There are two main strategies women can use to achieve high rank, a ‘relational’ or a ‘hierarchical’ one.

In a similar system described for men, there are Alpha and Beta females and saying that one is high ranking than the other is really like comparing apples and oranges. These are simply two distinct strategies used to achieve high status. Within each category, there can be degrees of status rank such that you can have a very high ranking Beta female or a low ranking Alpha female. As mentioned for the guys, the categories are not strictly defined in humans and there are varying degrees.

Alpha Female

highly competitive, looking to be in control of a situation in any way possible

highly sexual and possibly promiscuous,

probably higher in testosterone than the average girl,

attempts to establish social dominance through body language or manipulative behavior

looks to mate with other Alpha, preferably of higher rank

Beta Female

highly relational, looks to gain support and respect in a situation through amicable means

varied in sex drive,

probably higher in estrogen than the average girl

selective and loyal with sexual partners

attempts to establish social dominance by building alliances and via favor of an Alpha male/female

interested in both Alpha and Beta partners, but is more compatible with a beta

Whether an Alpha or a Beta female is of high or low rank will be determined by her environment and her ability to obtain power, property, or prestige from that environment. Alpha’s are more likely to achieve this on their own, sometimes by compromising loving relationships and following a risky reproductive strategy (mating with unreliable partners or very late in their reproductive stage), while Beta’s are more likely to achieve their success through alliances and likely to follow a safer mating strategy (gaining popularity in social groups and marrying reliable and more successful partners).

Like Beta males, beta females make better romantic partners but are both at risk for having their social rank or romance compromised by the aggressive Alpha adversary.

For example, in the workplace, if there is a conflict of interest between an alpha and a beta female that are similar in ranks the alpha female can attempt to use more aggressive strategies to assert her position. However, who comes out on top will depend on the situation and the other players involved.

The Alpha female will also have little qualms about ‘poaching’ a partner who is already in a relationship since she looks for Alphas that will be prone to such promiscuity in the first place and has an ‘ends justifies the means’ approach to life. She has a ‘good genes’ strategy and the men she chooses tend to have high testosterone.

This is one reason why Beta females are better off with Beta partners who are less susceptible to cheating in the first place and invest more in their pair bond.

However, both Beta males and females tend to be happier in all aspects of life and do better when not disrupted by aggressive Alphas of similar rank. The pair bonding, high parental investment strategy overcame the promiscuous one 6 million years ago when we diverged from the Chimp. Although Alpha males and females still persist in the population, at least in the U.S. they are a relative minority. The fact that polygamy is illegal, infidelity is frowned upon, and highly aggressive women tend to be subdued (and highly aggressive men tend to be in prisons) is a testament to the fact that the Beta strategy is prevailing.

Modern Day High Status Women (of both types)

Oprah (beta)

Carla Bruni (alpha-beta)

Hillary Clinton (alpha)

Madonna (alpha)

Ariana Huffington (beta)

Angelina Jolie (alpha)

Anna Wintour (alpha)

Michelle Obama (beta)

Look out for my guest blogging appearance on Guest of a Guest within the next 12 hours!

NOT ATTACHING YOURSELF TO AN OUTCOME FROM THE BEGINNING

This is a very powerful concept. This does not mean that you are indifferent to the impact a person has on you nor does it mean that you are closed off from love or from the risks associated when allowing yourself to be vulnerable with another. It means that you are open to love in general and not focusing on creating that with someone who is not open to love or is not open to loving YOU. It is a libertarian concept at heart (see post on Libertarian Love) since it means that you are not wishing an outcome for a person that they may not want for themselves. It is about going into relationships, courtship, and dating situations with the knowledge that the person may not feel about you the same way you feel about them and respecting this and not taking it personally. If you have this mindset from the beginning, you will be able to accept and understand that rejection is sometimes a blessing because on some level that person was honest enough with themselves and you to address some sort of incompatibility.

I have mentioned from time to time that open-mindedness is a trait that I value very highly. I wanted to elaborate on the meaning of open-mindedness and how being open-minded can increase the quality of your interactions with others. In particular, I want to show how this trait impacts romantic relationships.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE OPEN-MINDED

Simply put, open-mindedness is the willingness to entertain an idea or thought, regardless of whether you will eventually decide to accept it. Ideally, this means that you will accept new information without bias and subject it to critical analysis. If it proves to be reasonable, it will then follow that you will be willing to integrate it into your schema of the world.

