Necris Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 There's always alot of talk about what makes a man an Alpha, why are some guys Beta, why Alphas get all the women, etc. and I'm here to explain everything to you. Alpha basically just means leader. Alphas can be jerks, or they can be nice guys. Some people make natural leaders, and that's usually attractive. President Obama is Alpha, CEOs are Alpha, Martin Luther King was Alpha, Hitler was Alpha, Genghis Khan was Alpha, the guy who is the leader of your social circle always organizing events is Alpha. They are typically looked up to in society, and when it comes to dating generally highly successful due to their charisma. Betas are followers. Your average Joe walking down the street is most likely a Beta. When it comes to dating success Betas are average, and they represent most people in general. Occassionaly they may compete with the Alphas for a position of leadership but in general are content with just following. The Omega is neither, they either lack the charisma to lead or simply do not concern themselves with leading others but they are also not followers, they are often seen as outsiders, and can seem quite strange to others. And are often rejected by everyone. They usually only have few close friends. Omegas can take a variety of forms from that weird "dorky" guy no one understands who just does his own thing to the schizophrenic guy mumbling to himself in a straightjacket to the intellectual genius who doesn't concern himself with being a leader but is willing to provide advice and teach others. Unfortunately Omegas are commonly looked down upon for not being a part of the group and so have a tough time dating. As for those of you who will say these distinctions do not exist, the truth is that they are very real, but its nothing as dramatic as some of the PUA types make it out to be.
ChessPieceFace Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 So find me a nice wholesome omega woman who shares my interests and I'll be set.
2.50 a gallon Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 During my college days, in my psych class we had to study something like 20 human personality types. What has happened in the 45 intervening years to reduce the number to just 3? Where do you put the lone or lobo wolf? Or in human society, the artist, the thinker? Here is the problem with your hypothesis, as I have experienced in real live, when the chit hits the fan, such as surviving a tornado and a earth quake, it is the common guy next door who maintains a level head and begins the rescue operations. Your so called alphas, in order to get them out of the way we send them off to boil water. 2
ls32ssibm Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Hitler was not a natural leader. He was coached for years on how to brainwash a crowd with rabble-rousing political rhetoric. Obama neither, Obama's Fourth Year in Office Ties as Most Polarized Ever, is a failure of leadership I'd say. But I digress. Your explanation, either way, is irrelevant when it comes to the dating world. What you mean to say is; some women love power, others don't. Some men are in positions of great power, other's aren't. Sometimes a "natural" leader isn't in a position of power because, well, they just aren't. Not everybody can be President, a CEO, or a war-mongering dictator. That's pretty much it. Although it's not like you are going to end this endless debate with a single thread.
Author Necris Posted February 14, 2013 Author Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) During my college days, in my psych class we had to study something like 20 human personality types. What has happened in the 45 intervening years to reduce the number to just 3? Where do you put the lone or lobo wolf? Or in human society, the artist, the thinker? Here is the problem with your hypothesis, as I have experienced in real live, when the chit hits the fan, such as surviving a tornado and a earth quake, it is the common guy next door who maintains a level head and begins the rescue operations. Your so called alphas, in order to get them out of the way we send them off to boil water. The lone wolf is the Omega. The key thing about Omegas is that they do not lead, but they do not follow. Many artists and thinkers are Omega as well. The common guy next door who is helping in a rescue option in your example is Alpha. An Alpha doesn't have to be a CEO though alot of CEOs are Alphas, a blue collar regular guy can easily be a leader he may not run his own corporation but he does know how to talk to people and manage them. Edited February 14, 2013 by Necris
Radu Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Finally we can solve this ! I have been dying for this to happen, since we couldn't figure it out in the other previous thousands of threads.
man_in_the_box Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Yes, I think we should inform the Nobel Committee on this. Although I think this gem could also be a major scientific breakthrough on the research on getting laid.
Mrlonelyone Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 I think you're pretty close Necris. In fact you understand it well. I would only add that the Omega's in your scheme are the ones who can most easily become alpha's. They only need to gain followers. If what they are doing has real merit, they will have followers. In essence that's the way a tribe of hunter gatherer's worked. The context in which we evolved were groups formed by family ties and free association.
