willing to have this argument with you.

No, I read that. I just called your bluff, and evidently, calling your bluff was the right call, because here we are.

>> My only point about evolution is that it's more complex than these guys think it is

Um, no actually, evolution isn't really all that complex; in truth, it is quite a simple and elegant process, which is one of the main reasons why it works so well as a scientific theory! Evolution *results* in complexity, yes, but this is complexity grown organically, from a set of very basic and straight-forward rules.

And nobody is proposing "social Darwinism", John. "Social Darwinism" does not mean what you think it means. Do you want to have a debate about that next?


>> You're leaving THE TEXT behind. When you argue against what you ASSUME I'm saying, you're not arguing against what I'm saying

... so then, am I to understand that my assumptions were w̲r̲o̲n̲g̲? That you DON'T believe creativity is more important than aggression from the standpoint of sexual selection? That you DO agree with the PUAs, whose central thesis is that projecting an air confidence and competence are the keys to acquiring a mate? And you are well aware of the fact that Dr Hawking is a delightfully sexist MRA who has more in common with the sleazy douchebag in this video than he has with any of us?

I'm not leaving the text behind here, John, I am building on it; deconstructing it, if you will. What's presented in my third paragraph are all corollaries to your original statements - propositions which naturally flow from the ones you have just established - and even inferred premises, statements which must exist a priori, else the rest of your post makes no sense.

Text is dependent upon a foundation of meaning, whether you explicitly spell out that meaning or not. Indeed, even if, as in your case evidently , you are not consciously aware of that meaning.

There's nothing wrong with riffing from my text. The Evil Homer Shtick is
Interesting, entertaining and intelligent. Its some of the better writing I've seen in here, but it's not worth arguing with you. I suppose I just need to learn how to disengage.

What if he really just has giant testicles, you ableist?

Modern-day social darwinism. They believe we still (assuming we ever really did) live exactly like a cartoonishly simplified version of chimps. It's a symptom of people leaving religion but still needing a short and simple list of absolute rules to live by (and, more importantly, to control others with).

It's worth noting that chimps don't really live like chimps.

I'll be right over.

I's like they are meant for each other!