Alpha, beta and you.
- Thread starter Doclector
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's this idea that it's something that's entirely decided by birth...Doclector said:Recently, I've been hearing a lot about "Alpha/beta". This is nothing new, it's simply being exposed to me more at the moment.
For those uninitiated, Alpha/beta males is the idea that there is a certain kind of man you can be to have sex, get places in life, and generally, be more awesome, and another kind of man that does the exact opposite.
Alpha males can attract women easily, and are generally attractive. They're successful, or at least living semi-decently. Centre of attention, life of the party, all that.
Beta males are about as attractive to women as a shit covered lamprey. They live in their parents basements. Only ever invited to parties as a cruel joke.
Now, I'm annoyed at this. It seems to suggest a higher/lower class of humanity, or at least the male part of it. More than that, betas are not a subject of pity, but full on hate.
However, a terrible thought refuses to leave my mind. What if they're right?
Maybe it's a little harsh as it is. Beta is beta, beta shall never be alpha, and will never be allowed any of the privileges of the alphas, such is the idea. However, our society is littered with examples of supposed "betas" tasting greatness. Bill gates is an obvious one.
But doesn't it always seem that some people have it all fall into place? They never seem to struggle to get the girl, get the job, get the life that you seem to try so hard for? Is it possible that some of us simply are more "blessed" than others, and possibly that the simple tastes of society has formed this spectrum into two distinct groups?
Maybe I'm overthinking a silly internet saying. Personally, I think there are certain people "born to win", and that's not necessarily something limited to men. That doesn't mean it's impossible for the rest of us, but it is harder, and the knowledge that some people have it easy seems to make it more so.
TLR What do you think of the Alpha/beta thing? To what extent is it myth or reality? Would you consider yourself one or the other?
When in reality, the social skills, leadership abilities, and other generally "Alpha" traits are learned skills, some people grow up being taught these things, and they more naturally fall into that category, some people are more naturally inclined or "Talented" in this way, but as a man who has lived as a rather... Constantly changing person flipping all over the social spectrum, I've been both a hopeless nerd, a bit of a jock, the funny guy, a womanizing player type asshole, and just about everything, the thing to remember, is that people never see "Who you are" they only ever see "What you project" it's entirely based on patterns of body language, and a variety of other little nuances expressed by you...
In otherwords, "Alpha-ness" or "Alphadom" just takes effort, and a lot of people who fit the beta personality are just too lazy to bother, it's more of a complacency thing than anything.
Right now, I'm not bothering at all, I don't care, I had my spot in the light of social prowess, gained a reputation amongst my friends, and now I'm just chillin, women won't take as econd look at me, because I'm projecting a sufficiently unnatractive visage, I'm being a slacker, with no motivation other than a beer after work, and no other ambition than making the money I need to survive, I have NOTHING going on, which makes me in turn look extremely boring, and when it comes to being attractive that's essencially the biggest black mark one can wear.
Eventually I'll get my groove on again, and be interesting and exciting, and project a man on the rise, with prospects and interests, and shit going on again, and then maybe try and find a woman who I can relate to well enough to form some sort of relationship with her, but that's the thing, among my friends, I'm considered an Alpha, as far as most of the world is concerned I'm a Beta, it's all in who you project.
And don't get me wrong, the "Projected" you isn't a lie, EVER, unless you pretend to like shit you don't, and hurt people you normally wouldn't want to hurt, the projection of self that I'm talking about is just how you handle YOU, simply the way you stand, can mean the difference between people pushing you around, and people inviting you to parties, I've never stopped being a geeky gamer dude, and I've played in all fields(well all fields other than high finance, or business, I'm talking socially).
Alpha, and Beta, aren't a myth, but they aren't absolutes either, they're a set of character traits and skills, or lack thereof, that vary depending on a mix of a person's upbringing, and level of effort.
It still doesn't make sense. It is possible to be both competitive, dominant, and genuinely altruistic at the same time - that's not at all holding society up from the bottom. And what you said just makes the lines between these categories seem so blurry that they might as well not exist at all.Thyunda said:
Back of the bus.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
First, why is there no Gamma? Surely people would be more attracted to Gammas with their radiation, super atomic powers, and slight levels of insanity.