grkBoy Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 I think in the context of this forum, men should stop asking how to be "alpha", and simply ask... "How can I be the man women want?" That, and go further to ask themselves these questions: What do I truly want in life?Why do I want a woman in my life?Am I seeing women as prizes, or human beings with thoughts and feelings? That last one is a deeper one. I see many men and women meet someone, and then imagine them as the perfect girlfriend/boyfriend...but never as the person they really are. It's why so many get disappointed in all this when the person they thought would be "perfect" ends up not being that...even when he/she simply hits "imperfection" by rejecting your advance. You guys can keep asking about alphas and betas to death, but even if you somehow gained 6-11 inches of height, worked hard to get a perfect body, worked harder to be a millionaire, etc...it's no guarantee you'll suddenly get women in your life easily. There is no magic path or pill or book that instantly makes you into the men women want...because all women are different. I might have met a wonderful woman who I am going to marry...but take her away and I'd still be the man women go "eh" about. Only difference is I don't make myself feel ugly because women see me as "eh". 4
ltjg45 Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 The Omega is neither, they either lack the charisma to lead or simply do not concern themselves with leading others but they are also not followers, they are often seen as outsiders, and can seem quite strange to others. And are often rejected by everyone. They usually only have few close friends. Omegas can take a variety of forms from that weird "dorky" guy no one understands who just does his own thing to the schizophrenic guy mumbling to himself in a straightjacket to the intellectual genius who doesn't concern himself with being a leader but is willing to provide advice and teach others. Unfortunately Omegas are commonly looked down upon for not being a part of the group and so have a tough time dating. That one definitely sounds like me then. I do get a lot of praise for being smarter than normal and I tend to ram my head on the wall when I see or hear something that clearly doesn't make sense logically. I have no issues helping others and is generally "nice". I also tend to be a bit too nice and I ended up regretting it. I'm sure I'm looked down generally within the dating world. I do have NJROTC training so being a leader and an Alpha, when called upon, is relatively simple to me provided I have the followers, which I don't. Not sure if I need to change anything or not. The only real obstacle I have right now is strictly finding employment. I can handle the rest once I get an entry-level job somewhere.
Eternal Sunshine Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Let's take this opportunity, here in LS, to completely reframe and recategorize this hypothetical ranking of dating worth. 1. Stud guys who are simpleton idiots who think they're sweet because they can bang dumb crotch-rocket pic posing hooch 2. Super handsome, fit, intelligent, successful, charismatic guys who can get whatever girl they want, therefore they usually don't want one 3. Sensitive, introverted, artistic guy who is a prisoner of and tormented by his own creativity and intellect to the point that only 1 in 500,000 girls would 'get him', so he shuts women out and cries about being lonely 4. Average, dull, insipid, generic 'everyman' who goes through life like he's standing on a conveyor belt....nobody ever knows he was there, even though he's probably a good guy 5. Accountant/anal/Rain Man types who have to have every detail of life organized to a tee, and the slightest change of plans sends them into a chaotic state of confusion and fear 6. Normal dudes who are just, you know, normal. Sorta cool, occasionally funny, with a good story here and there, decent style, good job....just normal 7. Skater/shredder/rocker/punk anti-establishment guy who doesn't give a flying eff about rules, expectations, conformity or normalcy 8. Slobs who don't give a flying eff about themselves. Unmotivated, uninspiring, unfilled, unattractive.....well, pretty much every 'un'-adjective you can think of. Wallowing in self-loathing, they whine and complain about how nobody likes them....meanwhile, they're shuffling through life, out of shape, greasy hair and spaghetti sauce caked to the side of their mouths (even though its been 5 days since they've eaten spaghetti) 9. D*ckhead drill sergeant guy who's head will explode if you don't do everything he expects you to do the way he expects you to do it when he expects you to do it. 10. Dorks/misfits/geeks/dweebs.....they made a great movie about these people that was, unfortunately for most here, not rooted in fact or reality. 11. Trendy, stuck-up, smlirt intelligentsia who's amazing intellect (centered around ONE subject) is bigger than any other person, and the only people who can even comprehend their genius are other academics, so they just glom onto each other 12. Hardcore dude who lives to rock climb, kayak, bike, whatever and would be happier plummeting to his death than loving a girl I don't know.....there are a ton more. Bottom line is, this alpha/beta crap is just a cop out for why certain guys can't hwy what they want. This is cool! I am no 3 and want a guy that is no 3. In OP, Omegas are by far most attractive to me. I think Omegas would be more attractive than Betas to anyone.
Mrlonelyone Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 3. Sensitive, introverted, artistic guy who is a prisoner of and tormented by his own creativity and intellect to the point that only 1 in 500,000 girls would 'get him', so he shuts women out and cries about being lonely Whoo Hoo! I'm #3!
Mrlonelyone Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 This is cool! I am no 3 and want a guy that is no 3. In OP, Omegas are by far most attractive to me. I think Omegas would be more attractive than Betas to anyone. Well hey there little missy.... 1
Author Necris Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 So you're trying to tell me Picasso was a lowly Omega male? :laugh::laugh: Thanks for my laugh of the day. Omega in my opinion isn't lowly its basically outside the group, you aren't the one following people around, and you aren't the one leading people around, you exist outside of all that. As for Picasso, I don't know enough about his personal life to make a judgment call.
