google-site-verification=EhSxUsdmHYpvTbne1OONvehuteyj_-gl9UYb7mCV6zE
 
Search

What Makes a Real Alpha? How to Spot a True Alpha From a Fake One


We’ve all heard the terms “alpha men” and “beta” men.


The manosphere uses these terms all the time, and frankly, if you’re anything like I was, with all the debate as to whats alpha and whats beta, it starts getting bloody confusing as there really doesn’t seem to be much consensus.


Then you have videos that try to debunk the whole concept of alpha and beta behaviour, like the now-infamous “Adam Ruins Everything” video.


That video was basically saying that alpha males are bullies. And that’s just not true. You’re not going to live very long in the wild being a bully.


But anyway, more on that later.


In this little blog, I’m going to give you some rules to determine whether someone is a true alpha, or just pretending to be one.


So now, to begin with, let’s talk about the information that’s floating around out there regarding whats alpha and beta.


Now, in the Red Pill community, the concept of “alpha seed, beta need” has been around forever.


The concept is, depending on where a woman is in their ovulation cycle, they will be seeking out different characteristics in a male to mate with.


Sometimes, depending on where you catch them in their cycle, they’ll be looking for the biggest, baddest, toughest dude to bang, the “alpha”, and at other times, they’ll be looking for a guy who is willing to play the part of the dutiful resource provider “the beta”.


The pickup community in particular, but in general the manosphere at large, insinuates that the qualities of the alpha are more advantageous to males, as it requires less investment from the male in order to pass on his genes. And this is objectively true, the “love em and leave em” sexual strategy is far more efficient and beneficial for a guy, if you can pull it off.


Basically, males have two sexual strategies. “Love ‘em and leave ‘em”, & “stay and pay”.


The “love em and leave em” strategy is usually associated with “alpha males”. Their competence at life is directly implied through their looks, physique and behaviour. They look like they can naturally take care of business a get shit done.


A woman would be crazy not to want to get a hold of these genes for her future offspring. Even if it means risking being abandoned by the alpha.


But they’ll take this risk because, if they can somehow nail this alpha down by getting themselves pregnant with his kids and then convince him to stay to help her look after them, she has gained an extremely powerful ally against the world.


That’s why girls will go for the jerks and the assholes. She thinks that if she can tame one of these jerks, she gets to eat her cake and have it too! It’s worth the risk.


But thinking that a jerk is an alpha because of the guy's behaviour is a common mistake that women make. And we’ll get into this later…


For the most part, however, they’re usually unable to lock one of these guys down. That’s when they decide it’s a lost cause and “settle” for the easier to manage “beta”. The guy who worships them.


So, conversely, the “stay and pay” strategy is usually associated with betas. And it’s what our western, society pushes with it’s Christian based ethics. One woman for one man. That’s how you maintain order. And this idea has worked quite well so far in our society. For the most part.


Using religious beliefs as a vehicle to suppress men and women's natural sexual strategies and encourage self-control, women are taught, from an early age, to save themselves for one guy. And to find a man who will be a “good servant to his family”. It’s all about discipline, self-sacrifice and abstinence, for the sake of the population as a whole. And, while I’m completely not religious, I can certainly appreciate the benefits of this line of thinking from a purely academic level.


But you’re not automatically beta because you’ve capitulated to the predominately female sexual strategy of wanting to nest. An alpha guy can get married. But he leads his family. He doesn’t become some dutiful plow-horse who just brings home the bacon at the end of the workday and allows himself to be treated like a second class citizen in his own home.


So that’s just a couple of common misconceptions regarding alphas all being jerks and betas all being married.


But, one of the main things I want to address is whether or not alpha and beta behaviour is context-dependent.


I know I’m going to meet some resistance here because a lot of the red-pilled community believe it is, but it’s not context-dependent. And I’ll explain why.


Let’s say, for example, the college football team captain decides he wants to learn how to play dungeons and dragons and joins a guild (or whatever they’re called), he’s obviously not going to start off being the top-ranking guy there. And therefore some may argue that because of this, being alpha is context-dependent.