PRACTICING OPEN-MINDEDNESS

In practice, open-mindedness often involves having the patience to hear out the other person’s point of view before jumping to conclusions. After indulging yourself with this new information, it means allowing yourself to view it objectively without preconceived biases and see if it is logical and rational. It also sometimes means that you can agree to disagree. There are arguments out there that cannot necessarily be proven valid or invalid. Being open minded can involve having the ability to understand how another person may have a different viewpoint and accepting that it is different from yours. This does not mean you have to accept their viewpoint, but merely that you have to accept that not everyone experiences the world in the same way you do.

ABUNDANCE vs RARITY

Our emotions and behaviors stem partly from physiological factors and partly from our view of the world (perhaps obtained via the interaction of those physiological factors combined with experience). Although we can’t change our genetic repertoire, we can still impact our physiology with what we think due to the incredible plasticity of the brain.

Our view of the world is critical in our daily functioning and ‘frames’ everything that we do and feel. For example:

You BELIEVE that you are capable of achieving something great if you put in the right effort.

If you fail at a particular goal (not getting the job you wanted), how will you FRAME this event?

-outlook: Although I did not get this job, I have had enough successes to know that I am capable of achieving something great

-attribution of failure: Perhaps I failed because I did not put in enough effort or perhaps because there is a greater reality out there for me

What EMOTIONS and BEHAVIORS would result?

-initial sadness at rejection, but swift resilience due to the positive outlook

-implement a goal where more effort can be devoted

-assess whether previous goal was well aligned with future goals

As you can see, framing can be very powerful. The example above is one where a person operates from an ABUNDANCE MINDSET, one in which the possibilities are plentiful and the limitations are only those which you impose on yourself.

So in this sense, open mindedness can be a seen as a state of mind that not only applies to how you deal with information that is thrown at you in an argument, but also how you deal with the constant flow of information that entails daily life. Being open minded allows one to respond in a way that expands and not limits your world. When interacting with others, this fosters understanding and the ability to respond to a person without trying to control them or impose on their mental space.

For example, as written in a previous post (Aporia and the Liberal Mind), research has shown that liberals tend to be better than conservatives at accepting new information and adjusting their schemas accordingly. I would go as far as to say that this could translate into an overall less judgmental and more observant predisposition. Some people prefer this in a partner, while others say they want a person who sticks to their guns. To each his own, right?

Religion is another sticky topic. Some people are generally apathetic even if they say they follow a particular set of rules/beliefs, but even those can be offended. For example, even a person who hasn’t had time to think things through about their alleged viewpoint can be put off by extreme views and opinions. If you are the person with the extreme views and opinions, what are the chances a person you just met will change your entire world view with a cogent argument? Probably slim to none.

Sometimes it takes people constant exposure to a viewpoint or a major event in their life to allow for a different opinion on topics such as religion and politics.

However, there are times when this may be important to get out of the way. Personally, I am opinionated on both these topics and I have views that may be considered marginal by some. For this reason, I like to express these views from the outset. This way, if they are deal breakers, then we don’t have to continue wasting each other’s time. Also, it is a way for me to gage some qualities of the person: open mindedness, logic, the ability to understand abstract concepts, and the ability to listen reflectively.

So, here are some useful reasons to bring up politics:

a) If you are very passionate about your political views and it is a part of your life in a significant way – you will likely want your future partner to at least understand your perspective and perhaps even share it.

b)If you have very extreme and marginal views – even if politics is not a big part of your life you will want to know if your partner is open minded enough to accept your views and respect you for the difference in opinion (if there is some)

Here are some useful reasons to being up religion:

a) If you are considerably religious – not everyone will be comfortable with this and there are implications for lifestyle that a perspective partner should be aware of (food restrictions, rituals, etc). It is better to consider whether the difference is something both people are willing to live with than try to change people later on. Some people may think it isn’t a big deal for their partner to cut out pork from their diet, but expecting someone to change to fit your belief system is, in fact, a very big deal in principle.

b) If you are an atheist – for some people the belief in God or a higher being is central to their entire concept of the world. It is a way for them to make sense and order of the universe, it gives them hope, and it fills in the gaps of uncertainty to some extent. Most people are very uncomfortable with uncertainty and they may have a hard time understanding the atheist mentality. This will also be culturally sensitive; Americans are largely theist whereas countries like Japan are mostly atheist (if you count Buddhism as an atheist belief).

