Why not being alpha isn’t a problem...

[Fruitbat]

This f#ck3r wants to call names then

You want to talk about one upmanship? You are the one calling me a 14 year old girl. What does that make you? You are posting out of your a$$.

I thought your comment regarding “she’s a 35 year old woman” was a needless insult directed at me, being a man, and all.

 

[Black Widow Void]

I'd never thought of that from this perspective, but I see your point. I can also relate.

In a way, the alpha an beta have a co-dependency relationship. The alpha gains 'strength' by having followers and the beta gains 'worth' by feeling like they belong.

Personally, I find more 'empowerment' by being hostage to neither.

 

[Fruitbat]

I'd never thought of that from this perspective, but I see your point. I can also relate.

In a way, the alpha an beta have a co-dependency relationship. The alpha gains 'strength' by having followers and the beta gains 'worth' by feeling like they belong.

Personally, I find more 'empowerment' by being hostage to neither.

Yep, works for me. You are more at risk generally by doing this though. Alphas will often resent men who don’t follow them, betas will resent the man who isn’t a slave to social pressure.

Interestingly, I remember reading a paper on intelligence and social outlook. The least intelligent tended to view social dynamics in terms of immediate benefit, without judging the context of the social hierarchy.

The medium to higher intelligence were preoccupied with “survival of the fittest” type attitudes, understanding the structure and vowing to win. Note, this would include both alpha and beta. The beta is mistaking subordination for inclusion.

The most intelligent tended to opt out and viewed their experience of life as an individual affair and were not preoccupied with status and rejected simplistic “survival of the fittest” views.

Also, the more intelligent, the less prominence placed on sex and sexual conquest as a means of self worth and value.

This is why men who are over dominant make me laugh. It’s like they think they know the game and you don’t, when in fact you know the game of old, you’ve just made a conscious decision to not dirty ones hands and value principle over minor petty victories.

Few, few men can be true leaders and retain the respect of all. They don’t work on force, ridicule, and manipulation. They’re generally extremely accomplished. So I do believe there are a few exceptions to this.

 

[ubercat]

Yes it's fantastic when u get a boss like that you can actually learn something.

Spaz has invented his own personality profiling system in spite of all the research showing that Myers Briggs and all the rest of them don't work. But it's great for labeling people and using a false appeal to authority.

We can call a Sigma I guess it used to be known as being your own man.

 

[Epic Days]

Myers Briggs and all the rest of them don't work.

They don't

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Which logical fallacy? An appeal to authority? A straw man? A “no true Scotsman”?

I'm not sure which, but you see what I'm getting at? that saying a person doesn't understand until they agree is nonsensical. It's putting the cart before the horse. They will only agree once they understand. It's your job to make them understand.

As for the “exuding” alpha, I’m not sure where these people are, because the vast majority of “alphas” I’ve met are manipulative and charming social climbers who very much have a game plan.

you're salty and critical towards ambitious people that push the status quo. that's what i'm hearing. you can consider almost any action by anyone manipulative. or maybe you've been

If alphas don’t list after dominance, but rather, ARE it, how do they react when challenged? That’s the crucial point. No man, or very few men, will meet me and subordinate me, and there are many men like me. How can one be dominant when others won’t be dominated? That’s when you find out the true nature, as those with the bent to attain power use tactics like isolating opponents, lying, rumour spreading, intimidation etc as was of maintaining that. This idea of some man-god we all fall in line to follow, doesn’t exist. Alphas are the kid at school who always had to support the winning team, the man with the personalised number plate, the man who will do anything, fair means or foul, to be ahead of his colleagues.

you're obsessed with rank. an alpha or dominant man does not have to be at the highest rank. he doesn't make you submit. he inspires you to follow. he is pushed into the leadership position by others. what you're describing is an insecure or aloof individual. an alpha is the man you aspire to be. the man you want to lead you because you trust his intuition and character. you sense his leadership because he exudes leadership qualities. because you simply haven't noticed these people doesn't mean they don't exist. very often they're the quietest ones in the room because they are self aware enough to recognize their own shortcomings but have nothing to prove.

