SMV vs “ALPHA”

Hello everyone,

I’d like to preface by acknowledging that this is a very spergy question, and is mostly semantics which will 99% have no carryover to the real world.

Please someone clarify what are the differences between becoming “Alpha” and increasing SMV.

Increasing SMV seems pretty straightforward as there are objectives markers (money, appearance, connections and friend groups etc) but “becoming alpha” seems more intangible and personal.

As I understand it being alpha is essentially a measure of how masculine a person is irregardless of external metrics.

Am I wrong is saying that SMV is more closely related to hypergamy, as it can be loosely used to compare you to other men, whilst masculinity is more so important in the interpersonal interaction?

In other words, a woman can only truly fantasize about a man if she believes him to be very masculine a.k.a. Alpha, but her hypergamy also demands she poach a man who is better than most others according to societal norms?

I know you can’t truly separate the two, as being more extroverted, confident, disagreeable, assertive and self-interested will passively increase a man’s SMV as he becomes more popular, pushes harder for promotions and success in entrepreneurship etc.

I ask simply to better understand the definitions and therefore get the most use out of the available resources posted on the RedPill sub.

I’m curious whether it may be said that women subconsciously associate masculinity with a high S.M.V. for the sake of their internal fantasies, and conversely associate beta tendencies to a guy with an outwardly low SMV (halo effect)?

For example any woman would hope to end up with Leonardo Decaprio, because he is rich and famous, and being seen with him is equal to mega clout within the women’s tribe.

Yet there are so many stories of him (true or not) suggesting he is a very introverted and passive guy, the type of guy that red pill would suggest cannot give her the “tingles”. But this is not something that would stop a woman from having sec with him in his case.

On the opposite end, we’ve all heard stories of that loser drug addict type guy who still manages in some rare cases to bag a married chick or something like this simply due to him being such a “alpha” even when he has nothing going for him and objectively lower SMV than a husband with a house and car.

Seems like on the extreme ends of high SMV and high masculinity, having all of one and none of the other may still be enough for a very specific woman.

But again I may not fully understand how they are different and the ways in which they overlap, and would love some clarification.

@Vermillion-Rx

I only interacted with women who were stealing me. I didn't approach even one woman tonight who wasn't trying to get my attention. Worked better than usual

I never did the dance hall thing, but that was similar to how I did things once I started hitting my stride:

1) see IOIs? Approach and open, even if it's just "hi!" Anything is better than nothing.

2) no IOIs? No matter how pretty the woman is, if she's not showing interest, don't bother.

3) woman you're talking to starts putting up barriers? Resistance? Showing disinterest? Leave. Cut it off and move on.

It worked really well for me. Pick from the ones who show interest, and continually gauge their interest. Don't waste time and effort trying to win over the uninterested.

It saves a lot of time and energy, and you face less rejection so your morale/confidence stays high.