That explains it then, you aren’t an analyst. Therefore you should stop trying to fake it.
Fake what? An entry level job?
A study was done where women were shown video of sex by various groups.
Men & women
men & men
Women & women
Animals
the women had a sensor placed in her private parts that was used to measure a blood flow increase to the privates.
Each one of the above sexual scenarios produced increased blood flow in ALL of the women test subjects. It is BIOLOGY that makes a woman like this. They all have to fight their impulses to be a slut. A chick raised in a positive environment may be willing to fight harder to overcome the sexual impulse.
I will look for article to link
Okay “Peter Principle” guy. 
I think you are mistaking tradition and monotheist values for evolution.
In some societies, like the Iroquois and other Native Indian people in North America, a woman would get banged by the whole village so she could choose a husband.
These societies were also matriarcal in nature.
So no, it is all cultural. Bro.
I am not sure if that was also directed at me, because the point of my post was precisely that it is very tricky to try to explain sexual behavior applying darwinism.
That doesn’t make sense, as the effect studied crosses all cultures.
I don’t think this is a real “analyst forum”. Going to sleep now…
I’m not convinced that women really want alpha males above anything else. That’s certainly not been my experience. I think this is something men who like calling themselves alpha enjoy telling themselves.
I think that there are some characteristics of so-called alpha males that are appealing (it’s nice to have money and a powerful guy looking out for you, especially if he lets you spend some of his money, and (some) other women may be envious of you), but there are also severe drawbacks (they tend not to give a damn about what you think, and will likely drop you or cheat on you at the first available opportunity, plus many are workaholics).
It’s a subset of women who are really drawn to that kind of guy, and - as far as I’m concerned - they each deserve each other.
These evolutionary arguments can go several different ways and be used to justify lots of behaviors. Just because there is an evolutionary explanation for a preferred theory doesn’t mean that it is the one and correct explanation. Evolutionary explanations for stuff are a cottage industry for sloppy thinkers.
Thank you.
So much beta in that post.
OMG, that’s supposed to hurt, right?
A study was done where women were shown video of sex by various groups.
Men & women
men & men
Women & women
Animals
the women had a sensor placed in her private parts that was used to measure a blood flow increase to the privates.
Each one of the above sexual scenarios produced increased blood flow in ALL of the women test subjects. It is BIOLOGY that makes a woman like this. They all have to fight their impulses to be a slut. A chick raised in a positive environment may be willing to fight harder to overcome the sexual impulse.
I will look for article to link
[/quote]
I couldn’t agree with this more.
^ WTF?
I’ll derail this thread. You guys don’t understand what alpha and beta mean. Beta males are actually very high status males, who are simply the no.2 to the alpha who can take over when the alpha is incapacitated. Think Tim Cook (beta) to Steve Jobs (alpha) or Gordon Brown(b)/Tony Blair(a) or Aaron Rodgers(b)/Brett Favre(a).
No dude, that was intended to be humorous ; I didn’t mean it 
I don’t know where you get your delusions, laser-brain.
That’s not what I think of when I think “beta” vs. “alpha” males.
Gotcha.
Peace, dude!
The obsession with being alpha nowadays is so ridiculous.
I imagine people that self-identify as alpha as total tools.
Also, how do you define alpha ? Who is more alpha ?
An out of shape hedge fund manager that looks like sh!t, can’t get it up, but moves hundreds of millions in a trade ? Or an MMA champion ?
The president of a western democracy ? Or a warlord in Africa ?
Not really directed at anybody, and I probably didn’t even read your post (although I might have skimmed over it).
I just get exasperated/entertained by the idea that all human desires/wants/needs/sexual functions are easily explained by a bunch of guys who calculate the NPV of a hypothetical marriage by taking one half of the NFV and applying Bayesian theorems and an appropriate compound/discount rate, and multiply that by a factor that’s supposed to represent the “happiness function”, and adding in the opportunity costs of not having to look for booty elsewhere, etc.
Believe it or not, not all human action is explained (or explainable) by stuff you read in Schweser notes.
So a BA in psychology > CFA ?