A few years ago, I was your typical office-worker: stressed out, uneven energy, overweight, and inconsistent complexion. Now I'm just your typical 28-year old urban hunter-gatherer on a quest to be healthy, and having a few adventures along the way. See my full bio.
Below is a famous clip during the 1988 presidential election between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Forget political parties, forget where you fall on the issues, and just watch the clip in terms of social dominance.
Is this the behavior of an alpha male? Alternatively, is it the behavior of a man who has the potential to be an alpha male when the situation calls for it?
It's painful to watch.
Can you imagine that? Being a man, and having another man ask you to imagine your wife getting raped? And to do it in an attempt to force you -- yes, force you -- into a lose-lose set of possible answers? And to do so in a very public setting (i.e., the entire nation)? When all your status is on the line? This is as primal as it gets, folks.
After I watched this clip last night, I couldn't fall asleep. I was too worked up from imagining myself in the same situation. I probably would have lost it.
Commentators have said that Dukakis didn't show enough emotion. Well, duh. But it's not just any emotion, it's the right emotion -- and the right behaviors too.
Here's what an alpha (i.e., dominant) response would have looked like.
Step 3: Assert dominance. Given that it was a presidential debate, and a certain amount of decorum and restraint is required, it would have been too alpha to go physically assault the questioner -- though in times past (or even today), a question like that will easily earn you a shiner. Men fight over far less. After verbally putting the questioner in his place -- just to be clear, that place being lower on the hierarchy -- I would have said that No matter what Kitty Dukakis believes on the issues, can you imagine how she felt at that moment? The running joke was, for a second there, even Kitty Dukakis was undecided.
And understandably so. Forget the exact wording of the question, that's not the point. The question summoned the emotions of an intruder breaking into your home and attempting to rape your wife. And are you the type of man who will risk his life to save your wife from a terrible fate? Or will your heroics end at picking up the telephone and calling for help from other men who aren't afraid of using violence? The intellectual aspects don't matter, the emotional ones do.
Pushovers aren't good leaders. Michael Dukakis dropped from 49% to 42% in the polls that night.
Comments
Interesting analysis. I
Interesting analysis. I recall watching this on television. My opinion of Dukakis dropped considerably. My opinion of Bernard Shaw dropped more.
No doubt Dukakis comes off
No doubt Dukakis comes off fake and weak here. But in my understanding, the value of paleo and your related interests is that they help us tap into a deeper integrity of being that has gotten lost in the shuffle of modern life, with the health of our bodies, self esteem, and relationships suffering as a result. Embracing our inherent masculinity is part of that step toward a more natural, true, and healthy way of being. But to me, your masculinity-by-numbers approach to this situation sounds more likely to generate artificial masculinity than to tap into something genuine. It actually feels like what Rick Perry or Santorum might be thinking to themselves as they stiffly carry themselves "like men" during debates in a way so artifical it makes my skin crawl.
I think your points are
I think your points are helpful to the extent that they help someone access his own masculinity. But my fear is that a guy trying to act more alpha or masculine than he actually is, by carrying out the rote mannerisms that you list, will just become an overbearing jerk who poisons whichever social environment he takes his act to.
Valid points. Step one is to
Valid points. Step one is to understand how the world works. Step two is to decide how to behave. I will address that more explicitly in future posts.
In Ides of March, George
In Ides of March, George Clooney plays a presidential candidate who is asked the same question. He says, roughly "I would hunt down the man that did it and kill him with my bare hands. And I would expect to go to prison. I still oppose the death penalty." Imagine if Dukakis said THAT.
Wow, that's awesome. And
Wow, that's awesome. And perfect timing. I need to find a clip of that.
I've got to agree with
I've got to agree with John's analysis here. As and psychobiology and Animal behavior major I've had the opportunity to study male dominance displays and male-male competition in a number of species, including humans. When a human male is faced with a situation (albeit hypothetical) in which his mate, probably still with reproductive potential or carrying for his offspring, is violated by another male and killed is a direct and unabashed assault upon his alpha status. Everything from his rapid and subdued response, to his hunched posture and submissive hand gestures suggests low blood testosterone levels at this time. While it is likely that few watching were consciously assessing his alpha status, they were still influenced by an innate subconscious and highly accurate ability to determine hierarchical dominance amongst males. What he actually said is completely irrelevant, you cannot hide the physical characteristics of the testosterone and adrenaline that would have been coursing through any dominant males veins upon being so challenged. He displayed no flushed face, no wide eyes, no pointing finger, no increase in volume, no shaking, no leaning forward, and no direct eye contact of the challenger. Rather he displayed complete submission - unchanged posture, supplicating hand gestures, and calm vocal in quality response to a question that raised my adrenaline levels simply by watching the video clip. The American public, apparently, were also influenced by their unconscious assessment of his true biological character and determined that he was unfit to lead the nation.
