# Alpha, Betas, Delta, etc



## morituri

Found inside Machiavelli's comments in http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping...ever-marry-just-my-opinion-13.html#post760579 an interesting link to a blog entry titled *Roissy and the limits of Game*. Since some are too lazy to click on it, I thought I'd bring it here for all to read. Comments any one?



Vox Popoli said:


> *Roissy and the limits of Game*
> 
> I have a great deal of respect for Roissy's analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman's "rationalization hamster". And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man's ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal.
> 
> However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy's social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don't score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy's construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don't, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner:
> 
> Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!
> 
> Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.
> 
> Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.
> 
> Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.
> 
> Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.
> 
> Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.
> 
> Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.
> 
> I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.


----------



## FirstYearDown

My thoughts are that all men, no matter what category they fit into, evoke characteristics of other categories as needed.

My husband is probably 50% Sigma, 30% Alpha and 20% Beta. He knows how to be aggressive but my husband also knows when to soften up. My husband can be incredibly romantic and sweet, but the romance is always tempered with a passionate confidence. I love it. He is the loner number cruncher type, with a wife who is the social director. We are your classic introvert/extrovert couple.


----------



## Entropy3000

I agree, that any given man is a blend of these but that some men fall clearly into one of them or at least across a smaller number.

I do not believe if a man learns from this information that it is synthetic. I think the ability for a man to use his mind and adapt is as Alpha as anything else. That said. But it should be clear that pure Alphas are in their own way losers too. However, many women as drawn to play with these guys. 

I find intelllectual value in the above. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions from it and use it to my advantage. 

What I do believe is that context matters. For example depending on circumstances many of those Alphas may not be so Alpha. One could argue then that they as not true Alphas. A Beta in one sphere may indeed be an Alpha in another. But my point is that a man can be totally dominant in his realm. He can be the AMOG of AMOGs in his social and professional sphere and draw the attention of women within and without. But I get it, we are talking about drawing super model types. Also you can have a guy who is otherwise successful but his wife is having sex with her personal trainer. I mean this happend to Shaq.

But what is the value of Roissy to the married man? I think what Athol has brough to the table is simply awesome. Using "game" within the marriage for the benefit of both partners. To make the marriage better. 

But I think that married men also benefit from understanding game so that they can protect the marriage from external predators and by understanding the female perspective on how they could be drawn to other men. I don't know how many times we have read some absurd scenario where the husband goes, "but I was ok with this".

From my perspective, I feel I am the absolute best man for my wife. There is also no woman on the planet who I would sleep with just because I could. 

But if it is about racking up the numbers and banging super models then sure there are Alpha guys out there. No doubt many women find them desirable. Pre-selection is in effect.


----------



## morituri

My thoughts exactly FirstYearDown. Our behavior is fluid and depending on the time and place, a man could be a hybrid of all categories. Full archetypes are very rare.


----------



## Entropy3000

morituri said:


> My thoughts exactly FirstYearDown. Our behavior is fluid and depending on the time and place, a man could be a hybrid of all categories. Full archetypes are very rare.


Which means a true dominant male can adapt and exhibit these traits as needed. The ones who can do this are the true dominant males. Those stuck in one mode .... are by definition then ... weak.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Ignoring or discounting of course every facet of charisma.


----------



## morituri

Entropy3000 said:


> Which means a true dominant male can adapt and exhibit these traits as needed. The ones who can do this are the true dominant males. Those stuck in one mode .... are by definition then ... weak.


Right you are. Adaptability in a species, as well as in individuals, has always been, and will continue to be, a trait of the superior.


----------



## TorontoBoyWest

I have some serious Sigma qualities and I am not quite sure that is a good thing :scratchhead:


----------



## frustr8dhubby

I think I'm just a Pi...


----------



## Goldmember357

Lol at anyone who believes any of this stuff


----------



## TorontoBoyWest

Goldmember357 said:


> Lol at anyone who believes any of this stuff


Because brushing off something you either don't have the capacity to understand or believe in or are afraid of what you might find if you look inward is somehow better?


----------



## Goldmember357

TorontoBoyWest said:


> Because brushing off something you either don't have the capacity to understand or believe in or are afraid of what you might find if you look inward is somehow better?


I worked as a Psychologist for several years and now work as a lawyer. I believe i have a descent understanding of psychology seeing how it was one of the two things i majored in and seeing how psychology in general was my profession for a while.


----------



## TorontoBoyWest

sorry this eloquence...



Goldmember357 said:


> Lol at anyone who believes any of this stuff


does not jive with the level of education required for this...



Goldmember357 said:


> I worked as a Psychologist for several years and now work as a lawyer. I believe i have a descent understanding of psychology seeing how it was one of the two things i majored in and seeing how psychology in general was my profession for a while.


And if you indeed are telling the truth, which I find doubtful being that the majority of those with that level of education would have something far more substantial too say then...


lol at whoever believes this mumbo jumbo.....


I will eat my hat.


----------



## Rocco

Women are attracted to leaders as men are to physical health and beauty. We are genetically programmed to want reprodutive qualities and they want survival. Being the 'leader' or in with the leader goes towards that.


----------



## AFEH

Goldmember357 said:


> I worked as a Psychologist for several years and now work as a lawyer. I believe i have a *descent* understanding of psychology seeing how it was one of the two things i majored in and seeing how psychology in general was my profession for a while.


Six mumfs ago I coodnt spel injineer. Now I are wun.


----------



## Halien

I once heard an interesting discussion from a speaker in one of the leadership summits that my company periodically holds. Notice how many of these discussions talk about how the world perceives alphas, betas, or the results of being alpha, beta (more successful with women)? The speaker said that the way to really understand what type of person a man is can be through trying to see how he views other men. When he is in a crowded room, how does a man view the other men within the room? Within a few moments, an alpha will have sorted out a small list of other men who he considers to be his biggest challenges in the social order. He would never really admit that, though. The beta, however, will focus more on himself, and the things that he can say or do to distinguish himself among those who he comes in contact with, in order to prevent himself from coming across as dull, or disinterested. 

Then, the speaker told us to raise our hands if we had already pared down a small, mental list of who the other "leaders" were in the room. 

It was interesting, at least. 

I only point that out because I notice that many articles talk about the results of being an alpha, or how to be "more alpha", but not too many talk about how the alpha and beta really view the world, and the differences between them. I do agree with others that these are characterizations, while it is more accurate to say that it is situational, while a man may display different traits at different times.


----------



## johnnycomelately

How do you explain the likes of Bill Gates? No-one would have called him Alpha while he was a bug-eyed, broke geek. 

This reductionist approach is misleading. We are all much more complex than this. What about men who are attracted to dominant women and women who are attracted to submissive men? What about the theory that we are attracted to people who have different immunities to ours? 

There is a danger that if you pretend to be someone you are not you will attract the wrong kind of person and end up miserable.

Be who you are and stop worrying about all this ridiculous nonsense.


----------



## AFEH

Even hens have a pecking order. Introduce a new hen to the mix in the coop and the order may well change.

And that’s the thing. These relationships between men aren’t static, they are dynamic. A man may be an alpha in one scenario and a beta in another, just depends who’s around him.


----------



## johnnycomelately

AFEH said:


> Even hens have a pecking order. Introduce a new hen to the mix in the coop and the order may well change.
> 
> And that’s the thing. These relationships between men aren’t static, they are dynamic. A man may be an alpha in one scenario and a beta in another, just depends who’s around him.


Absolutely. Share a prison cell with Mike Tyson and he ain't gonna be the b1tch.


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> How do you explain the likes of Bill Gates? No-one would have called him Alpha while he was a bug-eyed, broke geek.
> 
> This reductionist approach is misleading. We are all much more complex than this. What about men who are attracted to dominant women and women who are attracted to submissive men? What about the theory that we are attracted to people who have different immunities to ours?
> 
> There is a danger that if you pretend to be someone you are not you will attract the wrong kind of person and end up miserable.
> 
> Be who you are and stop worrying about all this ridiculous nonsense.


This is what I am talking about. He is an AMOG in his realm. Men's sex rank is not just about looks. It involves social and economic status. It is about power. Gates has power. A man who has confidence is sexy. A man can be very dominant in his realm. 

Some folks can deal with information and some cannot. Knowledge is power. It is not about pretending to be someone you are not. It is understanding factors in life. 

As I have said before this information is very useful to me. But then again I find all sorts of things useful. Some folks have more tools to draw from that others. Some just have a hammer. And they are happy with that so good for them.


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> Absolutely. Share a prison cell with Mike Tyson and he ain't gonna be the b1tch.


No but in another setting he would be a simpleton and not an Alpha at all.


----------



## johnnycomelately

Entropy3000 said:


> This is what I am talking about. He is an AMOG in his realm. Men's sex rank is not just about looks. It involves social and economic status. It is about power. Gates has power. A man who has confidence is sexy. A man can be very dominant in his realm.
> 
> Some folks can deal with information and some cannot. Knowledge is power. It is not about pretending to be someone you are not. It is understanding factors in life.
> 
> As I have said before this information is very useful to me. But then again I find all sorts of things useful. Some folks have more tools to draw from that others. Some just have a hammer. And they are happy with that so good for them.


Well, you lost me so I must be one of those 'folks' who can't deal with information. 

Better go find that stupid hammer...


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> Well, you lost me so I must be one of those 'folks' who can't deal with information.
> 
> Better go find that stupid hammer...


It is the hand that wields the hammer that matters. 

I am saying that some people can use information to their advantage that others see as useless. I see this information as valuable in dealing with people. I am very much comfortable in my own skin. Much of the inforation simply validates what I have already felt was true. 

But also like much information it is open for interpretation like we are doing. 

Is Mike Tyson an Alpha? Well he was when he was in the fight ring I suppose. He was when he had money. He is a celebrity now so no doubt there are women who find him attractive. 

There was a study that showed that many women are not attracted to highly intelligent men. However women are attracted to intelligent men who can turn that intelligence into something tangible ... like being a well know lawyer or a CEO or someone who in general has gained power, money and status by whatever means. Often the person who profits from a break through is not the person who had the discovery. But rather the person who took the initiative and opportunity to make it theirs. Those men tend to get the play.


Anyway, I agree with you from at least one perspective. I think that the information is open for interpretation. But it is very consistent with much of what we see on this forum. Some good guy staying at home watching his kids while his wife is out playing with the boys.