TaraMaiden Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 When can we get round to discussing the Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta Eta, Theta, Iota, Kappa, Lambda, Mu, Nu, Xi, Omicron, Pi, Rho, Sigma, Tau, Upsilon, Phi, Chi and Psi Males? Or are they considered normal, middle of the road and downright common? 1
Author Necris Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 When can we get round to discussing the Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta Eta, Theta, Iota, Kappa, Lambda, Mu, Nu, Xi, Omicron, Pi, Rho, Sigma, Tau, Upsilon, Phi, Chi and Psi Males? Or are they considered normal, middle of the road and downright common? I was just using Alpha, Beta, and Omega as a simplified way of describing the hierarchy of dominance. Alphas are leaders, Betas are followers, and Omegas are outside of all of this.
TaraMaiden Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Omegas are definitely not 'outside of all of this'. You obviously have no idea of the different roles people play.... No matter what category you insist on shoving people into, we all have several roles to play depending on circumstances. And everyone has their part to play, and a legitimate and valid part it is too.
Author Necris Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Omegas are definitely not 'outside of all of this'. You obviously have no idea of the different roles people play.... No matter what category you insist on shoving people into, we all have several roles to play depending on circumstances. And everyone has their part to play, and a legitimate and valid part it is too. By outside I mean Omegas are not natural leaders but they aren't the type of people to follow others around as well. You've most likely seen someone like this, the do their own thing kind of people. As for what I wrote: The Omega is neither, they either lack the charisma to lead or simply do not concern themselves with leading others but they are also not followers, they are often seen as outsiders, and can seem quite strange to others. And are often rejected by everyone. They usually only have few close friends. Omegas can take a variety of forms from that weird "dorky" guy no one understands who just does his own thing to the schizophrenic guy mumbling to himself in a straightjacket to the intellectual genius who doesn't concern himself with being a leader but is willing to provide advice and teach others. Unfortunately Omegas are commonly looked down upon for not being a part of the group and so have a tough time dating. Though I admit Alpha, Beta, and Omega are far too simplified, and broad. Edited February 16, 2013 by Necris
ImNotOliver Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Obama neither, obama-fourth-year-office-ties-polarized-ever, is a failure of leadership I'd say. Actually this is not a failure of leadership as much as it is a sore loser Republican Party who would rather see the United States go down the toilet than see Obama succeed at anything. The only leadership style that would bring the tea party nuts under control would to use China style crackdowns. We are not that kind of country. We let our idiots screw every thing up. 1
Pyro Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Though I admit Alpha, Beta, and Omega are far too simplified, and broad. Nothing here has been solved then.
ImNotOliver Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 By your description I must be an Omega. But I think that you have the hierarchy all wrong. I would most fit as an Omega and even #3 from post 11. I don’t lead and I don’t follow but I have charisma and I’d be willing to bet that I’ve done better with women than most Alpha types. In fact I’ve been in several situations where people like me were pulling the strings behind the scenes while the Alphas, the leaders where playing more of a spokesman role. For instance, in my social group are a few guys that are typical Alpha types. Say some undesirable guy comes around. Then I or even perhaps one of the women will say something to one of the Alphas. Next thing the Alpha is pushing the undesirable along.
Archgirl Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 How are the females in your social groups supposed to fit into this scheme? Or do we get a separate set of overly simple labels to describe complex social relationships and pretend that male and female social dynamics are separate? Actually I'm being a bit cheeky, sorry, the alpha etc thingy was originally based on some really bad studies of chimps. It's not really considered valid anymore. Social dynamics are fluid and power sharing very flexible.
2.50 a gallon Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Necris Your beta's and omega's appear to be such because they could care less what your alpha strutting peacock is doing as it has no affect in their lives until the Chit hits the fan, like in my previous post about a tornado and earth quake. It was your betas and omegas who were getting into their cars to get scissor jacks to free the injured. While the alphas were getting in the way wondering how with out electricity or gas were we going to eat that night. So we put them to work boiling water on the weber cookers, to make hot coffee for the guys and gals who were doing the real work
Author Necris Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 Necris Your beta's and omega's appear to be such because they could care less what your alpha strutting peacock is doing as it has no affect in their lives until the Chit hits the fan, like in my previous post about a tornado and earth quake. It was your betas and omegas who were getting into their cars to get scissor jacks to free the injured. While the alphas were getting in the way wondering how with out electricity or gas were we going to eat that night. So we put them to work boiling water on the weber cookers, to make hot coffee for the guys and gals who were doing the real work Being a strutting peacock doesn't make you an Alpha, being a leader makes you Alpha. I don't believe in the PUA definition of Alpha.
Author Necris Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 How are the females in your social groups supposed to fit into this scheme? Or do we get a separate set of overly simple labels to describe complex social relationships and pretend that male and female social dynamics are separate? Actually I'm being a bit cheeky, sorry, the alpha etc thingy was originally based on some really bad studies of chimps. It's not really considered valid anymore. Social dynamics are fluid and power sharing very flexible. Gender isn't really important for this, women can be alpha, beta or omega.
Recommended Posts