"Beta male" vocabulary 101

No if you have a woman you probably have a woman who walks all over you. Betas get women. The species wouldn't exist if they didn't. They just don't enjoy their life.

I dont believe I said anything more about what makes an alpha an alpha than Colonel K, "Alphas just are".

As I said. You don't know if I simply wrote a psych paper on alpha and beta roles in men.

 

Those lines are blurring...with the importance of having a solid foundation in STEM, placed on having a stable career
Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

The "jock" who got all the accolades in high school and made fun of the kids in the Math club or the Computer club....find themselves under-employed if they think muscles, abs and good looks will carry them forever into success.

Company's look for talent...intellectual talent...not the ability to bench press 400 lbs.....

Success and stability will get girls just as readily as muscles....

Even many Alpha males in professional athletics find themselves financially bankrupt after leaving the game...they never learned how to budget and make the millions last while they can still earn it....guess what...stocking shelves at the Piggly Wiggly isn't going to impress many girls...and many Alpha males...end up doing just that after blowing through their professional sports paychecks and then leaving the game.

The line is blurring....

Some women will always be impressed with the muscles...but an intellectual "Beta" male....can do ok too....

Granted this is stereotyping an otherwise complex phenomenon.

 

You just equated "alpha" with "athletic", and "beta" with "intellectual"

...so you really need to re-read this thread. No comment.

"Alpha male" means more like this:



Not this:

 

The lines are not being blurred. What is blurred is perception of what an alpha male is. You equate alpha and beta with jock and intellectual. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A true alpha falls into the Greek ideal, a sound mind in a sound body. As I said in an earlier post confidence defines an alpha and confidence is believing in your own competence and truly being competent. Somehow Leffe interpreted this definition as being a dick to women. As an admitted beta Leffe's problem is that he doesn't believe in himself. No matter how hard he tries to fake it other people will pick up on it.

I would argue that it is for easier for an intellectual to become an alpha than it is for a dumb jock to become one. The intellectual with low confidence in their physical appearance and abilities can hit the gym and buy some nice clothes. You however cant fix stupid.

As space points out the alpha is James Bond. Not Ogre from revenge of the nerds. If we remember revenge of the nerds Ogre was not the Alpha of the Alpha Betas he was a beta. The quarterback was the alpha an athlete yes but also smart and cunning.

I've been coaching for years. I've never had a stupid player selected by their teammates as a captain. I've also never had a smart but bad player either. People don't want to be lead by the jock or the intellectual. They want to be lead by the Greek ideal.

 

James Bond and "Ogre" are fictional characters....basically stereotypes....which is precisely what I said....we're dealing in generalities...

Not all jocks are dumb...and not all intellectuals are all that smart...

Not to get way off track here...but here's an example.

Einstein was brilliant, but he frequently got lost on his long walks...he'd be so distracted thinking about physics, he'd literally find himself unware of his surroundings....lost.

Would you want Einstein piloting your ship or airplane..? A man with a poor sense of direction?
You say...oh well we have technology that navigates for us....ok...and what if this goes out? Any ship's captain
or aircraft commander should have basic navigation knowledge that is not reliant upon technology....
dead reckoning or celestial navigation for example....

If a satellite goes out....or the batteries die in your smartphone/GPS device...guess what...you're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, without a foundation in basic navigation..and you find yourself in an unfamiliar and remote area.

My point.
Einstein was brilliant...by all accounts an alpha male in the realm of Physics...a leader in his field.
Yet no one is an expert on all...so we find our niche and become experts in more narrowed fields.

We can be an "alpha" in all sorts of endeavors...and "betas" as well....in others.

People are fairly complex beyond the stereotype of fantasy like James Bond.

 

Question to those who think they are Alpha males... how long you been married?

 

Yes is if the satellite goes down you lose your gps. But the guy who was in charge of putting that satellite into space wasnt a satellite expert. He was a grwat leader who excelled at leading the pack. Which included the satellite experts. He was an alpha. Having a good job does not make you an alpha.

 

General Omar Bradley.

A man I consider one of the best Allied leaders in WW2. He liked to do calculus problems as a distraction from the war and to clear his mind. By all accounts, not a womanizer....probably didn't date the pin-up girls of his era....just a regular looking man...but a good leader. A General's General.

When we say "alpha"....what are we talking about here?

"The Fonz" getting all the girls....or an actual Leader of people...because a leader does not have to be a "sex symbol"...there are qualities far beyond that found in leadership.

I believe the quality a leader should have...is to care about those they lead...
if an "Alpha" is off preening in the mirror and turning every single thing into "one upmanship" and constantly challenging anyone who wants to challenge them...well the men...sorry the people they are leading will not follow them for long...because the mark of a good leader is to place others before self. Care about those you lead...whether it's a business, a platoon of soldiers or a Boy Scout troop....

 

I think you are just proving in post after post that you dont kbow what an alpha is.