----------



## Entropy3000

*Dean* said:


> 100% agree
> 
> Gates is an Alpha in Business but a big beta in the lady department (Read a book on him).
> Doesn't mean he didn't end up with a babe at the end of the day.
> 
> I don't like labels but will use it for my point here.
> IMO what really separates the Alpha from the Beta in the lady department is all confidence.
> 
> Just like a lady having confidence in herself is really sexy.
> A man having confidence in himself makes all the difference in the world.
> *A man that wants to learn, acquires knowledge,
> isn't afraid of a set back sometimes, can become just as good
> or better than the males that are born with that skill set.*


Confidence is king.

Yes. A man who can adapt and learn a skillset. That is a valuable trait in survival. I think one who has that skill set is as Alpha as anyone else. maybe more so.

I do not think it has to be a choice of being Alpha or Beta or whatever. You have to have the right blend and the ability to adapt. There are times when a man needs to turn up the Alpha if a predator is near. At other times he needs to crank that down. Being too Alpha will land you in jail or at least without a job.


----------



## Bottled Up

The Alpha/Beta ideologies hold good fundamental value, especially for generalizing purposes. However it's important to remember that every person is an individual with specific tastes and the ideologies often don't account for that.

There's plenty of "true Alpha" males out there whom I'm sure my wife might not be uncontrollably attracted to just because they are Alpha types. Because my wife is a human with intellect and specific taste, her attractions are manifest from a complexity that reaches beyond merely a primal bodily need or reaction.

One factor that zaps the "Alpha gets all the women" theory is that many women are brought up seeking a man that has beta qualities because marriage and monogamy are long-term goals that are ingrained in many family upbringings. Because we are intellects, we are products of our environments and upbringing, so our desires are very much affected by how we are raised.

We all have some basic primal drives within, but our intellect and individualism creates a complexity that in many ways skews the alpha/beta primal dynamic to the point where is simply just doesn't always apply.

Hell, I'm probably more threatened by an awesome beta coming along and swooping my wife off her feet than some pure alpha doing it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Also what a woman sees as attractive changes during ovulation. She may be more drawn to the slightly more Beta guy most of the time but during ovulation she may be drawn to a more Alpha guy.

So a smart husband may want to use that to his advantage or not.

Like anything else this data is just that. Only some factors in a much more complex view.


----------



## ocotillo

I think the idea is sound as a general rule, but pragmatically speaking, isn't any system of categorization that relies primarily on human perception limited by how widely human perception can vary?

Halien mentioned how men view other other men. Is that always the same as how women would view these men? When I was much younger, I attended a function where the late Carlos Hath**** was a guest speaker. Most of the men in the audience were in awe of the guy. Most of the women I know don't know who he was and would be more impressed with a man who can dance really well even if they did.


----------



## COguy

I kind of agree in the futility in categorizing everyone.

My personal take on it is learn your weaknesses and seek to improve instead of trying to mold yourself into some male stereotype one way or the other.

For example, practice not avoiding conflict, because it's a good life skill, not because it makes you more "alpha" or "attractive to the ladies."


----------



## Entropy3000

ocotillo said:


> I think the idea is sound as a general rule, but pragmatically speaking, isn't any system of categorization that relies primarily on human perception limited by how widely human perception can vary?
> 
> Halien mentioned how men view other other men. Is that always the same as how women would view these men? When I was much younger, I attended a function where the late Carlos Hath**** was a guest speaker. Most of the men in the audience were in awe of the guy. Most of the women I know don't know who he was and would be more impressed with a man who can dance really well even if they did.


Right. So an Alpha guy who can dance in a dance club might be a real threat then.


----------



## Entropy3000

COguy said:


> I kind of agree in the futility in categorizing everyone.
> 
> My personal take on it is learn your weaknesses and seek to improve instead of trying to mold yourself into some male stereotype one way or the other.
> 
> For example, practice not avoiding conflict, because it's a good life skill, not because it makes you more "alpha" or "attractive to the ladies."


I totally agree with this. The take away from the categorizing should not be for a man to mold himself to any of these personas.


----------



## ocotillo

Entropy3000 said:


> Right. So an Alpha guy who can dance in a dance club might be a real threat then.



LOL. Well that was kinda the point


----------



## This is me

Entropy3000 said:


> No but in another setting he would be a simpleton and not an Alpha at all.


RIght, put Mike Tyson in Trumps board room and then see who becomes the Alpha.


----------



## Deejo

Found all of this fascinating when learning and reading about it. And I do think it worthwhile to be aware of, if you desire to make changes.

In practice? I don't much care what letter of the Greek alphabet I am, not anymore ... so long as I get what I want, when I want it, under terms that are most favorable to me.

My life? Is about me, as yours is about you; and as a result you get to choose how you conduct it, and what influence your conduct has on those around you. Conducting yourself proactively instead of reactively or passively.

You want to date a hot woman? Isn't going to happen from your couch or in front of your computer.
You want to be a captain of industry? Being a 9to5'er and a 'yes man' isn't going to make that happen.
Want to lose 30 pounds? Get your ass in the gym, and pay attention to what you eat.
Want others to find you attractive or interesting? Conduct your life with purpose. A purpose of your choosing and design.

And THAT ... has been the big change and realization for me.


----------



## morituri

Being a total alpha male is not what it is all cracked up to be. There is also a dark side of it as well. Prison is full of these predatory alpha males.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Where do the epsilons, omicrons, mus, nus and thetas fit?

I see myself as more of a nabla...


----------



## Deejo

I don't think anyone needs to eat, drink, and sleep this theory-craft all of the time. 

But ...

Anyone that does NOT think there are inherent social, character, and behavioral constructs that influence how a male is perceived as a potential sex partner, or life partner by females (virtually irregardless of higher animal species) is ignoring biology, sociology and plain old common sense.


----------



## Deejo

*Dean* said:


> But I am a strong believer in continuous learning and becoming a better man.


That's the crux of it all for me, right there. Very well said.


----------



## Halien

*Dean* said:


> In my 54 years, college, working, etc. I have never seen the term alpha and beta being
> used before or even spoken of until I found TAM. I'm in a happy marriage too.
> Taken tons of leadership training classes thru work and these two words never came up.
> 
> But I am a strong believer in continuous learning and becoming a better man.
> Everything isn't perfect but the use of these two words to help someone understand how
> they may improve their relationship with their wife is helpful.



Lots of the terminology used on this site was pretty new to me, although some of the common behaviors described among different types of men wasn't necessarily new. But I grew up under a dad who believed that most other men were inherently inferior when it comes to keeping their relationship affair-proof. Also went to a college where the social life was pretty open, yet competitive, and noticed some common themes there.


Now that I've heard of some of the terminology, I couldn't help but jokingly notice an opportunity to classify you - maybe delta??

See, you said, "But I am a strong believer in continuous learning and becoming a better man."

An alpha would have said, "But I am a strong believer in continuous learning and becoming a better man THAN OTHERS."

Just kidding!!! Hope the joke wasn't so obtuse that it makes no sense.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Alpha Betas-


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> Common sense is over rated.


As my father says, common sense is not nearly as common as people think.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Common sense is over rated.


Get thee to a nunnery ...


----------



## ocotillo

MominMayberry said:


> Only this website do men define themselves. In real world they just go about going about.


Such knowledge about men.... 

The reality is quite the opposite. There is not a decent man anywhere who has not noticed that the 'Biff Tannens' of the world are never lonely and wondered why.

Adaptations of game theory are not perfect as explanations, but they do cover a fair amount of the data.


----------



## Entropy3000

> Originally Posted by MominMayberry View Post
> Only this website do men define themselves. In real world they just go about going about.


I do like this website but I had no idea it was that progressive. So trend setting. So Avante Garde!!

Only this website. Wow. I think that is very special.

That this bastian of Marriage could influence the manosphere to such a degree. Inconceivable!!!!

:smthumbup:


----------



## johnnycomelately

ocotillo said:


> Such knowledge about men....
> 
> The reality is quite the opposite. There is not a decent man anywhere who has not noticed that the 'Biff Tannens' of the world are never lonely and wondered why.
> 
> Adaptations of game theory are not perfect as explanations, but they do cover a fair amount of the data.


I have seen plenty of 'Biff Tannens' propping up bars talking about how tough they used to be.

For anyone interested the theory of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy makes interesting reading.


----------



## MominMayberry

*Dean* said:


> Good to have you drop in and post. Wish you would post more often.


Thank you. My written English isnt so great. Spoken is fluent. I get angry reading men are one way and only alpha matters. I get angry reading that men buy in Athol way and think he is the Messiah. Why would any body take advice from a two time cheater? His book is about tricking/ fooling women and gaming them. Taking a Map and trick women. He knows nothing about real marriage. He knows nothing about love, nothing.


----------



## ocotillo

johnnycomelately said:


> I have seen plenty of 'Biff Tannens' propping up bars talking about how tough they used to be.


I agree that's often the case later in life. 




johnnycomelately said:


> For anyone interested the theory of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy makes interesting reading.


Okay, I'm not terribly gifted in mathematics, but am a fan of Nash. Genuinely curious here. Would an ESS model explain the gender distribution of a disorder like hybristophilia?


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> I have seen plenty of 'Biff Tannens' propping up bars talking about how tough they used to be.
> 
> For anyone interested the theory of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy makes interesting reading.


So you had a photon firing phaser in their with that hammer!


Nice! :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

morituri said:


> Right you are. Adaptability in a species, as well as in individuals, has always been, and will continue to be, a trait of the superior.


This seems counter-alpha to me. An alpha doesn't adapt as necessary. An alpha exudes confidence in what he is, he doesn't adapt or change himself. Its a you have it or you don't sort of thing. Others groups may try to mimick it with pseudo-confidence, but its never the same.

I think its a beta trait to adapt or even consider these sorts of categorizations useful. An alpha has no use for them. He knows he's the bomb, and he does what he wants... he dictates the social order, he has no need for adapting.

Everyone, men and women, are drawn to him by sheer charisma.


