The Alpha Asian had an interesting post on something that I have been meaning to blog about for a long time: Alpha vs. Beta strategies. I specifically wanted to address this quote from him:
You just got to play up your strengths. I once watched a documentary on some birds. They showed a scene where two male birds were battling each other to see who would win the affections of a female. One male was protecting his woman, the other was challenging. While they were battling it out, another male sneaks up behind the female watching the fight and starts doing her. So as you can see, there’s no one way to succeed in life and love.
This approach to procreation is something that evolutions call an “extra pair copulation,” meaning that the “extra” male comes from outside the original pair. The alpha male often doesn’t know it’s happening, and for the beta male, it works well for him because he gets to procreate without getting his eyes pecked out or his wings torn off by the stronger alpha male.
However, there is a certain sneakiness and underhandedness in this approach, which is why evolutionists refer to this as a “beta strategy” for procreation. There is something less honorable about this approach to life (although evolutionists themselves rarely cast moral judgment on the animals they study.) So even though it succeeds towards the same end, and even though the consequence is the same, the quality is not quite as good.
I agree with James that you’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do. If you’re a beta male who employs beta strategies, then that’s what you may need to use. However, there’s a clear hierarchy involved, and even though we can acknowledge that both alpha and beta strategies are effective, we should also acknowledge that the quality of one approach is superior to that of the other, both for humans AND for birds. 
Take, for instance, the same bird example that Alpha brings up. Let’s apply it to humans, and let’s say that Johnny has shipped out to Iraq because he’s in the military, and Harold moves in to try to cheat with Johnny’s wife. As a mating tool, is it effective? Yes. Johnny’s wife is probably lonely, and who knows when Johnny is coming back. He could already be dead for all we know. But is this kind of character something that we can stand behind? Is it something that pumps us up and stirs us to write poetry and essays about Harold’s attractiveness or manliness?
I would say no. While Harold achieves a consequence (see our Justice discussions!), there is something categorically sneaky and underhanded about his strategy that repels us. There is a certain lack of straight-forwardness in such approaches, and we feel it in the gut of our stomachs when we read about beta males.
I think this goes back to what we’re talking about when we discuss masculinity (and NO, masculinity and femininity are not opposites. We can talk about this more in the future). There are certain masculine ideals that rise above any consequence or result. Many times, I think it’s better to lose as an Alpha than to win as a Beta.
Thoughts?
By the way, it’s not just about moral vs. immoral. Sometimes it’s a question about what is proper, given a specific context. For example, check out this battle below:
For the longest time, Wakanohana was a decent sumo wrestler who managed to use his speed and agility to win matches and tournaments in the highly competitive world of sumo. He was much smaller than other sumo guys, and it was hard for him to push other guys backward. So oftentimes, he would slap the other guys down or move out of the way, similar to what he did to Akebono above. Because he kept winning, the question came up: Should Wakanohana be promoted to yokozuna?
Many on the sumo council did not want to promote him, saying that it was unbecoming for a yokozuna to fight as he did. Sumo wrestlers are supposed to be strong, they are supposed to be models of masculinity for Japanese men, and top division wrestlers are supposed to be able to shove opponents backward like this:
(BTW, I like watching Asashoryu, the yokozuna above. He’s always got this, “Take that, fucker!” look on his face when he wins.)
Yokozuna, according to some on the council, absolutely have to have raw POWER. Agility and speed is good, but as a representation of power and strength, many felt that a yokozuna at the very least ought to be able to shove another man backward outside of the ring. Waka didn’t have this.
In the end, they promoted Waka, who never won a single tournament as a yokozuna and retired a short time later. I agree with the decision to promote him given his tournament wins, and I do think he’s an Alpha given the fact that he put himself out there and fought, especially as a smaller man, but at the same time, I understand the council’s hesitations. Given the codes and ideals of the society in which you live, there are certain actions and strategies that people view as more proper, more Alpha, than others.
No related posts.
But here is an...
Hmm, I dunno… I’m not really sure that the whole “Alpha Male” premise is really quite as applicable to the human species as many like to believe.
For one thing, the Alpha designation is applied within a closed social system, like a pack of dogs, a herd of equines, or a flock of birds (but interestingly, not in schools of fish) For example, if there are twelve dogs in a pack, the social order is defined within that caste of 12 animals. But what exactly is a human pack? How big is it? Is it a neighborhood, a church, a town, or a nation?
And again, how is “dominance” established? Is it determined by physical strength, how well you handle a gun, intelligence, or how much money you have in the bank?
The truth is that the human social architecture is so much more complex than that of any other social animal, that none but the most simplistic comparisons can ever be drawn between them.
There is no such thing an “Alpha” “Beta” or “Omega” male in human society because there is no meaningful way to define the parameters of “the human pack” or what human traits are truly dominant in a complex and ever-changing social structure.
I think being Alpha depends on the group. For example,
* You can’t be an Alpha on the sports team if you’re not good at sports
* You can’t be an Alpha in the Board Room if you’re bad at business (“You’re fired!”)
* You can’t be an Alpha politician if you can’t communicate your ideas
* You can’t be an Alpha with non-profits if you’re a cheapskate
You know the saying that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King? I think there’s always some kind of hierarchy that evolves in human beings from some division of talent or work.
In a general sense, money and power speaks to general people. So the founder of Google, for example, is Alpha wherever he goes.
King,
By the way, I wasn’t implying that the rest of us were blind!
Haha.. but I notice that you’ve still left me with only one eye!
Nevertheless, I think that you are making my point.
The concept of “Alpha X” requires an acknowledged dominant male and female.