Looking only at the body
Looking only at the body language, I had the opposite view of him. His face was clearly a bit disgusted at the idea of his wife being raped, but he didn't lose his composure and kept eye contact with the questioner as he firmly but calmly re-asserted his position on the issue. He was well aware that this was a debate and the questioner was trying to rattle him and either get a rise out of him or get him to change his position, but he was confident enough in his position and his argument that he didn't let him succeed. He kept his cool, answered the question then made a couple of supplementary points about his record on reducing crime in his state. Once again the 'challenge' was the tricky question, the guy trying to outsmart him in the debate, NOT actually trying to rape and murder his wife. I don't agree that the mere mention of something in a hypothetical question that if actually done would be an "unabashed assault on his alpha status", is in itself an unabashed assault on his alpha status. And the question was not even what would he do, or would he be angry, would he beat 6 colours of shite out of the rapist filth if he caught him in the act (which of course it goes without saying that he would), but "would you favour an irrevokable death penalty [by the judicial system when the guy is caught by the police and found guilty in court of law]?" In other words, the question was really testing to see if he is consistent and has the courage of his convictions to stand by them no matter what. Perhaps American voters are unable to realize that of course someone would be absolutely fucking livid if his wife got raped (something that I suspect most voters in the UK would just simply instinctively know), and need it spelled out to them with a cartoonish rigmarole of him shouting and pointing and beating his chest and storming off during the debate.
John I think a possible
John I think a possible source of disagreement is a simple difference in how we are each interpreting was alpha means. I think you are using alpha in terms of aggression, physical strength, fighting ability, etc, whereas I am using it more in terms of social dominance or status (possibly think of it as one's desirability to females, or the respect he has from other males - men want to be him, women want to f*** him sort of thing). Sure there is a big overlap and in many species probably almost a complete overlap. But in more intelligent and socially sophisticated species like humans, I think there are other ways of displaying dominance, for example outsmarting rivals, being confident in any situation, relaxed and cool under pressure, being friendly and helpful, being 'above' minor skirmishes or problems, secure enough not to feel the need to bully weaker individuals or lash out at the slightest provokation, etc. You already alluded to this in a previous post about how women like doctors because they are both ordering people about, but also 'nice guys' who will listen and nurture you. You attributed this to being a mix of alpha and beta, which fits into your idea of alpha being aggressive, and beta being nice and friendly. As if alpha and beta were 2 pretty much equal types (in terms of social status, desirability, respect-worthyness, etc) and the best is a mix of the two. This would make it possible that a beta or a/b hybrid could have a higher status than a complete 'alpha' (some overly aggressive teenage gangbanger getting in your face trying to get 'respect' like i mentioned in a previous comment). The way I was thinking about alpha as meaning socially dominant/confident//highly desirable means that an alpha will always be higher/better than a beta, and so the behaviours that make a man desirable like this, are by definition 'alpha' behaviours (so not only including aggression and physical prowess, but also the others i mentioned). So what I'm trying to say is I guess it depends what definition of alpha you use, as to whether Dukakis was alpha or not in that clip.
John, possibly you could do
John, possibly you could do a post exploring what is 'alpha' and nail down a firm definition or concept so that we are all on the same page going forward as you continue your very interesting series about masculinity.
Good points on the ambiguity
Good points on the ambiguity around the definitions of what they mean. Will do a post on that.
Interesting stuff, though I
Interesting stuff, though I have a slightly different interpretation. First let me just say that as a non-American, I've never even heard of Dukakis let alone seen that clip so my perception of him is based entirely on that 40 second clip. Personally I thought he dealt with that potential curve ball like a champ. Took it in his stride and didn't even break a sweat as he took the challenge (question) head on and answered it confidently. Cool, calm and collected under pressure like a true alpha.<p>In contrast, if he had answered it as you suggest I would have thought: (1) he sounds rattled, losing his cool under pressure; (2) he can't handle the tough questions and is trying to evade or duck it by pretending to be overly offended, or worse, trying to use his wife and her possible offence as a shield against the question/challenge; (3) ultimately he's been completely outfoxed and outsmarted by the questioner, who with this one simple question has made Dukakis's (I presume) previous stance against the death penalty seem like some half-baked theorizing, never having fully considered its ramifications and its possible effect on his own life, and that as soon as it applies to his own situation then he would flip-flop to a different position (i.e. he is no longer willing to say he is against the death penalty in this personal situation). <p>In other words, he would have looked incredibly beta to me. Not completely submissive (omega), but a beta who is trying to pretend he's an alpha by talking tough, but doesn't quite succeed and reveals his insecurities like not being able to answer the challenge head on (i.e. answer the question directly), looking flustered and has lost his cool under pressure, and being easily outfoxed by his rivals.