You have a romanticised view of an alpha. They’re every bit a slave to social status as a beta.

and you have a jaded view that is not accurate at all in my opinion. you tout sigmas as superior, but there is no need to sell your character when you simply embody it. the fact that you made this thread to toot your own horn speaks for itself.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

consider dominance and feminine on a spectrum rather than binary. when we describe an alpha or dominant man, we're describing the ideal, 100% in the dominant. same goes for the feminine. ideals are guides, and in reality most people are somewhere on the spectrum in between. sigma seems to be a carved out little spot that a group of people are identifying with to feel special. this desire for recognition and title is cringe worthy. it seems to be a cop out for people that are content with mediocrity. i don't mean to sound brash, but this is what i'm gathering.

 

[Fruitbat]

consider dominance and feminine on a spectrum rather than binary. when we describe an alpha or dominant man, we're describing the ideal, 100% in the dominant. same goes for the feminine. ideals are guides, and in reality most people are somewhere on the spectrum in between. sigma seems to be a carved out little spot that a group of people are identifying with to feel special. this desire for recognition and title is cringe worthy. it seems to be a cop out for people that are content with mediocrity. i don't mean to sound brash, but this is what i'm gathering.

You’re calling it an “introverted alpha”. We’re just arguing over semantics.

Twice you’ve ascribed reasoning to another’s view with a derogatory element - “if you believe this, then it’s because of your inadequacy”. I’m apparently
“Salty” as well!

So, if you’re referring to exactly the same phenomenon as “introverted alpha”, but at the same time saying it’s a linear spectrum, how does that make any sense whatsoever? If it’s linear, it’s either alpha or beta. If you’ve now introduced the dynamic of introvert/extrovert, doesn’t that make a distinct definition of another axis?

I’ve not to my knowledge given reasons of inadequacy or deficiency for your views, I’ve honestly delineated the points on which I disagree here.

You realise that ascribing character weakness in presenting an argument is the amongst the strongest logical fallacy one can make. Regardless of if you cringe, of if I’m “salty”, the points of discussion don’t change, and you seem articulate enough to understand that.

This isn’t a discussion to destroy the character of another. Yes, I said you had a romanticised view of an alpha, I didn’t then go on to speculate on what and why you think that way. We’re discussing a topic, an item and kicking around ideas. We aren’t facing off to kick each other down. This kind of encapsulates a lot of what’s been said.

For the records, I’m happy to change the definition to “introverted alpha” as the semantics I really don’t care about, but I do challenge the idea that those who are leaders, or what we would call alphas, are not preoccupied with social hierarchies. Most if not all I’ve encountered are active, extremely active and fully aware of social rank and relentless in pursuing this, often at the expense of everyone. If the man who sees no need to pursue this goal is simply an introverted version of the same thing, fine, but I will need some convincing a pathological narcissist, obsessed with prestige and grandeur, is the same as a self reliant man who is ambitious but is not preoccupied with rank.

An awfully high percentage of the MDs and leaders I’ve met fit within the pathological narcissist category. Very much into their high end cars, and outward displays of wealth, of which I have no interest beyond the personal pleasures that provides. I drive a hatchback but I could afford sports car. That’s another good yardstick of what I’m trying to express.

Lastly, I was actually drunk when I posted the original and it was expressed in a slightly cringeworthy way so I will take that on the chin!

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

So, if you’re referring to exactly the same phenomenon as “introverted alpha”, but at the same time saying it’s a linear spectrum, how does that make any sense whatsoever? If it’s linear, it’s either alpha or beta. If you’ve now introduced the dynamic of introvert/extrovert, doesn’t that make a distinct definition of another axis?

you misunderstand. sure you can have another axis/dimension. but you can also contextualize it into the one dimension to keep things simple. i would put masculine with extroverted and feminine with introverted. thank you for bringing up semantics because it seems we have very different understandings of what an ideal man or alpha is. i see nothing wrong with a masculine ideology, but you seem to describe a less than ideal man associated with the word alpha. your ideal man is called a sigma.

you can segment off as many sections of the spectrum as you want because it's a gradient, but it doesn't make sense to say this one segment is somehow superior to the ideal.

I’ve not to my knowledge given reasons of inadequacy or deficiency for your views, I’ve honestly delineated the points on which I disagree here.

You realise that ascribing character weakness in presenting an argument is the amongst the strongest logical fallacy one can make. Regardless of if you cringe, of if I’m “salty”, the points of discussion don’t change, and you seem articulate enough to understand that.

