mate you dont need to call him a chode, an ass and 'just some guy' all in one post. harsh times.

I think the Dunning-Kruger effect would beg to differ K.

I disagree, the Dunning-Kruger effect shows that those who think and talk the most highly of themselves are generally not the best whereas those who often state that they're not or rate themselves below the upper tier have more ability than they state.

Those who "know" they're the boss(and profess it) are actually far more likely to not be.

Essentially, he who talks the highest of himself is often boasting while those that are genuinely the highest often don't rate themselves as such.

"I think I'm the boss" can be interpreted two ways. It can be interpreted the way you've interpreted - that he is uncertain of his bossness. Alternatively it can be interpreted another way using split realities.

"I think I'm the boss"... Meaning, I believe myself to be the boss and am confident within myself, I will not however push that upon you, it is for others to judge and decide for themselves that I am or not.

Essentially it's being the boss of your own reality while accepting that in the shared reality we all have it is impossible to be the boss 100% of the time.

I haven't read the first page, I have no idea what the point to this but I'm lovin page 2.

Dunning-Kruger effect does not only relate to skill I'm afraid, it is just most often used in that context.The wiki article is pretty lightweight on the matter. Their research was mainly focused within the illusory superiority phenomenon, the "skill" relevance is most well known because it has workplace relevance.

The best way to describe it is as a metacognitive inability to rate oneself relative to others in areas other than intelligence.

I'll see if I can dig up a few parts of their research later that don't relate solely to skills, not at home at the moment.

No, I know I agree with you on it, in part at the very least. I know that the boss can only ever be the person who chooses to compete to be the boss. Someone who doesn't compete in order to be the boss in a situation obviously won't be, the person that steps up will always be the one who takes lead.

That said one can also be the boss when there is no competition, in fact, it's not necessary to have that attitude unless in situations where someone is trying to exert dominance over another person.

If nobody is attempting to usurp dominance from you then it's actually unnecessary to act dominant if you already hold that position.

In that sense, one doesn't have to act the boss in order to be the boss, he can effectively fall into the role by having it handed to him.

But yes, he who takes charge will always be in charge over someone who does not.

Also known as the oontz oontz effect?

Also, have you missed my message K? I emailed you but it hit a "could not send" error multiple times so I messaged you here instead.

You can't rely on manipulating other people, largely because people are difficult to predict. 'Dominance' and 'Alpha Male' are both new age terms, and as far as I know, they aren't especially applicable to humans. Either way, and this is gonna' sound gay, but so long as you are relying on any form of sado-masochistic relations with people you are going to lack internal balance since both are manifestations of fear and imperfection.

people tend to follow words said in a strong & leading manor!!... new age terms you say, maybe the term but not its meaning

there has been a leader ever since there where more than one human! its been there since the beginning

Correct; but the path to leadership is not obtained through tyranny or 'amogging', or at least, maintained. I think the best way to have a strong position in any group or society is to be able to achieve balance. It's not easy, but those who can bring it make the best leaders.

Edit: To further ellaborate my point, I mean that in order for you to become a leader you have to *inspire* people to follow you. Pua mostly teaches that you must coerce and humiliate others into submission: This is the worst inner game you can possibly have. 'Dominance' implies this exact attitude, and it doesn't suggest strength, it suggests that you are so insecure in your own sense of meaning and well being that you have to obliterate everyone who poses any kind of threat to your status. Do not hold blind allegiance to your status, this will only hold you back as a person. Prepare to inspire and be inspired, actually connect and thrive with other people, be both humble and genuine, this journey is yours alone to understand, so for your own sake, make the best of it regardless of who follows.

All this 'dominance' bullshit is the biggest headfuck of all from the pua community. It's a mental block for young men who otherwise could find greater fulfillment in life.

who mentioned tyrany?? ammoging is bullying and this PUA term has NOTHING to do with being an alpha male! being an alpha male is the decision maker or leader...

when someone comes and so called AMOGS U they are not alpha, they are just a nob head