3 ms·

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.

dkarl 17y ago
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....]
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  When did we last elect a fat President? When did we last elect an ugly one? Since the invention of television and the dawn of universal suffrage, politicians have gotten taller, fitter, and more attractive. There's a reason.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    Bill Clinton was fat, even when he was elected. As for the general trend in favor of tall, attractive presidents, the top dog out of a field of millions is going to have most of the major helpful assets. There's no disputing that height and attractiveness are helpful.
    - byrneseyeview 17y ago
      He was 6'2" and weighed around 225 pounds. So he was chubby, but I have never met a woman who would admit to finding him ugly. "Helpful assets" is one way to put it. But I'm advocating a stronger hypothesis: when lots of people can vote, and they can watch candidates on TV, we will not have an ugly President. We'll have very charismatic average-looking presidents, or really stupid great-looking presidents. But we won't have ugly, brilliant ones.
- joeyo 17y ago
  It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy and would have been in the Paleolithic, too. I don't disagree with the gist of your point, but I just wanted to observe that male pattern baldness is generally correlated with increased testosterone levels. So in a way it's masculine by definition.

dkarl 17y ago

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....]

byrneseyeview 17y ago
When did we last elect a fat President? When did we last elect an ugly one? Since the invention of television and the dawn of universal suffrage, politicians have gotten taller, fitter, and more attractive. There's a reason.
- dkarl 17y ago
  Bill Clinton was fat, even when he was elected. As for the general trend in favor of tall, attractive presidents, the top dog out of a field of millions is going to have most of the major helpful assets. There's no disputing that height and attractiveness are helpful.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    He was 6'2" and weighed around 225 pounds. So he was chubby, but I have never met a woman who would admit to finding him ugly. "Helpful assets" is one way to put it. But I'm advocating a stronger hypothesis: when lots of people can vote, and they can watch candidates on TV, we will not have an ugly President. We'll have very charismatic average-looking presidents, or really stupid great-looking presidents. But we won't have ugly, brilliant ones.
joeyo 17y ago
It doesn't matter whether that guy gets ordered around by a short bald guy and would have been in the Paleolithic, too. I don't disagree with the gist of your point, but I just wanted to observe that male pattern baldness is generally correlated with increased testosterone levels. So in a way it's masculine by definition.