You can’t break it up in the manner that you have.
You can’t say that:
- one wolf is best at hunting,
- another one at fighting
- and yet another one at mating with females
because that’s not the concept. The true Alpha must show dominance in all of those areas. It’s not a shared position. However, with human beings, what you did above is quite necessary, because you can only be dominant within a specific group (although you belong to many groups) and you can only be dominant in a very few areas (although you must compete in many areas).
This is because the layered complexity of the human social structure far exceeds those of all non-human social structures. And the differences have implications to you and Alpha’s initial argument.
Hmm…okay, I agree with a lot of what you say about human structures and complexity. I guess I don’t see why we can’t break it up into the different groups in which we all participate.
Let’s take an example. Actually, let’s take a few examples.
Sergei Brin, co-founder of Google, once said that the best thing about being a billionaire is that you can meet anyone on the planet. That would be Alpha, correct? Even if he’s a poor tennis player, his money gives him general power. Anyone on the planet will listen to him.
President Obama, the current King of Cool. He’s the leader in any group setting within the United States.
LeBron James is a pretty decent basketball player.
BJ Penn is the lightweight UFC champion.
Now…
If Sergei Brin goes to a college campus and visits, say, the drama department, will people listen to him? Even if he’s never taken a drama course in his life? Probably. He won’t “compete” by reciting Shakespeare, but his success in one field gets respect from the people in another. They may not defer to him on questions of how to read their lines, but his Alpha-ness gets respect. Same with Obama. In this manner, money and political connections function as a kind of general field.
What about LeBron? When he’s done with his basketball career, I think schools and businesses will pay him honoraria to attend their events, even though he never taught class or worked in a boardroom. This is another example of this…carryover.
BJ Penn is perhaps the most interesting example. He’s one of the top fighters in a growing, but still non-mainstream, sport. MMA fans go crazy when he enters a room; the rest of the world has no idea who he is. But within the world he occupies, he gets respect.
So if you put all of them in a room, Obama would be probably be king (with two eyes) regardless of who was there, Brin or LeBron would probably be #2 (depending on the audience and the event), and Penn would probably be #3. This hierarchy comes from the cachet of their respective fields. So the pack mentality still exists; it’s just a bit more complex than with wolves.
“I guess I don’t see why we can’t break it up into the different groups in which we all participate.”
Well, of course, you can, on some level. But what I’m saying is that the Alpha Dog needs two basic things:
1) Size/Strength
2) Aggressiveness
These will serve him in every situation that defines his social order. Nobody in his dog pack cares if he writes poetry, or plays chess. There is one skill set, and therefore one definition of his Alpha status.
But when it comes to men, you cannot define what an Alpha man really is because the criteria differ widely from person to person. Some will consider an Alpha to be a muscular athlete, other’s will think that he’s the guy in class who can answer all the questions, and still others will say it’s the guy who can play the guitar.
This is where the complexity comes in. There are thousands of human criteria that might be considered “Alpha” at any given time to any given person. So there is no single definition for an “Alpha human,” it all depends on who you ask. So in many ways, everybody can be an Alpha…
But if everybody is “Alpha” then Alpha is “normal.” Which is just another way of saying that there is no Alpha.
King, I see what you’re saying. Interesting discussion, by the way.
Remember that discussion we had about Lunch Period Poli Sci? I think that’s kind of what our human Alpha Setup looks like. Nobody disputed that Rove was smarter than Dubya. Nobody disputed that Rove was smarter than most people. But Dubya Bush was the Alpha Dog because he had the “size/strength”–in modern terms, speaking ability, political connections, popularity, and money–and Dubya had the aggressiveness (Rove was behind the scenes aggressive..hahaha). Every so often we get a guy who has everything–Obama or Clinton–but for the most part, the animal nature emerges.
Mayweather can probably beat up Obama in a boxing ring, but can he ever out-Alpha Obama? Even boxing fans recognize the hierarchy. It’s kind of like Forrest Griffin said in an interview: “I’m not scared of anyone–well, Dana [White] maybe.” (He said this before Anderson Silva crushed him.) People fall into hierarchies and typically know their spot. Sometimes it’s within a context, e.g. Warren Buffett out-alphas Bill Gates at an investment seminar, while it goes the other way at a software convention, but there still exists a hierarchy.
And some people either are not good at anything, or are good at something that possesses little social value. We really can’t call these people Alpha under any circumstances since there is no one who wants to follow them.
I’m sure you’ve heard of this ad campaign gone wrong:
http://jezebel.com/5296935/bacardi-ad-uses-misogyny-to-sell-alcohol-to-women
So, if you surround yourself with (what society deems as) “gammas”, a beta can also become an alpha…
Or the “big fish in a small pond” vs. “small fish in a big pond” argument…
I have to go with King and question how this “Alpha” and “Beta” distinctions apply to real life. I do know women who will only be friends with other women who are “less attractive” or “more overweight” (because, face it, more anorexic the better)… it still doesn’t change the fact that they may be the biggest biyatches on the block. Or that they are still “betas” on superficial level and probably “kappas” on personality level.
I also know someone who would have been considered an “alpha” on looks department who pulled this move and other sneaky things… and pretty soon, people figured her out and… well, no one wanted to hang out with her, she left behind a hubby (who was cheated on), a boyfriend (also cheated on), and yet another boyfriend (not yet cheated on) and a slew of guys who had her digits but tossed them once they heard about her “beta strategies”.
Isn’t this same with men? Should integrity itself be enough to make any man an “alpha”?
Yes, I do remember that discussion. Seems like a long time ago.
