Humans are animals, therefore we belong to the Animal Kingdom - and these same rules apply to us. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt will mate, soccer players pair up with models - they are alphas of our society, grade A. In real life though, we know that there is a range of males and females, not all can be alphas, otherwise they would not be unique - and not all of us have a six pack, are tall, tan, and make a million dollars a year. The way this theory applies to humans, is that we will look for specific qualities in the person we want to mate with, given that ultimately we will want to have offspring with that person. In our society, we not only go for the physical appearance, but we also go for the intellectual: is he/she smart? funny? witty? clever? aggressive? determined? Depending on what we consider valuable, we will a) choose to meet that person at the bar b) choose whether or not to go out on a dinner, date, propose, marry and so on. Given that not all humans are alpha, we will look for that person that will represent the best we can get and that will have what we consider important for our children, and find the best that can be reached depending of where we fall on the scale. Depending on how "good" you think of yourself, you will find someone who meets your level. This is the reason why, subconsciously, when we meet and we choose the person that we want to - meet at the bar, date, marry and have children with - will have what we think is important to transfer on to our next generation.
The number you thought of earlier, is the number you rate yourself on the scale from 1-10, 10 being the alpha specie - pure breed
In an experiment conducted, they asked 30 people to rate themselves, and then pair up with someone from the group - most couples that paired up had the same number.
My friends and I proved the theory. A couple rated themselves very similar: 7.5 and 7.8. However, one of them disagreed that he was the best she could get. She claimed that she could get someone "better" yet she had picked him (proving our theory, not hers). He, on the other hand, claimed that at this point in time, she was the best he could get, and she had all the qualities that he would want in a woman for his children to inherit.
My ex-boyfriend and I did the test as well, we were fairly off, by .5. I agreed that we were in the same "range," reason why we dated. However, I wonder if that slight difference was what caused our relationship to break, because one of us thought we could get someone better, who would be the best we can "obtain". I also wonder if people break up on this basis: one is smarter than the other, one has more ambitions than the other, one is more good looking than the other. This is also why I believe that when we find our mate, it is a crucial ingredient that we will want to improve and get better for that other person. I believe that we want - and should - try and live up to that expectation of wanting to be the best that our partner thinks we can be, this way we will continue to excel in our personal improvement and will continue to add value to the relationships we are in.
For those who are single, do you think you would settle? or will you search until you find that person that will be the best you can be? and how do you know how good is your best - or how good do YOU rate yourself?
It is not about "settling" for someone in our range, it is about knowing who your are, knowing what you are worth, and wanting and finding the best we can get, which most times will not be The Alpha, but will be our alpha.
-D