Second, and more OT, I find this logic of alpha/beta/kappa kappa wong to be depressing. Not because I'm bothered by being in a shit category, but because we still feel the need to place ourselves in categories to show why we're unfavorable or favorable or whatever to people. The way I look at it, there's someone out there for everybody. It doesn't matter how rich, fit, intelligent, or strong you are, there is someone out there for you. To think you need to have every role covered or a set amount of roles covered to be successful or get women (or men) is ludicrous. You don't get to cover every role in a game (healer, tank, thief, etc) in one character, so why should you expect anything different in reality?
I will say that when I think Alpha/Beta/Epsilon, I don't think about wealth, physical condition, strength, or intelligence. They way I've always looked at it is that Alphas are individuals that are decisive. They know what they want and go for it, leading them to be more successful because they didn't hesitate when an important decision came their way. Betas tend to hesitate and make decisions cautiously. That isn't bad, because they want to take everything into consideration. It just means that they'll miss opportunities at times that Alpha will just up and take. And, of course, it's not just black/white, but a lot of grey in-between because some Alphas won't always make snap decisions and same deal for Betas.
That's my thought on it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go back to working on the atmoic supermen.
Second, and more OT, I find this logic of alpha/beta/kappa kappa wong to be depressing. Not because I'm bothered by being in a shit category, but because we still feel the need to place ourselves in categories to show why we're unfavorable or favorable or whatever to people. The way I look at it, there's someone out there for everybody. It doesn't matter how rich, fit, intelligent, or strong you are, there is someone out there for you. To think you need to have every role covered or a set amount of roles covered to be successful or get women (or men) is ludicrous. You don't get to cover every role in a game (healer, tank, thief, etc) in one character, so why should you expect anything different in reality?
I will say that when I think Alpha/Beta/Epsilon, I don't think about wealth, physical condition, strength, or intelligence. They way I've always looked at it is that Alphas are individuals that are decisive. They know what they want and go for it, leading them to be more successful because they didn't hesitate when an important decision came their way. Betas tend to hesitate and make decisions cautiously. That isn't bad, because they want to take everything into consideration. It just means that they'll miss opportunities at times that Alpha will just up and take. And, of course, it's not just black/white, but a lot of grey in-between because some Alphas won't always make snap decisions and same deal for Betas.
That's my thought on it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go back to working on the atmoic supermen.
The problem with this is it is basing everything one a single viewpoint, and misusing Maslow's hierarchy of needs [which isn't the best system to go by in the first place, as Maslow's external validity is debatable at best].Luna said:
For example, when the writer addresses people who don't socialize, they make the comment that only 1 in 10,000 people actually enjoy being alone, and the rest are just doing it because they're socially incompetent.
Clearly the person writing this has never studied Carl Jung.
for those not familiar Jung did extensive studies regarding personality types and temperaments and his work is still considered among the gold standards in the field even 50 years after his death. This is the guy that pioneered Introversion/Extroversion
Furthermore, Jung's research has indicated a marked nonacceptance of introversion in Western Culture. Extroversion is encouraged and Introversion is seen as a defect, or socially unacceptable behavior. This blog's tone, I think, demonstrates that perfectly.
I think that attitude is largely responsible for the existence of the Alpha - Beta - Omega (ABO) spectrum. Extrapolating the idea that extroverts believe introverts are just socially incompetent, when someone doesn't share your motivations or desires, it is easy to jump to the parable of the Fox and the Grapes.
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves.
In the case of the ABO spectrum, the traits and accomplishments that supposedly define Alphas are simply the things our western society deems most valuable (i.e. money, power, influence, women/men, etc.). These are the motivations that we have been raised from birth to pursue. Therefore it is easy to see where people who ascribe to the ABO spectrum make the leap to assigning the role of "omega" to the people who don't share these motivations. According to their perspective, these people are not "normal."
Going back to the way the blogger is misusing the Hierarchy of Needs, you need to understand that Maslow's theory was about basic human needs (as I mentioned earlier, there is some contention regarding the ability to ascribe his theory to anyone outside his rather narrow subject pool, but that's besides the point). The problem with the ABO spectrum, and this blog in particular, is it bases the interpretation of these needs on a single viewpoint. For instance, one of the needs on Maslow's chart is Sexual Intimacy. The ABO spectrum states that the more physically attractive (by society's standards) your sexual partner, the higher you rate on the spectrum.