But in a practical sense, I think that we’re saying close to the same thing.
You’re saying that as a Beta, you have to make the most of what you have, and adapt your strategy to your circumstances.
I’m saying not to even accept the Alpha and Beta designations, and to instead, live life in the knowledge that the human social hierarchy is sufficiently complex that we are all likely to be dominant at something that is important to somebody. Unlike dogs, we are all simultaneously Alpha and Omega on some level.
Okay, MN and King,
I think I’m finding myself agreeing more than disagreeing.
Maybe instead of Alpha as a designation for all people in all situations, we can use it within certain situations. For general situations, maybe we can talk about cultivating “leadership” rather than alpha-ness? The term “leadership” could probably apply to Waka’s lack of pushing techniques since sumo wrestlers look up to those who push.
Yeah, I have no qualms with “leadership,” and I understand that people use “Alpha” loosely.
All that I’m saying is that it can become counterproductive when you start looking at dogs, lemmings, or baboons, to draw direct social parallels to homo sapient sociology. After a while, people really begin to believe, “Oh… I’m only a Beta, and that lucky guy over there is an Alpha… I wish I could be an Alpha.” Meanwhile the guy they admire so much is considered a “Gamma,” “Beta,” or “Omega” by some hipper group that he associates with.
It’s all relative, as the very wise mama nabi has pointed out. Better to forget about labeling oneself and others with the terms used to describe lower animals. Men make their own destinies and defy classification.
I think we can avoid labeling ourselves as ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ but I think the term still applies whether we like it or not.
I’ve always viewed the term ‘alpha’ as loosely synonymous with the word ‘value’. As such, I think it DOES apply itself across the board. In both animalistic and human societies alike.
For example, an ‘alpha’ dog in the pack is NOT (as King pointed out) JUST a good fighter, but he does bring value to the pack as a whole. In canine society, we typically ascribe the term ‘alpha’ to the pack leader, however, it is also used to describe which dog is dominant in a combative situation (ie the ‘beta’ male submits to the alpha male by lowering his ears, positioning his head closer to the ground etc.)
I believe these scenarios happen in human interactions as well. Which is why ‘value’ is a good replacement word for ‘alpha’ if that word makes one uncomfortable. There are MANY types of value, and it is complex in human interactions. For example, in a social situation, the person with higher perceived social value is by others to be the alpha. To elaborate, Let’s say that King runs an internet based company and has very quietly amassed 4 million dollars in the bank. I on the other hand work as a starving artist, making a modest $20,000 a year, but I’m very overt socially. If we’re both invited to a party by a mutual friend, and King enters in and is introverted, sits in the corner sipping his drink and talking only to a few close friends in quiet tones, but I enter in knowing half the room, and smiling, projecting body language that implies confidence, laughing, shaking hands with strangers etc. then I will be perceived by the room as the alpha in that situation – people will wonder ‘who that guy is’ and ‘man he knows everyone!’. whereas King, despite his wealth, will be overlooked, but unless he’s social – in a social situation, then he will be perceived by others as the beta male.
Conversely, if we show up in a meeting on online commerce, and King is a speaker there, then he will likely be perceived as the alpha because he speaks either on the same level, or on a higher level than the others present at that meeting due to his knowledge and probably sound like a brain dead monkey on crack.
In oth scenarios, it isn’t the person who believe themselves to be alpha or beta, or even their belief in such terms that secures the outcome, it is the rest of the group (or pack on animalistic terms) and they are not basing their perceptions on alpha or beta labels, but rather on the perceived value of the individual.
To address Kings comment of people feeling like ‘I’m just a beta, I wish I could be more like that guy.’ I think that happens all the time. I think we can ascribe the term alpha or beta to ourselves, but it’s like looking in the mirror before giving a speech and telling yourself “I’m the man, I’m the man!” to pump yourself up prior to talking – in spite of your self pep talk, other people are who will determine whether or not you’re an alpha based on their perceptions of you.
This is why the complaint made by many men here about the way asian men are depicted in entertainment / the media is so valid. To put t he complaint in pretty general terms, the media is painting the asian man as inherently socially ‘beta’. Which gives him an uphill battle in social situations. I will suffix that thought with even though there may be a pre-conceived value assignment based on what popular media has assigned certain people (geeks or nerds and nerd fashion/culture for example or goth or emo outward appearance) that doesn’t mean that someone is ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ based on preconceptions, or what another ascribes to them. I’ve known plenty of outwardly ‘alpha’ guys who were complete jackasses when you got to know them, and plenty of guys who would likely be labeled ‘beta’ who continue to be some of the greatest people I know.
As human beings, I think we transcend the alpha / beta labeling thing, but probably only at the more advanced stages of relating to one another vs. the superficial initial meetings. At those initial meetings, I think the whole alpha / beta assignment plays a pretty heavy role.
I’d be curious on Anna 123′s take on this – I seem to recall you’re a psych student right – or is this more of a sociology thing? Either way, I also seem to recall you being pretty specific in referring to wanting an alpha Asian male in a few of your posts What does that mean to you? – forgive me if my memory is inaccurate.
I think Anna started to talk a bit about this in the male pageant threads…I’m getting forgetful too though.
Robert,
Excellent points.
By the way, when you brought up the example of the quiet millionaire, I thought of the PUAs. That’s essentially the mantra of the PUAs–show people that you are a “person of value.” I happen to know people who are neither artists nor millionaires, but because they can talk well, they rise to the top of the alpha/value chart. Not the leadership chart though–they don’t necessarily lead. But on the spot, they know everyone and can draw attention through their social skills.
