Dear Men: Please stop listening to pop science about sex selection
There is absolutely no such thing as alpha and beta males
Sometimes, to get my kicks, I visit men’s pick up advice sites. They are so ridiculous I usually leave with an article idea or a rant.
They usually say something like this: ‘The Science Behind How to Get A Woman’. This is quite funny to read as someone who studies sex selection and evolutionary/cognitive behaviours, because the science is, quite frankly, complete bullshit that even HBEists in the 1950s would have squirmed at.
This ‘science’- yes, they call it that- is the completely unbacked hypothesis that men can be divided into two groups: Alpha (some race of perfect strong super men) and Beta (weak and unsexy men). Sometimes they break down even lesser groups of supposed men but lets just start on this hilariously false premise.
Cute little fun ecology fact for y’all: the genepool doesn’t magically skew to super attractive sexy type 1 males, and super unattractive type 2 males. It’s a spectrum. There is a huge mix and variation of genes, factors, somatic efforts and dominant sex strategies that make sure that we don’t all end up horribly inbred and all about to be wiped out by the same disease/predator/local tribe.
So there aren’t Alpha and Beta males, there are actually ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ males. Although how you’d actually group them as better or worse males is kind of a false premise in itself. Because,
ANOTHER cute little fun ecology fact for y’all: WOMEN DON’T ALL GO FOR THE SAME TYPE OF GENE VEHICLE COMPONENT (That’s you, guys).
Yes, any basic behaviourist will be able to tell you that women select for different things in different environments and different strategy systems. I get why you might think women will always want Muscle Man, because god knows society shoves that down your throat, but again, reality is far more complicated. I’ll do 4 examples so you can get this:
This is Dave. He is strong, physically fit, fab at hunting mammoths and he lives in a cave. In our society, there isn’t money or agriculture so if you want your babies to survive you kinda need those mammoths. Dave is IDEAL and therefore sexier in this system. It doesn’t really matter if he has a degree in engineering, owns a mansion or if has a GSOH because what really matters here is physical strength+resource attainability.
Therefore, DAVE= Sexiest guy.
This is Thomas. Thomas is incredibly smart. He has a fantastic job and a very intelligent family. In this society, physical strength isn’t so important because resources are rewarded on intelligence and working ability, rather than being able to use a spear. Having babies with Thomas is attractive because Thomas can give them intelligent genes, helping them succeed, and also provide for them. In this society, Thomas does better than Dave because his offspring stand a better chance of success.
Therefore, Thomas= Sexiest Guy.
This is Stephen. He is incredibly powerful and wealthy. He might be older than both Dave and Thomas, but he has a LOT of resources and social prestige. In a society where prestige improves reproductive success, Stephen is your best bet. He will ensure your children get the best mating partners and are the most socially dominant. That’s more than both Steve or Thomas can offer here, so:
Stephen is the sexiest guy.
Jake is really, really funny and kind. He is amazing at getting people to like him and incredible looking after kids. In a society where men are expected to do more child rearing, and social learning is important, Jake is a brilliant guy. He will ensure the offspring have great social skills and are loved and cared for (more likely to survive and grow up well). If that is what a woman wants for her offspring, that’s what she’s going to be wired to select.
Jake= sexiest guy.
CONCLUSION: There are MANY different ways and scenarios in which a trait may be advantageous or disadvantageous. It’s not as simple as ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’.
So please stop this bullshit that no woman will like you if you are sensitive and kind, or if you don’t have a six pack. It’s just not true.