Post: #1

I am kind of cringing posting this thread and starting another Alpha/Beta discussion.

However, I really like Roissy's Definition of an Alpha Male: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2007/09/1...lpha-male/

It is clean. It is simple. It is easy. It is succinct.

(Plus, I like it because I fall somewhere between Alpha and Super Alpha on it, but that is neither here nor there).

The "hole" or issue I have with it, is when it comes to ranking Alphas.

By Roissy's definition, a kid in a boy band, is more Alpha than a guy like:





And a kid in a Vampire teen movie is more Alpha than a guy like this:





Because more people know the lame teens.

I think Roissy's definition puts too much emphasis on fame.

In my book an guy is way more Alpha, who is true to himself, is his own man, incorruptible and swoops fly girls VS some feminine dork who girls scream for.

Thoughts?

Should the Definition of an Alpha Male be more focused on attractiveness to girls AND admiration/other men wanting strive for some of your traits?

I think this is where the Pua mindset is all wrong. It is focused solely on girls.

I have always written about girls AND making yourself a better man.

I welcome Roissy to weigh in on this.

Post: #2

I kinda like Bruce Lee's approach to things. In the end it's the most effective fighter that wins regardless of style.
Fuck the rules and definitions.

Post: #3

That's a good point G. Also, when it's just a bunch of guys hanging out, inevitably one guy in the group emerges as the leader and the group goes where that guy directs.

Fame isn't necessarily something that comes from within (or at all justin bieber) so it's hard for me to believe that any boyband goof is more "Alpha" than us. Especially when you hear about these famous actors doing beta shit.

Post: #4

I think there's two entirely different types of alphas/betas out there that happen to share the same word.

You have to differentiate between personal definition and social definition.


Case in point, Marines. I've known some Marines that were tough as nails beat the shit out of you dudes. They were cool, hard ass, and not to be fucked with, BUT, put them infront of a girl they were dorky simps. They were social betas, but personal alphas. The were fulfilled personally, achieved their dreams and made something of themselves, their personal success was massive.

Now take another situation, I knew some wannabe gang bangers growing up who were dumb as a bag of hammers, had no job, flunked out of school, spent all day smoking weed and bumming cash, but could snag up damn near any girl they wanted. These guys are social alphas but personal betas. Their life is a failure, they've made nothing of themselves but socially they've got the charisma to swoon bitches.

I also think its important to realize the persons happiness doesn't play any part in either definition. Some guys can have everything and still be sad, some guys can have nothing and still be happy.

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #5

It really depends on what traits you want to capture when you refer to someone as "alpha."

When humans lived in small hunter-gatherer societies, the alpha male would be the de facto leader of the tribe, would be responsible for its safety, and would get to bang all the women. To do this he would have to be self-assured, strong, intelligent, and admired by the other males in the tribe.

In those times all of the above qualities would go together. Nowadays it's not necessarily so. You can be in a boy band and get a ton of girls but be a total pussy. You can be a narcissist like Tucker Max, appear outwardly very confident and be very good with women, but struggle with all sorts of insecurities and needs for validation. You can be strong, self-actualized, and an able protector of loved ones but not be as attractive to women as someone who can get laid with zero effort by being famous. And as Roissy often points out, you can be an absolutely despicable person and still have women throwing themselves at you. A lot has been written about murderers who receive numerous marriage proposals, and often the ones who get the most of them have committed the most heinous crimes.

We don't live in hunter-gatherer tribes anymore, so the traits that universally went together and were manifested in a single, identifiable leader of each group are no longer necessarily linked. There's no one constellation of traits that's going to capture every single person we intuitively identify as "alpha" in a satisfactory way.

I think Roissy's definition makes sense if you're concerned with elucidating the hierarchy of the contemporary sexual market. It cannot and should not be used to identify which people are most admirable or worth emulating.

Post: #6

Women are always subordinate to my lifestyle.

Because of that, women always want to join the lifestyle.

Guys will miss the point of the post.

In 5-10 years, the young guys who have worked hard to make something of themselves will get it.

