@Typo-MAGAshiv

I'll make a spoiler of my view, which would be enough for long-timers in here:

The notion that "Alpha" is "a type of guy" is a female one: it's essentialist, and has been popular due to an admittedly overrepresentation of far-right thinking in the red pill. (I'm not criticizing it, just stating it as a fact).

The TRP sidebar has a more fluid definition of Alpha and Beta being sets of behaviours which invoke female reactions, which is another, more accurate way to describe them.

I believe Woujo hit bullseye when he connected the Alpha to the leader of the primal tribe. There's a primitive core in the female attraction system that makes them receptive to such a kind of projection. Sadly, there's a remnant of this in men, too, and we see it when men emotionally submit to leaders.

Now, because we live in extended societies and not primal tribes, there are several contexts that have different nstural leaders. The situational Alpha is the only real-life instantiation of an "Alpha", if we exclude the delusional Alpha.

What an AFC needs is not how to "become" Alpha, but rather an actionable way to achieve a state of positive emotions and non-reactiveness, as well as free up their capacity to lead an interaction. RPS wrote about captive audiences, how you go about making your own bubble in which you can be "Alpha", when you don't have the advantage of a 8 or 9 physique.

"Alpha" is a state where System 2 thinking is not invoked. It's being in flow.

Therefore, any man enters and leaves that state, depending on the circumstances.

That's why entering a relationship while being too alpha, usually beckfires. Either you get burned up, or the woman does, trying to pick up after you when things that demand System 2 thinking get left behind.

@adam-l Perhaps, don't try to write it all in one book then?

A successful academic once told me that at university he had realised his teachers were wrong about something but he would never get published if he tried to tell them it as an undergraduate. Instead, as a post grad, he wrote one paper after grounded in the current orthodoxy and another hinting at the truth. Each paper revealing a different aspect of where he really wanted to go. When he had a successful academic career and was respected as an authority in his field, he then published the ground breaking revision based on al of his by then fully accepted papers. He had known this truth since being an undergraduate but they only listened when he was already a professor. Then he was suddenly the ground breaking genius.

It will be a better book if it is carefully distilled drop by drop and it will be better received if it is turned over a few years in the cask of the manosphere -long enough to take on the background flavours but not to long enough to lose its spirit.

I would write a few short works to the manosphere, get liked and then write the grand unified thoery.