All of the school and/or area shooters are low value males.

reply to post by Alyssa


What about the Norway shooter?


Perhaps your theory is a bit flawed?

I guess I don't get a condescending reply? oh well.

reply to post by Komonazmuk

You shot her in her silicone boob.

Not sure if its been covered before as I admit I'm too high value to spend my time reading the whole thread.

But - you left off brains / personality and the use of those to gain wealth / power / fame. Many a guy otherwise cursed by nature has used brains / personality to gain wealth / power / fame and has ended up with a what I supposed you could call a "high value" girl if you apply the same standards.

Sorry ESC - I know you think this thread is junk, but this is my field, and what you said was very provocative!

Sometimes truth is provocative.

And this is one area that should not be generalized, except to stop being bullied.

I believe that while these people may have already had the mental illness, perhaps if they've never been tormented while growing up, they probably might have learned how to get help and deal with their problems better.

And I know a few things about this kind of thing, because I am one of those low value males that have been bullied much of my life, especially when I was a kid.

reply to post by Komonazmuk

I think it's a good point, but I'm not sure whether adult shooters with clear political objectives wouldn't rather fall under "terrorism" (and a whole different range of conspiracies), and thus beyond the scope of this thread?

I suppose one could also then mention Timothy McVeigh.

I'd think that part of the OP argument was that teen and young shooters had a specific issue (or downright neurosis) with their looks and masculine status that influenced their actions, rather than any clear political objective.

I do find however that there's a wish to be able to find the enemies within, if they could only be recognized before the act by some common features.

It's an extreme form of profiling in a sense.
Of course it doesn't work based on looks.

reply to post by halfoldman


Seems like it's some arm-chair eugenics thesis.Attempting to come off as high intellectual thinking, but rather coming off as just plain silly, imho.

reply to post by Komonazmuk

Yeah, for sure.

But it's not exactly outside a context of racial and other profiling that other countries certainly associate with the US since 2001.

There was also profiling of suspicious kids in schools after Columbine.

Yet these profiles haven't prevented such shootings, and they've harmed innocent people and spread paranoia.

So to me the OP is simply expressing one form of what's been going on, and I wouldn't find her more worthy of criticism that the authorities in general.

What makes her profiling any more irrational than profiling in general?

School shooting is a topic of intense interest in the United States. Though companies like MOSAIC Threat Assessment Systems sell products and services designed to identify potential threats, a thorough study of all United States school shootings by the U.S. Secret Service warned against the belief that a certain "type" of student would be a perpetrator. Any profile would fit too many students to be useful and may not apply to a potential perpetrator. Some lived with both parents in "an ideal, All-American family." Some were children of divorce, or lived in foster homes. A few were loners, but most had close friends. Some experts such as Alan Lipman have warned against the dearth of empirical validity of profiling methods.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thus profiling, whether consciously or unconsciously, has been going on.
Other experts say the shooters indeed had some similar factors, but these were not based on looks.

So while I think what the OP is saying is mistaken, I don't think she's uniquely misguided.
She's following a tradition that's entrenched, and she's just very honest in her perceptions (that seem to coincide with her views on beauty).

so because i'm not any of the things you described i'm of low value and thus deemed expendable?
i'm going to bed.

The ops theory is grasping at straws. First maybe what she said with the warrior gene and all that may have applied some thousands of years ago, but attractiveness or whatever she wants to call it is not so simple as she makes it out and she knows it. First it is basically just dictated by what are the chances that, you are likely to survive and thrive in your current environment, so no that whole nerd thing have problems getting laid or girls is just plain bunk, because in our day and age and given our semi expanding tech that type of guy has as much and maybe more of a chance to thrive then the whole macho warrior gene. In fact like many have said many of the worlds richest people are not exactly on the looks department and they seem to do more then fine.

And really that is what its about, there is no one encompassing look or gene that is better then the others or whatever. If you dont believe me, all it really takes is having eyes and go outside or to the mall or wherever and really look around on which people or dudes really are with the ladies, and you will see that it's no one thing, but if it is more one thing its the more so the nerdy or average dude, in fact being average is what it leads to eventually as it usually is the safest course.

And even the fact that females are attracted to the whole warrior/macho or whatever you want to call it is not given on there appearance or status, those things come and go with the ages which groups and societies places on them, and they are all added on to them after the fact. Because of the fact that having traits that in there time were useful and beneficial for survival. That is really all there is to it, the rest are just idiosyncrasies people have, and again even the guy in the suit, there really is nothing remarkable about him physically at all beyond some facial features.

But guess what, I see dudes with the same or more defined facial features walk by every day, in fact its really is basically just a suit, and even the fact that they find the suit attractive has nothing to do with in and of the suit itself, it has to do with the fact that it represents success and money. Women if they want to dress good and attract the opposite sex, usually wear something that shows sexuality. And men if they want to dress good and attract the opposite sex, well they usually wear those type of suits, and the fact that its considered good looking is purely a societal and conditioning thing, in fact those things are constricting, and really flimsy, the fact that women find it attractive and men find it empowering has purely to do with the fact that in our society its attributed to success and even money. Really there are no surprises or secrets to the whole thing at all, all of this was known thousands of years ago and even before that, this is just the newest incarnation of it.