Hmm…maybe “leadership” only tells part of the story. The key difference between what I describe above and “leadership” is long term sustainability. A person who can socialize might rise to the top, but he can’t stay at the top. I think it’s similar to the difference between leadership and sales. One can be both a great leader and a great salesman, but they’re two different skill sets. Good leadership obviously includes good salesmanship too.
So maybe there’s a difference based on time? Value can be long term or short term; leadership is almost definitely long term. Waka’s problems with leadership come from the long term fact that he didn’t have many fights in which he shoved his opponent backward.
I’m going to have to think about this one further.
King, it sounds like Alpha describes not just a person in a given situation, but a person within a short time frame. What do you think?
@ robert
A thoughtful post.
“I’ve always viewed the term ‘alpha’ as loosely synonymous with the word ‘value’. As such, I think it DOES apply itself across the board. In both animalistic and human societies alike.”
Well, I’m not sure about this. I agree, that the designation “Alpha” implies a certain value, but I’m not sure that being valued necessarily makes you an “Alpha.” I believe that both sides of that equation would need to be true, if the terms were synonymous.
The reason that I resist applying the term “across the board” to both humans and animals, is that it means different things when applied to each. The word “Alpha” is like the word “Emperor,” it has a specific and peerless definition. Now, it’s true that we could use the term loosely and say that when you give a good speech that you’re “so Emperor,” and when you win a race that you’re the “speed Emperor” or the girls might say that you have such amazing “Emperor eyes” but this would make both the term and meaning harder to understand. People wouldn’t know if you were talking about the actual leader of an empire, or a guy who just bought a round of beers for his buddies. It degrades the term and confuses the understanding.
But on the subject of value, perceived value is always subjective.
@ Byron
I hear you about the PUA mentality/approach. I’d agree about it not being leadership – which one reason why I don’t view leadership as the defining characteristic of an ‘alpha’ individual and prefer to equate it to value. Value is a pretty fluid concept that applies itself to any situation and why I think it defines the idea of ‘alpha’ fairly well.
The alpha dog may be the strongest in the pack, whereas the alpha lion may be the best hunter, the alpha in human interactions is the one who *perceptibly* brings the most value to the table in the current situation (which also applies to the dog and lion – their two examples are valued by the other members of their respective packs, and their actions are pretty visible to the other animals). In “pickup” it’s likely the one offering the most social value, whereas in a business negotiation, it may be the one that is in a superior financial position, or more knowledgeable about a certain topic. Then there’s the entertainment/sports world – which I think you outlined pretty well above. They are all judged by different metrics, but all possess characteristics which we might call ‘alpha’ – it just depends on the situation. However, in all cases, the individual in question will only be ascribed an ‘alpha’ status if someone they’re interacting with *thinks* they’re ‘alpha’ (based on perception) – which is why PUA’s have short term success vs. longer term relationship success in a lot of cases – their goal is to be the brightest / shiniest object in the fishtank to attract the other fish, but unless there’s more to them, they can’t keep that ‘alpha’ status.
Leadership, fame and notoriety are all pretty generic contributors that play across the board in the idea of an alpha individual, but they may still not guarantee that someone is viewed as the ‘top dog’ Obama for example in the wrong setting may not be viewed as ‘alpha’ in spite of his status in the world. Take for example if he were taken prisoner by a jihadist organization or a drug cartel – he may be VERY important in their eyes (even valuable ironically – just not as valuable as their boss), but they would take orders from their commander vs. Obama. That’s pretty out there in left field, but I think it drives home the perspective issue – Value in one persons eyes may not be valuable in someone else’s.
To your point on long term vs. short term value (or the idea that someone can be alpha one day and not the next) I agree, I think it’s pretty exemplified in the animal kingdom – the current alpha will one day get old, and fail when challenged by a younger beta seeking to elevate itself.
@ King
Can you elaborate on what you mean by being valued not necessarily equating to being ‘alpha’? I think it does – it just depends on the context, so I’m curious to learn where you’re coming from (maybe we’re saying the same things – just differently?). As I mentioned above, I don’t view ‘alpha’ as something that everyone would agree on – a great example of this is high school. The ‘jocks’ are arguably ‘alpha’ for certain perspectives but the ‘nerdy kids’ likely don’t view them as such. There’s a disagreement between them over the qualifiers – a nerdy kids world doesn’t necessarily involve throwing a football, so they’re not impressed by a football players ability, and conversely, the jock thinks the other kid is a nerd because they excell in academics.
I agree that perceived value is always subjective. which is why I also think we see a lot of ‘alpha’ individuals who are pretty undeserving when the silent masses are largely ignored. For example, as a society, we elevate sports figures as celebrities, even daydream about being like them (unless we’re the nerdy kids
), but probably don’t spend much time wishing that we might be the particle physicist that discovers quantifiable proof of the theory of everything. On one hand, we have a media darling that we have a great deal of exposure to and the other toils away in the background doing work that may revolutionize everyones lives – but we never know about them. leading to the concept of perception.
The idea of perceived value as subjective is why I think it’s tough to nail this down, what works in one setting may change under a different light.
To both, thanks for your compliments, time and the interesting chat, this concept is very interesting to me!
Robert, I imagine that we aren’t too far from one another’s premises when it comes to practice. But sure I’ll explain what I mean and see if it makes sense to you.
My basic point is that “Alpha X” is a biological concept that has a concrete biological/social definition. Here from Wikipedia:
“In social animals, the alpha is the individual in the community with the highest rank. Where one male and one female fulfill this role, they are referred to as the alpha pair (the term varies when several individuals of the same sex fulfill this role). Other animals in the same social group may exhibit deference or other symbolic signs of respect particular to their species towards the alpha.