Post: #7

G, Roissy's blog is about seduction. Widening the definition of alpha would mean obscuring the traits that make the alpha so seductive, and start counting things that only really men care about, things that won't get you laid. You'd have guys working on things that would yield no pussy return.

You could have done Nobel prize worthy work and still score no pussy for it.

(01-27-2012 04:18 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  We don't live in hunter-gatherer tribes anymore, so the traits that universally went together and were manifested in a single, identifiable leader of each group are no longer necessarily linked. There's no one constellation of traits that's going to capture every single person we intuitively identify as "alpha" in a satisfactory way.

I think you're taking the evolution bit a little far. We've always had these low-status lady killers, but they never prospered as much as they do now. And that's because women's sexuality is no longer fiercely guarded. No risk of pregnancy, she has her own place, STDs are nearly harmless, she's not married as soon as she moves out from the parents, pop culture glamorizes these men, she can screw hundreds of men and no one she knows will find out...

Post: #8

I care about a lot more than getting laid.

Like smoking cigars.

Drinking wine.

Taking a rafting trip down the Pacuare river, and sleeping in the rain forest.

Doing quality work.

Reading.

A guy who only cares about women lives a pretty miserable life.

I'll also bet I pull more - and better - women than guys who only care about meeting women.

It's Zen.

Build yourself, build an epic lifestyle, enjoy the fuck out of life....and the women will appear.

Post: #9

(01-27-2012 04:27 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  I care about a lot more than getting laid.

Like smoking cigars.

Drinking wine.

Taking a rafting trip down the Pacuare river, and sleeping in the rain forest.

Doing quality work.

Reading.

A guy who only cares about women lives a pretty miserable life.

I'll also bet I pull more - and better - women than guys who only care about meeting women.

It's Zen.

Build yourself, build an epic lifestyle, enjoy the fuck out of life....and the women will appear.

This is what I've believed from the begining. Women are a byproduct of the Alpha male's lifestyle.

Post: #10

(01-27-2012 04:20 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I think you're taking the evolution bit a little far. We've always had these low-status lady killers, but they never prospered as much as they do now. And that's because women's sexuality is no longer fiercely guarded. No risk of pregnancy, she has her own place, STDs are nearly harmless, she's not married as soon as she moves out from the parents, pop culture glamorizes these men, she can screw hundreds of men and no one she knows will find out...

Are you sure? I'm by no means an expert in early human anthropology, but in my understanding each group of 100-150 people would have a single identifiable leader who got more access to the most attractive women than anyone else. If you tried to fuck someone in his harem you got exiled (which meant certain death) or got your head bashed in with a rock, and it wouldn't matter how smooth you were or how good you were at clubbing a girl and dragging her to your cave because you're fucking dead. That's why approach anxiety has been selected for--it used to keep your dumb ass from getting on the alpha's bad side. As far as I know, access to attractive women was pretty much exclusively mediated through the social status channels of either being the alpha or being in his circle, but again I'm no expert and I'd love to know if I am wrong.

Post: #11

Alphas are guys to whom other men and women and naturally drawn and to whom they refer. Some people just call this charisma. I reckon it's more a function of your "vibe" than of your actions, even if actions can reinforce your charisma by increasing your self-confidence, for instance.

Post: #12

I have always said that alpha is status, plain and simple.

You're talking about the serious work a man can undertake to provide that internal source for himself, while Roissy allows for external sources. Justin Bieber still has status, even if he's as light as a silk pocketsquare.

I'll make some other provocative statements. You are who you are. Even if you take on "alpha" behaviors, how much have you really changed? For example, the majority of beta guys here want to learn game to get a girlfriend. Even some of the young guns will want to settle down. How often does this type of thread show up? /thread-9930.html Many more if some members didn't respect Mixx as much as they do. I'm not criticizing their motivations, as I'm just advocating my point.

Source: Since this is a G thread, I'll just call it like it is. I'm sure he won't mind. I have attracted so many girls in my life that I have simply lost count. I have had so much target practice with them that the majority of questions on here about game seem simple to me. And I'm not talking about just approach... I'm talking about the extensive b.s. that awaits once they like you.