 

Well you're intentionally being argumentative and I'm not falling in that trap...

My question was asked...you have yet to answer...

How are you defining "Alpha" male?

Are you talking about the number of female mates one has?...similar to the animal notion of Alpha male...
like a wolf pack or a herd of Elk...? Where a dominant male mates with the available females and the beta males are subservient to the alpha?

You're being obtuse....whether it's intentional or not, I don't know or whether you lack the semantical skills to express yourself I don't know...

You talked about....

A "leader" heads up the team that puts the satellite into space.

Ok let's talk about that for a moment...do you think this "leader" is just a guy with a nice head of hair, strong physique but little to no knowledge of the technical aspects required in putting a satellite into near-Earth orbit and maintaining it. A guy who just barks orders at his minions...the guys with the actual knowledge of the satellites...they just don't have as much confidence...is that how you think it works. The Alpha is just a showpiece?

If this is how you define "Alpha"...I'm guessing you don't have much real World experience in the Corporate environment at least...and actually know what say...a business leader does. Do you think a man like Sam Walton built the Wal-Mart empire by having no actual retail knowledge...he just exuded so much swagger...the folks with the real brains followed him like subservient little beta sheep.

However if you're defining an "Alpha" as a guy who does well in the bar scene...or dates a "stripper"...that's entirely different...because they may not necessarily have leadership abilities outside of their little entourage of "bar buddies"...I'm talking about real leadership....not deciding what bar to go to that night.

Good day to you sir.

 

I dare you to go back to any of my posts where I said anything close.

Your post is also very ignorant as alpha wolves are generally monogamous.


You talked about....

Who in their right mind thinks that the guy coordinating the entire team is just a show piece? He has the hardest and most stressful job.

There is a difference between having knowledge and being an expert. An alpha will never be ignorant of what he is charged with doing. He learn on his own and will surround himself and his team with experts.

I'm still kind of put back by your claim of Bradley being a great leader beloved by his troops. While that was an image put forward by War Era Propaganda historians take a much harsher view on Bradley. He lead from the rear and his troops hardly knew him. Personally I see him as an ego centric backstabber who ultimately got a lot of GIs killed. He couldn't manage talented commanders under his command preferring to simply sack or backstab anyone who he disagreed with. That is not a characteristic of a leader or even an alpha male.

Bradley was an average general who was made something he wasn't by propaganda. He was an okay tactician and strategist but he should have never been promoted to a position of high command because he was very poor at managing the people underneath him.

Where have I said that?

You too start reading and quit making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

You have yet to address the simple characteristic I gave of an alpha male. Confidence which is defined by me as belief in ones competence and the existence of said competence..

You keep trying to get alpha down the examples of types of guys instead of a state of being. That is where you fail.

 

You can be an "Alpha Male" in any job, profession, social scene or walk of life. It's about a mindset and character and way of life, not about external things like "dating a stripper", or "being the captain of a football team" - that's where a lot people seem to misunderstand.

 

I have no idea why were being so belligerent

I was not addressing anyone specifically...
Take a look at Post #77...my initial comment on the thread...I wasn't addressing anyone or making anything personal..

Just a comment..

So I'm not understanding your hostility.



While I don't want to turn the thread into the military section and discuss Gen. Bradley, I suggest you google
"Operation Cobra" and get enlightened.

Plus there have only been 5, 5 star Generals in the history of the U.S.

Gen. Bradley is one of them.

General of the Army George C. Marshall
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower
General of the Army Henry H. Arnold
General of the Army Omar N. Bradley

While no leader is without blemishes, you don't make it to the rank of 5-Star General without having Alpha characteristics.

Now I suggest we end the conversation to avoid future hostilities...this is the off-topic section and if I'm going to make an impassioned argument on a message board it's going to be on something I actually care about like Pro-Life...you may have the last word.

 

Bradly only got promoted because he would make a stink about it if others got promoted and he didnt.

Ike flat out said the only reason he got his 4th star was because Patton was getting one and he didnt want to deal with Bradley's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) over it.

 

Been thinking about old Bradley. Its obvious that he is one of ny least favorite generals.

I was trying to think if a modern example and I think ive got it. Bradley was the Christina Aguilera of Anerican generals.

If anyone watched yhe voice it was clear that Christina was subtly hostile towards any female performer whi was clearly more talented than her.

Bradley was much the same way. He was hostile towards any comnander who was clearly more talented than himself.

 

What the heck does this beta/alpha forceful distinction of people has to do with real life and infinite complexity of behaviour is really beyond me. I could try then to distinguish " losers " and " winners " as you like, it' much easier than this alpha/beta fallacious and unclear definition. Then you must define what you mean as " winner ".

Are winners those who get laid often but don't make any children because they fear paternity? Are winners those who have it all easy, because they are pretty and rich, growing superficial and slaves to appearence and mundanity, disregarding their very souls? Are winners those who subjugate other people, building their authority out of fear and strenght? Are winners those who open threads about winners and losers without even understanding what they are talking about?

