Alpha/ Beta stuff is largely wrong

[hithard]

When we fail with a women we think that it was becuz we just were not "dark triad' or " alpha" enough. This is bullshi**. We failed becuz the women on a deep psychological level just did not respond to us. It had nothing to do with alpha or beta. It had to do with you dont remind her of something in her childhood. The manosphere wants to make a largely mysterious process into one that is rational and understandable. So we come up with this designation of alpha and beta. This is wrong.

About 50% of women ( and 90% of attention *****s) grew up with abusive or absent fathers. So they are attracted to dark triad traits. This is not ideal. So why is the manosphere using what these damaged women prefer as the template for what a man should be. They call it being "alpha". This is nonsense.

Mentally healthy women do not go for alpha jerks. I think this alpha/ beta mindset has been very oversimplified by the PUA community and pop culture. A women from a good family is going to want to be with a guy that resembles her father. Fathers have mostly Beta qualities with a little bit of Alpha mixed in. Good fathers do not act like jerks or exhibit the dark triad traits. Why is this called beta then?

The men that dysfunctional girls dump you for are usually not alpha. They are usually losers. These guys are not even universally attractive to women. They often have self esteem issues and all types of other problems. They often have no job. Some may argue that they exhibit alpha qualities like aloofness and outcome independence etc. This is false. They exhibit it to that girl becuz they know they have her already. They do not exhibit these traits to women that are not already deeply attracted to them.

If a true alpha were to date these women, these women would run. They would be too afraid emotionally and they would leave these guys or friendzone him. Imagine if an 6ft accountant who is an all around good guy where to date a damaged women. She would prob go on a couple dates with them, then string him along and then dump him for her dead beat ex bf.
It had nothing to do with alpha or beta. It had to do with what she responds to on a psychological level.

CAUTION: I will concede that extremely AFC behaviors like calling WAYY too much or being too needy do turn all women off. But most men are not that extreme. The average socially adjusted guy does not do that but yet he still has problems with holding down a LTR with damaged women.

Pandora all I can say is you are on the very bottom looking up. So far down I don't think you can see how it works at the top. There is a list of stuff that is straight out wrong in this post/thread imo. I'm too tired to pick it all out so Ill just throw the general.

I will say this alpha/beta does get misused and is misunderstood.

The guys who are jerks are one trick ponies who have found their niche target and rarely develop beyond that. They simply target a narrow market they are comfortable and experienced in and get success.
The guy that can lead but is a mess in other areas is another one trick pony.
You can have alpha traits in certain areas, but there is a big difference between that and someone embracing the lifestyle.

Lets keep it simple
Beta = inexperienced, bad decision making. On this board you are a diptard when it comes to social interaction/decisions with women. Doesn't mean you can't get women though, just you kind of bumble your way into it and can't see the deeper levels of attraction.

Alpha traits
You have narrow bands in areas you are successful in but the rest is a mess.

Layering techniques and calling it alpha
Guys using PU techniques in an attempt to show faux alpha. Fake it till you make it.

Alpha mindset
This is subjective. For me overall being experienced, but also being comfortable and being able to make informed decisions when it counts. Not just in one area but all areas of your life.Yes and the whole develop yourself spiel.



practicing ,developing and getting out there coupled with advice from the more blooded DJs does yield results. You should focus less on how alpha you are coming off and more on developing your comfort levels in the situation and learning at each stage of the process.

With the rise of social media there is a lot more dumb$hit traffic messing with the whole alpha topic. Just because it is over and misused doesn't meant it should become irrelevant.

 

[backbreaker]

That really opens up more questions than it answers. What is meant by "low quality men"? Does that mean he is a man*****, a drunken drug pusher, or a freeloading deadbeat with no job (not sure what any of that has to do with being "alpha")?