----------



## FirstYearDown

I didn't know Atholk was a cheater. I treat MMSL like a buffet-take what I like and leave the rest. There are some wise truths on that website, but some of it is just drivel.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This seems counter-alpha to me. An alpha doesn't adapt as necessary. An alpha exudes confidence in what he is, he doesn't adapt or change himself. Its a you have it or you don't sort of thing. Others groups may try to mimick it with pseudo-confidence, but its never the same.
> 
> I think its a beta trait to adapt or even consider these sorts of categorizations useful. An alpha has no use for them. He knows he's the bomb, and he does what he wants... he dictates the social order, he has no need for adapting.
> 
> Everyone, men and women, are drawn to him by sheer charisma.


The ability to adapt shows superior intelligence. It is Darwinian. The dominant male is not just confident. They are smart. They can use tools. They can use situations. All else equal the most intelligent Alpha will be the AMOG. An AMOG will use the others strengths against themselves. Depending on the threat they will adapt. They use speed whne speed wins. The use force when force wins. This is adapting.


----------



## chillymorn

I'm just a man,an awsome man that any woman would die to love....

and if she don't then screw her on to the next!

is that alpha?


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go.


OMG. Shakespeare!!

Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Some the nicest people I know are current and former 3rd Spec. Forces Group down the road at Ft. Bragg. Give you the shirt off their back, never get in arguments, kind to children and animals.


----------



## Entropy3000

Runs like Dog said:


> Some the nicest people I know are current and former 3rd Spec. Forces Group down the road at Ft. Bragg. Give you the shirt off their back, never get in arguments, kind to children and animals.


They have a blend of positve traits. Your example is very good sir. They aadapt to the needs of the situation. They have fewer limitations. They can operate in a very sane and loving way and yet in combat they will dominate thier enemies.

This is what I consider to be superior.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go.


Damn I like you ... in a very beta non-threatening and politically correct manner.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Unhappy2011 said:


> I also think anybody who refers to themselves as an "Alphamale" has only made a conscious decision to appear like one out of ambition to be one.
> 
> I also wonder about the women who think their husbands are "alpha males", My sister use to say that about her ex-husband. Sure he was a very successful guy who started his own computer company. But he was also lucky being at the right moment in time. 5 or 10 years later, he would not have had such huge success. He was also nerdy, a big puss, afraid of germs and "scary people" on the streets and just a general uptight, conniving weirdo, who acted like a huge baby at the end of their marriage.
> 
> Not an alpha at all.


I agree with you, so many want to use that label since it has become so popular = the lusted after. 

I think I speak about my husband very truthfully.... I don't try to brag him up for something he isn't... he is clearly more Beta....which has such a bad reputation....it often irritates me when I read articles comparing the 2. The Gamers love to slam them unrelentlessly and make them feel small. 

My husband never did well with women, he hardly put himself out there though, he was shy, not very confident (not with women anyway), wouldn't want a leader position if you paid him, enjoys watching sappy movies, always the smiling gentlemen, forever the doting father & husband, faithful employee who is more a peace maker & can be counted on. When he gives his word, it happens. He is not the life of the party by any means, and he had his share of bullying in school. Half of this probably sounds pathetic to most women....but I wasn't one of them. I look deeper than the outside, these lables others throw on us...from how it appears, sometimes we could be missing a really beautiful thing. 

I always ask.. what is the character deep within....just cause women are lining up for some doesn't mean anything.. in fact it might even mean more heartache down the road, depending. 

Does everyone have to be a walking confidence king to = attraction. I guess I am a strange one cause that never did it for me....not even in my teens. I mean, you need to talk & carry a conversation of course & have some cababilities, be able to laugh at yourself. But a little shy.... I love it !!! It is a mystery to unravel. 

I feel so many put on a facade when you meet them anyway, hustling for social acceptance - due to many of these praising Alpha write ups....so men learn how to FAKE who they are so well, so many gamers have spread this dribble on the internet. Anything to not appear BETA... heaven forbid, or you are worse than a rodent. 

Then women have no idea who the hell they are really dating, only to find out later, what she really married was a selfish little boy. 

My husband has ALL of the GOOD BETA traits in full supply. He could be a little more assertive (like those Alpha's) but none of us are perfect....I could be more patient..... he puts up with me! 

I prefer this type of man, in fact I would clash with someone tipped Alpha... I've always had a thing for the shy guys. I wouldn't even want one high on a social ladder, cause he would be more likely to be a work aholic or so in demand by others, he would have little time for ME....or a constant worry women are falling at his feet, more temptation.... who needs all that hassle.... I'd rather marry a someone who cared more about the little things in life, togetherness. 

This world is made up of introverts & extroverts, we often down the introverts, many of these men are tipped Beta. There is nothing wrong with this. More people need to recognize we all have our place. Becoming truly authentic in this world is what to strive for, not trying to fit anyone else's boxes.

No matter who it is... . we all have something to work on, even the true Alphas... they could stand to learn from those tipped more Beta.......but you won't hear that drum being played too often on the internet. 

I haven't read much of this thread, so forgive me if I am saying something that doesn't fit here.


----------



## sandc

SA you are a gem.


----------



## bubbly girl

Great post SA.

All I know is my husband is just right to me whatever he is.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> It's OK, I like your a$$, in a very threatening, non-politically correct Alpha way.


It's not harassment if I enjoy it, right?


----------



## johnnycomelately

Entropy3000 said:


> So you had a photon firing phaser in their with that hammer!:


Well, maybe an airgun.

I read about ESSs in the book the Selfish Gene. The take away for me was that even though many of us want to be the high testosterone, alpha tennis-pro types, sleeping with lots of women, the best strategy in terms of passing on your genes is to be the faithfull, good dad type.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Trenton said:


> I know it won't surprise you that I agree completely. I believe if BBW was around he would take this opportunity to step in and tell you that you suffer from snowflake syndrome.


 I just looked that up- on Urban dictionary, well that would be quite the insult --if so!

Awww BBW, he really got under my skin when I 1st landed here telling me I was going to resent my husband -cause he didn't fit a certain mold. I so enjoyed arguing with him though. 



> Now I get that we are also a result of our biology. No doubt that my chemical makeup is going to play a role in my processing on mental, emotional and physical levels.


 I do so believe. 



> The fact that we are all different and capable of these connections is what makes our lives so beautiful and extraordinary. *Being daring enough to put ourselves out there and be seen as who we really are is what holds us back*.














> If a woman doesn't appreciate you as a man, find a woman who will, but don't become someone you're not to be with her. Your ultimate happiness depends on it.


 Same thing in reverse too, if a man doesn't appreciate you as you are, dump him...cause it ain't gonna work, our true selves is gonna show up later down that road...more likely in some very unfavorable ways if we were not true to ourselves in the beginning...working to conceal in order to be recognized as socially acceptable to the opposite sex. 




> *Johnnycomelately said*: I read about ESSs in the book the Selfish Gene. The take away for me was that even though many of us want to be the high testosterone, alpha tennis-pro types, sleeping with lots of women, the best strategy in terms of passing on your genes is to be the faithfull, good dad type.


 And you know what is so unfortunate... women so often chase those types in their youth, get snared, then find out they are miserable after they get hitched....then go off looking for the "faithful - good dad" types after they've had a couple kids. 

Got a friend right now in that boat... LUST lured her like "a moth to a flame" in the beginning, this man could do no wrong...Mr Confident...walked on water.... she was so blinded, even though red flags were clearly there.... she is a beautiful blonde, ever faithful, devoted Mother, nice career....but so messed up (in regards to men) today over how this philandering Alpha treated her over the years... if she has any trust at all in men..... it is only a trickle.....she broke down & cried on our porch 2 days ago to me & another friend...which prayed for her to find one of those "good faithful dad types".

Only problem is...I worry even he won't be able to wade though her mountain of distrust -as she near views all men through the lens of her EX. Our life experiences can really do a number on us.


----------



## Goldmember357

TorontoBoyWest said:


> sorry this eloquence...
> 
> 
> 
> does not jive with the level of education required for this...
> 
> 
> 
> And if you indeed are telling the truth, which I find doubtful being that the majority of those with that level of education would have something far more substantial too say then...
> 
> 
> lol at whoever believes this mumbo jumbo.....
> 
> 
> I will eat my hat.


Why would i lie about something as small as majoring in psychology and why would i lie about working as a psychologist? 

I have given very detailed posts before in which i explained things in logical manner in order to give someone further insight into a method of thinking i felt would only benefit them. 


You seem to take offense to what i said for some reason now why is this? 



AFEH said:


> Six mumfs ago I coodnt spel injineer. Now I are wun.


Lol Honest mistake c and s are not far apart on the keyboard you know.


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> Well, maybe an airgun.
> 
> I read about ESSs in the book the Selfish Gene. The take away for me was that even though many of us want to be the high testosterone, alpha tennis-pro types, sleeping with lots of women, the best strategy in terms of passing on your genes is to be the faithfull, good dad type.


Well I just want to point out that while I feel I have derived benefit from the data related to the categories, I will assert again that I have my own interpreation as to the value it has for my own life. In no way am I saying that I aspire to any one of those categories per se. You and I really are not in that much of a disagreement if we are at all.

I am very much the good dad type. I am a good guy but with an edge when I think it is appropriate. In no way do I wish to be that personal trainer or tennis pro who bangs the other mens wives. But I do see them as my enemy. Know your enemy. I also can learn from them and apply a certain amount to my marriage. I happen to think a complete man is some combinaion of mostly the positive traits across these types. 

Having too much of one category limits a man IMO.
I aspire to ber what I would call a person of substance. I don't always get there.


----------



## morituri

Who wants to become a rigid archetype who is limited by his own self-imposed rules created by others and has no ability to change and become someone better than who he is?


----------



## Entropy3000

Snowflake ... um ... wow 

Urban Dictionary: snowflake


----------



## Entropy3000

morituri said:


> Who wants to become a rigid archetype who is limited by his own self-imposed rules created by others and has no ability to change and become someone better than who he is?


I am way too confident for that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Entropy3000 said:


> Snowflake ... um ... wow
> 
> Urban Dictionary: snowflake


That is not the definition I looked up .. I added "syndrome" as that is what Trenton called it ...and found this: 

Urban Dictionary: snowflake syndrome


----------



## johnnycomelately

Trenton said:


> If a woman doesn't appreciate you as a man, find a woman who will, but don't become someone you're not to be with her. Your ultimate happiness depends on it. Otherwise, you're wasting time and the only truth we know is all of us do share limited time here. You just never know, dare to live the life you've imagined.


Well put. Maybe this thread should be in the Coping with Infidelity forum, not being yourself is the ultimate infidelity, right?