All that would be required to dispel these myths is basically go and look outside or anywhere were people are and it all is basically pretty obvious, in fact I would say that mediocrity is more the rule and the guiding line more so then what the op says. And as for the heroes and warriors and tribal guardians, well the graveyards are full of them, as the best usually tend to be prone to die for the herd for foolish reasons which once sustained the tribe or the village. Which again it leads back to that humanity and society tends to breed averages.

Now the op, whatever happened to her. Or whatever her problem is, she is definitely in the wrong place, in fact I do believe she may actually be female as if she was male she would of went about her objective in a whole nother way. It is so feminine to go about it so indirectly, and really I do not think she gives a squat about the whole so called low value males.

And really she is definitely nowhere near as logical and robotic like as she likes to think, maybe she wishes she was, but in her case I can see why. And whatever happened to her frontal lobe did not alter her that much, definitely did not make her more rational as she says. But it seems to have made her tune in to vibrations not of usual that females are prone to be capable of. Really op, your playing with fire, and you best quit and move on because you really don't know what your saying, the perspective is totally different from the other side now isn't it. Really I think she just needs to get laid, and there in lies her problem and the fact that she is stuck on this whole low status male thing, and it don't help matters that her mind is like a cornered scared rabbit and fragmented.

Its a pickle for sure, and I see why she would want to be a machine...Really who wouldn't in that situation, its a natural instinct to leash out when you have been hurt or cant handle anymore and not feel anything. The reality you make comes to live eventually, because well what else would it do when all roads are closed. You need to chill op, and learn to let go.

reply to post by Alyssa


I'm having a very hard time taking you seriously. You are implying that good genes = better looks. You do understand that you are skirting up to racism, right? If you think a strong European nose is required to not be a "low value male" then doesn't that rule out most black men? By that rationale, all black men are "low value".

What you are saying is echoing white supremacist ideology. It reminds me of the phrenologists of long ago who thought they could justify their racism through science. This thinking is low valued and is what holds us back. You are holding us back.

reply to post by Alyssa


Hi Alyssa, I'm rather enjoying this thread and only looking at it as a conversation. From time to time we all have ideas such as this, so let's have some fun with it.


If you don't know the name of the person in this pic, could you describe what kind of man he is? Is he of low or high caliber? What does his face tell you?

OP you need to step back from the computer and go read a book or something, go for a walk in the park if you can, if not then find some other outlet to your frustration as this is not the way to go. As you can plainly see nobody even gets what your talking about on this site, nor do I think you will get anything out of it. Again step back and find something else to do.

This thread is very disturbing in how you assign low or high value to certain people based on looks or wealth. Sorry to break it to you but we're all High Value People. Yes, even that poor schlub sitting in the median with a sign begging for money.

I reject the entire premise of your OP and hope that you can figure out for yourself why it is such a dangerous and destructive idea. We're not cattle to be judged and sorted and but human beings each with the capability to explore the stars, write a poem and create a great painting. We never know who will do what, but if we live by our dreams we may each become our own personal best which should be good enough for anyone.

Untermenschen anyone?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
This thread is very disturbing in how you assign low or high value to certain people based on looks or wealth. Sorry to break it to you but we're all High Value People. Yes, even that poor schlub sitting in the median with a sign begging for money.

I reject the entire premise of your OP and hope that you can figure out for yourself why it is such a dangerous and destructive idea. We're not cattle to be judged and sorted and but human beings each with the capability to explore the stars, write a poem and create a great painting. We never know who will do what, but if we live by our dreams we may each become our own personal best which should be good enough for anyone.

Untermenschen anyone?

The OP is actually using terminology - yet not citing it - first used by Fisher, then Darwin. It's evolutionary jargin. But I agree, in that the premise lacked context, nuance and education.

To clarify, when properly used, the terms denote features determined to be of high or low-value during sexual selection. For instance, long legs may be considered a high-value trait in one society, while short hair is a low-value trait in another society. It is in understanding these "signals" that we come to understand how we once lived, and how we evolved to this point. Information, collected and adequately analyzed without prejudice or agenda, is never, EVER useless or destructive. Only ignorance has bragging rights to that!

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
This thread is very disturbing in how you assign low or high value to certain people based on looks or wealth. Sorry to break it to you but we're all High Value People. Yes, even that poor schlub sitting in the median with a sign begging for money.

I reject the entire premise of your

You miss the point entirely. You are defining "value" in terms of "everyone is equal. We all have value in the eyes of God, even if you are a fat, ugly, unintelligent schlub!! Remember, you can still vote!" You are equating "value" with "equalty as a person." You've been socialized with that meme, so naturally you support it.

But that's not what OP means. All she means is that if you are fat and ugly, I'm not likely to choose you as my sexual partner, that is, unless you are filthy rich and make it worth my while. Once in awhile an exceptional personality can manage to override the general rule, but mostly, it works. Fat people marry fat people and beautiful people marry beautiful people, by and large. They stay within their social caste, and no matter how many laws you make dictating your version of "equality," that will continue to happen.