You can see the problem. Essentially, the ABO spectrum bases everything on the Maslow Hierarchy as viewed through a Middle-Class Western (typically American) Society filter. You can also call this the "Hollywood Filter."
You can especially see this when you consider that physical fitness beyond simple health is viewed as a goal. Once you reach physical health, there should be no need to keep improving. It's not a need at that point, it's simply a socially driven desire.
The problem, then, with the ABO spectrum is that it attempts to rate people based on their success/failure with adhering to a very specific set of guidelines that may or may not be applicable to that particular person. If you particularly ascribe to those values and want to measure yourself against others, there is nothing particularly wrong with it. Social comparison is a natural part of human interaction. However, please bear in mind that this is only one of many ways in which people measure themselves.
Demanding that others met your criteria or mistreating others who do not share your viewpoint is, to many, socially unacceptable in itself.
TL;DR I used to be a psych major and had way too much fun dredging up all that useless information.
Seems dumb to me. I've met some "alphas" that are actually little bitches when shit hits the fan. It all just depends on your confidence levels I suppose, alpha being the most and beta being the least. I'm somewhere in between in that I don't hate myself but I don't think highly of myself either.
I hate the Alpha/Beta male thing. Given that I'd technically be a beta (despite academic success thus far) I don't like the idea that I am a total loser and no one will ever love me. It's also just dumb in general...
Where's the love for the military alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Dealta, Echo, etc.)? Cause I think I am a Romeo (or maybe Juliet) male.
Ha, I remember last time I was on one of these threads there was racism and I posted a Nic Cage gif...
Where's the love for the military alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Dealta, Echo, etc.)? Cause I think I am a Romeo (or maybe Juliet) male.
Ha, I remember last time I was on one of these threads there was racism and I posted a Nic Cage gif...
Balls. I come back from uni to be met by this. Not that I take offence to this response, this is probably the most civilly I've been treated for threads touching on human attraction. I just didn't expect it to "WRISE FWOM YOUR GWAVE", especially not with such variety in response.
So, without quoting so I'm not here all goddamn night;
On the point of it being a joke/saying said by stupid people; The thing is, if enough people say something's true, it becomes almost so, especially concerning human interaction, because if such things are said enough, they colour our perception. Why are suits seen as the done thing to wear at work, even though they're overexpensive and largely impractical? Because at some point, enough people said/believed it was. It became ingrained into our culture, to the point that it may never wear out.
On the point of it being all about the perception you put out: I do know, partially, that. Thing is, some people will have an easier time of it. People with conventionally attractive facial and body structure, or a natural sense of humour, for example. That's not to mention the things that can affect our personality while we're too young to truly fight against it. How you were raised, how popular you were at school. It all factors in to kinda giving your life a difficult rating. Some people are born and bred with good prospects, others with bad ones, and obviously, without the head start, things become difficult, especially in competition with those who did get a good start.
On the point of it being the natural way; It would be true to say that an "omega" type may not necessarily live a terrible life, but if this "structure" is true, could it not be said that alphas have it best? To be looked up to, well liked, and not really have to clean up after mistakes?
On the point of "omegas"; Humanity is always more complex than I think, it seems. Always another level, or rule. Does this not make the whole thing worse, though? That even being simply average is not enough?
Anyway, thanks for all your input. Now I'm going to go stare out a window and ponder how very little I can ever understand about the humans outside.
So, without quoting so I'm not here all goddamn night;
On the point of it being a joke/saying said by stupid people; The thing is, if enough people say something's true, it becomes almost so, especially concerning human interaction, because if such things are said enough, they colour our perception. Why are suits seen as the done thing to wear at work, even though they're overexpensive and largely impractical? Because at some point, enough people said/believed it was. It became ingrained into our culture, to the point that it may never wear out.
On the point of it being all about the perception you put out: I do know, partially, that. Thing is, some people will have an easier time of it. People with conventionally attractive facial and body structure, or a natural sense of humour, for example. That's not to mention the things that can affect our personality while we're too young to truly fight against it. How you were raised, how popular you were at school. It all factors in to kinda giving your life a difficult rating. Some people are born and bred with good prospects, others with bad ones, and obviously, without the head start, things become difficult, especially in competition with those who did get a good start.