What type of person you are is as hard-wired as your physical stature anyway, so trying to be 'alpha' is like trying to be tall. You just end up looking shorter.


----------



## morituri

Alpha Rooster


----------



## Goldmember357

Unhappy2011 said:


> I agree it's quite embarrassing to read other people talk about themselves like this.
> 
> Like people who wonder if they are good looking or not.
> 
> 
> I also think anybody who refers to themselves as an "Alphamale" has only made a conscious decision to appear like one out of ambition to be one.
> 
> I also wonder about the women who think their husbands are "alpha males", My sister use to say that about her ex-husband. Sure he was a very successful guy who started his own computer company. But he was also lucky being at the right moment in time. 5 or 10 years later, he would not have had such huge success. He was also nerdy, a big puss, afraid of germs and "scary people" on the streets and just a general uptight, conniving weirdo, who acted like a huge baby at the end of their marriage.
> 
> Not an alpha at all.


Agreed it’s not rational way of thinking

I am a bit more of a functionalist I believe that consciousness and behavior in general help people and animals adjust to their "set" environments and it’s important to understand their mind which means in turn understand what the mind has accomplished. So it’s safe to assume i have a bit of a dislike for the Structuralists view point and it’s been proven it's infective in studying children, animals and those who wish to lie. When it comes to say modern approaches of understanding human behavior I favor both a psychodynamic approach and that of a humanistic approach (more so humanistic) I feel that people are not merely machines and that their behavior is not determined by genetic code (to an extent) and that conflicts in one's childhood among other things can lead to and brush with stimuli and in turn lead to different mental calculations often "cold" mental calculations (some say hot for other reasons). Human's in my opinion are motivated and more so designed for optimal growth and the self-actualization (development). I believe as do most who take the humanistic approach that individual have their own set of abilities and desires along with skills and they may wish to feel and express happiness and adjust to the ability to express desires. Some qualities make humans unique among animals, such as striving for self-determination and self-realization that is why I feel it’s foolish to take the biological approach which is being essentially promoted and professed on here with these “Alpha and “beta” and other weird terminology. It goes against the very nature of what is human and the methods of development. 

As we age we learn and change constantly so to place an individual in one of these categories does nothing. For instance one with "alpha" behavior could easily change to a person with "beta" behavior and so forth and on and on and on. That is why it’s ridiculous to suggest that they are all confined and decided upon set behaviors. Of course those who profess such an illogical way of thinking will wish to say "bbb but but that is why most people are a MIX! of different categories" …For instance Non associate learning occurs when repeated presentation of a single stimulus produces an accustomed change in behavior. Than you also have other process of learning that lead to changes in behavior sensitization and habituation but none the less learning involves various stimuli and the environmental events capable of triggering responses to changes in behavior. 

Now there are a few different philosophical orientations that try to guide psychological theory and research. Them being Humanistic approaches, cognitive, behaviorist, psychodynamic and biological approaches. All of those except biological would pretty much disprove what the TS posted and what the Author of TS little post is trying to conjure up. AND even than! the biological approach to behavior is not entirely fixated on behavior being reducible to that of gene work or nervous systems among other things. 
For anyone interested in a good read on humanistic approach which i do very much like id advice one to read the works of Maslow and the reading of his theory.

An interesting thing to note is that as humans age we go through different stages in life. Of course many different prominent psychologists have come upon different development theories in regards to stages in one’s life. I will stick to the basic ones in particular let us look at Piagets theory of cognitive development. Which says that anyone over the age of 12 is in the formal operational stage which is the final stage and the cognitive skills displayed are that the individual thinks about hypotheticals and can rationalize things in addition they think scientifically and have abstract ideas. In regards to Erikson’s theory of psycho social development there are 8 stages in life for humans’ in which at different ages they exhibit different tensions. For example the Identity Vs Role crisis occurs from age 12-19 the Teen years in which individuals can reflect on identity and consider a number of roles. The individual and their mind is keen on finding a place and finding a role for themselves they need to establish their identity. One could see that some people display supposed “alpha” male syndromes at this stage in life because they have found their identity early and may be accommodated with other elements that positively affect the stimuli thus giving them the “alpha” characterizes. But that same individual could once they reach the Intimacy vs. isolation crisis immediately change into a “beta” and all it would require is the lack of good feelings and positive stimuli. If there is a negative reinforcement than a decrease in positive feelings occurs (obviously) and non-associative learning can change. 

The fact of the matter is that there are different stages in life and the biological approach is dying off and cannot explain supposed irrational behavior past its own narrow range of defined characteristics and has to constantly refer back to genes and nervous system as the root cause to an individual’s behavior. Not taking into account that humans are without a doubt unique and strive towards self-determination and self-realization. Furthermore the TS post fails to acknowledge the above in addition ignores non associate learning, stimuli, associative learning, and reinforcement in addition it also ignores the human consciousness and ability to reason and constant changing (thank’s to learning). Even if one was to refer to works of Jung or Alder or Freud you would find even them with their early works and promotion of psychoanalytic theories, they never believed one individual is set to stone or exhibits X amount of traits or exhibits in turn X trait and they are X “type” because of blah blah blah.. Instead they profess that human behavior is motivated by unconscious needs and that conflict arises when getting those needs conflict with social pressures to behave in way’s that would not embrace set needs. I like personally Carl Rogers self-theory it’s a humanistic approach. Individuals are to complex ever changing it would be absurd to suggest that any male or person falls into a category like “beta” or “alpha” especially when set things are based off nothing with no research.


----------



## Deejo

Very well articulated and thought out. But can you please point out at which point, when I'm explaining all of this to a woman ... does she want to sleep with me?


----------



## Entropy3000

SimplyAmorous said:


> That is not the definition I looked up .. I added "syndrome" as that is what Trenton called it ...and found this:
> 
> Urban Dictionary: snowflake syndrome


I see.


----------



## Entropy3000

You know I have been successful at many things in my life by affirmation. I learned much of this long ago. It was part of my work training. This was a seminar designed by Lou Tice. I actually point to this as a career changing event for me. It was about programming oneself for the next level(s). It was about growing into a new position or simply about taking on a new project. This is what I do for a living. I take on projects that have not been done before within a company. Projects that most folks are afraid to tackle. They say things like, "but we have never done this before." "We do not have the expertise." And so on. Nothing really unique here. We all do this with our lifes endeavors.

So while it is definitely within my personality to be driven to take on such things, it is all about taking the steps to prepare oneself for the changes that are needed within individuals and companies to adapt to be able to do things they have not done before or to correct behaviors that need to be corrected. If I do not know something I learn it. I do this in many ways. One of the ways is to live it. Visualize in your mind what you are trying to become. Over time as you continually picture what this involves, your behavior starts to be reprogrammed and you actually start behaving the way you visulaize. This is how we make life style changes as well. Most of us do this. Some intuitively.

Doing the above has made a huge difference in my life. I take on new things. I adapt. It is why I have been asked to do new designs, or to build new teams of people to satisfy needs. While I use "I" I contend that this is not about me, rather a general rule for people who do what I do. People who have the willingness to make the changes in their behaviors to take on new challenges. I have learned to use this within my marriage to be a better husband. That took way too long.

Further when people come here with issues we often suggest that they start thinking in a different way. That they start working on themselves. It is less about having them become something they are not and more about harnessing the positive traits and qualities of who they are. Many men are too Alpha. We do not see a lot of those on this site. Not a shocker. Others need to tweak their approach by being less Beta while other need to add some of those traits and skills. Those are things they inside them. Be the ball.

So as Huxley depicts in Brave New World with his Alphas and Betas and so on ... Oh wait, so Alpha and Beta was not invented on this site. LOL. Folks I read this in High School as part of a Utopian Literature class. Anyway in his society people were genetically engineered into their categories and were taught to have pride in their category. 

But I digress. My point is that human beings, successful human beings are capable of constant change. I contend the day you stop changing is the day you die. I also think those who can handle change the best or favored over those who do not. Those that are a one trick pony and cannot adapt are chosen for deselection at some point. It is rock, paper and scissors. You do not have to settle for only one.

So I am all good with being comfortable within your own skin. But men can be better men and women can be better women. It is fine to emulate traits of those that you admire in others. You have a right to them. What you are doing is developing those aspects within yourself. This is not fake. You are using your brain to adapt and improve yourself. You are making a better you. 

We can "work on ourselves." We are a product of our genetics and our experiences. There is plenty to work with. We can learn new things. There was no book when I was growing up on much of this stuff. Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex was a great book. But it never taught me about relationships. Some men get taught by example from their parents. Hopefully a good example. Others lso receive real mentoring from their father. But I suggest this is all too rare. So we have to learn as we go. We adapt. This ability allows us to survive and thrive. Not doing so makes us miserable and puts us at risk. We are bale to learn and adjust our behaviors towards a happy life and marriage. This is being all you can be. If you pretend you are something you are note ... you are in danger of becoming it.

I do not see any of the categories I would want to be. But there are good and bad traits to choose from across the board. BTW the adage you can't teach an old dog new tricks ... well humans can learn their whole lives. This is a valuable life skill. Please do not dismiss it.


----------



## johnnycomelately

Deejo said:


> Very well articulated and thought out. But can you please point out at which point, when I'm explaining all of this to a woman ... does she want to sleep with me?


When you hand over the cash.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> If a woman doesn't appreciate you as a man, find a woman who will, but don't become someone you're not to be with her. Your ultimate happiness depends on it. Otherwise, you're wasting time and the only truth we know is all of us do share limited time here. You just never know, dare to live the life you've imagined.


I have no desire to be alpha, beta, gamma, or pi. I don't care how others label me. What I do want and care about is having a great marriage with my wife. I find these labels to be useful short hand for certain behaviors and actions that I have. What I have found particularly useful is the understanding that my wife was attracted to the whole package. Because of that, changing myself to be the type of husband I thought she wanted (which was mostly the beta type traits) was a huge mistake. 

TAM, the MMSL, NMMNG and others have made explicit what I knew but had difficulty articulating - you need to be comfortable and happy with yourself first before you can be happy in your marriage. A big part of that is recognizing and accepting your "alpha" traits and balancing them with the "beta" traits. 

That is, as Trenton says much better than I did, be the man my wife appreciated in the first place.