Are they really attracted to these guys because they are low quality? Or is it simply the case that attraction has nothing to do with "quality"? I suspect the latter. Just like a girl can be the biggest ho on the planet, but if she's built right, men are going to be attracted to her. That doesn't mean we will sleep with her necessarily, but the physical attraction will be there, regardless. I'm sure it's the same with women - a sexy guy is a sexy guy, whether he's a dirtbag or not.

In other words, she might be attracted to the hot douchebag, but the ugly douchebag is just a creeper.

you make a good point but i don't necessarily agree. Especially with me being in NA I see a lot of butt ass ugly losers lol who are able to attract women constantly. I sat by a somewhat cute woman one day about a year ago and heard her flat out say "but i love bad boys"


I know the answer. It's not even all that complex of an answer, but it's the correct answer.


It's about social skills. It all comes back to being fun or being responsible. Losers are fun. They don't have anything to do but loser people ****. They talk on the phone all day, they have tons of practice talking to women.


I'll give you A PERFECT example. I mean Perfect. Every once in a while backbreaker likes to help out at this local shelter, a lot of recovering addicts live there when they are first getting clean and live there, etc. Once a month, actually tomorrow, I go up there and help pass out food to the people who come in and need food. I don't say this to toot my own horn but to set up the stage here for what I'm about to say.

So about what.. it was in the winter sometime maybe november or so, I'm up there and this dude, he's not what i would call ugly but he's "tore down" you can tell he just got clean (or **** was still using lol). Had on some tore up shoes, some wrinkled pants and he needed about a good 30 pounds to his frame you could tell he was on that meth bad. But he wasn't "ugly" so to speak. Anyway there was this cute little college aged chick up there and he sat there and just started a convo with her and i'll be damned if he didn't get her phone number. THE DUDE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PHONE lol. Dude had to use the "house phone" at the center where he lived to call her.


He might or he might not get with her. But if he talks to enough women like that he probably will get his eventually. But here is my thing.

There aren't very many people in this thread that could put themselves in a mindset to talk to a chick like that when you are literally living in a homeless shelter. And that's not a BAD thing. I got more pressing **** to worry about then getting sex lol. I need to get a place to live, a job, etc none of which this dude had at the time.


Some call it alpha to be able to talk to a chick when you are able to don't have much going for you. AT that point I call it irresponsible. But he's fun. He's always there. He can go out and do stuff. Addicts are all about drama so she likes the fact that he's surrounded by drama.


If I were in that position with him, I might be better looking, I might be more responsible, i might be smarter, but the point is, I'm not even going to have the wherewithal to put mysel out there like that at that time.

 

[zekko]

It's about social skills. It all comes back to being fun or being responsible. Losers are fun. They don't have anything to do but loser people ****. They talk on the phone all day, they have tons of practice talking to women.

See, this is why it is necessary to define what is meant by "low quality male". In your case, the low quality male is a jobless slacker. BUT in this scenario, I don't think the girl is attracted to the guy because he is a loser. She is attracted to him because he is fun. It just so happens that he is fun because he has time to be.

And yes, certainly many women like bad boys. They are a "type", there is a certain image that pops up when women talk about bad boys. Usually a good looking dude in jeans and a white t-shirt, maybe a leather jacket. When I hear a woman rave about "bad boys" however, I take that as a very large red flag. Because such women are usually very immoral themselves.

There's also the fat biker type of bad boy, but I think the attraction there is that bikes are fun and the biker guy is tough, so it appeals to her desire for protection.

 

[backbreaker]

you're saying the same thing i've been saying for the last year.


the traits that the avg 2014 american female are attracted to basically shun responsibly. Women (seriously) look at you like you are a hobbit if you don't have an iphone or a samsung galexy phone even if you don't need one. women want men who have all this practice / experience wooing men, and the responsibly guy doesn't have time for this. he's busy being responsible. working, whatever.

it's why woman always harp about why can't they find good men. they literally do not know what to look for.


of course a woman would prefer a guy with all the skills that the loser guy has but with a job and an ambition lol but that's not really possible, so she choses the guy with the traits she likes, time and time again.