DO NOT discuss religion or politics if you are:

a) Hoping to convince the other person of your perspective

b) Not willing to listen to the reasons for their beliefs and at least try to understand

c) Not interested in these topics whatsoever. If the other person is still pushing the subject, that means it is important to them and you should consider whether this is something you can handle in a relationship.

d) If it is clear the other person is much better versed in politics. As far as religion is concerned, I don’t think you need to be well versed in anything to have a viewpoint, but you should understand the major tenants of other viewpoints if you are planning to criticize them at all. It helps to have good logic for both.

If none of these exceptions apply to you, the first date should be used to establish a physical comfort and the conversation should be light, stimulating, and playful. Religious and political debates often turn heated and sometimes do not bring out the best qualities in people; more importantly they may prevent physical contact on a first date.

WHAT IS IT

It is an attitude by which to engage in high quality relationships where the two individuals freely enter a social agreement in which they choose to promote the physical and mental well being of the other. If both individuals choose to participate in a relationship of their own free will they are, in a sense, making a tacit social contract. They have weighed the costs against the benefits and they are willing to live with the consequences of that choice.

WHAT OF FIDELITY

However, this only works if both people obey the terms of the contract. For instance, if I agree to enter a monogamous relationship and my partner cheats – this is not libertarian love. Even though both people in this instance are free to do as they please (cheat if you want, leave if you want), this is not a form of libertarian love since the cheater has entered into a contract whereby they have agreed to disengage from extra-pair affairs of their own free will. It is also not libertarian love if I never find out about my partner’s affair. If I enter into a social contract with a partner, based on some perception which he has presented to me, then I am being cheated out of my opportunity to make the right choice for myself when that image is an illusion. This is an indirect way of hindering someone’s liberty – by way of misinformation and deception (a.k.a. FRAUD).

HOW WOULD A LIBERTARIAN LOVE RELATIONSHIP END

In Libertarian love both individuals promote the well being of the other and allow them to develop in ways that they wish. Preferably, the goals of both idividuals are not in conflict. A libertarian love relationship would end if the goals of each person are in conflict to a degree that either is not willing to compromise in order to reduce the conflict of interest. In this sense, the love itself would not end since it was not given based on any expected return, but the relationship would dissolve.

“Windmill windmill for the land Turn forever hand in hand Take it all there on your stride It is TICKIN’, fallin’ down Love forever love is free Let’s turn forever you and me Windmill windmill for the land Is everybody In?”-Gorillaz, “Feel Good, Inc”

In the context of what I was learning about aporia in my philosophy class, as well as my other critical thinking and logic classes, I was perplexed how having skepticism about such a complex issue as declaring war was seen as a weakness. Even the scientific method praised the search for disconfirming evidence.

The reason I find aporia to be so important is that I believe it to be a staple of a thoughtful mind. The youtube clip below illustrates my point:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nD_iNPalY

“In Plato’s Meno (84), Socrates describes the purgative effect of reducing someone to aporia: it shows someone who merely thought he knew something that he does not in fact know it and instills in him a desire to investigate it.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia

This is not to say that Bill O’Reilly will go and investigate this matter further; the aporia is exhibited only by Dave Letterman of the two debaters. This brings me to my next point.

The reason that doubting oneself is important, as I mentioned earlier, is that it is a crucial part of the critical thinking process. If you are open minded to the possibility of contrary evidence to your present schemas, then you will thoroughly examine this evidence and give it the weight it deserves. This further allows a person to actually modify their set beliefs in order to accept the incoming contrary evidence. Jean Piaget called this accommodation, which combined with assimilation to form the adaptation process (in other words – learning).

However, it sure seems some people are better at this than others. I consider the political equivalent of this to be liberalism. The word has become somewhat perverted in our time due to constant political propaganda of equating this viewpoint with big government, loose morals, and the recent weakness of the Democratic party. It is no such thing.

Interestingly enough, Nature Neuroscience just came out with an article which correlates liberalism and conservatism with neuronal activity in the brain. An area called the anterior cingulate shows differences in liberals vs conservatives.

“Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.”

source: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html

In other words, liberals are better at the accommodation part of learning than conservatives. When faced with evidence that is contrary to their established beliefs they are more likely, due to genetic differences, to modify their representations of reality in order to accept the new data.

It is no wonder why conservatives, more than liberals, represent the religious viewpoint. It seems to me that religion relies on adherence to dogma, sometimes contrary to new information which disproves the very principles on which these beliefs are based. It is also no wonder that liberals are known for their social perspective of egalitarianism (gay, minority, and women’s rights movements) despite a history which is dominated by suppression of these ideas.