The alpha animals are given preference to be the first to eat and the first to mate, among some species the only animals in the pack allowed to mate. Other animals in the community are usually killed or ousted if they violate this rule.”
The designation is conferred to the single dominant male animal and sometimes also to his female mate. It does not describe an action or a lifestyle, but an animal. It is not interchangeable with other animals in the pack— the Alpha is THE dominant animal, until he is removed by an even more dominant animal. That’s what Alpha means.
But the way that you are using the term, you’re saying that Alpha simply confers value. In my understanding, that would mean that there can be several “Alphas” in the same group. But that is not what the Alpha designation means. That’s what I’ve been getting at.
Gotcha! Interesting definition, I think I’m just diggin past that (or trying to in my mind! lol!) I agree with the definition of what an alpha is, but what I’m getting at is what distinguishes those particular animals as ‘alpha’? I think it’s their value in the pack. In the case of animals, it’s typically the animals that display the strongest survival abilities as they relate to their pack. Interestingly, in cases where the alpha pair are the only ones allowed to mate, the darwinistic logic behind this is that these two – since they display the best survival abilities – have the best chance of having offspring that can survive and thrive, so in a weird way, the deferrence by the pack to an alpha mentality is natures (instincts) way of ensuring a thriving species (but that’s a WHOLE seperate topic!)
In human terms, I think we still defer to the alpha mentality, and way back in caveman days, it probably made sense, but our definitions of ‘alpha’ have changed dramatically (it’s probably no longer inclusive of ‘thag’ being better at smashing ‘goltor’s’ head in with a rock!). The interesting thing in current times is our definition of what equates to survivability is so varied and at this point almost arbitrary that I think we at least want to see ourselves as not conforming to an alpha mentality, but based on my last sentence, I think we still do it (because we still ascribe alpha values to people – just based on different standards). Earlier, Byron mentioned that wealth might be an indicator of success or alpha-ness. Wealth equates to excess – or the ability to provide for not only ourselves, but our families – which equates to survivability (or value on a more basic level).
I’ll freely admit, that thinking may be somewhat flawed, but it seems that since most of our decisions are made based on what will benefit us or our families or our communities the most(what is of most value to us) it only seems to follow that we would ascribe ‘alpha’ titles to those individuals that we perceive as being ‘valuable’ in the sense that is relative.
Did that make sense? I’m a bit hurried (trying to get out of work!) so I haven’t had the time to re-read.
Pingback: Who’s your daddy? | big WOWO
I see what you’re saying, King.
Maybe then we should have Alpha rankings? If Obama, Pelosi, and John Doe are in a room together, Obama is the Alpha. Once he leaves the room, however, Pelosi takes over. There is only one, but that one depends on the identities of everyone else.
I’m still thinking about the relationship between altering perception and actually being a leader or a person of value.
Robert, your logic seems impeccable to me. You present some interesting thoughts on the subject.
” Interestingly, in cases where the alpha pair are the only ones allowed to mate, the darwinistic logic behind this is that these two – since they display the best survival abilities – have the best chance of having offspring that can survive and thrive, so in a weird way, the deferrence by the pack to an alpha mentality is natures (instincts) way of ensuring a thriving species
What application, if any, would you make of the above quotation to human mating, I wonder?
The interesting thing in current times is our definition of what equates to survivability is so varied and at this point almost arbitrary”
I concur. A “human Alpha” can be described as just about anything… which consequently makes it meaningless as a descriptor.
A question on “value.” How do you valuate a human being? Which human beings are the most valuable and which human beings are the least valuable?
@ Jaehwan
“I’m still thinking about the relationship between altering perception and actually being a leader or a person of value.”
Haha, now you must write a post on it!
Damn you king! I was going to go to bed lol!
“What application, if any, would you make of the above quotation to human mating, I wonder?”
This is pretty complex in my mind, but still resolves to a question of perceived value. The bigest difference here is the value that a woman ascribes to a man is different to the value that a man ascribes to a woman (and visa versa). Some of this hearkens back to the PUA mentality – and why not? these guys have certainly studied the psychologies at work here – if for no other reason than to take advantage of it! In a nutshell, if we as humans define value as adding to our ability to either a)survive or b)procreate, then on a mating scale, we would judge one another in that light.
Hearkening back to evolutionary thought and the millenia that we’ve been courting one another, I think it’s fair to presume that we base ‘value’ in a mate in primalistic terms (at least to some degree). For a woman, a big part of a mans attractiveness is mental. However, of the physical characteristics that are appealing in a broad sense (height, visible strength – although not overblown, well defined, nice smile (denoting general health etc.) they indicate to a woman not only is this man “of good stock” aka he provides a good chance of producing healthy children, but also that he can provide for her (on a primal level) while she may be at a physical disadvantage during pregnancy and possibly unable to provide for herself. This is NOT to say that all women today want a buff guy, but the generalization that a physically fit male is attractive does provide the above benefits in way-back-when land. But for a woman, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Because historically men have more aptitude for physical prowess – I believe due to our generations of being the hunters/providers/protectors in a very physical aspect we’re gentically inclined to be stronger – it means we pose (or used to pose) an inherent threat to a woman (simply put, we can physically overpower them if a confrontation occurred) therefore, trust and a feeling of comfort become extremely important to a woman. This is why in my opinion a cheating male is such an affront – it breaks the inherent need to trust your mate (in addition to proving the guys a douchebag and that she may feel foolish for having trusted him).