On the point of it being the natural way; It would be true to say that an "omega" type may not necessarily live a terrible life, but if this "structure" is true, could it not be said that alphas have it best? To be looked up to, well liked, and not really have to clean up after mistakes?
On the point of "omegas"; Humanity is always more complex than I think, it seems. Always another level, or rule. Does this not make the whole thing worse, though? That even being simply average is not enough?
Anyway, thanks for all your input. Now I'm going to go stare out a window and ponder how very little I can ever understand about the humans outside.
As such, I hope you understand that I will prioritize the male friends I possess with whom I am bonded in a pseudo-fraternal fashion over such as you.MammothBlade said:
A Bromance is just so much closer than some relationship
It's an amusing thought, and like all psychology, has some merit of truth outside the manipulation of the test subjects when they become aware of the experiment.
The Alpha/Beta concept is merely about what traits a man must obtain to gain a statistical advantage when it comes to success in various areas of life. The most popular one being relationships with women.
Most people will ignore the advice relating to Alpha/Beta dynamics and choose to concentrate on the individual; such as exploring your hobbies with passion, having confidence, not allowing yourself to be walked over, etc. The sweet irony being that is precisely what the Alpha/Beta dynamic focus on; improving oneself. The difference being that people choose to concentrate on the notions of whether you are doing it for yourself or the sole purpose of attracting a mate. Does it really matter? Success is self serving, and a lot of people pursue success for many various reasons.
There are also striking differences between men and the methods they pursue women. Concepts like Alpha/Beta, the Nice Guy, BluePill/RedPill and the like didn't simply spring into existence without the examples that helped shape them. Most people will reject these notions outright, regardless of any amount of truth they hold. In today's society, it's simply easier to blame something else beyond your control, then it is to improve yourself to obtain your goals.
Like any philosophy, the people who live it do so for their own reasons. Some do it to simply score with more women. Some people do it to live better lives. Some people do it to gain a profit on others. You should take what you want from it and use it for whatever purposes you deem appropriate.
There will always be traits that people gravitate toward that are desirable, an Alpha merely has more of them, will work on obtaining them, or doesn't let the lack of them prevent them from obtaining their goals.
The Alpha/Beta concept is merely about what traits a man must obtain to gain a statistical advantage when it comes to success in various areas of life. The most popular one being relationships with women.
Most people will ignore the advice relating to Alpha/Beta dynamics and choose to concentrate on the individual; such as exploring your hobbies with passion, having confidence, not allowing yourself to be walked over, etc. The sweet irony being that is precisely what the Alpha/Beta dynamic focus on; improving oneself. The difference being that people choose to concentrate on the notions of whether you are doing it for yourself or the sole purpose of attracting a mate. Does it really matter? Success is self serving, and a lot of people pursue success for many various reasons.
There are also striking differences between men and the methods they pursue women. Concepts like Alpha/Beta, the Nice Guy, BluePill/RedPill and the like didn't simply spring into existence without the examples that helped shape them. Most people will reject these notions outright, regardless of any amount of truth they hold. In today's society, it's simply easier to blame something else beyond your control, then it is to improve yourself to obtain your goals.
Like any philosophy, the people who live it do so for their own reasons. Some do it to simply score with more women. Some people do it to live better lives. Some people do it to gain a profit on others. You should take what you want from it and use it for whatever purposes you deem appropriate.
There will always be traits that people gravitate toward that are desirable, an Alpha merely has more of them, will work on obtaining them, or doesn't let the lack of them prevent them from obtaining their goals.
I misread the title. I was thinking about video game testing and the difference between Alpha builds, Beta Builds and full retail builds(You). I had a really stellar response planned out too. Oh well
OT: Is this really a thing? Seriously? I really have no adequate response to this. It just seems like pointless ego stroking and nothing to do with anything literal. Who cares? I sure don't. However being a married male with a happy wife, i think i'm in a minority anyways. Good luck
OT: Is this really a thing? Seriously? I really have no adequate response to this. It just seems like pointless ego stroking and nothing to do with anything literal. Who cares? I sure don't. However being a married male with a happy wife, i think i'm in a minority anyways. Good luck
I think the real root of the whole concept is to establish a new kind of class system now that it's becoming less socially acceptable to use the old: upper, middle, working class system as a means to support your ego or self-esteem. If you look at different civilizations; it's pretty common to see a social construct encouraging people to believe that certain bloodlines, physical traits etc impart some kind of inherent superiority to the holder. I think a lot of people take comfort in that kind of system, even those who don't see substantial benefit from it, because it of course means that no matter what, there are still people around them who will always be 'inferior' to them according to their abstract system.
