Caring is alpha

[Grounded eagle]

Here's your daily reminder: You are not an animal. Monkeys have tribes

Tribe could mean a variety of things.Social circle,family.....

 

[Grounded eagle]

>>An alpha is a leader, and a leader is a servant.<<

Alphas are many things.Mavericks,free thinkers,outspoken,strong,determined,wilful,dominant,charismatic......they can even be scoundrels, the scum of the earth, and yes, they can be leaders too.
But they are not servants.
It is a concept that exists devoid of “good” or “bad.”

 

[Grounded eagle]

Motivation behind this post

I wrote this post by observing many of my male friends who seem to have success with women naturally.

They are genuinely good people and not like the manipulative degenerates who sacrifice integrity for sex.

The one thing I admire in all my pals is that they actually care about their environment, people and animals instead of faking a pretense to impress women.

As a result they are usually talented, have an interesting life, friendly, approachable and take care of themselves.

I genuinely believe having a warm goodness in our hearts towards people around us, while acknowledging that we should protect ourselves too is a good way to lead social interactions.

Another true story. I think the cause of the disconnect for a lot of guys here is that they’re more concerned with getting people,particularly women,to think that they are who they say they are,instead of actually BEING who they say they are.

 

[Grounded eagle]

I did that too and the girl fell in love with me right there.

Then she met a hotter, sexier, taller guy, and she used my vulnerabilities to get money from me to pay his rent. His good genetics destroyed my vulnerabilities.

Rock on!

At the end of the day,vulnerability is weakness, and the less of it that is shown,the better.

 

[Atom Smasher]

“A dominant man who has his sh!t together”? By that definition, Zuckerberg and Bezos are alpha males. And yet, neither of them is good with women (a prerequisite for being an "alpha" based on the way the term is used on this forum). Those guys are billionaires and yet they date women that most people here wouldn't touch with someone else's nine foot pole. This is why "alpha" and "beta" are unhelpful concepts. They are too black and white.

As for a leader being a servant, perhaps you guys speak some form of English that I'm not familiar with. A servant is literally someone who serves a master. To be a servant is to be servile (in other words, to be submissive). And submissiveness is the polar opposite of leadership. Leaders lead by example, create solutions, and inspire others. Servants sit back obediently and do as they are told without questioning their masters.

Taking care of someone is not the same thing as serving them. Parens don't serve their children. Doctors don't serve their patients. Managers don't serve their subordinates. "Serving" is when a waiter brings you a plate and asks if you'd like some salt and pepper.

I’d like to take on your points a bit later today. I have something to say about each one. It’s 4:00 a.m. and I’m up with a stomach ache, so I’ll limit this post to one point:
Zuckerberg and Bezos certainly DO NOT have their sh!t together. They have their financial sh!t together, period. That is only one aspect of life. They have no idea under the sun how to deal with women and they have other serious social flaws. I actually almost never use the “alpha male” shorthand, but since it has come up, I will say that these certainly aren’t alpha males. Not by a long shot. They are ineffective leaders as they are despised by most. Those whom they lead use them for gain (however meager), just as these two use their underlings for gain. There exists mutual disdain. These leaders can be toppled given the right circumstances.
I must say that your reasoning in this matter is rather black and white and simplistic, and I’m not saying that to take a shot at you. I’m really surprised to see this.
Today is your lucky day, however, as the ever-beneficent AS is going to provide new perspectives on leadership that you clearly haven’t considered.
I became a natural leader because I discovered the keys of leadership. One might say I blundered into them. As a result of this understanding, I virtually always become a leader (or the leader) of any group I take an interest in. The people in that group actually indirectly compel me to lead them. This is why I’m a SECURE leader.
Like most things in life, leadership is a paradox that only some will understand. That’s why true leaders are rare. The average man does not understand nor even entertain paradox. The wise man embraces paradox as a key to enlightenment. The proof is in the pudding. I lead because I’m compelled by others to lead them. I’m compelled to lead because people recognize that I will lead fairly and will work for their benefit. In return, they take care of me and submit to my authority.
Paradox, influence and nuance... The keys to secure power.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I’d like to take on your points a bit later today. I have something to say about each one. It’s 4:00 a.m. and I’m up with a stomach ache, so I’ll limit this post to one point:
Zuckerberg and Bezos certainly DO NOT have their sh!t together. They have their financial sh!t together, period. That is only one aspect of life. They have no idea under the sun how to deal with women and they have other serious social flaws. I actually almost never use the “alpha male” shorthand, but since it has come up, I will say that these certainly aren’t alpha males. Not by a long shot. They are ineffective leaders as they are despised by most. Those whom they lead use them for gain (however meager), just as these two use their underlings for gain. There exists mutual disdain. These leaders can be toppled given the right circumstances.
I must say that your reasoning in this matter is rather black and white and simplistic, and I’m not saying that to take a shot at you. I’m really surprised to see this.

