- Joined
- Jul 5, 2013
- Messages
- 182
I just noticed that I harbor an underlying distaste towards the concept of alpha, and am wondering if anyone else feels this way too or whether my conception isn't refined enough and I'm somewhere off-base. I've come across the term a few times during research and seen it mentioned on the forum and on Girls Chase from time to time, but I've always instinctually passed over it, as it generally seems an unsubtle and inconsiderate attitude to have towards people, in its typical PUA sense. I understand that scientifically it just means the individual in a social group with the highest rank and access to the most resources, but what I find distasteful is the way it is interpreted and used in many PUA circles (without naming names). Many people seem to call one another (or themselves) alpha not when they are the strongest leaders, but instead when they are the most aggressive individuals. What I'm talking about here is the misunderstanding that being aggressive is the same as being dominant.
If we look at it through the spectrum of social calibration, as described on Girls Chase, it seems to me that being alpha, in the aggressive sense, stands as the epitome of jerkdom, and based on a dichotomy between the self-described alphas and the "betas" -- who are the weaker men in their communities/the alphas way of distancing themselves from their shame filled (i.e. weaker) pasts through projection. This dichotomy of Beta/Alpha is actually used here to describe a group level sadistic/masochistic relationship.
It reminds me of the relationship between high, middle, and low class in the contemporary industrialized West. You've got the middle and low class, who are the most similar, fighting one another for scraps, and the upper class totally dominating the scene. In this scenario you've got the clueless "betas" (low class) who want to be in the "alpha" group , and the "alphas" (middle class) who derive a good part of their confidence from a feeling of superiority over the betas, but who don't stand a hair of a chance against a truly dominant man (high class) -- the men who have achieved ultimate social calibration.
The law of least effort is broken in the typical conception of alpha as "highly aggressive". However, perhaps this way of looking at the concept is a useful tool to push weak men to improve themselves, as true social calibration might seem entirely unattainable to them, so they wouldn't begin working on themselves otherwise. Perhaps this concept was derived primarily as a marketing tool, both for hooking weak men into working on themselves (totally a noble cause, if the rhetoric is ethical) and for keeping men invested, by giving them a feeling of inclusion in a group called "alpha", whatever that might mean for them/their demographic.
But it's actually an illusion. They all can't be alpha. Only one of them can. The one with the highest rank. By that definition Chase is the only alpha in this particular community, as there really can only be one. Many of the guys here are truly socially calibrated dominant men who are legitimate alphas of their own group, or, more complexly, are good at being alpha in the unstable spontaneous formation and degradation of groups in public settings (like one-on-one with a girl or being king of the bar for the night), but only one of us here can actually be alpha. This topic really strikes the core of social dynamics, as it's all about how groups are formed, how people get the roles they want, and the illusions people create to protect their egos. I imagine this particular illusion is useful primarily for social stability.
I'm sure it's much more complicated and has a wider usage than what I've perceived, so I'm curious: how do you conceptualize "alpha"? Can there be two (or more) alphas in a community, or can there either only be one or none?
-Oskar
If we look at it through the spectrum of social calibration, as described on Girls Chase, it seems to me that being alpha, in the aggressive sense, stands as the epitome of jerkdom, and based on a dichotomy between the self-described alphas and the "betas" -- who are the weaker men in their communities/the alphas way of distancing themselves from their shame filled (i.e. weaker) pasts through projection. This dichotomy of Beta/Alpha is actually used here to describe a group level sadistic/masochistic relationship.
It reminds me of the relationship between high, middle, and low class in the contemporary industrialized West. You've got the middle and low class, who are the most similar, fighting one another for scraps, and the upper class totally dominating the scene. In this scenario you've got the clueless "betas" (low class) who want to be in the "alpha" group , and the "alphas" (middle class) who derive a good part of their confidence from a feeling of superiority over the betas, but who don't stand a hair of a chance against a truly dominant man (high class) -- the men who have achieved ultimate social calibration.
The law of least effort is broken in the typical conception of alpha as "highly aggressive". However, perhaps this way of looking at the concept is a useful tool to push weak men to improve themselves, as true social calibration might seem entirely unattainable to them, so they wouldn't begin working on themselves otherwise. Perhaps this concept was derived primarily as a marketing tool, both for hooking weak men into working on themselves (totally a noble cause, if the rhetoric is ethical) and for keeping men invested, by giving them a feeling of inclusion in a group called "alpha", whatever that might mean for them/their demographic.
But it's actually an illusion. They all can't be alpha. Only one of them can. The one with the highest rank. By that definition Chase is the only alpha in this particular community, as there really can only be one. Many of the guys here are truly socially calibrated dominant men who are legitimate alphas of their own group, or, more complexly, are good at being alpha in the unstable spontaneous formation and degradation of groups in public settings (like one-on-one with a girl or being king of the bar for the night), but only one of us here can actually be alpha. This topic really strikes the core of social dynamics, as it's all about how groups are formed, how people get the roles they want, and the illusions people create to protect their egos. I imagine this particular illusion is useful primarily for social stability.
I'm sure it's much more complicated and has a wider usage than what I've perceived, so I'm curious: how do you conceptualize "alpha"? Can there be two (or more) alphas in a community, or can there either only be one or none?
-Oskar
