Over in the Alphas vs. Betas thread, Robert and King were (were? are? Is Robert still on vacation?) having a discussion on what it means to be “Alpha,” and whether or not the term should even be used among humans. King submits that the term as it applies to animals does not work with humans–humans have so many criteria on how they judge, and there is never only one Alpha male–there are many factors involved, and people’s roles differ depending on the situation. I volunteered the word “leadership” instead, and Robert opted to use the word “value.” The conversation moved towards examining the difference between perception and actually being a person of value. This topic has come up from time to time in diverse posts such as Talent, Hate Crimes, and, of course, PUA–what is the difference between being real and just presenting an image or illusion?
See the guy below talking about the Boy Band principle, and how it helps make you look better when you are surrounded by people who are listening to you. (Incidentally, “Mystery,” the guy in the video, is Better Asian Man’s Sigung–the teacher of his teacher.)
This is the art of illusion. Whether you’re an Alpha male or a Beta male, every person to some degree or another uses some form of image and illusion creation when they interact with others. It’s salesmanship, and it’s a necessary skill for anyone looking to persuade or sell to a large number of people.
The difference is that for Alphas (or leaders or value bearers), altering perception is just one part of the overall package. It’s not the main substance. The President of the United States, for example, makes decisions such as what bills to support, which wars to fight, and which meetings to attend. He plays the politics over the airwaves, but his main job is to make sure that the country is safe and prosperous. There is some strong decision-making that has to take place. He has some value or leadership capabilities outside of the image he creates. He needs to be able to make decisions, to stand behind them, to manage resources, and to create and execute action plans.
For Betas, image plays a much bigger role. Look good, say the right lines, and get that girl to buy you a drink. Hang out with big hitters so that people associate you with big hitters. Say the right lines so that people will believe that you are a person of value. Pump yourself up. Beta-style is actually a great means of survival. You can succeed risk-free, and it’s easy to remain popular with all people (conversely, the President of the United States always has between 40% and 70% of the population hating him.). You never fail because you never take risks; you never miss the ball because you never take a swing. Your expertise is spindoctoring, and as long as others believe you, they will protect and provide for you. You’re a master of altering perception.
I can’t say that I’m against Beta-style as a survival mechanism because it’s obviously very useful. Society needs Betas because a world of nothing but straight-talking Frank Chins would bring about the apocalypse. However, for extreme Beta-Stylists, there’s a substantive difference in quality of survival– beta survival is entirely reliant on the perceptions of others. Whereas true substance can be backed up by fact, Beta-Style is reliant on others believing what Betas say and how they portray themselves. An Alpha or Value Driver or Leader, on the other hand, can create his own opportunities because he knows from experience how to manage risk and failure. He knows how to truly succeed in his accomplishments. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with money. As John Rawls pointed out, society doesn’t necessarily reward talent equally–Tiger Woods makes more money than Anderson Silva. But confidence and power doesn’t always come from money; it comes from mastery.
So just two ways in which this recently came up for me:
1. Saw this awesome blog post by Olympic Gold Medal wrestler Cael Sanderson:
http://www.caelsanderson.com/blog/courage-to-develop-our-talents/
“My redshirt year in college while at the Olympic Training Center I saw a quote that really hit me. The quote was from Olympic wrestling champion Jeff Blatnick. The quote read “I learned to win by learning to lose; that is, not being afraid to lose.”
To me that means to reach your greatest potential, you can’t be worried about making mistakes or hindered by a fear of failure. So often we are our own enemy instead of an ally. You should be your own greatest ally in your quest to see what you can become in this life.
As the saying goes….He that isn’t willing to take risks, takes the greatest risk of all. “
Sanderson also relates this to the Parable of the Talent. If you don’t take risks, you don’t develop expertise. You don’t get better. You don’t develop as a person. You live in fear rather than allowing fear to teach you. No ability to spin will ever make up for one’s lack of knowledge from undeveloped talent.
2. You know those late night infomercials that teach you how to get rich through real estate? Someone bought one of those packages and sent it to me. She asked me to read it and tell me if it’s good. I’ve read some pretty stupid real estate books, but it’s clear to me that this particular guy knows what he’s talking about. It’s clear that there’s substantial knowledge and experience behind his presentation. One thing he says is that investing in real estate becomes easier as you grow confident in your risk assessment and knowledge of local markets. It’s true. Any undertaking looks big and daunting, but if you do it over and over, it becomes less daunting. It becomes your expertise.
