The Alpha F*x, Beta Bux Myth, II

Spit that out

Jeremy Nicholson is a social psychologist who calls himself  The Attraction Doctor. He commented on my recent post debunking the Alpha Fux, Beta Bux Myth. I had a very busy weekend, and was unable to engage in a back and forth debate, so I thought it might be useful to continue the debunking here.

Jeremy Nicholson:

If you would like  [a test for the theory], then here is the research article for it…

Tifferet, S., & Kruger, D.J. (2010). The terminal investment hypothesis and age-related differences in female preference for dads vs. cads. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 1, 27-30.

Abstract: Williams’ (1966) terminal investment hypothesis states that in species showing an age-related decline in reproductive value, reproductive effort should increase with age. Non-human primate studies have supported this hypothesis, though research in humans is lacking, likely due to the restricted age range of participants in typical studies in evolutionary psychology. We hypothesize that older women will decrease mating effort in order to allocate additional resources to parental effort, and that this shift will be manifested in women’s’ mate selection preferences. Because older women are hypothesized to shift resources from mating to parenting, they may show greater preferences for partners with high potential for paternal investment compared to partners with features signaling high potential for genetic investment. We use character sketches of “dad” and “cad” male reproductive strategies to demonstrate the age-related shift in relationship preferences. We found that older women prefer mating strategies that are related with higher paternal investment. In addition, we found that a woman’s self-description changes with age, mediating the age-related changes in mate preferences. We suggest that these changes serve the changing needs of an older woman and the transition from investing in future offspring to investment in the current offspring.

As noted from this abstract – the direct test of the hypothesis supports the notion that women do shift from “Alpha Fux” to “Beta Bux” with age.

From my perspective the Tifferet study does no such thing. First, it’s methodology is problematic for our purposes, as highlighted by reader MM here. Most notably, the subjects were up to 68 years old, and only 8% of the participants were from the U.S., our relevant SMP. Even more troublesome is that the character sketches used to illustrate “cads” and “dads” were taken from Walter Scott’s writing before 1820!

The “cad” used in the study is the character George Staunton, an “energetic aristocrat” who seduces Effie Deans and fathers her illegitimate child. However, he loves Effie and wants a monogamous future with her. They are married and become prominent in London society. That sounds precisely like the kind of romantic story arc 75 million women read every year – true love reforms the rogue.

In contrast, the “dad” sketch is of Scott’s hero Waverley, an ardent political activist forced into hiding. When he is granted a pardon, he declares his love for the vivacious Flora, who decisively rejects him. He then marries the “placid and rational” Rose. Talk about settling! Who in her right mind would choose Waverley? 😛

The AFBB theory states:

1. The norm is for women to ride the “alpha carousel” while young and then do a 180 at the expense of an unsuspecting “beta” male.

In fact, we have a great deal of data on partner counts that indicates only 10-20% of women pursue or acquiesce to casual sexual relationships. This reflects sociosexual orientation; unrestricted women tend to pair with unrestricted males.

No doubt men and women with avoidant attachment styles largely populate this group. That’s not to say that many women don’t have a casual sexual experience in their pasts – but that’s hardly the same thing as saying they pursue cads for short-term mating as a strategy.

2. When women realize that cads won’t marry them, they change lanes and find a boring beta provider who will cure their “baby rabies.”

There are several problems with this claim:

a. Millennial women are less eager to marry than Millennial men are – marriage anxiety, to the extent it still exists, has been lessened by the later age at marriage and other options for women, including motherhood without a partner.

b. Millennial women outearn Millennial men. They have no incentive to select a man based on his provisioning ability per se, though the prevalence of assortative mating assures that for the most part, high earners marry other high earners.

c. A divorce rate of only 17% among the college educated disproves the notion that a sizable number of brides are reluctantly settling for someone they are not in love with. 

The Terminal Investment Hypothesis, which is the basis for the Tifferet study, says none of these things. It simply states that reproductive effort increases with age. This makes perfect sense – for both sexes. 

The TIH posits that as women age they evaluate males more rigorously for parental qualities, including compassion, industriousness, resources and intelligence. To my mind, that seems fairly obvious – the 19 yo college freshman has minimal incentive to select her first male partner on his ability to invest in offspring to be born 10-15 years down the road. Most women will prefer a boyfriend who is not a jerk, but they are unlikely to filter as strongly as they will several years hence.

In addition, adolescence is now defined as lasting until age 26, and until at least age 21 the cerebral frontal cortex is still maturing. It’s hardly surprising that for both guys and girls, relationship partners become more suitable over time. 

Jeremy Nicholson:

“Ah… I see the issue here. The problem is not the general phenomenon identified by Tifferet and Kruger, but rather the hyperbole and over-generalization of AFBB. Is that correct?

