This Alpha Beta Thing?

[felixParticipant 406]

I am a little confused about this Alpha/Beta male thing.  I always saw the Alpha/Beta roles defined by the playing field I am on.  One could be an Alpha on a downhill ski course, but would be a total Beta (or worse) on the football field.   Is this Alpha/Beta based on how we see ourselves or is based on some women’s point of view?

more throttle ..... less brakes.....

[RoyDalParticipant]

Alpha/beta was invented by scientists who study pack animals in the wild. I am OK with their use of the terms.

PUAs label themselves ‘alphas’ because they score lots of chicks in bars and clubs. I think they are overreaching. In fact, they are bending their natures to conform to women’s demands. In that context, ‘betas’ are those who marry the chicks who the ‘alphas’ find unattractive or too old to bother with. The social order of various pack animals differs widely from this, depending on the species and the pack’s specific environment.

Edit: This whole Greek letter labeling thing smacks of college fraternities and sororities. I’m prejudiced. I never got along with that crowd. I was a hard science major, and they majored in social climbing and goofing off. We did not have many common interests. We still don’t.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Anonymous 1]

On the animal kingdom, as far as I know, the alpha/beta thing is defined by the female. Alphas usually are the stronger ones, that beats the competition  up in order to get sex from the females and are the ones that defend the territory and offers protection. The betas, are the ones that get access to sex through the gathering and sharing of resources.

Usually, when people (men) refer to themselves as “alphas”, they are probably referring to their skill level, but women don’t see that way. That’s why in their youth women f~~~ the bad boys and the jocks (they are alphas on their eyes: big, strong, dominant) but want to marry the betas when they are older (they usually have more resources and are easier to manipulate through sex).

And that’s why I reject both definitions. I am me.

[QcummerParticipant 652]

The ‘alpha’ is the leader in any given group in any set of conditions. Yes, you can be alpha on the ski slopes and beta on the football field. You can be alpha Bill Gates in software business, and beta Bill Gates in anything physical. It all depends. The key is to ‘get in where you fit in’ and not try to be ‘alpha’ if you are not. I was not the ‘alpha’ in my high school, but I was (without knowing it), alpha at my first job at the same time period. Like BadKan said, “I am me”. That’s about as accurate as a person can be..maybe “I am myself” is another, or simply “I am”.  Any word to describe yourself is always a lie. You are never any one thing. I know I am a human, and also a verb. Language can only do so much. Do more action, think about words less. I know nothing.

[Anonymous 18]

I have a similar confusion myself.  I agree with everything posted by members above. It does make a lot of sense thinking it from female perspective. I am a visual learner. I am waiting around on a YouTube channel (Alex on life) to talk about the concept in his upcoming videos. If he does I will add the link in near future.

 

[Anonymous 5]

Women who preferred the best hunter (provider) and best fighter (protector) had a statistically better chance at survival and raising offspring.

Qcummer wrote:

The ‘alpha’ is the leader in any given group in any set of conditions. Yes, you can be alpha on the ski slopes and beta on the football field. You can be alpha Bill Gates in software business, and beta Bill Gates in anything physical. It all depends. The key is to ‘get in where you fit in’ and not try to be ‘alpha’ if you are not. I was not the ‘alpha’ in my high school, but I was (without knowing it), alpha at my first job at the same time period. Like BadKan said, “I am me”. That’s about as accurate as a person can be..maybe “I am myself” is another, or simply “I am”. Any word to describe yourself is always a lie. You are never any one thing. I know I am a human, and also a verb. Language can only do so much. Do more action, think about words less. I know nothing.

You can also take this primal innate behaviour to the Nth degree in the Millennial world where women will gravitate towards the “Alpha” in a chat room (usually most adept at abuse of some kind) or forum board.
This is despite there being no substance whatsoever behind their preference. Reality comes a distant last,,,it’s the aggressive behaviour and dominance (from behind a monitor) that gets their Giny’s all tingly.
Just keep an eye on news articles about how many wives and girlfriends and other female idiots run off with or f~~~ some guy they’ve “met” in a chatroom, to see how accurate the observation is.
Better still. Go into any chatroom to see who’s getting all the female adulation.

[QcummerParticipant 652]

@**** How can I tell if I’m getting the most female adulation in this chatroom?