----------



## Entropy3000

Tall Average Guy said:


> I have no desire to be alpha, beta, gamma, or pi. I don't care how others label me. What I do want and care about is having a great marriage with my wife. I find these labels to be useful short hand for certain behaviors and actions that I have. What I have found particularly useful is the understanding that my wife was attracted to the whole package. Because of that, changing myself to be the type of husband I thought she wanted (which was mostly the beta type traits) was a huge mistake.
> 
> TAM, the MMSL, NMMNG and others have made explicit what I knew but had difficulty articulating - you need to be comfortable and happy with yourself first before you can be happy in your marriage. A big part of that is recognizing and accepting your "alpha" traits and balancing them with the "beta" traits.
> 
> That is, as Trenton says much better than I did, be the man my wife appreciated in the first place.


Well said. Exactly how I feel.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> The ability to adapt shows superior intelligence. It is Darwinian. The dominant male is not just confident. They are smart. They can use tools. They can use situations. All else equal the most intelligent Alpha will be the AMOG. An AMOG will use the others strengths against themselves. Depending on the threat they will adapt. They use speed whne speed wins. The use force when force wins. This is adapting.


Everyone adapts in that way, and someone of any type can be intelligent. I think that's getting a little out of scope for these categorizations though. These aren't identifying traits of any of these groups.

Alphas are leaders by charisma. They have a sheer dominance of personality... high intelligence isn't necessarily required.

I previously read that someone mentioned Bill Gates. He's not an alpha to my mind. Women and men aren't gonna flock to the young Bill Gates by sheer charisma. You can be highly successful, intelligent, and even confident and still not be an alpha. Someone like Bill Clinton perhaps.

Take away their fame and everything they've done and leave them with personality alone and its not gonna be Gates who leads. He's a sigma running off and doing his own thing (ie dropping out of Harvard to start Microsoft).

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

MominMayberry said:


> Thank you. My written English isnt so great. Spoken is fluent. I get angry reading men are one way and only alpha matters. I get angry reading that men buy in Athol way and think he is the Messiah. Why would any body take advice from a two time cheater? His book is about tricking/ fooling women and gaming them. Taking a Map and trick women. He knows nothing about real marriage. He knows nothing about love, nothing.


I certainly welcome all inputs. That Athol is not perfect does not mean he does not have some valuable insights. No person is perfect, and to wait for such a person means never learning anything.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Everyone adapts in that way, and someone of any type can be intelligent. I think that's getting a little out of scope for these categorizations though. These aren't identifying traits of any of these groups.
> 
> Alphas are leaders by charisma. They have a sheer dominance of personality... high intelligence isn't necessarily required.
> 
> I previously read that someone mentioned Bill Gates. He's not an alpha to my mind. Women and men aren't gonna flock to the young Bill Gates by sheer charisma. You can be highly successful, intelligent, and even confident and still not be an alpha. Someone like Bill Clinton perhaps.
> 
> Take away their fame and everything they've done and leave them with personality alone and its not gonna be Gates who leads. He's a sigma running off and doing his own thing (ie dropping out of Harvard to start Microsoft).
> 
> Just my thoughts.


An AMOG will be highly intelligent and knows how to use that to his advantage. 

But why would you take away everything that Bill has accomplished? 

Part of a man's attraction is in his status. 

Bill Gates is surely a dweeb with skills. I am not saying he is an Alpha. But he is in some ways. He had the confidence to out wit IBM. Yes the his pool guy may be drawing some serious trim. One can say that the Alpha is the pool guy. Maybe so but come on. 

I saw a documentary which had at least some anecdotal value. They had random young women evaluate a guy by :

1) His picture

2) His bio which was really all about what he did for a living

They rated the men very high, say an 8, when they were told they had impressive jobs, titles and salaries.

The same picture with a lesser status position became a 4.

I know this does not take into account charisma. BTW there are aspects of charisma that can be learned. Instilling confidence in jjst about any guy works wonders.

My point is that true Alphas will dominate in their realm. If we restrict the realm to dance clubs and super models then fine. An Alpha in one scenario is a loser in another. I absolutely do get the theoretical traits. I do believe we are a combination of experience and genetics. Like any endeavor often fortitude can make up for genetics. Close enough to improve quality of life.

But anyway, I think no matter how one looks at this there are some takeaways that folks can use. I am not saying my view is the best way to look at this. Only that is seems to work for me.

If nothing else it has been an interesting discussion and I have enjoyed the perspectives.


----------



## Entropy3000

*Dean* said:


> Your statement up in bold is interesting and causes me to think.
> 
> My whole life I have continued to learn and grow, become a better man, husband and leader at work.
> 
> Strange but I never wanted to be a better man/husband for my wife.
> I really love my wife but I don't do it for her, I have always done it for me.
> To better myself. She sees the direct benefit of that.


But it works.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> An AMOG will be highly intelligent and knows how to use that to his advantage.
> 
> But why would you take away everything that Bill has accomplished?
> 
> Part of a man's attraction is in his status.


Yes, but the attraction of an alpha isn't derived from his his income or accomplishments. Any of the categories may be accomplished. The distinguishing characteristic of an alpha is their charismatic magnetism and pure confidence.

A good looking beta who is a lawyer may be very successful with women... but he'd still be a beta. We could regroup everyone after narrowing the field if you consider it relative (ie men of a certain career), but I think the original classifications are derived from the general population at large.

An alpha might be the charismatic vacuum salesman that seduces the housewife of the wealthy beta lawyer or doctor. Even she doesn't quite understand the attraction.

I'm not sure there's necessarily a correlation between the more intellectual forms of success and being alpha. Just anecdotally, in terms of success, it seems to me some of the obvious alphas are the guys who attain high positions without seemingly knowing a damn thing... through sheer personality and relationships. Business types... executives. I think we all know one of this type in our own companies.

I agree its helpful to absorb certain traits and mitigate shortcomings, particularly boosting one's self image, but I'm inclined to believe the base type remains; this is psuedo-confidence.

In my own experience, working out, age, income and consciously being more extroverted significantly boosted my superficial self-esteem and ability to attract women - but I'm certainly not an alpha.

I don't think alphas think about these things. lol

I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative. I just enjoy the conversation.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

*Dean* said:


> Your statement up in bold is interesting and causes me to think.
> 
> My whole life I have continued to learn and grow, become a better man, husband and leader at work.
> 
> Strange but I never wanted to be a better man/husband for my wife.
> I really love my wife but I don't do it for her, I have always done it for me.
> To better myself. She sees the direct benefit of that.


I mostly agree. Where I have seen the most success if where I worked to be a better man for myself, not for her. Perhaps because it was real, versus a trick. I mostly want to be a better man for myself, but a small part wants to be that because my wife deserves that kind of husband.


----------



## johnnycomelately

If any of you get the chance to listen to the This American Life program on testosterone it is funny and educational:

Testosterone | This American Life

The results of the T test shows what a load of bollocks this alpha/beta stuff is.


----------



## ocotillo

johnnycomelately said:


> If any of you get the chance to listen to the This American Life program on testosterone it is funny and educational:
> 
> Testosterone | This American Life
> 
> The results of the T test shows what a load of bollocks this alpha/beta stuff is.


How so?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> How so?


Exactly, I thought it reinforced it. The extroverted (actors, lawyers) and bossy types had the highest testosterone.


----------



## johnnycomelately

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly, I thought it reinforced it. The extroverted (actors, lawyers) and bossy types had the highest testosterone.


Because the gay Canadian had the highest testosterone. The stereotype of the neanderthal, high-testosterone, sports-loving alpha male was turned on its head.

Can you be gay and alpha?


----------



## ocotillo

johnnycomelately said:


> Because the gay Canadian had the highest testosterone. The stereotype of the neanderthal, high-testosterone, sports-loving alpha male was turned on its head.
> 
> Can you be gay and alpha?


I think we're talking first and foremost about personality types. Not hormone levels or sexual orientation 

There's a personality profile most likely to rise to command positions in military organizations. There's a personality profile most likely to commit a selfless act of bravery in armed conflict. The two are quite different. 

It wasn't so very long ago when the aristocracy imagined that this was a matter of breeding and that they were simply better bred than commoners. Gentlemen were officers. Commoners were canon fodder.

Personality is a complicated thing and might be affected by genetics and hormone levels, but those are only possible explanations for the phenomenon and not the phenomenon itself.


----------



## johnnycomelately

ocotillo said:


> I think we're talking first and foremost about personality types. Not hormone levels or sexual orientation


Many of the characterics associated with the alpha-male steroetype _are_ attributable to a hormone - testosterone. Strong jaw, brow ridge, decisiveness etc. I don't think that you can fully seperate hormone levels and personality type. 

As for sexual orientation most people assume that gay = low T, but that doesn't seem to be true. 

Again, I think that your sexuality is integral to your personality type. We assume that alpha-males are sexually dominant and betas less so or even submissive. We associate male homosexuality with submissiveness, don't we? 

I think that when we are talking alpha/beta/gama etc we are simply gauging our 'heterosexuality'. Am I wrong?


----------



## ocotillo

johnnycomelately said:


> I think that when we are talking alpha/beta/gama etc we are simply gauging our 'heterosexuality'. Am I wrong?


The terms do get used in the narrow sense of dating and attractiveness, but they're also used in a much broader behavioral sense in everything from animal behavior to human psychology. 

But I agree with you about testosterone. I think it was fascinating that administering massive doses to a test group of females in a recent study did not produce increased aggression, it produced a stronger sense of fairness.

Testosterone leads to fairness, not aggression: researchers - Technology & Science - CBC News


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> Many of the characterics associated with the alpha-male steroetype _are_ attributable to a hormone - testosterone. Strong jaw, brow ridge, decisiveness etc. I don't think that you can fully seperate hormone levels and personality type.
> 
> As for sexual orientation most people assume that *gay = low T*, but that doesn't seem to be true.
> 
> Again, I think that your sexuality is integral to your personality type. We assume that alpha-males are sexually dominant and betas less so or even submissive. We associate male homosexuality with submissiveness, don't we?
> 
> I think that when we are talking alpha/beta/gama etc we are simply gauging our 'heterosexuality'. Am I wrong?


No I would not think that, but you may be right that some people assume this. Gays and Lesbians still often play out the masculine and feminine role in their own way. High testosterone does not equate to heterosexual.


----------



## Entropy3000

Richard Pryor - Stir Crazy - The Hospital Scene. - YouTube

I think that bringing Testosterone into the conversation is very interesting. 

