I did point out that he was
unreasonably successful, considering his 'handicaps'. The point being - there are many instances from personal experience I could use which undermine this 'theory'. I know of a few blokes who recently 'jumped ladders' from 'friend' to 'shag'.
I listened to my girlfriend talk on the phone to the girls involved so I know what their decision process was. It was pretty much - " I never really fancied him for the years I've known him, but we had a really fun night and I'm thinking about it now". Yet this is supposedly not possible.
A friend of mine is a big ugly lump of a man , but hilarious - he 'laughed into bed' a good looking woman who swore he was only a friend. He is as nice a guy as you would ever meet.
A 'nice guy' once classified cannot be re-classified?
yet we must all know that women (and men) re-classify all the time, situations change and opinions change. I used to like these shoes but don't now. I thought that guy was a dick, but actually he's OK. His mother died so I spent some time with him. we fucked.
everyone thinks there are great and the other guy is a dick, so there must be some reason right? Why do women go for assholes? Because everyone is an asshole when viewed as a competitor.
In actuality, in the anthropology of hominids the female of the species are more likely to mate for life with 'nice guys' who are attractive to them in some way, stable and confident. Reason : biologically women look for a stable father, although an asshole can make a reasonable one-night stand, but there is a requirement they wont fuck off and leave them with 5 kids.
The dominant theory in anthropology is actually one of multiple female mating strategies, of mixing the potential mate types for a safe offspring outcome. The asshole type is actually way down the list,
EG:
The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller wrote:
there are three kinds of female preference that have been studied: one is a preference “for high ranking males capable of protecting females and offspring from other males; [second is a] preference for male “friends” that have groomed the female a lot and have been kind to her offspring; [and third] is a preference for new males from outside the group, perhaps to avoid genetic inbreeding” (184). Each of these is easily explained by “female choice for good genes or female choice for material and social benefits” (184).
Ladder fool mentions his scientific theory - but it's all just made up self-serving nonsense. It gained social currency because it appeals to the readers ego. It's easy to construct an argument in this way that panders to egotism and is based on commonly observed behaviours. The extrapolation is nonsense though.
his idea of what makes an 'alpha male' sounds more like the guy he'd least like to meet in combat than anyone elses definition of a 'leader' archetype.
The 'scientific' pie charts and percentages, classic stuff. Make up a number, make a chart then discuss it like it is a fact.
from what study group are those drawn then?
they wouldn't be 'made up' to give false credence to a point of view would they?
pffft