[Anonymous 5]

Qcummer wrote:

@**** How can I tell if I’m getting the most female adulation in this chatroom?

You demonstrated how women will gravitate towards an “Alpha” in any given situation, regardless of any real world significance. Well done, I +1 it and even re-quoted it to emphasise.
At least your examples had some type of substance in that the male “Alphas” had some type of real talent.
I gave a further example, taking it to the Nth degree of how the behaviour applies even in a concocted reality when there’s no substance or reality at all substantiating their preference.
On the contrary, negative dysfunctional behaviour such as being abusive or a jerk should repel them. In reality, however it seems to do the opposite in a civilised society where it is interpreted as “Alpha” behaviour at a woman’s biological level of preference.
Therefore, jerks, idiots, abusers etc draw women to them like a blowfly to a turd. It’s just some type genetic misinterpretation of being attracted to the best fighter.

[ValleyFever101Participant 84]

felix wrote:

I am a little confused about this Alpha/Beta male thing. I always saw the Alpha/Beta roles defined by the playing field I am on. One could be an Alpha on a downhill ski course, but would be a total Beta (or worse) on the football field. Is this Alpha/Beta based on how we see ourselves or is based on some women’s point of view?

I think that the whole Alpha/Beta thing tends to oversimplify human relationships and society in general.  A lot of seems to stem from understanding the culture and how people are socialized to conform to certain ideals.  Even a downhill skier and a football player have to be taught those sports, and their abilities are as much a reflection on their teacher/coach as anything nature might have endowed them.

Humans are a social animal, but our societies and hierarchies have grown so complex and multi-layered that ideals of “power” and “leadership” can be defined and manifested in many different ways.  It can be measured in economic power, but there is also military power, spiritual/religious power, the power of the intelligentsia and academia.  Political power rests in the ability to negotiate and consolidate all the strengths and sources of power within a given domain and concentrate it towards gaining even more power.

Throughout most of our history, power and leadership were defined by men in a more rational and forward-thinking manner, looking more towards the long-term future of their society.  How women define the power of an “alpha male” is only a reflection of their attempt to understand the mechanisms of power through its external characteristics and symptoms.  They don’t really understand what “power” actually is from a male point of view; they only know what it looks like based on their own cultural teachings and upbringing.  This is where the problem comes in when women are the ones making the decision as to who they think are “alphas” and who are “betas,” since they’re only thinking of what stimulates them for that moment.

In terms of biology and evolution, I’ve heard it said that the “alphas” are those who breed the most and have the greatest chance that their offspring will survive.  But in terms of actual “power” in human societies, one has to consider whether or not power can be adequately passed on to future generations.  That depends on political genius, organizational ability, the ability to harness resources and the ingenuity to utilize them efficiently.  But breeding indiscriminately and irresponsibly could negatively affect future generations in ways we can’t even predict.  I think we can see a general deterioration happening already in Western society.

Sorry for the long rant, but to give you the tl;dr response to your question:  An alpha male may be a great football player and shine on the field today, but if football doesn’t exist 100 years from now, then he wasn’t good enough.

 

 

[QcummerParticipant 652]

@****  If you read my question carefully again, maybe you laugh?

[v9wlmn8c1982Participant 83]

There is no such thing as an alpha and beta male. Humans are far more complex then animals and any man can be a so-called alpha or beta depending on the circumstances. This alpha/beta things doesn’t exist with wolf packs in the wild either. The alpha male thing was created so men read that, think insecure about themselves and try to act this fake character, and by all these products to be this alpha male. It’s all to make money, and we do that by making the people feel insecure, same as women butchering their bodies with fake breasts and ass implants.

[LeHarfangParticipant 25]

RoyDal wrote:

Alpha/beta was invented by scientists who study pack animals in the wild. I am OK with their use of the terms.

Actually that’s not true, well if you’re talking about wolves that is but it may also extend to other species. They coined these terms when they were observing a pack of wolves in captivity. The wolves were strangers to each others so they started competing for ressources (like food, water, mates etc.). The winner was called the alpha/dominant while the losers beta/submissive. Like it’s been said, this way of thinking is WAY oversimplifying things, weither its for animals or humans… which are also animals of course. Individuals who lose aren’t necessarily submissive individuals. I think the fight/flight/freeze theory is closer to the truth here then this silly alpha/beta classification which only seems to focus on the results of a conflict.

[Author]

Posts