I believe that testosterone is critical in what makes the man. Perhaps this is a personality multiplier.
I can say that I am a much more capable person when my T levels are good. Yes, I am more agressive. I am more engaged. I feel alive. I work hard and play hard. I am able to focus better.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> You know, hubs had his testosterone was tested and he was high normal when thinking he would test low. He's the most laid back guy I know.


That is why I think it is only part of the equation. A multiplier.

Does he change when he is working or in some other setting when he is not with you. I know that when I am with my wife I am in a different frame of mind. When I am engaged at work I have another mindset. And that may vary with the role I have to play at the time. Other people can be consistent across the board.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Yeah, they said something about high levels being linked to cancer but he went through the whole deal and was found just to have a higher than normal testosterone level. Funny because he thought for sure he'd test low. I didn't, I thought he was nuts but happy he didn't have cancer of the nuts.
> 
> *My husband is not Alpha either unless prompted.* I mean...if you mess with him or his family he'll go all crazy on you but otherwise he's the most even tempered sweetheart I know.


I think that is ideal. In most cases myself I tone it way back these days. I actually try and see if people will take advantage of me then. If so I know I cannot trust them. I get more done with people by saving those traits for when they actually provide a value add. I was not always that way.

I find it a weakness if someone needs to always be in that mode. If someone is truly confident they know they can ramp up when needed. Someone who is always on to me is afraid and insecure.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Dunno. If someone was always in that mode they'd be like the honey badger.
> 
> The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger (original narration by Randall) - YouTube


:rofl::rofl: Awesome. Yeah you might be onto something here.

So having loose skin can have its advantage.


----------



## Halien

Entropy3000 said:


> I think that is ideal. In most cases myself I tone it way back these days. I actually try and see if people will take advantage of me then. If so I know I cannot trust them. I get more done with people by saving those traits for when they actually provide a value add. I was not always that way.
> 
> I find it a weakness if someone needs to always be in that mode. If someone is truly confident they know they can ramp up when needed. Someone who is always on to me is afraid and insecure.


When we talk about subjects like this, there are just so many ways to describe it, and a comment that sounds correct in one context wouldn't be correct in another. I agree with what you are saying, but in reading some of the discussions out in the internet world, I realize that my own understanding of terms like Alpha and Beta is probably incorrect. 

For instance, people will say that a man is being alpha, or high testosterone, if he behaves aggressively when his family or turf is being challenged. Me, I think that in being alpha, defaulting to a low-intellect/anger driven state is "un-alpha", or weak. It's all about knowing the better way to deal with situations like this, or preventing it in the first place. It has to come natural, or it just isn't alpha. Maybe that's wrong, or just a different way of looking at it.

In my life, I went through a pretty dramatic life change before meeting my wife. She said that there was attraction there, because I was popular, but she would never, ever get involved with someone like me. Have to admit that I'm not proud of some aspects of who I was, and I wanted to change. 

This brings me to another point, though. We advocate that people shouldn't try to be something that we are not. We should instead find someone who will accept us as we are. But really, will any marriage survive past about seven years if a person takes the default stance that their mate will always have to accept them just as they are? How many threads do we see here where one partner is wishing that their partner will grow up in one way or another, and become more able to live in a healthy relationship. Fact is, the "just as you are" state of many people in their mid-twenties isn't usually the kind of person that another will be attracted to forever. Hopefully, we recognize the need to keep ourself vibrant and evolving as we age. Being super-alpha or super-beta forever rarely works in the real world. Its arguable that many men grow in self-confidence as they hit middle age, and begin to take on more genuine alpha traits. What I'm trying to get at, and I know it may be wrong, is that being more alpha isn't about being snotty, arrogant or aggressive. It's about being confident in who you are as a man, and your ability to control your life, environment around you, and the interactions with people. Its the lack of doubt about yourself in comparison to others. Some posters will say that they, or their spouse, may be pretty beta, but I'm seeing a lot of alpha going on instead. We've just allowed those who sell "hidden secrets on how to win women" to steal the definition of what alpha really is, and apply it to their secret techniques.

Back to me - I realized early in my marriage that I wasn't being very true to myself. Also realized that there were aspects of my former self that might help our relationship if I defined myself in my own terms, while putting some real effort into trying to understand what my wife needed to keep our relationship evolving.

When I look at the OP's referenced article, what distinguishes all of the categories is the degree of self-confidence & strength of character, and how this tends to stratisfy groups of men. Some equate this confidence to arrogance, but the elders among my grandmother's people who taught us what it means to be a man always said that it was really about letting go of your fears as a man. The fear of feeling inadequate, unnaccepted, or other fears.

Maybe I've just really missed the mark, but I enjoyed your discussion of the different aspects, Entropy.


----------



## Entropy3000

> Some equate this confidence to arrogance, but the elders among my grandmother's people who taught us what it means to be a man always said that it was really about letting go of your fears as a man.


Yes I like this. Too many men suppress who they really are. This is wise.

I can honestly say that the changes in my life that I talk about have been much more of this nature than anything else. I mean the fact that I have a desire to do something and can visualize it so clearly it is less about being something I am not and more about letting something I already posess come to the surface and allow to expand. So when I say to myself "I can do that", it is because I know I have that in me. I've got this. It comes from our center.

So this makes sense when we tell folks to work on themselves. They are suppressing aspects of themselves they fear releasing.

Sp often we see guys say they fear being called jealous, controlling or insecure. They feel guilty for taking steps to protect themselves and their family. 

Am I misinterpreting here?


----------



## Halien

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes I like this. Too many men suppress who they really are. This is wise.
> 
> I can honestly say that the changes in my life that I talk about have been much more of this nature than anything else. I mean the fact that I have a desire to do something and can visualize it so clearly it is less about being something I am not and more about letting something I already posess come to the surface and allow to expand. So when I say to myself "I can do that", it is because I know I have that in me. I've got this. It comes from our center.
> 
> So this makes sense when we tell folks to work on themselves. They are suppressing aspects of themselves they fear releasing.
> 
> Sp often we see guys say they fear being called jealous, controlling or insecure. They feel guilty for taking steps to protect themselves and their family.
> 
> Am I misinterpreting here?


That's exactly what I was referring to.

When you see some of the women on this site talk about their husbands and their positive traits, I really like some of the comments I hear, because it shows what they really value in their husband. We may or may not see them as "alpha" traits, but I think a lot of this is based on definitions of these terms by people who are trying to make the whole alpha discussion into something that can be sold, or taught. In reality, many of these positive traits are the result of their husband finding inner peace with who he is, and confidence. He no longer fears that his personality will make him be labelled somehow. This same inner strength of character is really what I think "alpha" is all about. 

What do we think of when we talk about "players" and "games" in the modern context? Many people will instinctively think of some hidden secrets to "becoming more alpha". Think about how life really plays out, though. Imagine an old-fashioned social setting where young, available women are sitting at a table, and young, available men are trying to decide how to introduce themselves. More often than not, it boils down to many of the men subconsciously trying to figure out how to approach them without feeling stupid, or being rejected (notice the fear here?). Odds are that they've put some thought into tips and tricks, and most of them think that the perfect recipe will win over a woman more often than not. Maybe one or two of them fancies himself an alpha, and has what he thinks to be the perfect formula. God forbid that woman on the receiving end of his formula actually reject him, though, because that would be his worst nightmare (fear again).

You have one guy who instinctively sees these games as a waste of time, or a beta adventure. He figures that the worst thing that can happen is to be rejected, which will not really bother him, but he really wants to get to know one of them in particular. He also knows that about 90% of the other guys are quaking in their boots, and if he doesn't insult or disrespect said woman, she's probably a decent human being who will give a guy a break if he doesn't play games or try to deceive her. Plus, he thinks that he has something to offer if a person will give him a chance. He decides to be real, a person of character. Whether this guy is mild-mannered or expressive, odds are better that this person will attract someone.

Our popular web-based theory is that the alphas are the gamers. The ones trying to put one over on a woman. But I really think that there are a few core characteristics that are broadly appealing, and found in some mild-mannered or expressive, outgoing people. If you are talking about actual results in dating or marriage, they are alpha.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Dunno. If someone was always in that mode they'd be like the honey badger.
> 
> The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger (original narration by Randall) - YouTube


Honey Badger is actually a pristine example of nothing BUT alpha. Honey badger don't care, honey badger don't give a sh!t ...
Excellent reference, Trenton. That and I laugh every ... single ... time I watch that video.



Trenton said:


> I'm thinking there is a more difficult, yet sustainable answer than the dude is alpha and so gets hot chicks or is <fill in the blank> and needs to do such and such. Unfortunately, nobody likes the second choice. Duh.


I'm not picking on you, especially when I know you are posting from the heart. I know you don't like it. But that's kind of the key. It doesn't have to be difficult. It's like chess. The rules are straightforward. How the rules are applied can be vastly complex or very, very easy. Just all depends upon who you are playing with.


----------



## johnnycomelately

Entropy3000 said:


> I think that is ideal. In most cases myself I tone it way back these days. I actually try and see if people will take advantage of me then. If so I know I cannot trust them.


You have *ilungu*

Ilunga
_
Tshiluba (Southwest Congo) – a person “who is ready to forgive and forget any first abuse, tolerate it the second time, but never forgive nor tolerate on the third offense.”_


----------



## Entropy3000

johnnycomelately said:


> You have *ilungu*
> 
> Ilunga
> _
> Tshiluba (Southwest Congo) – a person “who is ready to forgive and forget any first abuse, tolerate it the second time, but never forgive nor tolerate on the third offense.”_


It is more likely that I will have zero or low tolerance the first time for someone who screws me over because they think they can get away with it. I will give someone rope to see what they do with it. I am saying that true trust is earned with me. So I operate this way with "important" relationships. In general I am willing to risk a little bit to find out if a person can be trusted. That does not mean they will be forgiven. I do not fabricate a situations as much as use real circumstances of lower risk to determine the persons character.

Context matters here. I am capable of forgiving certain things under certain circumstances and maybe even as you say. But not about "important" things. I can forgive something I see as inappropriate if it is corrected soon enough but not unfaithfulness. I have zero tolerance for that. Lying is being unfaithful for example.

I am not religious but :

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48 

The above is part of my philosophy.