So back to the topic of perception vs. substance, Alpha vs. Beta–I think it’s nearly impossible to be a leader or a person of value or an Alpha Dog without possessing substance. Perception is okay in the short term. As Mystery says above, people will gravitate towards the attractive guy or gal just because he or she seems to have something special. But over time, the crowd knows what it wants, and the crowd can see through the smoke and mirrors. So if we’re talking long-term, I would submit that perception and reality eventually converge, thereby creating real incentive to develop those alpha traits, whatever they may be.
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
To use more animal examples, there are snakes that are poisonous and there are snakes look like the snakes that are poisonous, but are not.
Alphas develop confidence by developing competence, whereas Betas develop competence by developing confidence.
Is the concept of Alpha and Beta something that can be applied to all human interaction and personalities? Of course not. It’s just an animal psychology term adopted by modern society to give name to clusters of personality traits.
Alpha and Beta strategies should be just that: strategies, not personalities.
I thought in dog packs, “beta” meant the submissive dogs, not the dogs who “act alpha but are not.” It would make more sense to refer to the men you’re referring to as “beta” as “pseudo-alpha” instead. And what is the significance in ranking men like dogs? What purpose does it further? And do these rankings apply to women? Because applying your definitions, then most women who would be categorized as “beta” women end up getting the “alpha” men, so…yeah, clarification requested.
P.S. I didn’t read Alpha Asian’s comment before I commented. These categories refer to strategies, not personalities; got it. Still. My questions still stand. Women who use a beta strategy oftentimes end up with the alpha male. How do you reconcile that phenomenon into the theory?
jeez, I never thought the discussion on my original posting would unravel into theory and semantics!
Women who use a beta strategy oftentimes end up with the alpha male. How do you reconcile that phenomenon into the theory?
Beta strategies are just as successful, for both men and women.
Oh, I see. So an alpha male might employ a beta strategy to achieve a goal. But if the male is a leader with substance, then he would not be a beta male, even if he became a leader with substance by employing beta strategies; he is alpha. Are we making a distinction between alpha males and beta males and alpha strategies and beta strategies? And who is to say that PUAs are not men of substance? If they are men of substance, would they not be alpha males then, employing beta strategies? Or are they simply alpha males employing alpha strategies because, after all, they are men of substance?
This subject matter intrigues me. I just don’t get it.
Polonius’s counseled his son Laertes in Act I, scene iii of Hamlet:
“This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou cans’t not be false to any man”
Why not be true to who you are—to the things that you like, to the friends that you know, to the ideals that you hold? I mean, anyone who spends his life trying to be somebody else, in order to please someone else, is following a fool’s strategy. And for what? So some woman will be attracted to a version of yourself that isn’t really you?
Pursemaker,
Okay, I’ve got an awesome book recommendation on the differences between men and women and success strategies. It ties into literature, which is fitting given King’s quote. Here’s the book: Madame Bovaries Ovaries. It talks about how men and women have traditionally differed in terms of getting ahead and one upping one another.
So Beta dogs typically act submissive towards Alpha dogs, but with birds, some Beta birds sneak in the back while the Alpha is out fighting. The difference to me (and I acknowledge that the comparisons seem to be falling apart somewhat when changing species) is that Alphas are open, while betas rely on covert means.
I think it’s mostly a question of how we think of people. To say a person is, for example, trustworthy means that you would trust him most of the time. A guy who is Alpha, I think, would be open and taking on responsibilities most of the time. If we’re talking about strategies, on the other hand, we can probably assign clearer values.
By the way, just to clarify, I think Asian Playboy and Better Asian Man are Alpha males to a certain extent, even if I don’t agree with the moral behavior that takes place under their watch (or the immoral actions that one of them committed–I won’t rehash that though.). I think most of the nuthuggers who take their courses, on the other hand, are Beta males.
Now you bring up an EXCELLENT point on the differences between men and women. I need to reread Madame Bovary’s Ovaries, but I think that perhaps Alpha and Beta strategies are differently defined among men and women. Have you ever noticed that the prettiest girls get ostracized and slapped around in elementary school? On the other hand, it’s usually the ugly and unathletic guys who face the same treatment. One wouldn’t expect a female to “climb the ranks” the same way as a male if society reacts differently to men and women.
Maybe we should ask the question differently. Who would we consider to be an Alpha female? Hillary Clinton? Condoleeza Rice? Oprah? Gisele? Elin (Tiger’s wife)?
Alpha,
“Alphas develop confidence by developing competence, whereas Betas develop competence by developing confidence.”
I agree with the general direction of this statement, but I’d probably modify it somewhat.
I think Alphas develop confidence by developing confidence–I agree 100%. But I also think that Alphas develop competence by developing confidence; they “fake it until they make it,” as Mystery says in his video. Everyone starts somewhere. Even beginning salesmen who become chest thumping bond traders somewhat fake it at the beginning.