 

[zekko]

Here's an interesting video of Tyler from RSD, that's kind of on the topic. I know people can't be arsed to watch videos, but the most pertinent part is from 7:30-9:45. Here is the link, the clip is in the second post down.

http://www.rsdnation.com/node/523391/forum

Basically, he's saying that in caveman days a girl could be with the boss, living in a cave with seven other women, having sex with them, while the boss is hunting. He brings them back furs and meat. Or she can go live with Steve, who lives under a tree, who only wants to be with her, and who can only bring her back squirrels to eat. Pretty funny stuff, really.

So there's Tyler saying girls want to be with players, basically. That's his argument, because that's what he is. But he also makes a good argument that women will want to be with a wealthy guy (provider). But he can't say that because that doesn't go along with his business of selling his pickup material to guys who might not have much money.

He also tends to deny the value of looks, because looks can't protect or provide. Well, true, but he's missing the obvious point that looks are representative of good health and good genetics, which would be passed on to her offspring. But again, he can't say that, because it doesn't fit with his business of selling pickup material to guys who might not look so good.

 

[G_Govan]

it's why woman always harp about why can't they find good men. they literally do not know what to look for.

I think this is a popular notion among men, but I disagree.

Women want you to believe they're unknowable and naive so they can't be caught taking from the cookie jar. They're very practiced in making men believe this, it's an unspoken language of sorts.

They follow their emotions (tingles) and will seek out whatever guy fits their current circumstance and of course hold out for the BEST guy they can attract for this purpose. It's a dual strategy.

It isn't something they verbalize because that would eliminate options for them. Could you see a woman telling a guy:

"Look, I need you to provide for me for the time being while I weigh my options and if nothing pans out, I'll stick around."

It isn't really a question of what they don't know, because they certainly know what they don't want at any given time.

 

[backbreaker]

you're a fool if yo8u believe women actually enjoy being hurt. it's not that women like being hurt, it's that they despise being bored / "not in love" more than they don't want to be hurt. A woman, most women, women who are not in provider mode will risk being hurt before they settle with someone they think is a chump

 

[Pandora]

Pandora all I can say is you are on the very bottom looking up. So far down I don't think you can see how it works at the top. There is a list of stuff that is straight out wrong in this post/thread imo. I'm too tired to pick it all out so Ill just throw the general.

I will say this alpha/beta does get misused and is misunderstood.

The guys who are jerks are one trick ponies who have found their niche target and rarely develop beyond that. They simply target a narrow market they are comfortable and experienced in and get success.
The guy that can lead but is a mess in other areas is another one trick pony.
You can have alpha traits in certain areas, but there is a big difference between that and someone embracing the lifestyle.

Lets keep it simple
Beta = inexperienced, bad decision making. On this board you are a diptard when it comes to social interaction/decisions with women. Doesn't mean you can't get women though, just you kind of bumble your way into it and can't see the deeper levels of attraction.

Alpha traits
You have narrow bands in areas you are successful in but the rest is a mess.

Layering techniques and calling it alpha
Guys using PU techniques in an attempt to show faux alpha. Fake it till you make it.

Alpha mindset
This is subjective. For me overall being experienced, but also being comfortable and being able to make informed decisions when it counts. Not just in one area but all areas of your life.Yes and the whole develop yourself spiel.



practicing ,developing and getting out there coupled with advice from the more blooded DJs does yield results. You should focus less on how alpha you are coming off and more on developing your comfort levels in the situation and learning at each stage of the process.

With the rise of social media there is a lot more dumb$hit traffic messing with the whole alpha topic. Just because it is over and misused doesn't meant it should become irrelevant.

Ok i can see what you are saying here

 

[Pandora]

Are they really attracted to these guys because they are low quality? Or is it simply the case that attraction has nothing to do with "quality"? I suspect the latter. Just like a girl can be the biggest ho on the planet, but if she's built right, men are going to be attracted to her. That doesn't mean we will sleep with her necessarily, but the physical attraction will be there, regardless. I'm sure it's the same with women - a sexy guy is a sexy guy, whether he's a dirtbag or not.