I may have been the way as you suggested when I was say 20. I was much more naive then.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Entropy3000 said:


> Context matters here. I am capable of forgiving certain things under certain circumstances and maybe even as you say. But not about "important" things. I can forgive something I see as inappropriate if it is corrected soon enough but not unfaithfulness. I have zero tolerance for that. Lying is being unfaithful for example.


Interesting. In those situations, I can forgive them (quite easily in fact) but yet will never trust them or let them in again. I had a former friend do something I considered untrustworthy back in college. At the time, we have been great friends for seven years. I forgave him pretty quickly. While I still talk to him from time to time, I will never let him be close again. In one sense, I will never give him the power to hurt me by being untrustworthy again.


----------



## Entropy3000

Tall Average Guy said:


> Interesting. In those situations, I can forgive them (quite easily in fact) but yet will never trust them or let them in again. I had a former friend do something I considered untrustworthy back in college. At the time, we have been great friends for seven years. I forgave him pretty quickly. While I still talk to him from time to time, I will never let him be close again. In one sense, I will never give him the power to hurt me by being untrustworthy again.


I would not say that my position on this is different. The bottomline is that they have lost my trust and like you would not give them another chance at me.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Halien said*: He figures that the worst thing that can happen is to be rejected, which will not really bother him, but he really wants to get to know one of them in particular. He also knows that about 90% of the other guys are quaking in their boots, and if he doesn't insult or disrespect said woman, she's probably a decent human being who will give a guy a break if he doesn't play games or try to deceive her. Plus, he thinks that he has something to offer if a person will give him a chance. He decides to be real, a person of character. Whether this guy is mild-mannered or expressive, odds are better that this person will attract someone.


 This WAS my husband to the full extent at the age of 18... the only thing that doesn't fit is.... that it wouldn't bother him if he was rejected, it would have sliced like a knife.... but he put himself out there & did it anyway, just days after meeting me...asking me to be his girl. 

I look at character & realness if I gleem it... I never liked those with a hint of a "line". I gave him a chance. I agree with you, Gamers have destructed the Good in the term "Alpha". I am having a very hard time overcoming it myself.. when I hear the term, and when I use it, I happen to look down on it - I think Beta needs redeemed -even more so - in comparison to Alpha being redeemed. 



> Some posters will say that they, or their spouse, may be pretty beta, but I'm seeing a lot of alpha going on instead. We've just allowed those who sell "hidden secrets on how to win women" to steal the definition of what alpha really is, and apply it to their secret techniques


 I think I am the most vocal poster here who goes on about a my "Beta" husband... I'm always beating this drum...


This thread - which you contributed too Halien - gives an example of how Beta is slaughtered by the Gamers (which is WHY I get so irritated) ..... then Atholk comes in to save the day with the TRUE meanings... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/23220-definitive-alpha-beta-thread.html


----------



## Halien

SimplyAmorous said:


> This WAS my husband to the full extent at the age of 18... the only thing that doesn't fit is.... that it wouldn't bother him if he was rejected, it would have sliced like a knife.... but he put himself out there & did it anyway, just days after meeting me...asking me to be his girl.
> 
> I look at character & realness if I gleem it... I never liked those with a hint of a "line". I gave him a chance. I agree with you, Gamers have destructed the Good in the term "Alpha". I am having a very hard time overcoming it myself.. when I hear the term, and when I use it, I happen to look down on it - I think Beta needs redeemed -even more so - in comparison to Alpha being redeemed.
> 
> I think I am the most vocal poster here who goes on about a my "Beta" husband... I'm always beating this drum...


There are a number of things from my past that I continue to work through, and being on this site helps me to challenge my own assumptions about the issues. Mostly it is things from the past that are just too personal, related to tragedy in the past. I've been giving the subject a lot of thought lately. I use some of the traits of alpha-type behaviors to deflect, and avoid having to open up and tell my wife and others about some of the tragedy that took my oldest brother away from us when I was young, and how I was abandoned by my parents for a time, even though it didn't involve me. My wife said to the marital counselor that everyone in my circle of friends and family knows me, but nobody knows me. But when my wife is struggling with deep depression and insecurities, responding boldly, with confidence is so much easier than admitting that I'm lost and struggling with what to do. She didn't want to see that side. Couldn't handle it. Through this thought process, it changes my assumptions about other issues that we men may face.

What I'm getting at is that many of these web-based theories of being alpha, and the harshly negative vibe that it instills, keeps us from really talking about a few key characteristics that could otherwise be discussed without shame or embarrassment from those with milder personalities. We could talk about what character, self-confidence and letting go of fears can make people truly alpha, if that makes any sense. You wouldn't feel like you had to defend your husband, because there are some genuine alpha characteristics in him. When the rubber meets the road, people will follow him, because he is sure of himself, while others are not. But on the flip side, it takes real courage to look at your limitations honestly, instead of deflecting. 

Ahhh ... getting too far off topic.


----------



## Runs like Dog

According to Darwin and Jesus, the meek shall inherit the earth because the Alphas are busily slaughtering each other, getting eaten by bears or getting accidentally killed ******* style.


----------



## Halien

Trenton said:


> Halien...pfft...you're not a honey badger. Why would you want to be? You're a Mod!


I might not be, but there is no way I'm showing that video to my wife!!!! When she tells everyone that I'm like a force of nature sometimes, its not even remotely a compliment. She's talking about the dust devils that leave a trail of debris behind, like the time that some young guys from a church youth outreach down the street tried to break in to my shop one night, then ran from me, and I interrupted the church services in my shorts and t- shirt to confront them. ... but then again, our entire DVD collection of romantic comedies are mine...

But thank you!!!


----------



## Gaia

http://mdm35.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/3-definitions-of-female-types-traits-in-society/

Look!! There's one for WOMEN TOO!!!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Halien said:


> There are a number of things from my past that I continue to work through, and being on this site helps me to challenge my own assumptions about the issues. Mostly it is things from the past that are just too personal, related to tragedy in the past. I've been giving the subject a lot of thought lately. I use some of the traits of alpha-type behaviors to deflect, and avoid having to open up and tell my wife and others about some of the tragedy that took my oldest brother away from us when I was young, and how I was abandoned by my parents for a time, even though it didn't involve me. My wife said to the marital counselor that everyone in my circle of friends and family knows me, but nobody knows me.


I love your observations ...such genuinenss in admitting these things. 

So you struggle with showing or expressing some of these things about your past with others... not that you need to go there, but you would choose silence over sharing....this is just safer /easier, and you can pull it off....let others believe you grew up like everyone else .....why take a chance on trudging through the mudd blackening how others may "view" you... or in this case, your upbringing. 

I've found in life, if/when it may help another feel more "understood"- relatable... bringing yourself down to their human level in something THEY are struggling with....THIS is when "opening up" serves a greater purpose...to share these peices of our past, to let go of shame for a better good......by doing this, it helps us overcome these fears little by little ....and helps the other person feel less alone....that "damn...he really does understand, cause he has been there!!". This can do wonders for other people, lifting them from the pits even. By feeling ashamed of our past, it has us "bound"...in reality. These things are not our fault as children....we know this, we had no control. 


But of course there is no reason to be so forward with others if it isn't relatable -or has a higher purpose in going there. 



> But when my wife is struggling with deep depression and insecurities, responding boldly, with confidence is so much easier than admitting that I'm lost and struggling with what to do. She didn't want to see that side. Couldn't handle it. Through this thought process, it changes my assumptions about other issues that we men may face.


 She needs to feel your strength then, a man should be this way..... what you say here is so very normal... most won't admit these things outright... but they still FEEL them inside. 

...I would personally even question those who say they never feel like what you just described ..... that makes them "untouchable" -nearing some "super Hero status" -I don't believe anyone is like this... and if they are.... I would think they are lacking somehow in others emotions that make them beautiful. We all have some fears, even insecurities. It's not a plague, or pathetic weaknesses...it's just being human. 



> What I'm getting at is that many of these web-based theories of being alpha, and the harshly negative vibe that it instills, keeps us from really talking about a few key characteristics that could otherwise be discussed without shame or embarrassment from those with milder personalities. We could talk about what character, self-confidence and letting go of fears can make people truly alpha, if that makes any sense.


 My husband has a mild personality.... true.... 

I want to compare my husband with his younger brother... 

If any seen the 2 of them, observed their lives....one would say his younger brother is MORE ALPHA , he oozes confidence...(on the outside)...here is why... he is a chick magnent, variety of women over the years, he is a Boss at work, decent amount of guy friends, people remember him, he jokes alot.....he goes on about how he will put people in their place if they mess with him, doesn't take no BS, family members enjoy his stories, he is FUN. 

What others don't see is this ... If family members want to hear about something in his life, we have to be careful not to ask too much or it is none of our business (Mr Secretive)... he broke up with his last GF by an email after 6 yrs, no explanation...left her completely hanging.....she wrote a letter to all of the family members how she wouldn't be there for X-mas, doesn't know what is going on with him, worried about him...she was devestated- she knew he wouldn't tell us anything. I thought to myself... what a COWARD. My husband would never in a million years treat someone like that...even if they dated for 3 months!

He is not secretive, he can admit his shortcomings to anyone and laugh right along with them. He wouldn't want to be a boss, he doesn't puff himself up. Those guys at work like to chew on him, even saying how I wear the pants (sometimes), he'll laugh right along with them, he knows he is well liked , those guys even fight over wanting to work with him. 

SO yeah, outward appearances mean very little. Kinda one of the points I like to slam from time to time. I find those who can freely open up about the vulnerable --are those who are most in touch with themselves....but yet still firm in their convictions & not hustling for anyone's acceptance. This would be REALNESS defined to me. Whether is it Alpha or Beta I guess I don't care. 



> You wouldn't feel like you had to defend your husband, because there are some genuine alpha characteristics in him. When the rubber meets the road, people will follow him, because he is sure of himself, while others are not. But on the flip side, it takes real courage to look at your limitations honestly, instead of deflecting.


 My husband is definitely looked up to as a man who has his life together, a stable family, even our teen sons -there is no trouble or turmoil to speak of....he can be counted on for anything he speaks out of his mouth. He is trusted by all , he will do what is right to correct a wrong so he has a clear conscience. All of this is honorable and well... I assume Alpha... but this is BETA TOO !!!

