@lurkerhasarisen My concern over the contextuality of Alphaness is that this truth has been abused by a lot of manosphere content makers for personal gain.

There is a feeling among quite a few men, perhaps younger, perhaps newer to the manosphere that they can put on "Alphaness" like a set of clothes.

They have been sold this idea by some manosphere authors and content producers. Learn the behaviours, carefully control the context and you can control the narrative and so assume alpha status and get everyone submitting to you. Its a very potent lie as it taps into the innermost wishes of someone with low status male behaviour, someone who feels he has submitted more than he would like.

You can't put on those traits like clothes. If you disguise yourself as such, you will very soon be discovered once the context gets out of your control. Think of all those young men we get bewailing letting their "frame slip" on a date and so they behaved in a "beta" way. In fact they usually just behaved true to themselves. If they hadn't given away their weakness in the way they bewail, they would have in another soon enough.

These things are contextual but you have to also make the traits that give you status in given contexts internal and therefore to a degree innate before you can really be that man in any context beyond acting.

I just wish we could get a healthier consensus on the whole subject to avoid the self improvement that we preach being confused with an "alpha delusion/ fantasy" that we are often misunderstood to be promoting as a solution to men.

@adam-l Yes. These guys are monetising ideas that should be for the wider benefit of society and some of them are doing it simply by creating content that pushes frustrated men's buttons. This is not where the manosphere started. It was a sort of bro science and bro philosophy. It is the truth behind our ideas that has pushed us out into the mainstream.

Louis comes out on top in that video. He came to make content out of them that would push people's buttons and he did. Where I always thought he excelled was in gently getting to know people who were on the fringes of the acceptable and finding out what mad them tick. He showed you the crazies but the crazies had a chance to show you what they were about. Sometimes they came out of it well and his friendly style came them a chance to do this, sometimes they made fools of themselves or showed the holes up in their world view.

Louis went out there and found some guys who were so easy to let make fools of themselves that it was too easy -make the fools perform to push the buttons of the liberal elite folk at the BBC, collect the money, get the exposure, next!

I wish he had talked to the right people but I fear those who commission his stuff want polarising button pushing stuff these days not stuff that stretches the viewer and may lead to disconcerting conclusions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3xEbF2iDs This is the sort of thing I am reacting to here. Louis Theroux made a video that made the manosphere look like a joke to outsiders. He attacked a "male centred Darwinian view of alpha supremacy" propagated by some men who had enough fame and wealth to behave onesidedly around women in order to make content and get away with it.

Anyone who by who did not realise that he interviewed a load of cock heads would think we were all a load of cockheads. The guys he found were huge targets selling their "alphaness" to men. It was like shooting fish in a barrel for Louis. I don't want to be put in the same barrel as these guys.

I recommend watching the whole video if you can find it. The red pill comes out of it a lot worse than MGTOW came out of the one he did earlier and yet the red pill is a much more society centred approach.

@adam-l I too don't think we are in disagreement. Its just a very woolly area where it will be hard to get a consensus definition. Yet the lack of one is causing a degree of misunderstanding.

One reason why the archetype of Chad usually being a well off man (or at least not poor) is because like you say wealth itself gives opportunity, confidence and a degree of power. You don't see this in the lower classes unless it comes with an excess of cockiness. It almost never has the smooth confidence of those born to feel confident. I have seen this from two sides having been privately educated and then working for over two decades in a blue collar job around a lot of young men whom state education has failed. I just assume things are possible that they don't. I feel enfranchised when they don't.

I can therefore -in certain ways- act more "alpha" than them, particularly when it comes to talking to clients (who tend to be wealthy and privately educated themselves). I have spent years (with some success) getting these men to see they have more opportunity in the world than they grew up realising. I think I have succeeded in transforming a few of them, when the education system left them on the scrap heap.

One can be as analytical and as cocky as one likes but it is only when success has been manifest in one's life that one can be simply confident and it is important to help men to achieve some success or they will never know who they could have been.

