But this isn’t really elaborate justification. It breaks down into:
-I’m more likely to accomplish my goals by doing what I’m doing than by doing what you propose.
Could be true. Could be false. Extremely sensitive to values of “my goals” and “doing what I’m doing.” Theoretically testable/evaluable. Not really dismissible as “elaborate justification,” even if it is possible to elaborate on the specifics in greater detail.
Your current proposition amounts to little more than provocative name-calling. “Alpha” qualities may or may not be more conducive to wealth than available alternatives. Pursuing wealth may or may not be more conducive to accomplishing a specific set of goals than the available alternatives. Ditto for social
I do accept the proposition that there are people who, if they have a goal (like having scientific discoveries achieved) would be better off maximizing their earnings and then being extremely charitable. Whether it applies to people who post on this site, I don’t have enough information to say. They may be really good at the relevant research. They may be really bad at making money. I don’t know. I doubt any other poster here does, either.
I certainly fail to see how this relates to a desire to sleep with attractive, shallow women. I don’t even see how the alpha/beta “dichotomy” fits in to this argument, unless your basic point is “You [pejoratives] should get off your asses and become investment bankers or something,” which is actually a fairly testable (or at least, evaluable) claim. Also, there are plenty of “weak beta males” who are still quite wealthy. If you’re going off of Roissy, as the terminology indicates, alpha and beta are more about personality and sexual prowess than they are about ability to accumulate wealth. And Roissy’s “dichotomy” has some serious, serious normative problems; I was debating making a top-level post about the problems with that style of thought, so thanks for convincing me to do so.
It must be different to live in a world where nobody else is allowed to score a point without rendering themselves vulnerable to your juvenile insults. What will you call me, I wonder, since “weak beta male” won’t work? Will the insult depend in some way on my gender, to be truly symmetrical? Will “whiny” work its way in?
Elaborate intellectual justifications …
Fully General Counterargument.
Aha! yet more Elaborate intellectual justifications from the weak beta males...
But this isn’t really elaborate justification. It breaks down into:
-I’m more likely to accomplish my goals by doing what I’m doing than by doing what you propose.
Could be true. Could be false. Extremely sensitive to values of “my goals” and “doing what I’m doing.” Theoretically testable/evaluable. Not really dismissible as “elaborate justification,” even if it is possible to elaborate on the specifics in greater detail.
Your current proposition amounts to little more than provocative name-calling. “Alpha” qualities may or may not be more conducive to wealth than available alternatives. Pursuing wealth may or may not be more conducive to accomplishing a specific set of goals than the available alternatives. Ditto for social
I do accept the proposition that there are people who, if they have a goal (like having scientific discoveries achieved) would be better off maximizing their earnings and then being extremely charitable. Whether it applies to people who post on this site, I don’t have enough information to say. They may be really good at the relevant research. They may be really bad at making money. I don’t know. I doubt any other poster here does, either.
I certainly fail to see how this relates to a desire to sleep with attractive, shallow women. I don’t even see how the alpha/beta “dichotomy” fits in to this argument, unless your basic point is “You [pejoratives] should get off your asses and become investment bankers or something,” which is actually a fairly testable (or at least, evaluable) claim. Also, there are plenty of “weak beta males” who are still quite wealthy. If you’re going off of Roissy, as the terminology indicates, alpha and beta are more about personality and sexual prowess than they are about ability to accumulate wealth. And Roissy’s “dichotomy” has some serious, serious normative problems; I was debating making a top-level post about the problems with that style of thought, so thanks for convincing me to do so.
Ok, I was playing up to the trolling persona here. It was funny. Yes, you have a legitimate argument.
It must be different to live in a world where nobody else is allowed to score a point without rendering themselves vulnerable to your juvenile insults. What will you call me, I wonder, since “weak beta male” won’t work? Will the insult depend in some way on my gender, to be truly symmetrical? Will “whiny” work its way in?
Um, do you realise what site you’re on?