I don't think that my reasoning is black and white. Rather, you and I have very different views of what it means to be leader. Your idea of a leader is someone who is well-liked by everybody. I find this baffling, as leaders often have to make unpopular but necessary decisions to achieve their objectives. Zuckerberg and Bezos may be sh!tty human beings and I despise them as much as you do. That doesn't change the fact that they are highly effective as leaders of their respective companies. Amazon and Facebook completely dominate their respective markets. And Bezos and Zuckerberg completely dominate those companies, having built them from scratch. I can think of a number of other despicable yet highly effective leaders, from Ghengis Khan to Stalin. As you say, the poof is in the pudding.

Today is your lucky day, however, as the ever-beneficent AS is going to provide new perspectives on leadership that you clearly haven’t considered. I became a natural leader because I discovered the keys of leadership. One might say I blundered into them. As a result of this understanding, I virtually always become a leader (or the leader) of any group I take an interest in. The people in that group actually indirectly compel me to lead them. This is why I’m a SECURE leader.

Since you've made this about yourself, what exactly have you accomplished as a "natural leader"? Did you found a Fortune 500 company? Did you get yourself elected to high political office? Did you lead troops to victory on the battlefield? I'm genuinely curious. By what objective metric can we measure your success as a leader?

 

[Plinco]

The leader Always cares about who he leads, in that respect he becomes a servant by caring for them and their well being. In other terminology his mindset is GAF …
A prime example is the military. A command position gives orders that troops follow, but that’s Not leadership. Caring about the troops enough to keep them alive and serving them with the best utilization of his personally known conflict intelligence is leading to win. Once troops realize that’s their leaders mindset, they are behind him all the way and their performance, effort, and morale escalates to the best you can get. As troops serve their commander, he in turn should lead by serving them…

1. a person in the service of another.
2. a person employed by the government: a public servant.

Not necessarily. One can never, ever expect that another person will look after one's interests more than one's own.

I realize that there a lot of people who like to live in a fantasy where someone or something looks after their interests like it is their own, but it doesn't happen in reality. Accepting this is part of growing into an adult.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Anywhere in the world leaders must serve those who they lead. If they do not serve they will be removed from the leadership position. Read any history book. Read about the Bolesheviks in Russia, about Ivan the Terrible, about Bismarck. Leaders serve. They influence and they are aware of the social contract by which they are bound. If they fail to serve, they fall. In micro or macro situations.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The Bolsheviks killed millions of their own citizens and kept the entire country in a state of fear. That's the reason why they weren't removed from power, not because they served their people. Unless your idea of "service" includes putting people in gulags or in front of a firing squad. Ditto for Ivan the Terrible (how do you think he got his name?) and Bismark, albeit on a smaller scale. Those people were textbook psychopaths.

 

[Plinco]

Like most things in life, leadership is a paradox that only some will understand. That’s why true leaders are rare. The average man does not understand nor even entertain paradox. The wise man embraces paradox as a key to enlightenment. The proof is in the pudding. I lead because I’m compelled by others to lead them. I’m compelled to lead because people recognize that I will lead fairly and will work for their benefit. In return, they take care of me and submit to my authority.

A wise and developed individual leads himself, and does not require any other form of leadership, because he knows how to look after his own interests. As he does this, he benefits others with his productivity.

Knowledge does not come from revelation, it does not come from other people, it comes from reason; all knowledge comes from reason. When someone speaks of interpreted information, a wise man processes this information logically as he validates or invalidates it.

