@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.

@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.

@First-light

In sports psychology, and not only there, they have identified that there's the technical leader and the guy that is the emotional center of the team. Often, these are different persons. This highlights that there are two separate modes, simply put the logical and the emotional, and people switch between them.

The Alpha archetype functions solely on the emotional, and that's a critical point I'm making.

Whether he's competent in the real world or not is another issue altogether.

That's why people, not only women but even whole nations, may follow a "charismatic" psychopath to their destruction.

A man from the upper classes can afford to always act Alpha, since family wealth is there to bail him out when reality hits. A man from the lower-middle class usually only has one chance, so being delusional might initially get him the girl but will destroy his life. He needs to engage the "Beta", careful, analytical mind.

So yes, I think we agree.

@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.

@adam-l

,The TRP sidebar has a more fluid definition of Alpha and Beta being sets of behaviours which invoke female reactions

Oh does it? It's been a while since I've read everything, but I don't recall seeing such there. I could be wrong, because again, it's been a while.

As far as I know, that originated with Athol Kay, whose "Married Man Sex Life Primer" is one of the essential books in the MRP sidebar.

And yeah, that's how I tend to use them when I use them at all: alpha = attraction/arousal, beta = comfort.

I'm in favor of getting rid of the unnecessary use of Greek letters and just saying the fucking terms "attraction/arousal" and "comfort".

More on this another time, perhaps. I still have stuff from the last few days and weeks on here I've been meaning to respond to and still haven't!

@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.