Solving the Alpha Beta debate once and for all

[Green Light]

but their common thread is attaining respect and dominance from a wide variety of different people.

 

And this need for dominance makes them a slave just like everybody else they just don't know it. My new philosophy is that we are all slaves to some extent even though we go around in our modern hubris thinking that we are totally independent and self-sufficient. We aren't.

The main reason that a woman would be attracted to an "alpha" male is because she relates his "dominance"(mainly over other men) with the ability to amass fortune and material gain. If she marries this man he is now working for HER even if she is quite able to(or does) amass fortune herself.

I think the men here would be best to forget about this alpha stuff because, in the end, the alphas of the world are really being used by everybody. Sure, they may build a comfortable life for themselves but is it really worth it?

It's 2013. As we read all the time on the internet, women are rolling in self-made dough, society is at a stand still at best and in a slow decline at worst. It's time for men to relax a bit and stop worrying about being "the best." It's time for men to redefine themselves and find a new measure for their worth other than their "usefulness."

[Necris]

No. Omegas are the lowest of the low.

 

Sigmas are the people outside of the entire hierarchy altogether.

 

Also, if you think that I'm going to accept a classification of males from a guy who can't get a date to save his life - you're dead wrong.

 

Depends on how you want to word it, I've never heard of Sigmas, just Alpha, Beta, Omega.

 

This is also not about just men but humans in general (of course we have alpha, beta, and omega females), and this isn't really about dating just how society works. We have leaders, we have followers, and we have the guys outside of the group. Of course this is oversimplified you could break each part down alot further but to keep things simple I just labeled the leaders Alphas, the followers Beta, and the outsiders Omega.

[animalover]

The problem of you people is that you try to over analyse something as simple as attraction, love and dating... and guess what... there are no rules that you can follow...

 

Alphas, betas and omegas are male roles and hierarchies in the animal world... because animals respond to instincts..... humans (at least most of us) use something called intelligence... and that makes it a totally different game...

 

Do you want to be able to date a girl... well improve your game and try to be realistic...I am tired of reading post of guys complaining about how shallow is that girls only want to date men because their looks and then those same guys just feel attracted to pretty or beautiful women and reject the ones they could easily achieve... do you follow me?

[Green Light]

The problem of you people is that you try to over analyse

 

 

What else is there to do on the internet? I've already looked at the weather, read the headlines, and checked my email...

[animalover]

What else is there to do on the internet? I've already looked at the weather, read the headlines, and checked my email...

 

what about porn?

[GG2W]

Simply thinking that there are alpha men, is definitely a Beta trait.

[Necris]

Alphas, betas and omegas are male roles and hierarchies in the animal world... because animals respond to instincts..... humans (at least most of us) use something called intelligence... and that makes it a totally different game...

 

I don't think anyone is getting what I'm saying.

 

Alphas, Betas, and Omegas are real, some people are leaders, others are followers, and some are to themselves never really leading but never really following anyone. And no I'm not getting this from a PUA book their ideas of are quite flawed IMO (they make Alpha/Beta into Badboy/niceguy), and gender doesn't really matter women can be leaders, followers, or lone wolves as well.

 

I think everyone is getting confused with PUA definitions of these terms for example when I say the term Alpha I'm not talking about this guy

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001107141/5ec1c78ec5b360646a80d7fe129d7d72_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

Being Alpha means you are a leader, you like to take charge, and generally good with people, this type of personality will help you land managerial jobs, and its usually considered attractive. How muscular, good-looking, or how loud you are is irrelevant. Alphas can be men or women, a woman who prefers to lead could be considered Alpha as well.

 

Also likewise when I say Beta I'm not talking about this guy: http://www.lolbrary.com/content/901/beta-male-much-36901.jpg

Beta basically means you are normally not a leader, you are a follower, like most people on the planet. You like being a part of the group. Amongst friends you rarely pick the activities or places you guys are going to go to you just like coming along, at work you are rarely managing teams of people, etc. Being Beta also doesn't mean you are unattractive, unable to get a date, a nice guy, or any of those terms.

 

 

Also social hierarchies are a sign of intelligence, humans most definitely have them.

