Lost_All_Senses posted...Orlando_Jordan posted...
Post the vid. I want to see this.
https://youtu.be/F4yz-P94n0Q
Adam's right in this circumstance, it's just that he's using very specific operational language. He's saying the concept of alpha and beta doesn't exist on a scientific level. That doesn't mean that culturally the concept can't grow into something socially, because that's really the power of human culture and how it morphs our experience with one another, especially within a society.
Joe is creating a synonymous depiction of alpha to mean--strong, confident, etc, whereas the beta is introverted and anxious. The problem with Joe's argument is it dichotomizes people into two camps. That's overly reductionist. People are complex. Not everyone who is introverted is anxious, unconfident, and neurotic. Often the strongest leaders are introverts. You can be quiet, but certain of yourself. Likewise some of the louder, aggressive personalities can be projecting that outwardly to the world to compensate for their insecurities.
Likewise, you can still have anxious/neurotic people who are confident as well. I've run into a ton of physician colleagues who are probably on the OCD spectrum and high strung with little details, but doesn't mean they don't know their shit and manage their patients properly.
Because of so many of these traits blending in together, it's hard to quantify into this alpha beta argument.
Joe claims people are hard wired to be attracted to a certain body type, when the reality is there are people who aren't attracted to that as well. Some people are into the tiny, flat chested petite women but that doesn't necessarily translate into "traits predictive of successful labor and delivery of offspring." You see more and more women being attracted to "dad bods" and that's not because there is a de-emphasis of athleticism and fitness, but that it probably reflects on other traits. And when you incorporate more of the nuances of human society and behavior, things like money and social status impact one's attractiveness. So treating human behavior in a vacuum of a club scene where people are looking for cheap sex isn't directly translatable to human experience at large. Sure, the more forward (and therefore perceptually confident appearing) fit man will have more success at the club. But when we're talking about finding a long term relationship that's not as useful as being more emotionally intelligent and in a stable career. Different goals, different populations, which all highlight the vast range of human behavior.
So Joe's making an overly reductionist argument and Adam's being very specific and maybe a bit pedantic about his definitions, but overall Adam's main point about misattributing evolutionary biology and psychology to more modern cultural trends is valid.
---
Anesthesiology resident - PGY 1