~ archived since 2018 ~

Stop using 'alpha' and 'beta' etc. Use terms that are more realistic and harder to attack.

January 22, 2023
3 upvotes

'Alpha' and 'Beta' terminology simplifies a complicated examination of a man's attractiveness to women down to one word, but it also makes it easier to attack because no one uses those terms in normal daily discourse. People dismiss 'alpha' and 'beta' and the whole conversation shuts down.

Reality sometimes sucks like that. In this case reality demands that we discuss the actual components of what makes a man alpha or beta: desperation, neuroconformity, looks, social status, confidence, and charisma. These are traits that people talk about with regards to men, not 'alpha' or 'beta' nonsense which brings up the debunked Wolf hierarchy studies that were even denounced by David Mech, the man who came up with it.

We need to be more granular about it and get to the very components of what makes a man alpha or beta.

Desperation: A man who is interested in women but not stupidly chasing (aka simping, persistently pursuing, etc) would be a low or zero desperation man, which is a net positive for him in the eyes of women especially if he is good looking or has high charisma. Low or zero desperation is essential for a man's success.

Confidence: A man with sufficient but not overblown confidence is also attractive to most women. Guys who go too far with this go overboard into cockiness or even arrogance and it only takes one good test from life itself (not even a shit test by a woman) to expose his weakness and overcompensation.

Charisma: Men with great charisma (often but is not always accompanied by a great personality: charisma >= personality) are also attractive to most women. Not much needs to be said here, you either have it or you don't and need to build it up. Women sometimes even make the first move on dudes with high charisma.

Dominance: Men with high social dominance are attractive to women as long as he's not domineering (abusive, forceful, etc) or trying too hard, either of which points to fake masculinity aka machisimo, which is a huge turnoff for women. He's gotta command the room and the respect of others to qualify as dominant (also related to high charisma). Of course some women say they don't need this - some women prefer submissive men and all, dated a few myself as a switch - but a man who maxes this trait will experience a dramatically different dating life than men who lack these traits, and like the closely-related trait of high charisma it can even trump losing the genetic lottery (looks/height).

Looks/Height: Some women like Kpop dude body types, but far too many women go for Jason Momoa. Lemme tell you folks, if you're tall and look like Jason Momoa or Henry Cavill, you're not going to be wanting for women, period, even if a handful don't find you attractive you won't be able to hear them over the throng of women trying to get at you. So don't let any woman tell you that Momoa/Cavill-looks aren't highly desired, it may not impress her but it will impress the 3000 women behind her. But if you lost the genetic lottery you could work on the other traits and compensate. Also women do date ugly men of lower stature simply because there's not enough tall, good looking men to go around. (Doesn't guarantee that they enthusiastically date/marry men who score low on these traits.)

Neuroconformity: No one wants to go there but when they talk about alpha vs beta this is a [i]do or die[/i] trait when it comes to a man's hierarchy on the totem pole of dating potential. This is how women work - not too many women want to deal with a guy who is neurodiverse, period. They exist but are very rare.

Silly feminists will rant about how these traits aren't necessary and they date dudes who lack these traits and they just love them for being decent men. Of course there are some women who are like that. But the vast majority of women go for men who are strong in these traits: or, to be more accurate, men who are strong in the above mentioned traits are the kind of men that most women desire. A man who is strong in those traits will never be able to even see the handful of women who aren't impressed by them for the throngs of women vying for their attention.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Stop using 'alpha' and 'beta' etc. Use terms that are more realistic and harder to attack.
Author RatDontPanic
Upvotes 3
Comments 26
Date January 22, 2023 8:12 PM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/stop-using-alpha-and-beta-etc-use-terms-that-are.1149324
https://theredarchive.com/post/1149324
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/10isxts/stop_using_alpha_and_beta_etc_use_terms_that_are/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]IHateFernales 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Who care if it is denounced by blue pillers? Alpha is a synonym for Chad and Chad definitely exists. The ones who say “alpha” and “beta” males do not exist in humans are absolutely kidding themselves. 5 minutes Chadfishing on tinder will show that alpha and beta does indeed exist

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's not just bluepillers, most people in general dismiss those terms.

[–]IHateFernales 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, it’s only blue pilled males and virtue signalling females who say Chad doesn’t exist

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But who outside the manosphere talks about alpha males and beta males?

[–]IHateFernales 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They are common terms, most people would know what it means

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They know what it means but they think alpha/beta talk is bullshit.

[–]NotARussianBot1984 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And faggot still means a buddle of sticks cuz meaning of words never changes right?

I'm so gay

Happy that is lol

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is good post

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Just go out in public to your local grocery store or retailer, the VAST majority of couples you will see are just plain average people in most ways. They are nowhere near being Jason Momoa’s or swimsuit/IG models. People need to get off social media and quit focusing on the tiny percentage of highly attractive people, and live in the real world. If you’re an average looking person (and most people are), as long as you aren’t socially inept, rude, arrogant, or creepy, and are a nice decent person, you will likely find your social equivalent in a partner, if you actually get out of the house and meet people.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's not my point. Of course average people meet and mate. But if you look like Momoa or Cavill then more women are going to want you. Your dating life will be easier due to greater choices, and due to women coming after you, rather than you pursuing her.