Alphas establish their own
Alphas establish their own frame. It doesn't matter what question he was asked, he doesn't have to answer it. He accepted the frame, and was castrated in the process.
If he was a regular guy
If he was a regular guy walking down the street and someone asked him that question, then by all means telling the questioner to f*** off would have been fair enough. But as a presidential candidate in a televised debate, refusing to answer a question just makes you look weak. He had already "accepted the frame" by agreeing to appear in the debate, essentially saying "yes I am confident in my ability to answer any and all questions about my policies/positions, no matter how tough they are, so bring it on". Having already accepted the frame, it would have (to me) made him look weak by subsequently then refusing to answer a question, as if he was back-tracking on that earlier confidence (both the confidence to appear on the debate and answer questions, and on his confidence of his position on the specific issue at hand), like he had made a mistake in "accepting the frame" (appearing on the debate) without being able to follow through on it when the going got tough and now needed a way out.
He absolutely did not accept
He absolutely did not accept the frame by agreeing to do the debate. That's absurd. Have you ever watched a Presidential debate? Candidates frequently don't answer the question, and use the time to make points they want to make. They don't let themselves get cornered, and they say what they want to say. And the ones that are best at it do very well.
Depends. If a question is
Depends. If a question is clearly stupid, or is about a complex issue requiring a nuanced answer, yet the questioner is demanding a simple yes or no answer, or presenting a false dichotomy to the politician/interviewee, then I totally respect the latter when he ignores the silly "yes or no" demands and articulates a proper answer that fully illuminates his position to the audience. In that case, 'dodging' the question and making the point you want to make (as long as it is directly relevent to the question) makes you look clever and above the petty punch and judy bullshit.But if a reasonable question is asked and the politician completely evades it and makes some pre-rehearsed point about something completely different, irrelevent to the question at hand, then it instantly (in my eyes) makes him look weak, stupid and basically outsmarted, because he can't meet the challenge and answer the question. "why is that?" I wonder. is it because he hasn't thought the issue through and he now realizes he made a mistake and his position is untenable, or maybe he doesn't actually believe in it himself and he only professes to believe it to trick people into voting for him? whatever the case, it reflects poorly on him. Similarly, if the question is relevent, if a little tough or personal, but still pertinent to the issue, and the interviewee throws a hissy fit and refuses to answer or storms off in a huff, again I think the same. Why doesn't/can't he just answer the question? Could be the same as above, or at best, he would look like a boorish hothead that can't keep his composure when the going gets tough and starts lashing out. What Dukakis did above was answer the question and state that yes he would still be opposed to the death penalty, that he still has the courage of his convictions even in the face of such tough questioning, and then ALSO make some other points that he wanted to make, and which were still related to the question (about his policies in his state have reduced violent crime more than any other state, etc).
By the way, John, I'd like
By the way, John, I'd like to know your thoughts on this classic interview: www.youtube.com/watch
To use an analogous example,
To use an analogous example, imagine a Richard Dawkins and a hardcore creationist agree to a televised debate about evolution. Then Dawkins (or the chairperson) asks the creationist a hard question, possibly using a personal example (but still clearly related to the issue at hand) to try and expose a weakness or contradiction or potential hypocracy in the creationist's position (I can't think of a good example right now, but something along the lines of he [the creationist] or family member was dying of some disease and the doctor's suggested cure was something that was somehow based on evolutionary theory). If the creationist refused to answer the question and instead raised his voice and started growling "how dare you ask me that question!", would you think he was being alpha and had won the debate? Or would you think that his inability to answer the question was a sign of weakness, and conclude that he had lost the debate? Flipping it over, if it was Dawkins who was asked the tough question, and he refused to answer and lost his cool a bit, you would probably be surprised and disappointed (because as an evolution believer you already think Dawkins is right and the other guy wrong, i.e. that in terms of this debate/iussue, Dawkins is the alpha), like a member of an animal pack who just watched his leader get beat or fail to rise to the challenge of an alpha from a rival pack. No, you would expect that if Dawkins was top dog, he would answer the guys question calmly and confidently in the same way he always does (regardless if it has a personal edge), and possibly even throw in a light hearted dig or joke at the other guy's expense because he is so confident and relaxed about his own argument. Actually there was an interview with Christopher Hitchens on Newsnight a few months back, shortly before he died, when the interviewer Jeremy Paxman asked him a personal question about his cancer and (I cant remember the exact wording) if would reject his previous atheism and embrace religion since he is about to die soon, since according to some philosophers that would be the 'rational' thing to do (can't lose, might win if there really is a God). Did Hitchens get all hot and bothered about the personal nature of this question and try to dodge it? Not a chance. www.youtube.com/watch
Most situations do not call
Most situations do not call for a physical, aggressive response -- particularly intellectual debates. I'll show you what an appropriate alpha response looks like in my next post.