I also believe this is why women are typically better at ‘reading’ a man (call it intuition if you’d like) historically, that ability has been a survival mechanism to sort out the dangerous males from those suitable for procreation.
Understand, I believe that in the present times, these “needs” may largely be BS – but the core value of protection/provision still exist with a lot of women – however, in a lot of cases muscle has been replaced with money (cash is the new provider!) But now, there are more layers of ‘value’ that a woman uses to select a man she feels is right for her.
For men, we’re simpler in some regards, our criteria on a basic level are far more physical (and why psychologically we’re visually stimulated, whereas women are mentally stimulated) We seek beauty in a mate. It’s not as superficial as it seems though, beauty is typically defined as good proportions, symetrical features and in some cultures height or even weight etc. all of which are outward indicators of good health and good genetics etc. WHich means that she provides a better chance that our offspring will be strong.
Since we’ve been less historically reliant on women as protectors, that facet is less important to us (although we still value ‘protector’ features in a woman because they denote health) but we do tend to find a woman that likes to care for us attractive – it’s a display of the mothering instinct, which in turn implies she will be trustworthy and capable of caring for our kids when we’re out ‘hunter gathering’.
OK, I’m not going to go into more detail, although I feel there are a LOT more factors at play here, but in order to keep this post from being disgustingly long (hell, it may already be!) I’ll truncate it.
Based on the above outline, I think the instincts we have to value/alpha judge others plays a HUGE role in our selection of a mate – which boils back to the PUA thing. They attempt to use this knowledge to make sure that they are presenting versions of themselves that hit these hot buttons in a womans mind to generate attraction, which they then attempt to turn into a one night stand, or a relationship, or whatever motivation they have.
Which leads me to your question on how to value a human being. I’ll abandon the mating/relationship angle for this, although it probably still applies. I think each of us is value judged by others based on the ‘what’s in it for me’ scale or maybe more accurately ‘what does this person bring to the table that improves me/provides what I need/improves my ability to survive/thrive/procreate?’ The answers to those questions vary greatly depending on the situation at hand, which is why I think to say someone is *always* alpha would be inaccurate. as before, the quiet millionaire may be alpha in business, but not in a social setting. It depends on the qualities that we bring to the table (and how visible those qualities are), and how those qualities fulfil the needs of the one judging us.
That’s one thing that I find interesting about the PUA basics (and btw, no, im not a pua! I just realized I’ve referred to their theories a lot in this post! lol!) they believe that there are generic enough needs in others, that we can ‘fake’ in order to gain their favor. But, if you pull out the word ‘fake’ it presents an interesting idea that one can self improve through body language, tonality and general behavior to in fact become alpha in most settings (or at least social settings – but let’s face it, we are social creatures by nature, so theres a distinct advantage in this line of imoproving oneself!)
Which is part of the reason I like this idea, it implies that anyone CAN be alpha, they just need to find their niche and excell, and then not be too humble to share it with the rest of the world.
Heading off on Vacation tomorrow for a week, but I’ll try o check this thread, Ive enjoyed this!
“Damn you king! I was going to go to bed lol!
If I can’t sleep, why should others be allowed to slumber???
“…if we as humans define value as adding to our ability to either a) survive or b) procreate, then on a mating scale, we would judge one another in that light.”
But is that really true? Survival is clearly the strongest drive among living organisms, but how about procreation? There are many people who simply decide not to have kids, or else they dramatically pair down the number of offspring that they produce with contraception, even sometimes resorting to surgery (snip, snip). Then again, some people are drawn to same gender relationships. If individual procreation was really such a capstone of human evolutionary instinct, do you think that so many people could act against it so drastically?
“However, of the physical characteristics that are appealing in a broad sense (height, visible strength – although not overblown, well defined, nice smile (denoting general health etc.) they indicate to a woman not only is this man “of good stock” aka he provides a good chance of producing healthy children, but also that he can provide for her (on a primal level) while she may be at a physical disadvantage during pregnancy and possibly unable to provide for herself.”
But wouldn’t a fairly chubby man better characterize a provider since he obviously has excess? Really fat guys would seem to be even better providers!!!
“For men, we’re simpler… whereas women are mentally stimulated) We seek beauty in a mate. It’s not as superficial as it seems though, beauty is typically defined as good proportions, symetrical features and in some cultures height or even weight etc. all of which are outward indicators of good health and good genetics etc. WHich means that she provides a better chance that our offspring will be strong.”
Haha! It all sounds good at first, but I seriously doubt that Miss America is actually providing superior genetics as compared to Miss Normalbaum. Heart disease, cancer susceptibility, diabetes 1, degenerative macular disease… most survivability issues are not based on having a 22 inch waistline, big boobs, and a pretty smile. Most of the things that will kill you are not immediately visible, and certainly have nothing to do with good looks. It might even be argued that some of those people who look like swimsuit models are LESS healthy than the average, depending on what they are doing to maintain that appearance.
“…which is why I think to say someone is *always* alpha would be inaccurate”
And I again remind you that, in the strictest definition of the term, if you are not “always alpha” then you are not an alpha at all—but I understand what you mean.
“Which is part of the reason I like this idea, it implies that anyone CAN be alpha, they just need to find their niche and excell, and then not be too humble to share it with the rest of the world.”
And again, I point out that if “anyone” can be the top dog, then nobody is really the top dog (Alpha), because all of the dogs are then, equal by definition. But I think I understand your point.
The reason, that I keep resisting Alpha/Beta designations is that if you take the Alpha term and apply it to humans, the picture that you get is one guy, who all the girls are magnetically drawn to, by species instinct. This guy can have his pick of the female litter because he is the best (most valuable) at doing something. But that’s not how it works.
