The terms "Alpha" and "Beta" continue to be debated and the discussion has broken through into the mainstream. I will discuss them from a psychological perspective (I'm a psychologist), in an attempt to clear up the notions.

Although I tried to keep it as short as possible, this is a bit of a long text, but will hopefully save you a lot of confusion down the line.

The terms "Alpha" and "Beta" originated in the Red Pill community. Some claim they come from the field of Biology, but they are not established terms in that field. There was a mention of "Alpha" regarding wolves, but we needn't reference it since we'll be focusing on humans.

The Red Pill Glossary (in the sidebar of the subreddit) has a useful definition, let's start there:

Alpha – Socially dominant. Somebody who displays high value, or traits that are sexually attractive to women. Alpha can refer to a man who exhibits alpha behaviors (more alpha tendencies than beta), but usually used to describe individual behaviors themselves.(emphasis is mine)

Beta – Traits of provision: either providing resources or validation to others, women (and perhaps men). Beta traits display low value to women if they are put on too strong or too early in meeting- giving without equity. Beta can be used to describe individual behaviors, as well as people who have an overwhelming amount of beta properties (opposed to alpha).

The first thing to note is that this definition of "Alpha" and "Beta" refers to *traits* or *behaviors*, and *not* individual men per se. Basically, "Alpha" is "sexually attractive" traits or behaviors, while "Beta" is "provisioning" traits.

The issue is that the same man can be attractive to a particular woman at some point, while unattractive at another. What's the deal then? Is he "Alpha"? Has he turned "Beta"? Per the definitions given above, it seems that he switched his behaviours.

Still the issue remains. If "Alpha" is attractive and "Beta" is not, how can a man keep being attractive despite circumstances? What is the essence of "Alphaness"? This is the question I will try to answer.

We will need a few notions from psychology.

Kahneman's famous book, "Thinking, fast and slow" popularized the existance of two modes of thinking. "System 1" is instinctive: it's emotional, and it's fast. "System 2" is more deliberate: it's logical, and slower. System 1 is "automatic", while System 2 is "effortful".

This reality, of humans switching between two modes of cognition, was given a more descriptive characterization by the psychoanalyst pioneers: they talked about the "pleasure principle" (System 1) vs the "reality principle" (System 2).

Neurobiologically, it has to do with the activation, or not, of the higher, newer, more evolved parts of the human brain, the neocortex. Evolutionary, System 1 came first and it's the one used by animals, while humans (and probably some more evolved animals such as primates, elephants, dolphins and a few others) possess a System 2.

Here's what happens, then: a man who only uses his "System 1" at any moment, that is, he hasn't activated "System 2" (which is "effortful"), demonstrates "fitness" to his environment. Note that "fit", in evolution, is the notion of a cup *fitting* a bottle, not the athletic fitness. It means "suitability for the environment". So, the man in the System 1 state, is unguarded. If he has "complexes", i.e. he has real or perceived psychological defects, these manifest themselves. If not, he seems in the zone, he is fully immersed in the pleasure principle, in the state that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes as flow.

There is a way of communicating purely through emotional states, without any invocation of logic, that predates our human condition - i.e. it is animalistic. It's this kind of primal "energy" that women perceive. Men perceive it too, although how they process and react to it belongs to another discussion.

You might have come across a description of that state in dating advice: "Just be happy", "be in the moment", "clear your mind from expectations", etc etc. The basic idea is that you're living in a state that real world worries (the "reality principle") are taken care of, so that you can focus on enjoying. When you are in this state, a woman can derive vicarious pleasure by connecting to that "energy" of yours. Think about it as tuning forks: women can feel their tuning fork vibrating with yours as the source. You can watch this kind of process in a group of women (usually the younger ones), when they "connect their energies" while emoting all together. (To be clear: I'm not insinuating the existance of any *real* energy: it's how women "feel" it).

We haven't up to this point discussed dominance, a trait which is usually connected to the "Alpha" term. It's time we do it.