I've only ever read a handful of articles relating to the alpha/ beta theories; but it seems to be a mutation of the same old aesthetic and financial class ideas that are centuries old; claiming to source its ideas from Darwin et al. The new twist seems to be disguising it as advice to people having difficulty managing insecurities by offering up personas to take on, and aesthetic treatment/ regimen ideas. Giving tips on personal grooming, regular exercise, believing in your abilities etc is all very well and good; but of course, the nasty snag is that everyone must have a ceiling in this hierarchy; and that ceiling is governed by aesthetic features and good fortune with your social circumstances in your younger years.
I get the impression that Peter Dinklage, for example, could never ascend beyond: The guy that the 'alphas' patronisingly pat on the back for being allowed into the shallow people club. Whilst one of those tits off Made in Chelsea may be treated with complete respect, because they are descended from a long line of trophy wives, to help them fit into each generation's idea of physically appealing; and their father's name got them a prestigious-sounding job. However, it doesn't take more than a minute of internet reading to realise that Peter Dinklage has overcome and accomplished far more than one of those tits ever has; and attempting to place a cap on Dinklage's societal worth because he has dwarfism, and he's admitted that it's caused him personal problems in the past is backwards thinking at best.
Ultimately, I think the real motivation for perpetuating this whole mythology is to create as many convoluted reasons as possible to fix people into set positions of worth in our society to discourage social mobility and excuse bad behaviour from those who need to make others feel bad in order to feel good.
TL;Dr: It's just another mutation of the old class system ideas. Some people like it because they find it comforting to believe that they will always be superior to certain others because of inherent physical features or good fortune in the socio-economic situation they were born into. This can help alleviate the impact that poor choices or failures may have on their self-esteem, helping them cope with a fear of failure. It's the same mentality as the Indian caste system; the bastard thing or crainology (actually, it sounds a lot like crainology). Also, Peter Dinklage >> Dude bro/ feckless bimbo.
I've only ever read a handful of articles relating to the alpha/ beta theories; but it seems to be a mutation of the same old aesthetic and financial class ideas that are centuries old; claiming to source its ideas from Darwin et al. The new twist seems to be disguising it as advice to people having difficulty managing insecurities by offering up personas to take on, and aesthetic treatment/ regimen ideas. Giving tips on personal grooming, regular exercise, believing in your abilities etc is all very well and good; but of course, the nasty snag is that everyone must have a ceiling in this hierarchy; and that ceiling is governed by aesthetic features and good fortune with your social circumstances in your younger years.
I get the impression that Peter Dinklage, for example, could never ascend beyond: The guy that the 'alphas' patronisingly pat on the back for being allowed into the shallow people club. Whilst one of those tits off Made in Chelsea may be treated with complete respect, because they are descended from a long line of trophy wives, to help them fit into each generation's idea of physically appealing; and their father's name got them a prestigious-sounding job. However, it doesn't take more than a minute of internet reading to realise that Peter Dinklage has overcome and accomplished far more than one of those tits ever has; and attempting to place a cap on Dinklage's societal worth because he has dwarfism, and he's admitted that it's caused him personal problems in the past is backwards thinking at best.
Ultimately, I think the real motivation for perpetuating this whole mythology is to create as many convoluted reasons as possible to fix people into set positions of worth in our society to discourage social mobility and excuse bad behaviour from those who need to make others feel bad in order to feel good.
TL;Dr: It's just another mutation of the old class system ideas. Some people like it because they find it comforting to believe that they will always be superior to certain others because of inherent physical features or good fortune in the socio-economic situation they were born into. This can help alleviate the impact that poor choices or failures may have on their self-esteem, helping them cope with a fear of failure. It's the same mentality as the Indian caste system; the bastard thing or crainology (actually, it sounds a lot like crainology). Also, Peter Dinklage >> Dude bro/ feckless bimbo.