I would add that its
I would add that its important to realize what the 'challenge' actually was in the clip above that Dukakis was responding to. The challenge was not someone actually trying to rape his wife (in which case laying the smack down would have been the alpha response, and calling other men (cops) to get them to sort it out would have been beta or even omega response). No, the challenge was a tough question about the death penalty in a presidential debate. This was not a physical challenge like a man actually raping your wife, but more of an intellectual joust. A physical or overly aggressive response to a challenge like this would have been overkill, and smacked of a beta trying too hard. The omega response would have been to back down and pathetically do nothing and admit defeat (i.e. that his anti-death penalty stance was wrong, that it wasn't up to the job in some situations). The alpha response to an intellectual challenge like this would have been to acknowledge the challenge (that the questioner is trying to trip him up and make him flip-flop on his position on the issue), look the guy in the eye and calmly and confidently answer the question directly and in the same way he has always answered it before. The alpha has no need to obfuscate or try and evade the issue, because he has the courage of his convictions and no amount of trickery or 'tough questioning' will make him lose his cool and deviate from his steady course. Certainly, there are times when an aggressive or physical response is required, but what separates the aphas from the betas is how they deal with lesser (non physical) challenges. Do they stay cool and use a 'proportionate' response, confident in the knowledge that they can easily go up a few more gears if things do escalate, or do they lose their cool and have to go straight to their maximum response because they are insecure and want to pretend/bluff that they are more powerful than they are, desperately hoping this will prevent the opponent from escalating things?
Your take on the situation
Your take on the situation fails to explain the phenomenon: Dukakis lost 7% in the polls after this debate, and this moment was considered one of the biggest failures not only of his campaign, but in all political history. So according to your theory, people thought his response was TOO ALPHA?
No, I was only saying how I
No, I was only saying how I personally saw it. I can well believe that others can take a different view, including those 7% of Americans you cite. There will always be people who think that being macho or aggressive is the best response in all situations, that its the only way to 'get respect' or 'win' in a situation. Like the sort of pathetic losers you see milling around street corners trying to act tough by being aggressive and getting in your face for the most trvial of reasons "are you looking at me?? ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME?!?" For me this is classic beta behaviour (as opposed to completely submissive 'omega' behaviour), this desperate attempt to look tough and try and get 'respect'. I remember reading somewhere that in some wild social animal (baboons or something maybe, but cant remember), it is actually the betas who often have more testosterone, adrenaline and stress hormones than the alpha, which was apparently because the alpha (if he is strong enough and secure in his position) can afford to be more relaxed and easy going, whereas the betas are trying to look tough and climb the hierarchy (presumably this wouldn't apply if the alpha wasn't as strong and had a beta who was almost his equal to worry about). As for it being viewed as a huge political mistake, I will say this: political commentators in the media get paid to watch these things and tell a story about it, prefably something simple and dramatic. They try to second guess what "the public" will make of each little line (assuming that the public is stupid and not as sophisticated as them, incapable of analysing a simple question and answer when an emotive word is used) and pounce on anything that they think the 'simple-minded' public will not like, then make a big deal out of this, label it a "blunder", etc. This is the narrative that gets portrayed in the media, and soon enough it becomes an 'established fact' that the politician has made a huge blunder, on account of how this may supposedly come across to the general public, rather than the substance of their policies. Often this "blunder" narrative begins as soon as the debate is over and its no wonder it can have an effect on the polls right away. People who haven't even watched the debate will have heard the news of this "huge blunder" and probably get a negative view of the candidate straight away. Another minor point I could make is that we don't know if those 7% all changed their views because of this one question, or was there anything else that was said in the debate that could have swayed them?
Well said. It appears very
Well said. It appears very alpha to me NOT to fall into the trap of being manipulated into betraying your convictions. Will people necessarily vote for you? Of course not. But since when does majority rule have anything to do with truth or virtue?
www.youtube.com/watch No
www.youtube.com/watch No doubt who the alpha is in this scene (clue: its not the guy with the knife). Guy with knife: "slitting a little girl's throat is like cutting warm butter." Bennett: "put the knife away, and shut your mouth." Obviously this is scene specific. We find out who the REAL alpha is in the last scene.