The key difference is that Betas don’t actually develop competence in anything but spin. Many of them practice avoidance. They’re afraid to fail, and so they don’t. You see this with some of the PUA nuthuggers–they talk the talk, but they never walk the walk. They never even take baby steps.
Tom Cruise references this in talking to Styles in “The Game” by telling him that if he spent more of his time trying to improve himself, learn and develop a talent, rather than just learning lines to pick up women, he would go very far. I think that’s the crucial difference.
“And for what? So some woman will be attracted to a version of yourself that isn’t really you?”
Yes, it’s all about pussy; many, different, certain types of pussies. Damn, must be the tryptophan talking.
King,
Totally right. I was floored by some of the stuff the PUAs were saying.
“You play Warcraft? Well, better not let any ladies know you do that, otherwise NO ONE will date you!”
Jae:
Yeah, who is the alpha female? Hillary Clinton or Megan Fox? I won’t even ask Hubby because I already know his answer. *cringes*
Yeah, World of Warcraft is definitely a turn-off, but Assassin’s Creed, on the other hand, definitely a turn-on.
I think Alphas develop confidence by developing confidence–I agree 100%. But I also think that Alphas develop competence by developing confidence; they “fake it until they make it,” as Mystery says in his video. Everyone starts somewhere. Even beginning salesmen who become chest thumping bond traders somewhat fake it at the beginning.
The key difference is that Betas don’t actually develop competence in anything but spin.
An Alpha male would say this: “I’m going to do this… now how do I do it?”
A Beta male would say this: “I can do this… I can do this…”
The difference is an Alpha focuses on learning the task and blocks out his fears. A Beta focuses on his fear, but doesn’t necessarily learn the task to become competent.
This is what I mean when an Alpha develops confidence through competence, and a Beta develops competence through confidence. An Alpha would think, “It couldn’t hurt to try.”
Whereas a Beta would think, “It’s not worth it to try.”
Anyway, I’m going to stop with the overintellectualization of this topic before I become too Beta.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that
“Yes, it’s all about pussy; many, different, certain types of pussies.” Lol!
Gettin’ pussy, or just being one?
PUAssy
… this PUA video reminds me of those dog training videos. I can’t believe how simplistic their theories are.
“beta” strategies are just that. “beta”. Or, like those B movies, cheesy. Ho-hum. There is no substance. Not even perception of substance.
So-called “players” might get laid IF they have “alpha” looks to go with their “beta” mindset. I suppose that is all they’re looking for?
I don’t think it’s so much about “alpha” vs. “beta” – it’s about men with natural confidence and personality vs. cheesy losers with absolutely no idea how women think. If you think that women are like dogs, easily trained by Pavlovian-esque strategies, you might get women who are lower on the intellectual totem pole… “beta” strategies probably do work on “beta” women… Isn’t it about reaping what you sow?
Personally, I find men who are game-players, who try too hard, extremely unattractive, even if they are physically what one might consider “alpha”.
I suppose, this is all very subjective… don’t you think? Your idea of “alpha” might be what I consider “beta” or even “omega”. It’s all about our value system.
Is there an omega male, who will take “whatever he can get” like Facebook says? If so, I have a new label!
MN:
It’s funny stuff, isn’t it? I was watching some real footage on youtube, and it’s crazy. The lines are the same again and again and again.
Okay, here’s the scenario:
You and I have a female friend. She’s dating the guy in that “Bills” song by Destiny’s Child. He’s all talk, no action. We say, “What are you doing?” and she says, “My boyfriend is great.”
According to her, he’s an Alpha. But is he really an Alpha, or is she just deluded? In other words, if one were to look at it objectively, could a disinterested party say that he’s an Alpha?
Pingback: Tiger, Edwards, and Beta Women | big WOWO
Again, this is a very interesting topic!
King, I’ve been thinking about this, and I think you’ll like the outcome based on our other thread of discussion. I think we’ve been saying the same things, but I think I’ve been muddy/lost in the details too much to pen it more clearly in black and white: there is no such thing as alphas or betas – in the absolute sense anyway.
Based on my belief that the idea of ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ is all value based (it doesn’t matter how you define how someone else may arrive at their valuation of another human being – that may vary widely) then the concept of someone being beta or alpha lies in how they present themselves at the outset of meeting someone – whether this is in the realm of a job interview or a pick up setting is irrelevant. Because of this, we’re all equally ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ – it’s just that some people are better at projecting an ‘alpha’ version of themselves to others. Which is why some guys are considered ‘alpha’ in social settings, and why others might be considered ‘alpha’ in the workplace.