Post: #13

The old-school alpha manly-man pack leader dominated for most of humanity's existence, but now you don't need to be that guy to be get pussy. Some girls don't even like that kind of guy now.

If you try to impose the pre-historic frame on today's world, the rules don't always work: with a gun, even an old lady could take out Arnold Schwarznegger in seconds.

I think Roissy is pointing out the Alpha traits that were able to survive through history and are still meaningful today.

Post: #14

A lot of old school boxing cats score who wins a round by "Who would you rather have been?"

I think when you rank Alphas, the same criteria applies.

Who would you rather be? or Who would be more Alpha if the two guys are in a room together?

George Clooney or Joaquín Guzmán Loera ?

Brad Pitt or Steve Wynn?

My money is on Joaquín Guzmán Loera and Steve Wynn.

Post: #15

This is one of the few areas where I disagree with Roissy somewhat. He's basically stated that alphaness is almost totally based on the response you generate in the female hindbrain. He's also made some other fairly extreme remarks in this regard about celibate periods being "living death". Not sure how serious he is about this, but it brings up some good discussion points about how much success with women should be equated with alphaness and overall achievement. Which is why if you go too far on this path...

MikeCF Wrote:A guy who only cares about women lives a pretty miserable life.

I tend to agree with this. Thinking that your "alphaness" or level or success in life in solely determined by how successful you've been with women is pretty weak. I know guys who are constantly in LTRs who seem to be pretty successful in that regard by female standards, but from the outside you can tell they're just a slave getting dragged to Bed, Bath, and Beyond by the girlfriend/wife on weekends. I don't think most people envy that lifestyle, and that's exactly the sort of grind that makes married men miserable.

basilransom Wrote:You could have done Nobel prize worthy work and still score no pussy for it.

While this is true, you can also look at the opposite extreme of guys who have scored quite a bit of pussy for dumb reasons who are otherwise unenviable. There are plenty of washed up actors or one hit wonder pop stars who can be used as an example. Most of us probably wouldn't trade places with them.

Post: #16

All alphas have abundant options in the dating market.

But not all men who have abundant options in the dating market are alphas.

When we talk about alphas we mean men with strong social dominance. Social dominance (or game) is the main thing that will get you laid. But it's not the only thing: Money, fame, looks will get you laid too. None of the latter necessarily confer alphaness, even if they confer pussy.

That said, getting laid on the regular for whatever reason creates a positive feedback loop that boosts your social dominance.

Post: #17

(01-27-2012 03:59 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

I don't know about the alpha male stuff, but whenever I hear it I think of Laird, and a few other guys.

Laird wanted to surf Jaws whenever it was firing so he bought the point: http://www.realtor.com/blogs/2011/07/21/...on-photos/.

He may be married to a rich woman, but I know for a fact he didn't use a damn dime of her money to buy that place. I think he sold it, to build another one down the road. Try to get to Jaws. If you own anything in Hawaii that restricts public access to any beach whatsoever, you better have major pull, which comes from pure respect, working for you.

Watch him here:




My point is that in or out of the water the guy controls everything around him.

***** I'D LIKE TO REQUEST A ONE DAY MORATORIUM ON POSTING SURF VIDEOS, PLEASE. I HAVE TO WORK!!!****

ALOHA!

Post: #18

Funny thing about alphas, true alphas, is that a good percentage of the ones I know spend time in prison. I am not saying all, some dominate in business, but reality is that many true alphas end up involved in crime. Being a PUA and chatting up sluts is not the be all and end all of the alpha male, most alphas I know don't even know what a PUA is they don't need any of this stuff to bang the best chicks in the room, they just know that the best chicks want their cock.

Post: #19

Thats the kind of definition of an "Alpha Male" that I would expect from a sexually resentful teenager.

By those terms, any fagboy from any boyband is more alpha than Vladimir Putin or that guy that got caught under a rock and cut off his own arm.