Individuals who have mastered their emotions do not engage in non-forced submission; he does not engage in automatic feel good behavior when he knows his interests are at stake. Such a person does not submit himself to ice cream or submit himself to excess television, in the same way he would not submit himself to another unless he was physically forced to.

When you are focused on producing your own results, you become your own leader. The more you lead yourself, the less "leadership" you require from others.

 

[Bokanovsky]

A wise and developed individual leads himself, and does not require any other form of leadership, because he knows how to look after his own interests. As he does this, he benefits others with his productivity.

Knowledge does not come from revelation, it does not come from other people, it comes from reason; all knowledge comes from reason. When someone speaks of interpreted information, a wise man processes this information logically as he validates or invalidates it.

Individuals who have mastered their emotions do not engage in non-forced submission; he does not engage in automatic feel good behavior when he knows his interests are at stake. Such a person does not submit himself to ice cream or submit himself to excess television, in the same way he would not submit himself to another unless he was physically forced to.

When you are focused on producing your own results, you become your own leader. The more you lead yourself, the less "leadership" you require from others.

Couldn't have said it better.

Atom Smasher, I usually enjoy your posts. You seem like a smart guy with a lot of life experience. Having said that, I have to wonder if your ramblings about "embracing paradox" have anything to do with the recent legalization of weed in your state

 

[Konada]

Since you've made this about yourself, what exactly have you accomplished as a "natural leader"? Did you found a Fortune 500 company? Did you get yourself elected to high political office? Did you lead troops to victory on the battlefield? I'm genuinely curious. By what objective metric can we measure your success as a leader?

You seem to have a narrowed perspective of what a leader is, not gonna beat the dead horse any longer since many have said the same.

You do not necessarily have to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a political figure to be a leader. Even in personal, 1 to 1 relationships, there is a leader and follower.

Observe your relationships and you will find it accordingly, your success as a leader.

 

[Plinco]

Couldn't have said it better.

Atom Smasher, I usually enjoy your posts. You seem like a smart guy with a lot of life experience. Having said that, I have to wonder if your ramblings about "embracing paradox" have anything to do with the recent legalization of weed in your state

This is a very serious disagreement of ethical philosophies. I take this very seriously.

To break the debate down to the essence, there are two main views:

1.) Ethics is an axiom of in itself (meaning that the subject cannot be reduced further), and that values are innate (universal) to human beings.

2.) Ethics as contextual, resting on two observable facts: A.) value requires an evaluator (to evaluate implies self-sustaining action, life), B.) Has the ability to make choices independent of natural forces (volitional consciousness, free will).

I can talk a lot about this, and I intend to at a later time. View #1, the viewpoint that many on this thread have expressed is dangerous; it implies that one ought to behave at the whims of a gentile mob.

 

[Plinco]

Even in personal, 1 to 1 relationships, there is a leader and follower.

A man who leads himself will have more respect for himself than a follower. A follower is a follower because he does not know how to lead himself, and thus is putting his interests at the whim of another, who does not completely know the follower.

If we are talking about a parent and child relationship, a leader and follower relationship is appropriate since the child does not have the developed faculties to authorize himself.

 

[Bokanovsky]

You do not necessarily have to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a political figure to be a leader. Even in personal, 1 to 1 relationships, there is a leader and follower.

I don’t disagree with that. Like most things in life, leadership is a relative concept. Even those who are not naturally inclined towards leadership can assume the role of a leader under certain circumstances. However, that’s not what this discussion is about. There is nothing particularly impressive about being the leader in a personal relationship or in a small group of friends. Atom Smasher describes himself (in nearly supernatural terms) as someone who has discovered the “key” to leading and dominating any group of people. That piqued my interest…and skepticism.

 

[Atom Smasher]

I don’t disagree with that. Like most things in life, leadership is a relative concept. Even those who are not naturally inclined towards leadership can assume the role of a leader under certain circumstances. However, that’s not what this discussion is about. There is nothing particularly impressive about being the leader in a personal relationship or in a small group of friends. Atom Smasher describes himself (in nearly supernatural terms) as someone who has discovered the “key” to leading and dominating any group of people. That piqued my interest…and skepticism.