This thread looks like a troll one.

 

It's not 'arbitrary distinction' - it's based on behavior studies and concepts.

Guys aren't "alpha" because they "get laid" - guys "get laid" because they're "alpha"

If they "fear paternity", then they obviously aren't that alpha now are they?

What does "being pretty and rich" have to do with alpha/beta behavior? Being "pretty" or being "rich" aren't behaviors. Being a 'slave to one's appearance' is a beta trait because it's a type of insecurity and self-consciousness - which isn't alpha at all

The only one who doesn't understand what you're talking about is you.

It must've struck a nerve then - if you were less beta then you wouldn't be so hypersensitive, when you're really just too uneducated on the subject to have a clue what you're even talking about.

 

This is funny. Where exactly did you find this Uberman, who does not fear anything in the world, he is slave to nothing and nobody, he has many women, he doesn't bend to anything.

Are you sure this " alpha male " is not something coming out of your imagination? Maybe the reflection of what you wish to be but cannot? Please stop with this alpha/beta garbage... you are either trolling or a very superficial person.

If you claim " there are studies about this " then let me tell you i don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) to those kind of studies, how can we possibly pretend to distinguish between alpha and beta if many aspects of our inner self, brains, are still all to discover out? That is garbage science to me, like that of comics...

 

You become one by learning character development.

And of course you're confusing "fear" (an emotion that everyone has) with "being a coward".

The 'superficial person' is you, since you already stated that you think "good looks" or "money" are what attract women, not behavior.

I figure you wouldn't - it's easier for you to sit and btch and moan that "women don't like me because I'm not rich, or don't look like Brad Pitt" than actually come to terms with the fact that, maybe women just don't like you because you're whiny and don't offer them a reason to like you.

A guy who sits and whines that he 'can't get laid' because he's not rich, or doesn't look like Brad Pitt, etc is scientifically less attractive than someone who realizes that type of thinking is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Who said i'm poor? Actually i do pretty good in terms of wealth, and i have an overall attractive figure. Still i'm not an alpha, nor a beta, i have both traits, i suppose it would be extremely difficult even for an expert to say if i'm an alpha or a beta. That's why i think it's overall a superficial distinction, that of alpha and beta. I just don't understand those scientists/behaviour analizers who pretend to divide people according to... what? Behaviour? But do they know that behaviour is extremely complex and it changes through infancy, adolescence, adulthood? Did they find out the exact relation between behaviour, brains, body, experience, maybe soul, or do they go forward " hmm that's an alpha, this one is a beta "??

Do i offend you if i say that's all scientific troll(*)(*)(*)(*) to me?

 

I'm a beta male and happy to be so. Stable marriage, steadily growing income wisely invested, haven't had a physical fight with anyone since I was 14, Professionally qualified, likes TV drama, reading, has a couple of hobbies, feels no need for multiple partners. Its called contentment.

 

If it's down to have multiple partners i have another word for them other than " alpha ".... but if i do alphas will say i'm a beta lol

 

Again you don't know what a 'beta' male is - stable relationships and stable income are 'alpha' traits because they require self-discipline - neither does 'multiple partners' (a guy who's incapable of keeping a relationship, and has to jump from partner to partner since they don't work out is most likely a beta).

Why are you so ignorant of pretty simple psychology, and just repeating 'stereotypes from TV' when this is about psychology?

"Getting into fights" isn't something an 'alpha man' would want to do unless it was necessary - a guy who goes around 'starting fights' is a beta male pretending to be 'alpha' just by 'acting tough', when really he's a puzzy - if he got into a fight with someone who actually knew how to fight, he'd cry and run home to mommy.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think it's down to 'multiple partners', then that's just more proof that you're ignorant of the term 'alpha'. I'd say you sound beta, not because you "don't have multiple partners" - but because in the other thread you where whining about 'not being rich or handsome enough' to attract all the women you want - whining is a beta trait.

Alphas would generally have 'less need' for multiple partners since they'd be strong and more than capable of making a relationship work - however they'd have more to offer and therefore less trouble finding a new partner if the previous relationship didn't work. Someone who feels a 'need' for multiple partners is probably beta, since that means they're insecure and dependent on the attention of others for their self esteem - someone who's alpha wouldn't have a tough time 'being single' and being more selective about their new future partner.

 

I wave at my dick everyday. Sometimes it waves back. It's never a contest. But merely a mutual acknowledgement of one another's existence. We do this to save time. If we shake hands, we'll be there for awhile.

Lol, please! George Zimmerman took out a threat like a boss. If he had been beta, he would have cowered in his truck and waited for the police to arrive like all the sensitive little anti-self-defense Trayvon supporters wanted him to.

 

If you put that this way i agree with you, people who need to jump from one partner to another are insecure and not capable of serious relations.