RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
@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.
Read More@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.
Read MoreExcept it's a lie, and we all know it. Hot women don't outnumber hot guys. It's just they use makeup, pushup bras, spanx, hair extensions, plastic surgery, filters, etc etc etc to hide what they really look like. Those supposed 10s on the street in Miami? Most of them are absolute ogres without the makeup, and even their bodies are from a surgeon, not the gym.
Hot guys are rare because they're actually hot. If they're built it's usually because of working out every day and eating only chicken, eggs, and protein shakes for years. If their face is handsome it's because it's real, not the product of makeup and fake contacts and lip fillers.
The number of truly natural, good looking women is probably about as rare as the number of good looking men. But she thinks just because she can get some Tijuana surgeon to give her fish lips and pump her ass full of someone else's fat, that she's now "hot" in the same way a man is who had to spend years in the gym and eating clean to get his physique.
I actually hope there was a way she could get her wish. Even starting as Brad Pitt, eating the shit she's eating, and spending her time making mindless tiktok drivel, she'll lose her six pack abs abs and chiseled face. And during the six months before she loses it all, if she does try to date, she'll find stuckup bitches who think because they have a thousand random dudes liking her ass photos that she deserves better than her.
And then she'll stop the experiment early and check herself into a mental institution from the PTSD of spending a few months in a man's shoes, a-la Norah Vincent.
Read MoreThat's the great thing about the red pill: it has brought together men from all walks of life, in their effort to solve an unsolvable problem (how to deal satisfactorily with women).
Being the kind of man she calls attractive is clearly better than being a woman. She is a pretty attractive young woman who says she can't find attractive men. What she means is that even the top20% are not interesting her. Probably its more like the top 5 or even 2 % because if you swipe right enough one of them will bang you when he is bored. This is not the same as being in his attractiveness level.
She is simply a young woman who is healthy, is not ugly and is well groomed. She considers herself a 10 (which she is probably not even if you say that 1 in 10 women are 10's (which is not how most people do it). She considers very few men 10's, just as we consider very few women 10's as to have a very wide top grade bracket is to allow not differentiation between hot, model and super model). Those that she does consider a 10 are way out of her league.
Its always better to be a man than to be a woman at the top because stand out men are more stand out and men are less weak and needy. Its aways better to be a woman in a low grade bracket because some man will always take on a woman who is not a bitch and who puts out and society takes care of women.
She is failing to cash in her power while she still owns it. Let us assume she is in the top 70-80%. She should be trying to get a 70-90% man. Cash in while young enough and she really might get a 90% guy with some weakness like poverty, bad character, low self esteem, great infidelity or advancing years. Or get a top 70 who was solid gold in character and had enough wealth, who also thought he had done well to secure her. The choice is all hers if she chooses to make it. But to hold out for a 95% guy while she falls in value and becomes more used -no chance princess.
Read Morewww.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.
Read More@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.
Read MoreI put this in the hub, but it also belongs here: ———-
Are we still kvetching over whether Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, etc, are innate or contextual?
Spoiler: they’re contextual.
(Except for Sigma, of which I am the only example since the demise of Chuck Norris… my only noteworthy protégé’ in the exquisite art of Sigma-jitsu.)