But, if this guy was truly alpha and his own mental point of origin, he’s going to have a fierce competitive streak and likely to do what it takes to become the alpha in any group that he chooses to participate in.


So, he’ll become the biggest geek and the most knowledgable guy at the table over time. He’ll just become better than everyone else around him at playing dungeons and dragons.


It might take him some time to get there, but he’ll get there.


Because “alpha means “first” – think of it as a colloquial term used to describe holding your own frame. It’s a mindset the alpha guy naturally has. He’s used to getting his way and he’ll do whatever he needs to do to get his way.


Yes, there’s an arrogance about him. But this arrogance is tempered by the need for diplomacy.


If a guy is used to holding his own frame and getting his own way, he will figure out how to do it diplomatically. Because you can only keep having your way if the people around you don’t rise up and stop you.


So, even when he is practising empathy or diplomacy amongst his group, it is done to maintain his position at the top of the group. Therefore he’s maintaining his frame. Keeping himself as his own mental point of origin actually benefits those around him.


And practising diplomacy doesn’t mean you’re a pushover. Quite the opposite. It means you have the intelligence to win people over to your side while still maintaining order. Having to resort to violence to get your way is merely a just breakdown in diplomacy, and is likely to get you killed or ousted from your position as leader.


A true alpha male needs to have the capacity and potential to commit violence, but have the intelligence for diplomacy.


To my mind, a good example of a true alpha is Arnold Schwarzenegger. The dude went from being at the top of the bodybuilding hierarchy to one of the biggest movie stars in history, to be the governor of California.


And what about actor Paul Newman? He went on to become an accomplished racing driver and founded the famous Newman/Haas racing team.


These guys are natural alphas. They’re guys other men choose to lead them.


So maybe some of you out there are asking “But what about those guys like Mac Miller, who was banging Ariana Grande. Or Vince Neil from Motley Crue?”


“They had girls beating down their door to fuck them. They must be alpha too, even though they’re weedy skinny guys with drug problems and histories of assaulting women”.


“Doesn’t that just mean you have to not give a shit and be rebellious to be alpha?


Well no.


"Surely, because these guys had a high sexual market value, that would presumably automatically make them alpha right?"


But they’re only considered alpha because women are mistakenly reading some of the behaviours they are exhibiting as alpha. Not because they are actually alpha dudes.


Sure Mac Miller (R.I.P.) had an air of not giving a shit, so there was obviously a rebellious quality about him that was appealing, and I’m sure he wasn’t boring to be around. He was also famous in his chosen field. But I think his air of not giving a shit came from a lack of self-esteem rather than an abundance of self-esteem.


The same with Vince Neil. Yes, he puts on a good show at being alpha, and in his hayday girls were literally lining up outside his door to fuck him. But he’s been charged multiple times with assault and there’s the impression that he just doesn’t have his shit together.


So yeah these guys, in my view, aren’t alphas at all, despite their attractiveness to women, but are in fact, aggressive beta males. And they can look very similar and emulate some of the behaviours of true alphas. Which is why women mistake them for alphas.


As I said before. It’s not about being the biggest and baddest dude in the group who just does his own thing at the detriment of his society. Being an arsehole gets you killed in the wild.


It’s your ability to navigate the complexities of social dynamics, along with being physically imposing enough to deter challengers, while being smart enough to keep these challengers happy with you being their leader, that keeps you at the top of the social hierarchy.


It’s about benevolence, not malevolence.


So, if this is all starting to sound confusing again, consider this;


Alphas lead, and betas follow. A good question to ask yourself, with any guy to determine if they are truly alpha, is would I elect this guy to lead me through life?


For me personally, in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, absolutely!


For Vince Neil, absolutely not!


I think there are some in the manosphere who define the term alpha as “having high sexual market value” and that’s it, that’s as far as it goes.


But a true alpha not only naturally has a high sexual market value, they are also elected by others to lead, because they are the most competent in the group at most if not all aspects of living, not just one or two aspects.


And that’s what separates the real alphas from the pretenders.

50 views0 comments