No.
Why is this comment at -1 while another comment with the same content posted a few minutes later is at 18?
From here it looks like shalmanese posted first.
Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
21–30 of 42 posts
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#22Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#23No.
Why is this comment at -1 while another comment with the same content posted a few minutes later is at 18?
I've seen this happen a couple of times and wondered about it. This is a particularly good example of it because there are so few comments, its likely that both are visible to most readers. "No" should universally get 0 because it adds as much to the discussion.
All I can offer is shalmanese is an old account with much karma and EliRivers is a new account with none. Also the higher scoring one was posted 4-5 minutes earlier.
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#24Wealthy men have always been the alpha males. Geek doesn't necessarily = wealthy.
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#25The alpha male has long been achieved by means of physical prowess (meow). First, not after high school, no. Second, being the alpha male has more to do with how other men think of you than about how women seek mates. Third, women have always found intelligence inherently attractive, and smart people who have a hard time with the ladies have always avoided acknowledging that because it would mean acknowledging they h…
I would like to see the OKTrends blog post on this.
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#26The alpha male has long been achieved by means of physical prowess (meow). First, not after high school, no. Second, being the alpha male has more to do with how other men think of you than about how women seek mates. Third, women have always found intelligence inherently attractive, and smart people who have a hard time with the ladies have always avoided acknowledging that because it would mean acknowledging they h…
Being physically larger and stronger makes people look to you for leadership. It's hardwired biological behavior. Maybe in a million years this'll change.
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this comment at -1 while another comment with the same content posted a few minutes later is at 18?
I've seen this happen a couple of times and wondered about it. This is a particularly good example of it because there are so few comments, its likely that both are visible to most readers. "No" should universally get 0 because it adds as much to the discussion. All I can offer is shalmanese is an old account with much karma and EliRivers is a new account with none. Also the higher scoring one was posted 4-5 minutes…
Usually "no" adds nothing to the discussion. However, in this context I read it as "Obviously, no. The post author clearly hasn't put much thought on what they wrote, so let's not even bother dissecting it". In a way, it is a constructive comment in the sense that it prevents fruitless discussion.
Of course one could just flag the post but that isn't as visible.
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#28The alpha male has long been achieved by means of physical prowess (meow). First, not after high school, no. Second, being the alpha male has more to do with how other men think of you than about how women seek mates. Third, women have always found intelligence inherently attractive, and smart people who have a hard time with the ladies have always avoided acknowledging that because it would mean acknowledging they h…
Being physically larger and stronger makes people look to you for leadership. It's hardwired biological behavior. Maybe in a million years this'll change.
Height matters. So does general health. That's not the same as "prowess." Now, I don't deny that prowess is helpful. Julius Caesar was known as an excellent horseman and a brave leader in battle, Vladimir Putin milks his judo black belt, etc. But the claim that athleticism has traditionally been the key to power is clearly overblown. Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, and how many others? "[T]he leader of the pack has long been achieved by sweat and blood" is simply untrue.
Being a good athlete may make other kids look instinctively to you, but that's just an opportunity to learn leadership skills. Other kids have different opportunities, and after high school, those opportunities multiply and diversify. Prowess doesn't guarantee that you'll develop alpha male skills, and even in high school, there are star players who don't have much influence over their peers. Likewise, on any high school football team, you'll find one or two starters who aren't the best performers at their position but provide valuable leadership for the other players.
People really need to sort out two distinct concepts: social rank and masculinity. Geeks talk a lot about "alpha males," but they're also jealous of the beefy guy down the street who washes his Corvette shirtless and always has a girl hanging around. It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy and would have been in the Paleolithic, too. The dude is masculine. And he gets chicks (which I suspect is the common factor that creates geeky interest in both social rank and masculinity.)
While social rank and masculinity are not entirely unrelated, geeks conflate them way too much, and I think this article is a prime example. Rough, tough, strong, assertive guys can end up as leaders or followers, socially climbing or falling relative to their origins, and that's been true in every complex society, meaning the phenomenon has been around for thousands of years. Geeks are interested in both social rank and masculinity and would benefit from treating them as distinct ideas, but they prefer to lump them both under the label of "alpha male" because it sounds more intellectual (and probably less homoerotic, to boot.)
[Sorry for the huuuuuge edit after I was already modded up once....]
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#29To feel safe, secure and taken care of, girls are now turning to men with brains. These women see a direct correlation between brains and dollah-dollah bills y’all and geeks have brains for days. It's a weak correlation; there are plenty of poor geniuses. Displays of wealth probably work better than displays of smarts.
In fact, I think above a certain IQ range, people tends to make less money. Studies have shown PHDs actually on average make less than people with a master's degree.
Also, girls don't really rationally think about attraction, which is why a lot of them date better looking guys who later dump them while nicer guys get left by the side of the roads.
From my own experience, getting a master degree in Comp Sci has not helped me in getting a girl. However, working out 2-3 times a week and being more physically attractive has.
Re: Are Geeks The New Alpha Male?
#30Important to realize he is using the term "geeks" to refer to smart people as a whole (not techies). After that the article makes a lot more sense.