This isn’t a discussion to destroy the character of another. Yes, I said you had a romanticised view of an alpha, I didn’t then go on to speculate on what and why you think that way. We’re discussing a topic, an item and kicking around ideas. We aren’t facing off to kick each other down. This kind of encapsulates a lot of what’s been said.

i'm aware of that fallacy and i don't think i've undermined your character, unless you feel somehow diminished by my crude deconstruction of what i've gathered a sigma to be. this is very far from an attack on your character, i know nothing about you. in fact you should be the best person to convince me sigmas are in some way better off, but your narrative is that the alpha is more of an antagonist, and this is the second time you seem to be victimizing yourself. i'm not trying to offend, i think arguments are healthy, and i see nothing wrong with our verbiage so far. do i need to apologize for something?

 

[Fruitbat]

you misunderstand. sure you can have another axis/dimension. but you can also contextualize it into the one dimension to keep things simple. i would put masculine with extroverted and feminine with introverted. thank you for bringing up semantics because it seems we have very different understandings of what an ideal man or alpha is. i see nothing wrong with a masculine ideology, but you seem to describe a less than ideal man associated with the word alpha. your ideal man is called a sigma.

you can segment off as many sections of the spectrum as you want because it's a gradient, but it doesn't make sense to say one this segment is somehow superior to the ideal.



i'm aware of that fallacy and i don't think i've undermined your character, unless you feel somehow diminished by my crude deconstruction of what i've gather a sigma to be. this is very far from an attack on your character, i know nothing about you. in fact you should be the best person to convince me sigmas are in some way better off, but your narrative is that the alpha is more of an antagonist, and this is the second time you seem to be victimizing yourself. i'm not trying to offend, i think arguments are healthy, and i see nothing wrong with our verbiage so far. do i need to apologize for something?

Yes. Please apologise immediately. Just kidding.

I can’t say I share the notion of male/female being an extrovert/introvert dichotomy.

The issue I have is this. The vast majority of men whom society would term “alpha” are overall, damaging to nearly everyone they come across.

I have former friends whom would fit this bill. One of which regularly cheats on his pregnant wife (with full intention and actually enjoying some feeling of prestige about it - an “I’ll have mine, and I’ll have yours” kind of attitude. This is heavily represented on this forum in some sections.

Another who has caused a serious amount of issues at his workplace by trampling all and sundry in an attempt to advance - I’m talking getting people fired, stealing business unethically. Outright lies.

Another who runs a major firm and spends most of his time hiring 18 year old girls to be his PA - all of whom rapidly leave his business.

Perhaps 20% of the leaders I know do it without being unethical. The majority are malevolent people who destroy everything they come across who stands in their way.

These people are not enjoying prestige because of good character traits - indeed, they developed these strategies as most basically have nothing to offer. No ideas.

So I would tie up the alpha tag with dark triad, and regardless if this is masculine or not, I will not trade my integrity for personal gain. I work in the interests of others as far as I can, and I view most of these people as no better than common thieves or crooks.

Perhaps working in a corporate sales environment is very different to most people’s lives. This may be very much different to other power hierarchies. The ones I’ve experienced tend to work this way.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

you're describing a normal distribution. there will always be less smart people than ignorant people(assuming smart=ethical). it's like walking into a shoe shop and being surprised that there's a shoelace on the ground. the point is this is expected.

the people you're describing are weak or otherwise ignorant. a leader wouldn't fuuck you over, so an alpha must not be a leader in your eyes. corporate hierarchies do not reflect your individual biology in the sense that you can be a very dominant man and work in a low skilled position and vice versa.

in my mind alpha is not associated with the qualities you describe. unethical behavior compromises very important and useful societal principles in a man's life. purity of heart does indeed matter, but not always in the way you want it to.

 

[Tdawg]

My wife is hotter at 36 than she was at 21. Most girls from my high school aged A LOT better than the guys.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

My wife is hotter at 36 than she was at 21. Most girls from my high school aged A LOT better than the guys.

Probably had good husbands. A hard partying pump and dumpee does not age as well.

 

[Fruitbat]

My wife is hotter at 36 than she was at 21. Most girls from my high school aged A LOT better than the guys.

Have to be honest mate, she must have either had surgery or changed her diet and exercise as all things being equal, it’s almosf biologically impossible for a woman to be more sexually attractive 15 years closer to the menopause.

Unless you like them a little older...different strokes. Certainly they are better in bed, usually

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Have to be honest mate, she must have either had surgery or changed her diet and exercise as all things being equal, it’s almosf biologically impossible for a woman to be more sexually attractive 15 years closer to the menopause.