 

 

Do you want to be able to date a girl... well improve your game and try to be realistic...I am tired of reading post of guys complaining about how shallow is that girls only want to date men because their looks and then those same guys just feel attracted to pretty or beautiful women and reject the ones they could easily achieve... do you follow me?

 

I'm a guy who struggles with women and no I'm not looking for only super attractive women, I don't believe I've ever had to reject a woman (women never approach me anyway so there is no need to reject them), and my beauty standards are pretty lax.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Necris

[Archgirl]

I did understand what you're trying to do, you were trying to define what the terms meant, for clarification.

It's just that a lot of us, see the major pitfall in applying oversimplified labels to complex things like social heirachies and individuals so we're questioning the need for a scheme at all, not arguing against your definitions of the terms.

And actually, originally females were assumed to be irrelevant to the power structure. We were the true betas. Only not even important enough to get a label. And you don't even want to know what started happening when they started incorporating race into this scheme of social dominance.

[tbf]

"How can I be the man women want?"

Don't be what other people want you to be. Be the man that you want to be. This is how you build confidence within yourself, through self-improvement and incremental success.

[Archgirl]

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.

 

Hahaha this is hilarious! I think you just solved most of my past dating distasters: I usually end up with #3, #7 or #12.

I think the current one is a 6. So we'll see if that makes a difference.

I still think people are probably more complicated, but I like thîs waay more than the alpha blah blah blah because its more about embracing individuality.

[Archgirl]

Crap. If this applies to women too...I just realised I'm a #7 too with a bit of #12. Ugh! *facepalm*: must learn to be more functional.

[NYWoman]

By classifying human activity into Alpha, Beta, you are putting yourself in the Betas. When you become a human you will understand

[Necris]

I did understand what you're trying to do, you were trying to define what the terms meant, for clarification.

It's just that a lot of us, see the major pitfall in applying oversimplified labels to complex things like social heirachies and individuals so we're questioning the need for a scheme at all, not arguing against your definitions of the terms.

And actually, originally females were assumed to be irrelevant to the power structure. We were the true betas. Only not even important enough to get a label. And you don't even want to know what started happening when they started incorporating race into this scheme of social dominance.

 

What I'm simply saying is some people are more dominant and are leaders, others are followers, and a few are neither leaders nor followers, that's all Alpha, Beta, and Omega are. Your attractiveness, your height, your race, your gender etc. are all irrelevant. Alphas, Betas, and Omegas exist in every social hierarchy.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Necris

[Archgirl]

What I'm simply saying is some people are more dominant and are leaders, others are followers, and a few are neither leaders nor followers, that's all Alpha, Beta, and Omega are. Your attractiveness, your height, your race, your gender etc. are all irrelevant. Alphas, Betas, and Omegas exist in every social hierarchy.

 

Only if you assume they do, by simplifying and classifying you determine what you wil observe - do you see what I mean?

[El Brujo]

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.

 

Sounds to me like one of the great unspoken fears is that the Omega men and women will find ways to reach out of their shells and connect. Then Alphas would be afraid of losing some of their Alpha-ness while the Betas stand by and watch in confusion.

 

Seriously, though... what you're describing is a rigid caste system. Great in theory, but in fact no man (or woman) is 100% Alpha, Beta, or Omega, and many regularly sneak across caste lines. We don't hear about it because they don't see any need to brag about it.

[yongyong]

You sound like a broke economy professor talking about investing.

[Necris]

Seriously, though... what you're describing is a rigid caste system. Great in theory, but in fact no man (or woman) is 100% Alpha, Beta, or Omega, and many regularly sneak across caste lines. We don't hear about it because they don't see any need to brag about it.

 

I agree no one is 100% of either and I never said anyone was completely Alpha, Beta or Omega. But we are all closer to one group than the others, sometimes leaders need to follow, and sometimes followers become leaders.

[Dark Phoenix]

I can't believe how much lying to yourselves people do

 

Right... alphas dont exist... guys like Clint Eastwood and Paul Newman are figments of my imagination.

 

These are just normal everyday regular guys ... not!. And the people that post that they have some "alpha" like traits that want to be beta.... right.

 

Give me a break. People can't accept that there might be someone that's more naturally successful in some aspect of everyday life. Everyone on this forum at least knows 1 alpha in real life and if you don't get off your butt, meet one, and go shake his hand and introduce yourself to him.