For me, it is all about being Genuine , honest , Real ...not putting on aires, and of course standing your ground -when you feel you are being mistreated. In some of those instances, he would choose to pick his battles and do what will give the best outcome in the long haul though. Sometimes it is better to keep the mouth shut. 

Something his wife needs to learn a little more of ! Ha ha


----------



## Halien

SimplyAmorous said:


> So you struggle with showing or expressing some of these things about your past with others... not that you need to go there, but you would choose silence over sharing....this is just safer /easier, and you can pull it off....let others believe you grew up like everyone else .....why take a chance on trudging through the mudd blackening how others may "view" you... or in this case, your upbringing.


I'll delete this if the OP thinks that it is veering off-topic, but a therapist I saw during the time of my midlife crisis said that some of what I'm talking about is sometimes a trait among alpha types. (I only saw the therapist after my manager pushed the issue when I dropped out of an exective career succession path)

Its a little different, I think, than what you were thinking, but I really appreciate the response. The therapist said that so-called alpha types, or those who instinctively seek to understand ways to manage people and situations, and move forward when others might pause, will sometimes become so after realizing in childhood that people in their life have some serious, inherent weaknesses. Others might offer other reasons, I'm sure. Think about how some of the good men and women change as adults after being betrayed by spirit-crushing infidelity. You begin instinctively "handling" the people in your life, never trusting them to get to see the real you. Its not about fearing to let them see the vulnerable parts of your background because it will make them think less of you, but more like fearing it because it puts a part of you in their control. Instead, you deflect, and let them make their assumptions. Letting others have access to the inner self never went so well in the past - you'll get abandonment and abuse. "Handling" the access is nothing like trying to control another person in marriage, though. Its more like being strong when they need you to be strong, but balanced with respect for their own leadership. Not sure if that makes sense. 


This might be a surprise, but coming to a site that lacks the face to face interaction helps me, as a hobbyist writer, to set aside the deflection aspect of talking to others in my life. I approached the site tentatively, revealing a little more as time passed. But I went through so much learning with my wife's bipolar depression, and the early suicide scares that I'm trying to stay focused on giving as much as I get from the site. All this probably makes me sound crazy, but there is no instinctive "handling" of discussions when it is written and anonymous.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Halien said*: "Handling" the access is nothing like trying to control another person in marriage, though. Its more like being strong when they need you to be strong, but balanced with respect for their own leadership. Not sure if that makes sense.


 Accually, I am not sure I am getting it....this "handling" vs "control" part. I can be a little THICK at times. You are just too deep for me!




> Think about how some of the good men and women change as adults after being betrayed by spirit-crushing infidelity. You begin instinctively "handling" the people in your life, *never trusting them to get to see the real you*. Its not about fearing to let them see the vulnerable parts of your background because it will make them think less of you, but more like fearing it because it puts a part of you in their control. Instead, you deflect, and let them make their assumptions. *Letting others have access to the inner self never went so well in the past - you'll get abandonment and abuse*.


 We all fear abandonment and abuse ...just the perception is enough to put up a sheild.......but is the WISE way of living ...to never allow another into our inner world of weaknesses & pain for fear they will have "control" over us?? 

I would say we just need to be carefully/ prayerfully be selective in those we allow in, making sure they have proven they are worthy of our hearts..... throwing our pearls before swine & vultures only set us up for more "hiding", more distrust in humanity......leading to a truly camouflaged life...less & less will KNOW the true person behind the . That is just "fitting it" ....not true belonging. 

At the end of the day... the Alpha's, the Betas, the Gammas, the Omegas, the Deltas...oh the labels set force....we need to be Authentic in who we are....don't we? In this way.... we relate to humanity...this allow the goodness in us to shine even brighter before men. From where we came from to WHO we are today. 

Sometimes (depends on the situation, discussion, etc)...being truly authentic is admitting our fears, our imperfections, how we hurt, painful experiences, jealousy, angry, peices of it anyway...all of those emotions we want to drown in the ocean. Some use a little humor setting this forth...which makes all others around them comfortable.. but yet, it's real. 

At the very least, we need to be able to share these things with a potential spouse. If we can't go there, it speaks volumes that we don't trust them with our very lives...how important that is! This should never be... should it? I wouldn't even want to be with someone who couldn't go there with me. But I am not a vulture.

You don't sound at all crazy to me Halien.... quite sound...as I know all would agree with me in this.:smthumbup:

If I am missing the whole band wagon, excuse me!!!


----------



## Deejo

Halien said:


> Think about how some of the good men and women change as adults after being betrayed by spirit-crushing infidelity. You begin instinctively "handling" the people in your life, never trusting them to get to see the real you. Its not about fearing to let them see the vulnerable parts of your background because it will make them think less of you, but more like fearing it because it puts a part of you in their control. Instead, you deflect, and let them make their assumptions. Letting others have access to the inner self never went so well in the past - you'll get abandonment and abuse. "Handling" the access is nothing like trying to control another person in marriage, though. Its more like being strong when they need you to be strong, but balanced with respect for their own leadership. Not sure if that makes sense.


I actually think this is pretty brilliant.

Don't know if my approach is what you intended, but in my case, 'handling' has far more to do with internal self-management to influence or have an effect upon external circumstances. 

Specifically in my case, this has had an enormous impact upon how others NOW choose to interact with me, and how I interact with them. 

Within the last 12 months I have been recognized numerous times at work. I now lead a team of 5 engineers ... despite the fact that I'm not an engineer. I am perceived as a role model, leader, and contributor. I am now a 'go to' guy.

Three years ago, I know for a fact that my boss was questioning if I was even the right fit for the position. And for a very long time, I just 'did my job'.

I interact with and am perceived differently by women. I date ... a lot. Quite honestly, I now find myself on the threshold of my first loving relationship since my marriage ended 4 years ago. I have that 'feeling' that I honestly questioned if I would ever have again. But ... I'm 'handling' it far differently than I would have prior to my own little 'man up' journey.

None of this is by accident. Quite the opposite. It is with intent and purpose.

I am not an Alpha. To me, Alpha is a verb, or an adjective. It is the name applied to a behavior or skill set that makes a particular set of outcomes more likely ... should you desire those outcomes.

And I fully respect that my dear friend Trenton thinks it's crap. Or, wishes that there was another way to get the same outcome. 

And I can't possibly convey how much I admire the fact that SA adores her husband, and sees his being quiet, reserved, and his unyielding support and love for her ... as a strength.

Me? I made some very distinct choices and altered my responses to, and behavior under almost all of the circumstances in my life. And I recognize that many may say that I am not truly being who I am. 

But ... the way I see it, I haven't actually changed who I am. I've just expanded who I'm supposed to be. And I like it.

Halien's comment actually struck me in a very personal and positive way, despite that I may completely be off-base with what he intended.
Only person I want to control is myself. And as a result of doing so ... I can far better manage the outcomes of interacting with others.


----------



## Halien

Deejo said:


> I actually think this is pretty brilliant.
> 
> Don't know if my approach is what you intended, but in my case, 'handling' has far more to do with internal self-management to influence or have an effect upon external circumstances.
> 
> Specifically in my case, this has had an enormous impact upon how others NOW choose to interact with me, and how I interact with them.
> 
> .


Thank you for wording it clearer.

This is what I was referring to. It's different from being controlling, though, so I didn't want people to get the wrong impression. 

I didn't see it in some of the other links about "alpha", but I think what is missing from some discussions is that a person will invariably be called "alpha" if they are naturally intuitive in social interactions, reading body language, etc, and also have a high drive to want every interaction have purpose. If it is real, instinctive, then it isn't some sort of contrived skills. At the root of this behavior, though, is often examples where a person might have been let down in a big way by someone who had a degree of authority in their life. Something has to trigger this type of 'handling', I think.


----------



## Deejo

I agree. None of the self-improvements I have made would have ever occurred, had my marriage not melted down.

And I wouldn't say that I'm afraid of letting someone in. But ... I'm much more wary, and perhaps calculating about who gets in, and what they get to see. 

I no longer see 'being an open book' as a characteristic that benefits me. But even still, most would describe me as open.

And I will say again for the umpteenth time. I initially came to this site, saw these discussions about Dominance, Alpha, and Nice Guy, and thought they were utter clap-trap. And they are ... unless you actually DO something with them.

My career, social relationships, and sexual relationships have prospered as a result of the changes I've made. Simply no arguing with the results. At least not with mine.



Halien said:


> Thank you for wording it clearer.
> 
> This is what I was referring to. It's different from being controlling, though, so I didn't want people to get the wrong impression.
> 
> I didn't see it in some of the other links about "alpha", but I think what is missing from some discussions is that a person will invariably be called "alpha" if they are naturally intuitive in social interactions, reading body language, etc, and also have a high drive to want every interaction have purpose. If it is real, instinctive, then it isn't some sort of contrived skills. At the root of this behavior, though, is often examples where a person might have been let down in a big way by someone who had a degree of authority in their life. Something has to trigger this type of 'handling', I think.


----------



## AFEH

Runs like Dog said:


> According to Darwin and Jesus, the meek shall inherit the earth because the Alphas are busily slaughtering each other, getting eaten by bears or getting accidentally killed ******* style.


There’d be alphas amongst the meek, somebody will organise and lead, it’s all relative.


----------



## AFEH

Deejo said:


> I agree. None of the self-improvements I have made would have ever occurred, had my marriage not melted down.
> 
> And I wouldn't say that I'm afraid of letting someone in. But ... I'm much more wary, and perhaps calculating about who gets in, and what they get to see.
> 
> *I no longer see 'being an open book' as a characteristic that benefits me.* But even still, most would describe me as open.
> 
> And I will say again for the umpteenth time. I initially came to this site, saw these discussions about Dominance, Alpha, and Nice Guy, and thought they were utter clap-trap. And they are ... unless you actually DO something with them.
> 
> My career, social relationships, and sexual relationships have prospered as a result of the changes I've made. Simply no arguing with the results. At least not with mine.


It sounds to me that you now have much better boundaries. I think some of us start out way too extroverted (open books) but learn in time how easy it is to get burnt that way. And so we change, we evolve and continue to grow.


It could be that you are now developing your introverted side. I think that happens as we go along with our life if we started out overly extroverted. We sometimes get thrown out of kilter (in a state of not working well), our centre of gravity is outside of us (happens to extroverts) so we work both consciously and subconsciously to pull it back inside. That’s our introverted instincts at work, it takes a while to develop and expand them.


----------