There is intense antagonism for the attention of females among the male species. That being the case, as a male in the vicinity of females, you benefit by "damping" your rivals' energy, so that yours can shine the more and dazzle the females. This single issue is the core of the antagonistic streak in men, because fertile women is the most precious resource. So, the stereotypical "Alpha male" who has dominant and even aggressive traits refers back to an era when this process, of overwhelming your rivals, was quite pronounced. That's the era when the female attraction system evolved, and we are stuck with it whether we like it or not.

We need to make a pause here, to briefly discuss a fundamental issue. It's whether humans evolved as egalitarians or hierarchical. We'll take primatologist Frans de Waal's opinion on this:

There is an influential school of thought which believes that we started out (egalitarian, my note) in a state of nature that was harsh and chaotic, ruled by the “law of the jungle.” We escaped this by agreeing on rules and delegating enforcement of these rules to a higher authority. It is the usual justification of top-down government. But what if it was entirely the other way around? What if the higher authority came first and attempts at equality later? This is what primate evolution seems to suggest. There never was any chaos: we started out with a crystal clear hierarchical order and then found ways to level it. Our species has a subversive streak.

I need to insist on this, because it probably hits against your fundamental convictions, be they egalitarian or hierarchical. The facts are quite overwhelming: because of our evolutionaty past, for the majority of people, living in a hierarchy is more natural.

Hierarchy, however, has a good and a bad side: it provides a way of organizing common life, a protection against all-against-all chaos, however it simultaneously suppresses "low-status" males and elevates "high-status" ones, skewing sexual rewards towards the top.

(As a sidenote, we can appreciate now why Democracy is so difficult: it requires constant vigillance, a constant activation of System 2, which for most people is quite exhausting).

Over this ancient, basic scheme of suppression of the lower-status males' "careless", System 1 living, a lot of civilization's super-structures are built.

I hope the above discussion gave us enough insight to now appreciate what "Alpha" and "Beta" is. Returing to a flirting context, when a woman observes a man who tries to navigate his social surroundings by "being logical", i.e. by engaging his System 2, it demonstrates that he hasn't trained his lower-level systems to automatically take care of the situation. He is instinctually categorized as unfit. On the other side, a man who trusts his instincts, is "in the zone", doesn't need to analyze things, doesn't seem to guard any insecurities from surfacing, that man automatically gets highlighted by the woman's mating instincts as a good prospect.

As you can see, whether that man is high or low with regards to some hierarchy measure is secondary: his way of emotional operation is primary. That is why, for example, you can have rich, high-achieving men that feel "Beta" to women. Or you can have complete lunatics, the "crazy bastard" archetype, who feel "Alpha" to women. Incidentallly, that is why sometimes women intuite that they, themselves, are "Alpha": since this is a gynocentric world it allows them to coast on their attractiveness, on System 1 thinking. Until, at least, they hit the Wall. A world of deliberate, effortful thinking is beyond their experience and interest.

Now, is all this good or bad news for the average man?

It's a mixed bag. There is definitelly a positive message here. It says that, in a sense, being "Alpha", i.e. being attractive as a man doesn't really require from you to climb all the way to the top of some hierarchy. You "just" have to manage your anxiety and allow yourself to completely "enjoy the moment". That's easier said than done, of course, since modern living, and especially the modern dating scene has plenty of opportunities to frustrate you. (Women will shit test you to gauge your congruency, for example). Nevertheless, especially if we are talking about short - to mid term relationships, which seem to be the norm nowadays, this discussion highlights a way forward.
On the other hand, it's bad news for long term relationships. Unless you are born wealthy and have the family fortune bail you out of tight spots, you have to engage the deliberate, System 2 thinking in your life. A woman in a LTR will observe that state of yours, and her instinctual attraction will subside. That's why, for example, you have to have a life away from the house, you don't discuss business with your wife, etc.

I hope the above discussion is enlightening and practical. What are your thoughts?

Tip adam-l for their post.