In the human world, women are not driven by blind instinct. Some women like muscle men, some women like brainiacs, some women like shy, artistic, types. Women’s preferences toward human romance are not tied to simple survival and replication considerations. This much should be obvious, just look around. Therefore, the idea that a guy can achieve an Alpha-like status by becoming really valuable at something is unlikely. He may, however, become extremely valuable to one woman if he takes the time to invest in a personal and exclusive relationship with her.
Sure, certain types of guys are desired and more appreciated by certain women, and vice versa—but that’s as far as it goes. There are some guys who are more desirable to a broader cross-section of women at certain times. That doesn’t make them “Alpha human males,” it just makes them fashionable for that moment in time.
To me the good news is not that every man can be a top dog, but rather, that every man doesn’t have to be.
Enjoy your vacation, Robert… Don’t read anything until you get back!
Hey King,
I’ll *try* to be brief (tough for me it seems!? lol!) re. is procreation a drive among us still – especially in the face of the points you brought up. Yes and no. remember I’m talking in broad strokes here. I think we see gay couples desire for procreation expressed as adoption. And regarding the *snip snip* factor, I think that’s akin to suicides (although CERTAINLy in a different realm! – It’s an exception) – which clearly goes against the survival drive we have (and probably why it’s a pretty ghastly option in most of our minds – beyond just death) . Again, I’m talking in general terms – for most people, I think that survival and procreation are driving forces in their lives. For those who don’t find themselves motivated in some way by those two things, I think they may be the exceptions to the rule, Or possibly that they’ve evolved far enough that those factors play less of an impact in their lives than in the lives of everyday joes and joesephinas. As I mentioned, I think there are a LOT of other factors at play in this part of the alpha/beta equation, but in the interest of time, I touched on what I feel to be two of the biggies.
About large guys being better providers, no. In terms of history, fit men = better able to chase down prey or perform killing acts when hunting. Again, this concept spans the instincts we’ve culled over the millenia vs. in the last 2-300 years. Although, you bring up an interesting point. Since cash is the new indicator of the provider, I wonder if an overweight status will become an alpha trait down the road in the world of relationships?
I agree with you about looks in a woman not equating to her health levels in todays world. but we still use those visible facets to determine beauty because historically, those shorthand characteristics were the best we could do to determine someone’s health, and if Miss normalbaum and a swimsuit model come into a social setting with a lot of single men, it’s arguably true that the swimsuuit model will (at least at first) garner far more attention than miss N. due to her beauty – even if Miss N. is a far superior woman in every other aspect.
I also would not purport that physical beauty or lack thereof is indictive of a womans (or mans) value. I’m only talking in terms of someone being ascribed initial alpha or beta-ness. I wish I could find a link, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that we determine whether or not someone is attractive or not in some ridiculously short amount of time like 1.8 seconds or something. That determiniation while GROSSLY unfair, does shape our interactions with that person.
What I think ultimately impacts anothers view of our ‘alpha’ qualities is what we show them, or more importantly what they perceive about us, but this initial determination of beauty certainly plays an initial part of that.
I hear what you’re saying about the strict definition of alpha, but I don’t think I agree with it as a strict definition in human terms. I think there’s some gray area since we have such varried needs and as such, our perceptors (is that a word?!) will judge us differently based on that.
I don’t give it quite the black and white definition that you view it as. I think you described my view of aplpahness pretty well when you mentioned the “fashionable for a time” or “flavor of the month” mentality. That’s how I see it with Humans because our needs are far more complex thanthe animal kingdoms. I think a man falls “out of fashion” because he is replaced by the new definition of ‘alpha’ and a new alpha emerges – similar to wolves challenging and defeating their alpha dog. For us it just happens a lot more frequently.
loL! I see you put the don’t read anything else at the END of the post! Too late! Although I’m not sure I’ll be checking back for a bit, so to all of you celebrating turkey day, enjoy it!
Pingback: Perception vs. Substance (Talent, Pt. 3; Alpha-Beta, Pt. 2) | big WOWO
“I think we see gay couples desire for procreation expressed as adoption.”
Bear in mind that we’re talking about biological imperatives here—that is instinct, not reason. Do you think that a biological imperative (survival drive) can be redirected by going in and filling out the paperwork to adopt somebody else’s child? Remember, that we’re assuming that the whole point of this survival drive is to preserve and distribute your own genetic material. How would that be accomplished by raising somebody else’s genetic offspring?
“And regarding the *snip snip* factor, I think that’s akin to suicides (although CERTAINLy in a different realm! – It’s an exception) – which clearly goes against the survival drive we have…”
Yes, but you must also throw in all other contraceptive measures, from the lowly rubber to the birth control pill, to the abortion. All of these methods prevent the all-important, prime directive of genetic proliferation, and if you add these all up, they are not rare. How is this possible? Hint – much of this evolutionary drive mumbo jumbo is pure hokum.
“I agree with you about looks in a woman not equating to her health levels in todays world. but we still use those visible facets to determine beauty because historically, those shorthand characteristics were the best we could do to determine someone’s health”
I don’t think that it ever had anything to do with health… any more than a beautiful painting indicates good health. Women with long hair were never any more healthy than women with short hair, they were just born with a different texture of hair. Women who had fuller breasts weren’t any healthier, nor were women with more symmetrically balanced features. What you’re talking about is aesthetics, not calisthenics! That just forces a square peg into a round hole if you try and make good looks into some kind of superior health trait. IMHO
“I hear what you’re saying about the strict definition of alpha, but I don’t think I agree with it as a strict definition in human terms. I think there’s some gray area since we have such varried needs and as such, our perceptors (is that a word?!) will judge us differently based on that.”