Post: #20

I think guys get hung up over a definition that is easily modifiable. Alpha, in the context Roissy used it, refers to a man's desirability to other women.

Roissy can't be wrong, because he's defining the word in his own terms. If you think alpha should include traits other than attractiveness to other women, you're free to define alpha however you wish.


But in terms of attractiveness to women, Bieber is more attractive than your idols, G.

Post: #21

(01-27-2012 08:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I think guys get hung up over a definition that is easily modifiable. Alpha, in the context Roissy used it, refers to a man's desirability to other women.

Roissy can't be wrong, because he's defining the word in his own terms. If you think alpha should include traits other than attractiveness to other women, you're free to define alpha however you wish.


But in terms of attractiveness to women, Bieber is more attractive than your idols, G.

"a man's desirability to women"
I think that for game purposes, this is the only definition that matters.

Post: #22

(01-27-2012 08:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I think guys get hung up over a definition that is easily modifiable. Alpha, in the context Roissy used it, refers to a man's desirability to other women.

Roissy can't be wrong, because he's defining the word in his own terms. If you think alpha should include traits other than attractiveness to other women, you're free to define alpha however you wish.


But in terms of attractiveness to women, Bieber is more attractive than your idols, G.

I probably should have posted the origin of this thread for classification:

/thread-9887-page-2.html

It came from the Tucker Max thread, where people were beefing whether or not guy was a Alpha.

It seems that since Roissy did a good job of defining it, it has been taken as the defacto answer on here and in many places on the internet.

I had some issues with it. Blame the Alpha in me.

Since I am "free to define it", I just did above.

Quote:If you think alpha should include traits other than attractiveness to other women, you're free to define alpha however you wish.

This isn't my issue. Using my example above of Marvelous Marvin Hagler, boxing is a trait that attracts women. Being arguably the greatest Middle weight Champion in history attracts women.

The issue I have, is that "fame" and "mass appeal" are weighted too heavily in Roissy's definition.

With Roissy's definition, like I said above, a boy band character would be more Alpha than arguably the baddest man on the planet.

This doesn't jive with me.

Again, Blame the Alpha in me.

For clarification, I haven't "idolized" anyone since I was probably 12. (Maybe my Father, Grandfather and Godfather, but that neither here nor there). Do I respect other people?

Hell yes.

Post: #23

Quote:It came from the Tucker Max thread, where people were beefing whether or not guy was a Alpha.

It seems that since Roissy did a good job of defining it, it has been taken as the defacto answer on here and in many places on the internet.

I agree that Roissy's definition of Alpha isn't perfect. But your criticism of his definition isn't enough to seriously challenge Roissy's definition of alpha, since Roissy was using the term merely to parse out what constituted an attractive male. Roissy rejects the common use of alpha to establish the man he's interested in: the man who is attractive to women.


And you got to admit, his definition highlights an unpleasant fact about female mate selection: the men we think women should want, usually aren't the men women actually want.

The commenters in his blog actually created two uses of the word alpha to distinguish between the types of alpha males:

- the alphas of women
- the alphas of men

Post: #24

I gotta agree with Gmanifesto, celebrities these days are nowhere near as manly as boxers.
Some of the most alpha men in Hollywood were: Charles Bronson, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood, Mickey Rourke, Sylvester Stallone.

Heartiste also mentions you have to bang over 500 women to be super-alpha, this is not true at all. Overall Heartiste's definition of alpha is flawed.

Post: #25

(01-27-2012 04:27 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  I care about a lot more than getting laid.

Like smoking cigars.

Drinking wine.

Taking a rafting trip down the Pacuare river, and sleeping in the rain forest.

Doing quality work.

Reading.

A guy who only cares about women lives a pretty miserable life.

I'll also bet I pull more - and better - women than guys who only care about meeting women.

It's Zen.

Build yourself, build an epic lifestyle, enjoy the fuck out of life....and the women will appear.

When I was going on 4-5 dates a week I was that guy.

Focusing more on work and living my life with the occasional female company has made me much more well-rounded... and happier.