The above video of Mystery is a great example of this because we all see him and think ‘what a fool!’ or ‘he’s the most beta of them all!’ yet he routinely attracts guys who are willing to pay him thousands of dollars just to hear him speak on his theories of social dynamics. Hell, even MIT had him as a guest speaker. So clearly in these realms, by certain people, he is viewed as alpha (he provides a value that they perceive themselves as lacking). Why is it that we can see him as beta, while so many others see him as alpha? Answer: We don’t see value in the things he teaches – for whatever reason we care to assign it (we’re offended by his theories, we see him as smarmy, we’re married etc.) The guys who pay him thousands of dollars, on the other hand, see great value in him, and likely view him as very alpha.
Another example, that flies in the face of Mystery, is some PUA’s DO talk about computer games and comic books, however, they know how to relate these topics to the women they pick up in terms that are more meaningful at the outset of an interaction than they are typically given credence for. As such they’ve found a way to share something they are passionate about with someone else on a level that lacks the ‘dorkiness’ that the mainstream typically ascribes to these two topics. In short, they can present the value they find in these activities in a light that others also find valuable.
As to the gender question, I think it’s the same qualifier across the sexes – Who brings the most value to the table as it relates to the current needs of the observer. What differs are the specifics of how value is defined based on the needs dictated by the situation and the observer.
Even in terms of pickup, this applies, Regardless of the intent of the person ‘picking up’, the initial challenge is to find a way to have the person you’re interested in view you as a valuable addition to their life. This is – at the outset – based upon fairly superficial things, which is why some of the pickup artist tricks do work – not in the sense of manipulating a woman, but in the sense of learning how to present yourself as a valuable addition to her world. With that said, I think that if the person ‘picking up’ is pursuing a long term relationship with the person they’re ‘picking up’ then I agree with Byron, they better have some lasting value, and not just be a bright shiny bauble that fades upon closer scrutiny.
“King, I’ve been thinking about this, and I think you’ll like the outcome based on our other thread of discussion. I think we’ve been saying the same things, but I think I’ve been muddy/lost in the details too much to pen it more clearly in black and white: there is no such thing as alphas or betas – in the absolute sense anyway.”
Yes, I agree that we’re probably very close to sharing the same opinion, especially as it comes to practice versus theory.
“Based on my belief that the idea of ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ is all value based (it doesn’t matter how you define how someone else may arrive at their valuation of another human being – that may vary widely) then the concept of someone being beta or alpha lies in how they present themselves at the outset of meeting someone – whether this is in the realm of a job interview or a pick up setting is irrelevant. Because of this, we’re all equally ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ – it’s just that some people are better at projecting an ‘alpha’ version of themselves to others. Which is why some guys are considered ‘alpha’ in social settings, and why others might be considered ‘alpha’ in the workplace.”
Hmm, I hadn’t thought of it in exactly those terms, but I wish that I had. nice.
“The above video of Mystery is a great example of this because we all see him and think ‘what a fool!’ or ‘he’s the most beta of them all!’ yet he routinely attracts guys who are willing to pay him thousands of dollars just to hear him speak on his theories of social dynamics. Hell, even MIT had him as a guest speaker. So clearly in these realms, by certain people, he is viewed as alpha (he provides a value that they perceive themselves as lacking). Why is it that we can see him as beta, while so many others see him as alpha? Answer: We don’t see value in the things he teaches – for whatever reason we care to assign it (we’re offended by his theories, we see him as smarmy, we’re married etc.) The guys who pay him thousands of dollars, on the other hand, see great value in him, and likely view him as very alpha.”
Man, you’re on a roll, robert! all very insightful.
“Even in terms of pickup, this applies, Regardless of the intent of the person ‘picking up’, the initial challenge is to find a way to have the person you’re interested in view you as a valuable addition to their life. This is – at the outset – based upon fairly superficial things, which is why some of the pickup artist tricks do work – not in the sense of manipulating a woman, but in the sense of learning how to present yourself as a valuable addition to her world. With that said, I think that if the person ‘picking up’ is pursuing a long term relationship with the person they’re ‘picking up’ then I agree with Byron, they better have some lasting value, and not just be a bright shiny bauble that fades upon closer scrutiny.”
King sized applause!!!! nice work!
Agreed, King. WOWO sized applause too!
lol! thanks you two!
mojorider also should be mentioned for his perspicuous contributions to this topic over in the other thread.
King, you should be mentioned for teaching me a new word. I’d never read “perspicuous” before, but it’s a perfect word for what we all aspire to convey with our words.
King, thanks for the acknowledgement, but god-daaayum, you’re gettin’ far too cerebral on me. I had to look the word up too, ha!
Pingback: Honor | bigWOWO