OK, fair enough.
Besides, I suppose nobody is going to stop using the term “Alpha,” it’s become to prevalent. (sigh)
Been busy at work, so late in throwing my two cents in. First of all, I’ve previously stated that I don’t take too much stock in applying the base instincts of animal behavior to humans. Yes, humans have base instincts—the basic survival instincts but we also differ greatly in that we have the capacity for higher thought. We have higher consciousness than animals. Those are the variables that complicate human interaction.
Second, pop culture mythology about the alpha dog concept are not quite accurate. Alexandra Horowitz, professor, a psychology professor at Columbia University wrote a book called “Inside Of a Dog” and writes about what it’s like to inhabit a dog’s life based on what animal behaviorists know about dogs’ cognitive skills. Indeed, dogs may have descended from wolves but she writes that those traits have long vanished over time. From a NY Times book review excerpt about her book:
“Dogs do not form true packs,” she writes. “They scavenge or hunt small prey individually or in parallel,” rather than cooperatively, as wolves do. Countering the currently fashionable alpha dog “pack theories” of dog training, Horowitz notes that “in the wild, wolf packs consist almost entirely of related or mated animals. They are families, not groups of peers vying for the top spot. . . . Behaviors seen as ‘dominant’ or ‘submissive’ are used not in a scramble for power; they are used to maintain social unity.”
So, yeah, the labels of “alpha” and “beta” are really misnomers to some degree.
Third, I’d have to go along with what King quoted in the related “strategies” thread, “To thine ownself be true.” You have to take into account that people can grow and change, but it’s their core personalities that they are born into that doesn’t really change. Sure, an introvert can blossom and learn to be more outgoing and more people oriented. But the bottom line is, it’s work for that person to be more socially engaging. Their natural inclination is to be rather quiet and reserved. So whatever our concepts are of what comprises being “alpha” and “beta”, I’d rather rely on personality types to distinguish the two.
We all know the phrase that leaders are born, not made. That is perhaps true but it doesn’t necessarily mean that one cannot learn leadership skills, even if they’re not naturals at it.
The Myer Briggs personality exam has always been interesting to me and if you look at the personality types, based on Jungian models, the one that jump out as being what I think we’re saying is “alpha” is someone classified as ENTJ (Extroverted/Intuitive/Thinking/Judging):
ENTJs are natural born leaders. They live in a world of possibilities where they see all sorts challenges to be surmounted, and they want to be the ones responsible for surmounting them. They have a drive for leadership, which is well-served by their quickness to grasp complexities, their ability to absorb a large amount of impersonal information, and their quick and decisive judgments. They are “take charge” people.
http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ.html
Yet, look at the classification of the introverted version, the INTJ:
“INTJs are natural leaders, although they usually choose to remain in the background until they see a real need to take over the lead. When they are in leadership roles, they are quite effective, because they are able to objectively see the reality of a situation, and are adaptable enough to change things which aren’t working well. They are the supreme strategists – always scanning available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy, to plan for every conceivable contingency.
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
so, I think the concept of “alpha male” or “alpha dog” has been distorted by popular culture. what we’re really talking about is leaders and followers and something in between.
Hey there! I’m back – just buried with work that accumulated while I was away.
King, As previously stated, I think you’re taking what I’m offering as broad strokes/instinctual behavior and applying a black and white microscope to it – rarely does anything work 100% of the time, especially when discussing the human psyche, but there are still general models of behavior, I’m just offering my take on what I think we use instinctually to define value. As such, we’ve deviated from the areas that I think we can agree on. Regardless of how you define value (or believe that others define it) I think it’s arguable that this quality is how we define whether or not someone is ‘alpha’ or not.
More simply put, if you view someone as bringing value to your life, then you likely view them as alpha in some way.
As to the idea of only one alpha in human interactions, differing from the animal kingdom, I still disagree with that assessment. Think of packs of wolves as human social circles. Even in your own group of friends, there’s likely one who stands out among the groups mind as the ‘leader’ in some capacity. Whether they’re the one that predominately organizes the things the group does, or the funniest one, or the best looking one, is the value that they bring that in turn causes the group to view them as higher in the ‘pecking order’.
The one specific you brought up, that I will add comment to is the idea that beauty is not indicative of health/survivability. I’d disagree – again, speaking in very broad strokes, the idea of beauty is a shorthand we’ve developed to screen out the less healthy options. It doesn’t mean that someone who is not beautiful is not of value (again, lots of gray here) any more than saying that $100 is less than $1,000, therefore $100 has no value – clearly that’s inaccurate. We use the way someone looks as an indicator of health all the time – you can even see evidence of this in the way we talk to someone who is ill – “You look terrible!” vs. “You smell terrible!” (which they may). Physical attractiveness is an indicator of health – at a base level. Clearly it’s not a black and white rule, as someone with early stages of life ending cancer may be physically beautiful – I’m not saying these ‘rules’ are accurate, I’m saying they are a shorthand that we instinctually use to make value judgements at the initial outset of meeting someone – which, let’s face it – is likely the only time we would ascribe a shallow value like ‘alphaness’ or ‘betaness’ to someone. As we get to know someone, their value becomes much more deeply rooted in other values they bring to us.
Since Byron was kind enough to start another thread on this, I’ll continue to talk over there as I can (buried still!), but I hope these quick thoughts shed some light on what I meant.
Pingback: Honor | bigWOWO