Nowhere did I say that not looking like them is the kiss of death.

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So your post is basically pointing out something very obvious to everyone, that good looking people have more options

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The whole thing should be obvious to everyone. It's all about how you present a thing to the public. 'Alpha' vs 'Beta' is not something people want to hear. We need to put it in a different way, and I proposed how to do so.

[–]hutavan -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Op is listing all traits that (in her opinion) make a man attractive. Why leave out looks? Is there any good reason to go through all the factors and intentionally ignore only the most important one lol?

[–]IHateFernales -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Being a nice person does not get you a partner for men. Even females acknowledge this, although for the wrong reasons (they say it is a baseline when it is not). Being nice is in fact a negative.

For females, personality and looks does not matter at all. They can be absolutely anything and get a man

[–]BoxxyFoxxy -3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We don’t like logic and reason in this sub.

[–]The_FatGuy_Strangler 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So many people here seem to obsess, bitch, and whine about the top percentage of attractive people having options… it’s like no shit of course they do, life isn’t fair, but make the best with what you have and stop wasting time focusing on things out of your control.

[–]SilentFroggy -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

People have the desire and desperation to be first place. Not second or third

[–]BitsAndBobs304 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Stats show quite a different trend.

[–]too_lazy_to_register 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Please stop citing this stupid article. "Alphas" and "betas" have been debunked for wolves, but not for apes. You can easily find research on chimpanzee alphas. If anything, the researcher's mistake was attributing the human qualities to the wolves.

About using the terms you suggest - most of them are already used, but there's often a need to combine them in order to describe a certain type of man. Do you think it would be better to say "it's over for highly desperate non-confident submissive ugly neurodivergent men"?

I'm also not sure that charisma is even a trait. Most of the definitions of charisma I could find describe it through the feelings a charismatic person evokes in others, and those are heavily influenced by the other traits from your list.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

We're not apes. We're humans. The public sees the term 'alpha male' and 'beta male' etc. as pathetic and childish. The second point renders the discussion of alpha/beta males moot. Using that term destroys your credibility no matter how many ape/monkey/bonobo/etc species you can prove it applies to. Outside the manosphere everyone is put off by that term, particularly women.

Do you think it would be better to say "it's over for highly desperate non-confident submissive ugly neurodivergent men"?

It's not entirely over for them but it's the next notch above.

I'm also not sure that charisma is even a trait. Most of the definitions of charisma I could find describe it through the feelings a charismatic person evokes in others, and those are heavily influenced by the other traits from your list.

It is a trait and potentially a learned skill also.

[–]too_lazy_to_register 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

>We're not apes. We're humans.

Humans are apes.

>The public sees the term 'alpha male' and 'beta male' etc. as pathetic and childish.

First, why do you think that? I can remember only people caling self-proclaimed "alpha males" pathetic, but not the terminology. Second, the public doesn't spend much time arguing about human social hierarchy, so the terms aren't that useful to them.

>It's not entirely over for them but it's the next notch above.

I wasn't saying that it's over, I was saying that we should really use shorter descriptions for the common stereotypes, especially when we already have the words for them.

>It is a trait

What constitutes it then? How would you define it?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Humans are apes.

Really, so why do my knuckles not reach the floor? Where's my full body black hair? Because we evolved from apes, but we are not still apes.

First, why do you think that? I can remember only people caling self-proclaimed "alpha males" pathetic, but not the terminology. Second, the public doesn't spend much time arguing about human social hierarchy, so the terms aren't that useful to them.

Nobody uses those terms outside the manosphere.

I wasn't saying that it's over, I was saying that we should really use shorter descriptions for the common stereotypes, especially when we already have the words for them.

That's lazy. 'Alpha' and 'Beta' are unpopular terms in real life. Why can't you accept that?

What constitutes it then? How would you define it?

Sometimes people are born with the ability to command the room, others learn it. Kids can sometimes do it and maintain that their whole lives.

[–]too_lazy_to_register 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Really, so why do my knuckles not reach the floor? Where's my full body black hair?

Not all the apes are the same. With that logic, you could argue that gorillas aren't apes, because they're too big and different. I'm saying that the human social hierarchy is probably much closer to the apes' one than to the wolves or hens.

Nobody uses those terms outside the manosphere.

And since the manosphere isn't exactly defined either, it's always true. You just hear the terms and say "oh, the manosphere made it here".

'Alpha' and 'Beta' are unpopular terms in real life.

So what? In any discussion on a specific topic there will be terms that aren't widely used anywhere else. It doesn't mean we should stop using them, if we're constantly talking about things they mean.

the ability to command the room

So, it's basically domination?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not all the apes are the same. With that logic, you could argue that gorillas aren't apes, because they're too big and different. I'm saying that the human social hierarchy is probably much closer to the apes' one than to the wolves or hens.

LOL

And since the manosphere isn't exactly defined either, it's always true. You just hear the terms and say "oh, the manosphere made it here".

LOL

So what? In any discussion on a specific topic there will be terms that aren't widely used anywhere else. It doesn't mean we should stop using them, if we're constantly talking about things they mean.

LOLOL

[–]Scooby-Doo14 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Cope

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Cope is anyone thinking they're alpha. Hint, you're not.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter