The problem with Alpha, Beta and Omega(long post warning).

2019-12-18T15:51:14+00:00

I think a good working definition for alpha is “the set of traits possessed on aggregate by men who are sexually desired by women across times and cultures”.

The reason for emphasizing on aggregate is that many outliers and exceptions exist, but the core traits that bring sexual success are: tall, fit/lithe, handsome, socially adroit, worldly, authoritative (without being domineering), humorous, intelligent, skilled, capable, confident, financially successful, powerful, influential.

These traits usually usher in social success among men as well, though they do not perfectly align with what attracts men to other men. For instance, traits like honor, higher order morality, wisdom and blunt speech tend to accrue favor with men but are largely irrelevant to women, at least insofar as sexual appeal.

What constitutes a sexually successful male would, in a saner realm of discourse, not generate much controversy. But in this world of fragile egos and insecurity-driven posturing, many want to bend the definition to include themselves, or preclude those they dislike. The problem is not with the definition itself, which is nigh self evident to anyone who has truly observed the SMP; rather the problem is with the community endlessly rehashing the concept and beating dead horses.

Men are very threatened by the reality of there being a class of fuckboys who will know more authentic and frequent expressions of female desire — the hole-y grail all of us are at least subconsciously slaved to, and dependent on for validation. This insecurity can be overcome but most are too in denial over it to work through, and decide not to stake your self worth on female whims.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-12-18T17:22:02+00:00

there isnt as much confusion as people think, so i will challenge that

the confusion really results from the fact that men and womens alphas are different and contradictory. the issue is that there are in fact EITHER 2 separate status hierarchies, the ladder men put men on and the ladder women put men on OR there is a combo scale.

the male ladder has leaders of MEN at the top, followers of men in the middle and men who are losers TO men at the bottom. so alpha is a the captain of the football team or man men admire, beta is normal nondescript guys and omega is sneaky fuckers, criminals, pimps, effeminates, nerds, sissies and other assorted losers

the female ladder is in some ways reversed. the top are the sneaky fuckers, pimps, criminals and psychopaths, the men women ACTUALLY reward with crazy cult like worship and desire. the kind of men who can start a religious harem cult, rock stars, attractive schizophrenic artists, and hot homeless guys. these are men who have low status in the MALE Ladders "alphas" or who eschew male status entirely. the BETA in the female ladder is the ALPHA in the male ladder and then the entirely unsexy are the omegas

the problem with the male conception of alpha is that yes, leaders of men are very often rewarded with at least a very attractive spouse, if not a fair amount of pussy at their heights, like in college, but leader of men never necessarily means "isnt beta with women". these football jocks type estjs are the MOST likely to beta out in marriage and lose all of their hand and not understand where their wives attraction went. they are also the most like TO marry because they are sought after as STATUS accessory husbands by esfj type queen bees and because in the end they are rule and ritual followers, they are not mavericks and nonconformists. it is the womans alpha who makes women slash their wrists outside their door at 3 am and who can hold onto their hand as long as possible in any LTR

a combined sexual ranking would be womens alpha>mens alpha (beta)>(partial)mens and womens omega

edited to add: you can see this split in the hysteria emitted by male ladder "alphas" over womens revealed preference for psychos, criminals, nuts, rock stars and other assorted male "losers" when it comes to sex

DisastrousMeaning1 · 2019-12-18T18:24:03+00:00

The best way to C your V is to isolate a part of it and identify it as the essence of your post.

All you really need is this:

---Alpha men are the ones who have large amounts of sexual success, Beta men are the men who have some sexual success and Omegas have almost zero

The rest is superfluous and not helpful to a discussion of this particular topic.

AutoModerator · 2019-12-18T15:28:38+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

akaean · 2019-12-19T22:03:03+00:00

The problem with ABO... is that its not real. Its a social construct that was created in an attempt to explain the world.

Think about it like a calendar. Today is Thursday, December 19, 2019. Or whatever, maybe you're in a different timezone or something. There are no particles in the air that give today its "thursdayness" or its "decemberness", etc. We use the still use calendar to because its useful and it lets us keep track of time even if it is a purely social construct.

But like a calendar... its not right or wrong. The Gregorian Calendar is not any more valid than the Roman Calendar, or the Mayan Calendar. In fact, if it turns out that the Mayan Calendar was more precise in terms of mapping dates to the time of year, would you argue that we should leave the Gregorian Calendar behind? Or does it not matter because we have decided that we use the Gregorian now and its FINE.