Mastery certainly does seem “supernatural” to those who simply cannot grasp the deeper truths that the “wizard” (to continue your analogy) harnesses. I would say it absolutely does seem supernatural to most when witnessed, just as a hot woman can seem to have a supernatural allure to us. I appreciate the inadvertent compliment.

I am certain that most readers here can grasp my points even given the impossibility of conveying the actual “how-to” of what I do by mere text descriptions. It takes reading between the lines, it takes imagination, and it takes acceptance of the idea that a man who has attained mastery has something to teach those who are younger and less experienced. Usually the elder appears eccentric to the younger because the elder speaks of things that are completely alien to the younger. There is no frame of reference for the younger to grasp into. So the ego-driven foot-stompers mock the elder and imply defective cognitive function, while the wise younger men recognize that they don’t fully understand, yet their intuition tells them that the old buzzard is onto something.

Your extraordinarily limited thinking makes you think I’m talking merely of relationships and “small groups of friends”. I’m actually speaking of any and every arena in which I have interest. Actually, you really can’t know what entities I actually lead now and have lead in the past, right?

Effective leadership is a worthy character trait to develop in life for any man who has a mind to. It is a skill that can be learned and leveraged. Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN’T, mock.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

The wise actually cares for his tribe, takes initiative to solve their problems, and does this for the health of the tribe.

I dunno why but that reminds me of Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), in Fast and Furious and how he runs his tribe / family....

 

[Plinco]

Effective leadership is a worthy character trait to develop in life for any man who has a mind to. It is a skill that can be learned and leveraged. Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN’T, mock.

I'm a natural leader. I have a direction I imagine influencing the direction of events because I live by a set of principles. Most people do not lead themselves to a high degree, so I look at them like children. When the task is all said and done, oh boy do I mock the whole situation.

A follower doesn't carry the same amount of respect as a person who knows how to lead oneself.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Mastery certainly does seem “supernatural” to those who simply cannot grasp the deeper truths that the “wizard” (to continue your analogy) harnesses. I would say it absolutely does seem supernatural to most when witnessed, just as a hot woman can seem to have a supernatural allure to us. I appreciate the inadvertent compliment.

I am certain that most readers here can grasp my points even given the impossibility of conveying the actual “how-to” of what I do by mere text descriptions. It takes reading between the lines, it takes imagination, and it takes acceptance of the idea that a man who has attained mastery has something to teach those who are younger and less experienced. Usually the elder appears eccentric to the younger because the elder speaks of things that are completely alien to the younger. There is no frame of reference for the younger to grasp into. So the ego-driven foot-stompers mock the elder and imply defective cognitive function, while the wise younger men recognize that they don’t fully understand, yet their intuition tells them that the old buzzard is onto something.

Your extraordinarily limited thinking makes you think I’m talking merely of relationships and “small groups of friends”. I’m actually speaking of any and every arena in which I have interest. Actually, you really can’t know what entities I actually lead now and have lead in the past, right?

Effective leadership is a worthy character trait to develop in life for any man who has a mind to. It is a skill that can be learned and leveraged. Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN’T, mock.

You still haven’t given me any examples of your accomplishments as a “wizard” leader. Those who can’t, teach (that’s the original Bernard Shaw quote).

 

[Willie Naylor]

Two skills every guy needs to master: leadership, and sales.

Even if you're not in the sales business...everything in life, sales comes into play. Whether you're selling yourself, selling an idea, etc.

 

[Atom Smasher]

You still haven’t given me any examples of your accomplishments as a “wizard” leader. Those who can’t, teach (that’s the original Bernard Shaw quote).

Why would I? When I interact with argumentative people on a forum, it is not to prove a point to that individual. Why would I qualify myself to anyone?

I write for the benefit of the lurkers and quiet, young guys here who are soaking up the knowledge available here on SS like a sponge. These are the guys who get it. The ones who are in the process becoming leaders. The ones who will display in the future a seemingly supernatural ability to influence and succeed. Let the scoffers remain wandering at the bottom of the pyramid where they belong. A few will climb to the top where the view is magnificent.