If so, there are indeed some misconceptions of AFBB that clearly differ from what we know about female behavior. “All” women certainly don’t follow AFBB. Even evolutionary psychology indicates that most women would prefer “Fux and Bux” from the same committed man – if they possibly can obtain it.

Having said that, although AFBB is not ubiquitous, the basic phenomenon is also not a complete fabrication. For example, 36 percent of women giving birth are unmarried (62 percent if they are 20-24). This doesn’t necessarily mean the sex was casual, they could have “boyfriends”. But, at least a significant portion of these matings will not result in later marriage – or will end in divorce.

Eventually though, at least for a time, a majority of these women will indeed (re)marry. So, when these single moms from non-committal (but presumably attractive) men get older, who will they try to marry? If we agree on Tifferet and Kruger, then they will select “dad” qualities for those later marriages, prioritizing care for their current children over having more in the future.

Again, will “all” single mothers do this…no. If they can afford to raise the child(ren) on their own, they may not remarry. They may not compromise. Also, if there is a social system that provides for them, they also may not “settle”. Both of these factors influence women’s choice to marry – and who they marry. That isn’t even touching the factors limiting men from being able to succeed and provide “Fux and Bux” in the same package.

Thus, I agree that “all” women are not “riding the carousel” then “finding a beta schlub”. But, they don’t need the “carousel” or even “casual sex”. All some of them have to do is follow their young motivation for good genetics to an attractive boyfriend, find themselves pregnant, and not secure a commitment. Then, quite naturally, they find themselves concerned for their child and re-thinking their choice in men with increasing age. If they don’t have a high income, or access to services, those provider dad’s might look pretty good. Sixty-two percent of young mothers might be in this situation, with these choices.

Is it “evil”, or even intentional…no. Is it something all women do…no. But, it does happen. Hyperbole and harsh value judgments aside, the core of AFBB is an important dynamic for men and women to understand. Why? It is important for men, especially “dad types” to assess whether a single mom is interested in sex/mating with him too (if he wants that), or just be a dad to her existing children. It is also important for women to understand that the best “fux” and “bux” may not always come from the same man. So, she will have some decisions and trade-offs – before following her young inclinations may put her in a difficult position. Thus, to me at least, it is important for women to learn some version of this idea…so they hook up smart instead and find the best deal they can get in one man – something evolutionary psychology says is their ideal anyway.”

It is not correct to state that Alpha Fux Beta Bux is hyperbole. Hyperbole is the deliberate magnification of fact for effect, and is clearly not intended to be taken literally. An example might be, “My dog weighs a ton,” or “I’m so tired I could sleep for a hundred years.”

In contrast, Alpha Fux Beta Bux is a meme that has spread virally without regard to truth or fact. A quick perusal of any red pill blog will reveal dozens of men of a certain age aggressively piling onto the concept. It’s pure speculation as described above, and ignores the considerable data available that proves otherwise. If we have to reach back 200 years to find a true cad, then perhaps we’re not accurately describing the contemporary sexual marketplace.

With regard to the OOW birth rate, I have stated many times that any discussion of contemporary sexual dynamics must separate the educated class from the uneducated one, as has been noted by many scholars and research institutions. Though I do not claim to be an expert in the OOW SMP, it is clear that many of those couples do cohabitate and hope to marry in the future. Financial insecurity is the most frequent reason given by cohabitating couples for delaying marriage. 

Furthermore, it is not possible that the 36% of women who give birth OOW have been impregnated solely by alpha males. It seems like a very dubious way of identifying cads. At most, it’s likely to be half that (and probably far less) – suggesting that there is no difference between a preference for alphas vs. betas even among single mothers.

Certainly the marriage patterns of the college educated demonstrate that nearly all beta males marry, and I have seen no evidence that women with promiscuous pasts target men with less sexual experience. On the contrary, a large body of evidence suggests the following:

1. Dominant males pair off with dominant females.
2. People tend to mate with others of similar values and beliefs, including sociosexuality.
3. People mate with others who have similar personality traits. The agreeable woman with a secure attachment style is unlikely to select the disagreeable narcissist with an avoidant style as a life partner.
4. Assortative mating still prevails with regard to physical attractiveness, income and education.

The key discovery I’ve made in five years of blogging is not that women prefer cads. In fact, there are no guys walking around with cad and dad hats on. There is no clear demarcation between alpha and beta. There are good and kind alpha males, there are douchebag betas, and every combination of traits in between. I’ve seen incredibly handsome guys cherish their beautiful girlfriends, and extremely unattractive males treat women badly just so they can say they did. 

There is nothing new about the importance of filtering dating partners for intentions. There have always been women who used guys for their money, and more than a third of men have admitted in surveys to lying about being in love to get sex. Only by carefully observing someone’s behavior over time and delaying sex until commitment can both parties gain trust and security in a relationship. That’s what hooking up smart is.