I’m pretty sure most mothers don’t really think about this stuff, at least not during the early, formative years of their son’s life when they have the greatest amount of influence on them.

To begin with, even though women may recognize and be attracted to Alphas on an instinctual level, I’m not sure most people understand the dynamic or know how to articulate it. The majority of people are pretty ignorant about this stuff. How are they going to teach their son something they don’t fully understand?

On top of that, during the early, influential years when mothers are teaching their sons to be good guys, they don’t see their sons as sexual beings. For the first 14-18 years, her son is a “precious little angel,” not a man. Perhaps some years later, when her son still hasn’t had a single girlfriend, she might start worrying about what she did wrong, but by then it’ll probably be too late.

Let’s also not forget that raising a kid isn’t easy. Between getting the kid to eat something decent, making sure he does well in school, and any of a thousand other concerns running through a parent’s mind, they just might completely overlook this area of their son’s development. Especially if they’re ignorant to the specifics of the Alpha/beta dynamic to begin with.

I think it all boils down to a combination of Ignorance, Forgetfulness, and Shortsightedness.

Regarding thuggery, the book “Social Structure and Testosterone” details the different testosterone peaks of lower vs. upper class which coincide with their peak reproductive years. For the lower it’s purely physical dominance and arrives early, for the upper it’s monetary dominance and is deferred until their status buys them success.

Regarding the risk reward dichotomy, men are expendable since one man can inseminate many women and as such nature gambles with their genomes. They are wired to shoot for the big payoff, whereas women are wired to play it safe, aka long term vs. short term incentivization.

It is that women want to raise their sons as feminized failures unlikely to reproduce, because they overestimate their ability to have further children and thus the romantic fantasy of the bad-boy. To raise their sons knowing what women respond to (as opposed to what they say) would entail acknowledging no future children and the dream of the Bad Boy devoted to HER and her alone.

Women by and large are unable to relinquish their dreams, enabled by contraception, economic and social independence, and the fantasy that fertility can be indefinitely prolonged, alongside sexual attractiveness.

The fundamental error women make all the time is over-estimating their attractiveness and it’s longevity. Teri Hatcher was the most downloaded woman on the Internet fifteen years ago, now she’s a bad plastic surgery joke.

The result, entirely predictable: beta male sons who grow up to be “nice guys” get angry and frustrated at being near-virgins from age 16-36, end up with a brief marriage to women who have had about 40-50 bad boy sex partners and are obviously “settling” for a man they have no passion or desire for, in the interests of having a “wedding” aka “Big Party for Me.” Quick divorce, likely preceded by female adultery, soon follows. Those who don’t marry at all just progress quicker to angry, bitter loners who resent women entirely.

A VERY lucky few mature physically more early than their male peers, have high social status, and enjoy female attention and understand what drives it (high levels of testosterone, aggression, risk taking, social dominance, other women wanting them). Unsurprisingly they have sex with as many women as possible, and only settle down if they do at all very late in life to a woman trading her youth for the man’s status. Think Warren Beatty.

VERY few sons will turn out to be Warren Beatty. Most will be an angry loner loser, taught exactly the wrong thing by their mothers, or as in the White British Underclass and Ghetto Black areas, quickly turning to thuggery to out-Alpha the Alphas. The easiest way to deal with a Warren Beatty is to beat him to a pulp or shoot him. Probably most of the violence in the White British and Ghetto Black underclass is male competition for women.

Women know this of course, but prefer short-term goals of maintaining their bad boy illusions the same way women smoke to remain thin. Women are just hard-wired for short-term decision making, you find almost NO women among professsions/occupations that require massive short term risk for long-term payoff.

This makes evolutionary sense: caretakers of children must avoid all short-term risk. However, now it’s reversed. The minimal short-term risk (shattering internal bad-boy delusions) creates particularly with only one child, catastrophic reproductive failure. Almost none of these beta boys will reproduce, most will be raising other men’s kids.

If this were feudal Europe the son of a serf would have to know his place and it would be an adaptive trait perhaps. Likewise men, like many other animals, have a “prime” which depending on class, is either physical prime in lower class, or financial prime in middle to upper class. Testosterone levels were shown to peak at these times based on one’s class in the book “Social Structure and Testosterone.” In many times and places however the most beta would never have an opportunity to reproduce. Only the civilized world with institutionalized monogamy and child support enforcement (to keep the beta’s producing and consuming rather than revolting?) has taken it closer to a level playing field. Nonetheless, there is the quality issue. Alpha males, particularly social Alphas with financial clout and power get women with greater reproductive fitness, conferring an advantage on their offspring even if they are monogamous. Trying to front that you are badder than you are is a poor strategy as you say however, because of the many subconscious tells such as symmetry, pheromones, body language and the like which belie your reproductive fitness despite your best efforts to disguise them. In a society such as ours with opportunity for great upward mobility, teaching your son to be beta is maladaptive.

I think men and women do about the same amount of pre-conscious lying, but women do more subconscious lying than men. White stuff in brain does not explain this, though.

In the research, around 60% of people lied during the 10 minute discussion, and they told 3 lies on average. They were surprised about their own lies, but they would still admit to them. This research method obviously does not uncover those lies that the perpetrator does not recognize as lies even when confronted about them.

If we talk about sexual behavior, women seem to have more difficult time admitting some things that they do, as well as understanding their own behavior. Perhaps this same idea extends to other areas of lying. This would explain the differences on self-reports on how men and women lie.