Unless you like them a little older...different strokes. Certainly they are better in bed, usually

Women are not created equally. Some are blessed with great genetics that keep them looking young for a long time.

 

[AJ84]

Have to be honest mate, she must have either had surgery or changed her diet and exercise as all things being equal, it’s almosf biologically impossible for a woman to be more sexually attractive 15 years closer to the menopause.

Unless you like them a little older...different strokes. Certainly they are better in bed, usually

One of my friends was 5’5’ 190 lbs at 20. At her current age of 35 she is 127 lbs, eats better, does marathons and looks a million times better than she did at 20.

If she was slim and fit at 20 then yeah, maybe she would not look as good as she does now, but you have to consider that not all 20 year olds look good.

Also your wife will eventually be 35, do you plan to dump her for a 21 year old? I hope you are with her for more reasons than the fact that she’s younger than you and hasn’t hit the wall yet .

 

[Tdawg]

Have to be honest mate, she must have either had surgery or changed her diet and exercise as all things being equal, it’s almosf biologically impossible for a woman to be more sexually attractive 15 years closer to the menopause.

Unless you like them a little older...different strokes. Certainly they are better in bed, usually

no surgery. They carded her yesterday at Costco, she didn't have her ID so they didn't let her buy. It's unreal...She looks like a teenager and it pisses me off to no end. A few times people have thought I was her dad.. bastiches.

You're probably young and don't realize that a lot of hot girls you look at are well in their 30's.

 

[Fruitbat]

no surgery. They carded her yesterday at Costco, she didn't have her ID so they didn't let her buy. It's unreal...She looks like a teenager and it pisses me off to no end. A few times people have thought I was her dad.. bastiches.

You're probably young and don't realize that a lot of hot girls you look at are well in their 30's.

37 old boy. If anything I like younger women now more than I did at 21. All women under 25 look incredible to me. Even chubby ones. Lovely skin, eyes unblemished. When I was 21 I liked women in 30s more.

 

[Fruitbat]

One of my friends was 5’5’ 190 lbs at 20. At her current age of 35 she is 127 lbs, eats better, does marathons and looks a million times better than she did at 20.

If she was slim and fit at 20 then yeah, maybe she would not look as good as she does now, but you have to consider that not all 20 year olds look good.

Also your wife will eventually be 35, do you plan to dump her for a 21 year old? I hope you are with her for more reasons than the fact that she’s younger than you and hasn’t hit the wall yet .

When she is 35 I will be 46.

She is Asian. She looks about 18 now. At 35 she’ll look about 25.

Plus, I totally disagree with leaving women for younger models. I’m all about traditional monogamy. Perhaps she will have a fling. Perhaps I’ll have a mistress when I’m 55. Who knows. What’s for sure is I won’t be leaving her just over something as fickle as appearance. Marriage vows are supposed to mean something, and the main thing they mean is for companionship and loyalty for life.

Unless she’s a b1tch, or divorced me

 

[Fruitbat]

One of my friends was 5’5’ 190 lbs at 20. At her current age of 35 she is 127 lbs, eats better, does marathons and looks a million times better than she did at 20.

If she was slim and fit at 20 then yeah, maybe she would not look as good as she does now, but you have to consider that not all 20 year olds look good.

Also your wife will eventually be 35, do you plan to dump her for a 21 year old? I hope you are with her for more reasons than the fact that she’s younger than you and hasn’t hit the wall yet .

One other thing...you’re a woman yes? Bear in mind what women think is “looking great” and what men see is different.

She might look great in terms of female appreciation - eg clothes, hair, slimmer....but a young fertile woman, provided she is not obese...still looks better to me with no make up having woken up than a 35 year old in the best shape of her life.

Nature doesn’t lie and a 21 year old is going to get pregnant with 1ml of juice and a 35 year old is going to be much more hit and miss. It’s just nature.

Moral of the story is to educate women to husband up early, to a man who won’t run off for a younger model. Instead of preaching to put career ahead of all, get a selection of partners with 6 packs and then struggle to find anyone at 35 and then Be extremely unhappy with the best man they could find not having a 6 pack. Then, write articles about how she’s “invisible” now she’s not 21 and how men are evil for liking 21 year olds, and attempt to ban any image of a 21 year old, and then tell 21 year olds to go for career and sleep around. This seems to be what happens - a lot, in metropolitan western countries.

I’m sure a lot on here are enjoying the latter way, lots of strings free sex. It benefits men, mainly.