So after a long dry spell i went out last night. Approached a ton of chicks. Got rejected a ton of times. Eventually i scored big. Ended up spending the night with this chick who was attractive and has her shi* together. For some reason she thought i was the man. This is after being rejected sexually or being on the slow track with most of the plates i am working on.

The point is that just becuz you are not alpha to one pretty girl does not preclude you from being alpha to another one. This is assuming that you are following the general DJ principles. I guess we can all agree that we should just act like men. "Alpha" comes in many flavors. Whoever does not like your particular brand of alpha can fuc* off.

I still maintain that like attracts like. "Emotionally healthy" girl from great family is not going to be attracted to a low quality guy over a nice guy with his shi* together. She is going to call the loser out for what he is. His lack of ambition will turn her off becuz she was raised to want a man that has ambition.

What makes this argument confusing is the definition of low quality guy. If the guy is attractive then my argument fails becuz attractiveness is one of the few universally alpha traits. It trumps a lot of other stuff. So when we see " high quality women" with losers, its prob becuz these guys look good.

Anyway this is a never ending debate. I appreciate all the feedback. You guys provided a lot of food for thought.

 

[zekko]

The point is that just becuz you are not alpha to one pretty girl does not preclude you from being alpha to another one.

This is true. Reading this forum can get pretty crazy sometimes. Read this thread and you might come to the conclusion that you have to be jobless in order to attract a woman.

Getting back to that video link I posted, if you go by what Tyler says, if you aren't living with seven other women and openly banging them all, then your girlfriend won't really be into you, you're a chode basically. This is the kind of stuff that the manosphere is full of.

Tyler was a guy who had a few kids with his girlfriend and tried to push his idea that he could and should still be banging other women. Apparentlly that's what he believes women find attractive. Is it any wonder that relationship didn't work out? I think anyone taking relationship advice from Tyler should be taking it along with several huge grains of salt.

I know a girl right now whose boyfriend cheated on her, and she dumped him immediately. If you go by what Tyler said, she should be more attracted to him than ever.

I don't believe in any "one size fits all" view of attraction. I agree with you, one chick might like you, while the next one won't.

 

[G_Govan]

you're a fool if yo8u believe women actually enjoy being hurt. it's not that women like being hurt, it's that they despise being bored / "not in love" more than they don't want to be hurt. A woman, most women, women who are not in provider mode will risk being hurt before they settle with someone they think is a chump

If you're referring to my post I'm not sure how to respond, as it seems you didn't understand anything I said.

 

[G_Govan]

This is true. Reading this forum can get pretty crazy sometimes. Read this thread and you might come to the conclusion that you have to be jobless in order to attract a woman.

I'm not trying to pick at you, but can you please quote one statement (in context) in this thread that would lead one to believe what you claimed?

There seems to be an inability for some people to think in the abstract. Why does everything need to be so simplified and reductionist?

Too much staring at the trees and not the forest.

 

[zekko]

I'm not trying to pick at you, but can you please quote one statement (in context) in this thread that would lead one to believe what you claimed?

All of these posts imply that the jobless man has the advantage over the responsible man:
Here's what Pandora said in post #6:

"Yeh man for all the talk of women being attracted to guys that have hobbies, improve themselves, get in shape, have a career, emotional control and blah blah blah....this only applies to certain girls. Men think that women should be attracted to emotional control and self improvement. But the reality is that many women ( damaged) dont think a well rounded man is alpha. He will be the beta to the alpha ex bf (loser bum with no job). The self improved well rounded man will be the beta bux while the loser guy will be the alpha fux."



And here's Backbreaker in post #48:

"It's about social skills. It all comes back to being fun or being responsible. Losers are fun. They don't have anything to do but loser people ****. They talk on the phone all day, they have tons of practice talking to women.