@adam-l

You and I and @FirstLight are in agreement… I was just poking the bear about Sigma Males because that’s been a running joke here for a long time.

I think WE all agree on the basic nuances of the Greek Alphabet paradigm: but it’s hard to explain easily. We all know guys who tend to be naturally dominant. Men follow them and women want to have sex with them: often to everyone’s detriment, because people mistake “alphaness” for competence.

(Read up on Alcibiades… dude was “ALPHA AF,” and he single-handedly nearly destroyed Athens early in the Peloponnesian War because everyone blindly followed him.)

@Typo-MAGAshiv and I are both former military officers, and we’re used to inhabiting a rigid hierarchy that simply doesn’t exist to the same degree in any civilian occupation. The question of “Who gives orders and who obeys them” (the alpha/beta dynamic) is not determined by anything other than rank/position. As I’ve said before here: nobody here who saw me IRL would immediately think that I’m a “Chad” or an “Alpha,” yet I have 1) done reasonably well with women and 2) been the HMFIC on many occasions. My list of past minions includes guys who were in the Battle of Mogadishu (the incident from “Black Hawk Down”), more than a few senior NCOs who could crush my skull with one hand, rangers, SpecOps guys, military cops, civilian cops, etc. In those situations those men followed my orders. If that’s not “alpha” then the word has no meaning. So am I an “Alpha Male?”

I would insist that I’m not, because my “Alpha” status was situational. Some of those guys WERE stereotypically “Alpha” - the kind of guys with natural presence - but they still said, “Yes, Sir” when I gave them orders. I follow the maxim: when in charge; take charge. Some guys can’t, and those guys will always default to “Beta” mode.

In other contexts, I’m just another guy, and if someone has expertise and is willing to lead, I’m happy to stay in my lane (although I reserve the right to speak up if something strikes me as being wrong).

@adam-l Thanks for your thoughts. It makes me reflect that we have quite a big problem here. All the views you mention are out there. We all sort of know what we mean by Alpha and Beta but we also all mean slightly different things.

The fact that many different views can coexist, suggests to me that we are looking at some core of inner truth but that we are then taking it to two letters and using them in a lot of different ways.

I agree that the archetype of the leader of the pack -the leader of the hunt or of the war band- is a strong one. We all know its a man who is physically and mentally competent above average, who is experienced in the field, who has social clout, who acts with confidence, enthusiasm and self control. Men follow him, women desire him and his word, when spoken as a final decision, is the law.

The biggest problem I find with this is when bringing this definition to the relationships between men and women. People take their conclusions too far. Its like they assume that if men can take on the spirit of the leader of the pack, they will be able to do as they please in relationships because women will just submit. That not how people work. Even men will topple a strong capable leader if he is a jerk and does not care enough for the group -if insufficient value passes to the men, now what about women? They are known for liking that value transfer.

Tke the difference between initial courtship and in long term life with a woman.

In courtship its just you and her. You usually don't know much about each other and you judge each other by small signs, by looks and actions and you judge against against hopes and archetypes. The archetype of the Leader of the pack is a strong one, hard wired into people. In courtship a woman can demand some transfer of value (as per Briffault's law) up ahead of commencing the relationship or she can begin the relationship on credit. If a man appears to be of such potential that he will elevate her -that great value (power, money social standing or genetic value) will pass to her in one way or anther, then she will be happy to put out on credit. This could be called a response to an Alpha. In real life your life and her life come together. You have to be who you are and interact as together and in the world. Briffault's law must apply for the relationship to continue. This can only overall be a response to a Beta.

So here the case I have shown it makes no real difference if the man is Alpha if we are talking about value having to pass to a woman. My biggest problem is that so many guys think "Just be more Alpha with her and she will submit" Sure but only if value is passing. You can't act like a selfish self important dick and expect plain sailing with women.

A lot of men find the manosphere when they have been hurt by life. Many were bullied at school by boys they saw as being more alpha, guys who got the girls. They assume that dick head and alpha go together. They do not realise that they saw immature male behaviour and that they only saw the bad side of it.