Where OP messes up is that she attempts to move this theory into the shooter/massacre realm on the basis of a highly selected group such as her weak-chinned male. She's been caught out using selective evidence. so that part of her theory fails. So is she wrong? Sure, but not because of the reasons you think she is.

Sad that OP bailed on his own thread. I wanted to hear the counter arguments to all on this page. Oh well, such is the nature of the beast.

Originally posted by Komonazmuk
reply to post by Alyssa

 

What about the Norway shooter?

Perhaps your theory is a bit flawed?

Hmmm, you know something, the main problem with this thread is it neglects a certain fact: There have been studies that show animals will mate with with "low value subjects", or as they are also called "Novel" subjects. The studies showed this happened not out of desperation, but because these animals were attracted to more novel coloring or features. This is common knowledge in the field yet it wasn't brought up.

Now, as for this photo, he would not be high value due to his light coloring. Darker coloring is more valued in males as it is a marker of high testosterone levels. Now, here's where it gets strange. Looking at that photo, I see a really good looking guy. If he wasn't a deranged, hateful, racist, xenophobic scumbag killer, I'd want to do him. Why? he's blonde with light eyes. I love that personally. I married that. We can also look at the many instances of low value males getting high value females. Now, many will say this is due to money. Well, I don't believe that because I've seen it plenty of times in my life. Some no good, no job having scumbag with a woman who could actually do a lot better. I'm sure many people here have seen that too. This doesn't fit in to the theory well.

What people are attracted to is not simply a question of genetics. It's not hardwired into us. It forms through a combo of social pressure and genetics.

Actually the op Alyssa is doing some sort of reverse logic on this thread, in fact its not even that it's more along the lines of reverse reversing inverse logic. I think she knows her logic is flawed and is doing it on purpose, the pictures of the people she posts as being the epitome of one end and the other of the scale, are exactly not that. In fact like I said in my other posts its quite obvious that what she purposes is basically just plainly not true what so ever, and anybody can see that.

The fact is things are varied in this subject, and the opposite seems to be more true and closer to reality and what actually is then what she purposes. The whole low male standing and elite or whatever has very little to do with looks or your genes, or the shape of your nose or whatever, like I said its purely a social society thing and has more so to do with social standing, and again the chances to pass on your genes in your given ecosystem ecosystem being for the majority of humans society. So basically when your in your in, when your out your out.

And females in general just go for what is safe, and what is safe is dictated by society, and now a days I would say it is a safer bet that you will have a higher chance of passing on your genetic makeup with the more nerdy guy then the warrior macho guy, or the whole good gene model looking guy, who by the way I don't see what the big deal was about him anyways in that picture the op posted. And really walking anywhere people hang in groups you can see that is so in the majority of couples as you will see females tend to generally go for the more average looking guy or or the safer bet.

And till society changes or some catastrophe happens to change the rules around it will remain like that. Really her whole argument is blown out of the water when a dude like Ron Jeremy who is nowhere near the Adonis in the gene department has probably slept with thousands of women and has a higher chance of passing on his genes then the average guy, mostly because again he is probably loaded ie $$$, and looks dont matter that much for females. And I have seen plenty of people like him, even when they were not loaded get attraction from the ladies with a little charm that is.

And even looking at the more successful people you will see that there attractiveness is not because of there looks or there genes as the op purposes, that is plain to see. Even famous actors I walk daily by dudes with better genetics then them, but its not there looks that really attracts females or the public eye to them now is it. And again definitely the warrior type is not nowhere in the picture as the above types are, as they usually end up dead for some cause or other or usually over some sweet thing, basically most have died in the wars that the world has been through over illusions and promises, and well only thing I can think of right now that would describe it is... "Pollia fruit" .

In which case they are not the safe bet, and never been, In fact I would say that the warrior gene in humans has been pretty much either been almost wiped out or has been breed out, what you have now a days are soldiers which is another kettle altogether which if you think on it was created like that and probably perfected in Rome with there legions, but generally its more effective to have somebody who does not question orders and follows everything given to them down to a T unquestionably, its a sort of sacrifice individuality for the heard and the machine. And if you look at the whole elite thing really it has nothing to do with looks or genes anywhere near as much as the op says it does, and even the meaning of it changes from age to age, that is in the age of tribes, it was one group, in the age of cities it was another who was dominant and in this day and age it is yet another, and so it will go.

So that only leaves one question, what are your really up to Alyssa? Your are nowhere near as logical as you think you are, but then again you may be however everything you have said is playing on emotions that's for sure. You even got a sort reptilian eye avatar, come on, now its just getting silly. You can totally tell me, I pinky swear that I wont tell anybody, I don't have my fingers crossed or anything.

reply to post by Alyssa


Explanation: Uhmmm?

So what should be done with low value men ATS?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!

So if you want to be treated as high value ... that is how you will treat EVERYBODY else ok!

Personal Disclosure: Carefull Now, ... Pride and Hubris Come Before the Fall OK!