I’m very willing to discuss these arguments, but I think that this format may not be appropriate for it, and I want to cease spamming everyone in this thread with notifications. So if you have a desire to discuss it further, let’s move it to the DMs.

“In other words the overwhelming majority of LDS men are beta. Got it”
This was in response to a statement regarding a relatively higher rate of matrilocality among LDS church members.
Do you read this as an explicit example of men simply bowing down to their wives? Why do you think that woman might want to live near their families? What sort of evolutionary benefit might this be associated with? Is there good data exploring changes in reproductive success and child-rearing associated with a behavior like this?
If matrilocality is associated with increased reproductive and rearing success of progeny, then wouldn’t this kind of be an alpha move?
What is the relative evolutionary cost?
I’ll note as well that your reasoning here seems like it has to do with some fallacious “natural is good” and man is dominant/commanding/controlling argument pairing

“100% of women find 80% of men unattractive and want to get with the top 20%”
Courtimedes mentions that your response is basically a non-sequitur, you seem to be unable to understand these data and the argument being made.

“It’s about frame. Men who are deemed attractive…”
There is no contention that variation in desirableness of a spouse exists, that’s obvious even to the…obtuse, but it’s not relevant to argument about matrilocality and some women desiring to live near family.
As I write this I think back to that old statement about wrestling pigs. Both you and pig get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
I’ll note briefly, you seem to be trying to reduce all evolutionary strategies that male suitors may adopt into two categories: alpha and non-alpha, LOL frame

Is it possible that there are a vast number of other approaches that may be adopted? You mention status and resources as being the two distinct characteristics of the men that all women want to get with, but what are the particular attributes that translate directly into these and why are they not ubiquitous across society? After all, shouldn’t these have been selected for across tens of millions of years of evolution? Is this not a long enough evolutionary timescale to have selected these traits into purity? What might be the advantages of not having particular attributes in absolute homogeneity across a population?
Seriously, these are fundamental questions that are discussed in many bio classes

“Human history & evolutionary biology say otherwise. And no…”
There is no contention here about the existence of variation in mate desireableness, but there is no serious way to argue selection as acting on only two types of dudes, the reality is vastly more complex than that (https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_myth_of_the_alpha_male). If we think about this based on certain traits or attributes that is somewhat more useful, but even then, they’ll likely be polygenic and enormously complex to identify as being consistently or clearly heritable across "alphas." Additionally, prioritization of dominant (perhaps the stereotyped alpha) traits is unlikely to be beneficial across all social circumstances (hint to a question asked earlier)
Alphas as framed earlier in this thread are somewhat of an illusion, and they aren’t even found across all primate species (https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-science-of-alpha-males-in-animal-species)
What is the proposed explanation for variation in the simple existence of alphas across primate species?
Where the (very loose and vague) concept of alphas may exist across primate lineages, what differentiates the male alphas of humans and other primates?
This video from the primatologist De Waal discusses alphas, and it probably isn’t what you’re expecting. As someone who has listened to Dr. Peterson’s framing of alpha males, I think the attributes in question are very different from the way Peterson thinks about them, and certainly from the pseudoscientific rubbish spouted about them online
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPsSKKL8N0s)

There’s no straw man in my response, it was obviously a non-sequitur and intended as a joke.. I think you didn’t catch the sarcasm of it. On CB we have a tendency to spout off about things we know very little about (this little disagreement is probably a great case of that) and I was simply highlighting a complex question in evolutionary biology that exists outside of the little alpha-dichotomy paradigm. It seems that the reference was too oblique to be recognized, and that’s my fault. Although if you have tremendous insight into that question I would love to hear it.

Also, just check this out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_and_beta_male) and read the scientific articles referenced. It should be abundantly clear that alphas as framed in this thread simply do not exist.

Ugh, this has been such a waste of time.