 

Maybe you will learn something besides the garbage that is spewed all over this forum.

 

There are alpha posters on this forum, most of you dont even listen to them, acknowledge them, or report them because you dont like seeing what they say.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Dark Phoenix

[2.50 a gallon]

" . . race . . .irrelevant"

 

To be one of your so called alphas and be black up until the 70's would get you lynched.

[GG2W]

I would think that a good rule of thumb would be how many women they screwed. Beta up to 5, Omega up to say a dozen or more, and then after that it is all alphas?

[sillyanswer]

I'm glad that we've finally solved the alpha beta thing. Mods should sticky this so that we don't have to solve it again next week.

[Necris]

" . . race . . .irrelevant"

 

To be one of your so called alphas and be black up until the 70's would get you lynched.

 

I never said people may hate an alpha, but that doesn't change the fact that the person is Alpha. Martin Luther King in my books would be pretty alpha, Malcolm X would be alpha as well, many civil rights leaders were pretty alpha. And yes the white people hated that, seeing a Black man not simply lay down for them infuriated them often to the point of extreme violence.

[animalover]

I don't think anyone is getting what I'm saying.

 

Alphas, Betas, and Omegas are real, some people are leaders, others are followers, and some are to themselves never really leading but never really following anyone. And no I'm not getting this from a PUA book their ideas of are quite flawed IMO (they make Alpha/Beta into Badboy/niceguy), and gender doesn't really matter women can be leaders, followers, or lone wolves as well.

 

I think everyone is getting confused with PUA definitions of these terms for example when I say the term Alpha I'm not talking about this guy

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001107141/5ec1c78ec5b360646a80d7fe129d7d72_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

Being Alpha means you are a leader, you like to take charge, and generally good with people, this type of personality will help you land managerial jobs, and its usually considered attractive. How muscular, good-looking, or how loud you are is irrelevant. Alphas can be men or women, a woman who prefers to lead could be considered Alpha as well.

 

Also likewise when I say Beta I'm not talking about this guy: http://www.lolbrary.com/content/901/beta-male-much-36901.jpg

Beta basically means you are normally not a leader, you are a follower, like most people on the planet. You like being a part of the group. Amongst friends you rarely pick the activities or places you guys are going to go to you just like coming along, at work you are rarely managing teams of people, etc. Being Beta also doesn't mean you are unattractive, unable to get a date, a nice guy, or any of those terms.

 

 

Also social hierarchies are a sign of intelligence, humans most definitely have them.

 

 

 

 

I'm a guy who struggles with women and no I'm not looking for only super attractive women, I don't believe I've ever had to reject a woman (women never approach me anyway so there is no need to reject them), and my beauty standards are pretty lax.

 

What you call Alphas, betas and omegas are pure individual characteristics... and one person can be a natural leader in his work but being and introvert guy who would not be able to get a date...

We all can be leaders or followers depending the given situation... we all have a natural inclination about being dominant or sub-dominant, extrovert or introvert... you can put that in a X-Y graphic to read your natural inclination... but the nice thing about being humans is that we can change our natural inclination, we can decide the role we want to play in society and work towards it ( via therapy, via studying hard and working hard to get a high executive role, via investing in your own company and making it successful..., etc..). You are only a beta or an omega if you accept that role...

Edited February 18, 2013 by animalover

[GG2W]

If you are tired of people saying you are acting like a clown, quit acting like a clown.

 

If you are tired of being a Beta, quit posting about alphas.

[AD1980]

I can't believe how much lying to yourselves people do

 

Right... alphas dont exist... guys like Clint Eastwood and Paul Newman are figments of my imagination.

 

These are just normal everyday regular guys ... not!. And the people that post that they have some "alpha" like traits that want to be beta.... right.

 

Give me a break. People can't accept that there might be someone that's more naturally successful in some aspect of everyday life. Everyone on this forum at least knows 1 alpha in real life and if you don't get off your butt, meet one, and go shake his hand and introduce yourself to him.

 

Maybe you will learn something besides the garbage that is spewed all over this forum.

 

There are alpha posters on this forum, most of you dont even listen to them, acknowledge them, or report them because you dont like seeing what they say.

 

lol you really seem hurt that people dont acknowledge or kiss the feet of these people you call alpha

 

Who gives a ****