I'll give you A PERFECT example. I mean Perfect. Every once in a while backbreaker likes to help out at this local shelter, a lot of recovering addicts live there when they are first getting clean and live there, etc. Once a month, actually tomorrow, I go up there and help pass out food to the people who come in and need food. I don't say this to toot my own horn but to set up the stage here for what I'm about to say.

So about what.. it was in the winter sometime maybe november or so, I'm up there and this dude, he's not what i would call ugly but he's "tore down" you can tell he just got clean (or **** was still using lol). Had on some tore up shoes, some wrinkled pants and he needed about a good 30 pounds to his frame you could tell he was on that meth bad. But he wasn't "ugly" so to speak. Anyway there was this cute little college aged chick up there and he sat there and just started a convo with her and i'll be damned if he didn't get her phone number. THE DUDE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PHONE lol. Dude had to use the "house phone" at the center where he lived to call her.


He might or he might not get with her. But if he talks to enough women like that he probably will get his eventually. But here is my thing.

There aren't very many people in this thread that could put themselves in a mindset to talk to a chick like that when you are literally living in a homeless shelter. And that's not a BAD thing. I got more pressing **** to worry about then getting sex lol. I need to get a place to live, a job, etc none of which this dude had at the time.


Some call it alpha to be able to talk to a chick when you are able to don't have much going for you. AT that point I call it irresponsible. But he's fun. He's always there. He can go out and do stuff."



And Backbreaker again in post #50:

"the traits that the avg 2014 american female are attracted to basically shun responsibly. Women (seriously) look at you like you are a hobbit if you don't have an iphone or a samsung galexy phone even if you don't need one. women want men who have all this practice / experience wooing men, and the responsibly guy doesn't have time for this. he's busy being responsible. working, whatever.

it's why woman always harp about why can't they find good men. they literally do not know what to look for.


of course a woman would prefer a guy with all the skills that the loser guy has but with a job and an ambition lol but that's not really possible, so she choses the guy with the traits she likes, time and time again."

 

[Insouciant]

I asked a similar question when I was in the midst of swallowing the red pill.

I actually reached out to A.B. Dada, who has some insightful inputs for those of us in the manosphere.

He mentioned that he didn't really believe too much into the Alpha/Beta theories. That's all they are -- theories.

In order to become a complete person. A complete human being. a complete man. You need to be able to instinctually shift from an alpha or beta frame. This could only be done through extensive experience, and an understanding (and acceptance) of one's self.

 

[Willie Naylor]

When we fail with a women we think that it was becuz we just were not "dark triad' or " alpha" enough. This is bullshi**. We failed becuz the women on a deep psychological level just did not respond to us. It had nothing to do with alpha or beta. It had to do with you dont remind her of something in her childhood. The manosphere wants to make a largely mysterious process into one that is rational and understandable. So we come up with this designation of alpha and beta. This is wrong.

About 50% of women ( and 90% of attention *****s) grew up with abusive or absent fathers. So they are attracted to dark triad traits. This is not ideal. So why is the manosphere using what these damaged women prefer as the template for what a man should be. They call it being "alpha". This is nonsense.

Mentally healthy women do not go for alpha jerks. I think this alpha/ beta mindset has been very oversimplified by the PUA community and pop culture. A women from a good family is going to want to be with a guy that resembles her father. Fathers have mostly Beta qualities with a little bit of Alpha mixed in. Good fathers do not act like jerks or exhibit the dark triad traits. Why is this called beta then?

CAUTION: I will concede that extremely AFC behaviors like calling WAYY too much or being too needy do turn all women off. But most men are not that extreme. The average socially adjusted guy does not do that but yet he still has problems with holding down a LTR with damaged women.

Excellent post.

 

[Kotaix]

Alpha and Beta are attitudes/states of mind. Not a hard and fast descriptions of a man's character.

One man can be alpha with one woman (that he's usually not interested in, but she is interested in him); and beta with another (who he is interested in, but she is not interested in him).