People are drawn to ABO because, at least in their eyes, it maps with what they see in the world. But that doesn't mean that it is the most accurate construction and a different model might very well provide a more accurate predictor of human interactions. In fact one of the problems is that the ABO model has so many breaches that people keep adding more greek letters- like Delta or Sigma- to try to explain why the model is failing. People don't fit neatly into categories, and the more categories you have the less powerful the ABO construction is.

There is also a reason you can't just dismiss the wolves. You have to address the wolves, and you cannot forget about them. The wolves were the "science" that people used to justify ABO as more than just a social construction. As the argument goes... ABO is natural, its found in nature, look at these wolves. Once studies came out debunking the wolves things, and showing that they didn't behave like that in the wild... ABO lost that natural connection. It was exposed as merely being a social construction attempting to explain a correlated phenomenon- I.E. human attraction. And the fact that it is not a particularly accurate correlation doesn't do the ABO worldview any favors.

But I'll throw you a bone here. There was a convention in 2008 made to define "roguelikes" a genera of game that had grown pretty diverse and everybody knew what they were but couldn't put a finger on it and exceptions to every definition proposed kept cropping up. Eventually the Berlin Interpretation was created. We can provide a similar analysis into each ABO category. All you have to do is agree on a set of "High Value Factors" and "Low Value Factors" (referring to importance to the definition). You can be missing some high value factors and still be an Alpha. By the same token simply possessing some of these high value factors does not make someone an Alpha. But the more of these factors someone has, the more likely that person is to be an Alpha.

So if we had 5 factors say ABCDE, and Chet had ACDE and Bret had BCDE both of them would be Alpha. A is important but Bret is still Alpha without it, and B is important, but Chet is still alpha without it. Stanley who only has C would not be a Alpha though, even though C is a high value factor. If you are on the fence, say with 2 or 3 high value factors, the low value factors may be used to make an ultimate determination.

IMO, if you need to salvage a definition with a ton of holes in it and exceptions around every corner, the Berlin Interpretation is a really effective approach, because it understands and takes into consideration that not everything in your category will be identical, and there may be exceptions to every general rule you try to use.

wenoopic · 2019-12-20T19:49:40+00:00

The only reason for which the red pill cares about the concept of alpha, is because the alpha gets sex.

The red pill got the definition from the PUA community.

Alphaness is defined by results, not by "traits".

Alpha is by definition, the man who gets lots of sex, and only that. You cannot make a new definition. If you make a new definition, you are making an homonym word, but is not what the red pill or the PUA community defined.

PUAs and the red pill care for the concept, because men want to get genuine sexual desire from women, and alphas get exactly that.

Is not relevant to argue about the scientific concept of alpha, beta or omega on wolves, or chimpanzees.

Only an ignorant would claim that Trump is alpha or beta. There is no way to check such a claim.

PUA knowledge is empirical. What matter is the experiment.

That's important. Early PUA methods attempted to act alpha behaviors observed on men who were successful with women, and with time, it turned clear, by experimenting pick up, that traits correlated with alphaness, like being dominant or a leader, do not guarantee being successful with women.

Logic mandates that if A is not necessary, and enough to guarantee B, then A is not equivalent to B.

There are plenty of cases of successful leaders who fail at women.

There are plenty of cases of charismatic men who fail at women.

There are plenty of cases of rich men who fail at women.

There are plenty of cases of handsome, tall and muscular "chads" who fail at women.

There are also plenty of cases of ugly, poor, social outcasts men who are successful women. Lots of women flock to have sex with some homeless drug addicts, and economically broken convicts. Lots of women voluntarily sell themselves to give money to pimps, just to gain his approval.

So, Trump being a president, or having some traits that people may associate with alphas, does not means that he's an alpha. Neither it means the opposite.

If Trump's wife is disgusted at having sex with him, or cheats on him, then he's not an alpha.

If all women around Trump want to have sex with him, and the ones who had sex, still want him long term, then he's an alpha.

So, meanwhile being alpha may be correlated with many traits, like leadership, wealth, strength, handsomeness and other, those traits are not equivalent. Not necessary, and not enough to be an alpha.

That's an experimental finding by the PUA community. That's the experimental truth.

wtknight · 2019-12-18T16:57:48+00:00

Alpha is just raw attraction. Since Donald Trump is an older guy now, his ability to sexually attract other women is very limited. He’s basically a beta except to women close to his own age perhaps. In the past he was likely more of an alpha.

Title	The problem with Alpha, Beta and Omega(long post warning).
Author	Dora_Bowl
Upvotes	8
Comments	31
Date	December 18, 2019 3:28 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ece267/the_problem_with_alpha_beta_and_omegalong_post/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-problem-with-alpha-beta-and-omegalong-post.300914 https://theredarchive.com/post/300914

Comments