I should add that I am not trying to disparage the conservative political viewpoint. I have made it known in my previous posts that I ardently support Ron Paul for presidency, who considers himself a libertarian conservative. I understand people’s qualms with abortion (although I do not agree with them pushing this opinion to be expressed in legislation); I also think some other conservative perspectives, like on immigration and welfare, warrant consideration.

I am simply denouncing “the conservative mind”, which does not allow itself to adapt.

A friend of mine recently heard the Dalai Llama give a speech in Barcelona, Spain.  Mr. Llama emphasized that the way to achieve happiness and inner tranquility is through love and compassion.  I have written about love before, particularly the sort of love that the Dalai Llama would very much approve of: the kind of love which focuses on giving; it is a love that is composed of knowledge, respect, care, and effort.  I mentioned that I would touch upon care and effort at some point and I think it is important to note that care and effort combine to form passion, whereas knowledge and respect combine to form friendship.

care + effort = passion

Without genuine care, our hard effort becomes more of a chore.  Have you ever had a dead-end job that you worked very hard at, yet it never gave you any sort of fulfillment? Without effort, care is simply the attention we give to an object/subject.  We can have affection for it, an interest in it, but without effort there is no energy exerted and nothing sacrificed.

knowledge + respect = friendship

For the purposes of discussing the search for happiness, I’d like to focus on compassion as an integral part of contentment. Compassion is simply empathy that is coupled with the desire to help the other.

empathy + effort = compassion

This makes a lot of sense when we look at our previous equation of care and affort.  When we have empathy for someone, we care about them in addition to identifying with them in a vicarious way.  We feel what they feel.  Since empathy encompasses care, then we can agree that compassion encompasses passion.  In addition, I do not believe you need to identify with someone in order to CARE about them.  This would explain how psychopaths can love just like the rest of us, although how they express this love can be somewhat different and may lack the understanding of the object’s needs.

Empathy, like love, is a product of evolution.  These are both necessary aspects of our survival.  Love is essential in the sense that it secures reproduction and the raising of a dependent young.  Empathy is essential for many reasons.  It occurs through the action of mirror neurons which are capable of initiating a response in us by firing away from mere observation of an event.  For example,  watching a person scratching their head, we actually initiate a similar scratching of the head response in our minds (as if we were doing it).  In this way we are able to anticipate another’s actions, as well as sympathize with their pain.  Both skills are important for basic survival, as well as for social success.  Appropriately, these mirror cells gained the nickname of “The Dalai Llama neurons”.

It is important to note that neither passion nor compassion can occur without the addition of EFFORT.

Effort occurs anytime we exert our physical or mental energy and it seems to be the common thread in the two equations.  I am a firm believer that happiness cannot be achieved without diligent effort and that hard work always pays off. All the technicalities aside, I strongly agree that directing our efforts toward others through care and empathy  will lead to a certain fulfillment.  I don’t think this is the only way to be fulfilled, though.  Directing our efforts and care towards an idea can be very fulfilling, as well.  For instance, having passion for what you do can be very exciting and brings much satisfaction to men in particular.  However, I do believe that ultimate happiness lies in the personal exchange of love.

I am still working out the kinks of the entire formula (lovelab – get it?).

Knowledge = In order to have open communication, there has to be knowledge of the other individual and understanding of their needs and intentions.

Respect = How can you trust someone if you do not believe in the integrity of their word? How can there be idealization without admiration? How can you view the other as an equal and treat them as such when you do not respect their goals, opinions, and beliefs? Some may think that trust is its own category, but I am still debating that. At this time, I’ll have to say that trust is embedded in respect. If you respect your partner’s word that they will be loyal to you, then you should be able to trust them. Vice versa, if you respect your partner then you will not be careless with their feelings or humiliate them through infidelity.

More to come on Care and Effort…

First off, I completely agree with you Marlajayne…love does take effort. You mentioned Dr. Scott Peck’s theory that the act of falling in love takes volition and I think that is precisely the problem with the way many people look at love in our society. It is something they expect to occur to them. Once it does, they believe it will perpetuate on its own and they understand it in terms of what they receive, as opposed to what they give.

The thoughts you mentioned are very much along the lines of Eric Fromm’s theories whom I mentioned in my post. He believed that to truly love someone there has to be knowledge, respect, care, and effort. Knowledge is important in order to foster understanding. Respect (which really cannot come without knowledge) is important for trust. I think care and effort are self explanatory, but it is completely in line with Marlajayne’s comments about how one can say that they love someone but unless they show it through some sort of care and effort it is just noise.

I believe (and absolutely agree with Eric Fromm on this one) that love has to be an ACT. I wanted to stress that as the point I was making when I was speaking of goals.

What is driving us to produce these actions? That is the question I ask. Is it the feeling that one remembers when they initially fall in love? Or are we guided by other drives that are even more potent.

And as for my culinary and sanitary duties….I can’t say I’ve acquired a greater affinity for either one, but I recently learned how to make blinchiki (Russian for crepes). Baby steps.

But how can that be? How can the same feeling that brought you together against all odds fail to sustain your union? Why do we no longer feel compelled to make the same compromises or sacrifices?

Is it a change of heart or a change of goals?

Many people see love as a FEELING. I agree that love is an amalgamation of many feelings, and it certainly incites particularly strong ones when it is threatened. However, the concept of LOVE is a motivational construct. This is not a novel idea. It was proposed by Helen Fisher (an anthropologist at Rutgers University) and scientific research of the brain has shown that several brain areas are active when we experience love. Some of these brain areas are responsible for GOAL ORIENTED behavior. I certainly prescribe to this description.

Even as long ago as the 1950’s, Eric Fromm (a German humanistic philosopher/psychologist) stated that love is an “act of will” in his book The Art of Loving. Fromm posited that it is this active commitment that makes the marriage of two individuals continue in liu of diminished passion or changing circumstances. Of course, not everyone honors their commitments. Certainly, in our modern world where most people are programmed with what Fromm describes as the “Marketing Orientation” – or the mentality that focuses on packaging, advertising, and selling yourself – we are prone to view love as a TRANSACTION and marriage as a contract like any other, one which can be voided if violated.

Perhaps many would argue that we cannot control when and whom we love, but the act of love need not be an act of will of which we are aware. When I speak of changing goals in the dissolution of a relationship I am referring to both conscious and subconscious desires and motivations. I think women in particular are constantly evaluating their mates to decide whether they will become sufficient and stable providers for their offspring (commitment, ambition, perseverance, intelligence, loyalty) and will increase the quality of the woman’s lifestyle and those of her children (status, power, wealth, resources). Men, on the other hand, are programmed to evaluate the fertility of a woman and her ability to give birth to healthy children that will carry on the man’s genes and resources (youth and physical attractiveness). These are, of course, only the most basic points of value for both men and women.

Depending on the individuals’ background and upbringing, other factors may drive the ultimate decision to stay or leave a partner. Some men will also evaluate whether the woman will be an emotional pillar in times of stress (understanding and emotionally stable); it may be important the woman can cook and clean and be a nurturer in times of physical need such as ailment…basically the traditional notions of a good mother and wife. Women may look for a man who has a sense of humor (often associated with intelligence and perceptiveness), someone who is honest and responsive, considerate, thoughtful, sensitive, social, and other qualities which will help create the embodiment of what that woman may consider to be a good lifestyle.

I believe the basic points of value are important in the initial attraction and passion that results when two people fall in love. Throughout the relationship, both men and women are evaluating their partner (whether they know it or not) and deciding whether they will result in the satisfaction of their long term goals and desires; they are also constantly re-evaluating their current levels of satisfaction based on these assessments.

This theory certainly worked against me a couple of times when my lack of affinity for cooking and cleaning rendered me a less valuable future partner. Something most of my partners disregarded in the beginning (I made no attempt to hide it) became relevant only as time went by and my partners began to evaluate what I can bring into the relationship. This is very in line with the modernist social contract. The “what have you done for ME lately” that Eddie Murphy joked about in his stand up.

So when a person says that they “love you but are not happy in the relationship”, it may seem confusing. If love is a feeling then how can someone feel love (a good thing) and unhappiness (a bad thing) at the same time? This contradiction can be resolved if we view love in terms of goal oriented behavior, one that has many different feelings at different times and is accompanied by different behaviors. It is the goal of wanting a particular woman to bear a man’s child that may drive a man to want to marry her and ensure that they will raise these children together. It is the realization that a particular man may not be a persevering enough in the little things that may make a woman feel that he may not be persevering enough in the big things which can make a woman decide that this man is not for her.

In conclusion, it is not the change of the feeling that makes us want to end the union, but the change of goals for that particular union.