Misuse of terms like "alpha"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Misuse of terms like "alpha"

fschmidt
Administrator
Below is a post I made on the old MGTOW forum which is now gone.


All of you in the PUA community have been grossly misusing the terms "alpha", "beta", and "omega".  These terms have real scientific meaning that refers to the status of males in relation to other males.  It has nothing to do with the opinion of females, but male status usually does imply certain mating rights and mating strategies.  This is best understood by reading Jane Goodall's books on chimpanzee behavior.  Human behavior is very similar to chimp behavior, and it is easier to view these issues objectively by looking at another species.

Among chimps, the alpha male is dominant and has mating rights with any female he chooses, whether she approves or not.  Betas have similar rights as long the alpha and other betas don't object.  Omegas have no mating rights at all.  So how do they reproduce?  They are forced to use the miserable procedure of having to seduce females to get sex.  Unlike alphas and betas, omegas must be skilled at the art of seduction.  Females will only mate with them when they prove their seductive skills.

So all these PUAs are pure omega.  Why do they call themselves "alpha"?  Because lying is what they do best.  Being a successful omega is all about falsely puffing up one's chest.  But in reality they are the very lowest of men.  Bonecrker explains it well:
“Badboys” are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid.

Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around.

The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male’s gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on, in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him.
http://fedrz.wordpress.com/the-book-of-bonecrker/

So what is happening now in the femisphere?  Simple, the alphas and betas have lost control, and omegas and women are running things.  The usual mating rights assigned to higher males has been thrown out.  All that is left is seduction, and here omegas rule.  Alphas and betas have no seduction talent because their ancestors never had a need for it.  By impressing other men, alphas and betas of the past simply won mating rights.  Women were pressured to marry these men, and the enforcement of marriage meant that women had to consider more than seduction skills when judging a partner.  In strong societies, omegas were the sexual losers because alphas and betas enforced rules against seduction, rendering it useless as a sexual tool.  We are in the opposite situation today.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

Drealm
How does size factor into these terms? Size certainly gives men status in relation to each other. Most fortune 500 CEO's all happen to be tall muscular men.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

fschmidt
Administrator
I don't know.  Being tall may correlate somewhat with being alpha, but height probably doesn't differ in the other categories.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

Ardia
Wrong.
Size (height) is a main determining factor for just about everything, in any category, however classified.
If Omegas rules - why didn't I see any short players with lots of women when I was 17? All the "Omegas" with different girls all the time were at least 5'10, usually 6'0+.

Instinct. And a case of those who have it - assume its not that important. Kind of like a woman saying "Be positive" or "Be yourself" as dating advice.

Freely carrying weapons mitigates this a little, and is an absolute minimal, but on a day to day basis - not much. Which is why I dont invest in life much - Ill be screwed over no matter what - so I dont bother.

My father worked his ass off for 20 years. One of the chief directors of a major airline in the Middle East freely admits that he learned all he knows from him. But hes just a middle manager of sorts (due to his ethnicity of course), but just as much, if not more so, his height.

And why posts like this you made are more wrong than right.

And also why I think multiracial societies will lead to war or other not so pleasant stuff rather than race mixing. Whats in the brain doesn't matter nearly as much as the genetics of whats in the body.

Ive said it before - I have a 5'9 chinese friend whos probably 110-120 lbs. I might be able to probably take him. But hes never belittled. I usually am. Height usually even trumps strength.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

fschmidt
Administrator
Ardia wrote
Wrong.
Size (height) is a main determining factor for just about everything, in any category, however classified.
If Omegas rules - why didn't I see any short players with lots of women when I was 17? All the "Omegas" with different girls all the time were at least 5'10, usually 6'0+.
Doesn't this support my point, that there are probably tall and short men in all categories except alpha?

I never said that height doesn't matter.  But it is just one of many factors that matter.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

Drealm
In reply to this post by fschmidt
I'm a bit confused then. The terms alpha, beta and omega are being identified according to two separate sets of criteria. One set of criteria is behavioral. The other is physical stature. If a man is exceptionally tall but behaves like a PUA omega, is he an alpha or an omega?

If physical stature is the greatest pre-requisite for being an alpha, this throws into question the viability of even being a beta. Under a criteria that was strictly based on stature, most people are born into their place and have no ability to change it. This offers less hope than a criteria based on behavior.

Second question. Is CoAlpha only a term that can be applied to men cooperating in a collective? Because it seems a Co "Alphas" are merely a group of "betas" who've become smart enough overthrow an alpha and operate on a more egalitarian level.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

fschmidt
Administrator
The technical definition of these terms refer to positions in the male hierarchy, not any intrinsic qualities of each male.  Of course certain qualities can predispose a male to certain positions.  Being tall may be helpful for an alpha.  Being loyal would be helpful to a beta or co-alpha.  And being a smooth talker would be helpful to an omega.  I made up the concept of co-alpha because the position of a group of males cooperatively dominating a group doesn't fit into any of the normal male hierarchy positions and is unique to humans.  But like the other terms, co-alpha is a position.  So men here in the CoAlpha Brotherhood are presumably men who are predisposed to the co-alpha position.  And since this position doesn't exist in our society, we need to create or find a subculture where it does exist so that we can occupy the position that we are best suited for.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

Ardia
In reply to this post by fschmidt
fschmidt wrote
Ardia wrote
Wrong.
Size (height) is a main determining factor for just about everything, in any category, however classified.
If Omegas rules - why didn't I see any short players with lots of women when I was 17? All the "Omegas" with different girls all the time were at least 5'10, usually 6'0+.
Doesn't this support my point, that there are probably tall and short men in all categories except alpha?

I never said that height doesn't matter.  But it is just one of many factors that matter.
No, it supports my point that physical factors matter much much more than any behavioral factors. After all, the men who are successful with women are supposed to be "Omegas" in modern culture, not "Alphas".

After all...

 
Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

Drealm
In reply to this post by fschmidt
So are "qualities" that predispose a male to certain positions behavioral or genetic?

This seems genetic:

fschmidt wrote
Being tall may be helpful for an alpha.
These look behavioral:

fschmidt wrote
Being loyal would be helpful to a beta or co-alpha.
 
fschmidt wrote
And being a smooth talker would be helpful to an omega.
I can't make myself "taller", short of cosmetic surgery. I can however choose how loyal or smooth of a talker I am.

I suspect even within many favorable religious cultures discussed here, there's men whom are of higher and lower positions within their community that are no different than alpha, beta, omega. Structured life styles may limit the disparity between these positions, so as to soften the blow for losers and not allow a winners to take all environment. But the natural order is still there all the same. The natural order will always rule supreme if genetic qualities like size, weight and height take precedence over behavioral qualities.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of terms like "alpha"

fschmidt
Administrator
All social categories are just groupings.  They aren't perfect.  There are always in-between cases.  But I think there is a fundamental difference between a leader of the people, by the people, for the people, and a tyrant with no limits.  The transition in our culture was gradual beginning with the Magna Carta.

I am reminded of Xenophon's Anabasis which describes his adventures as a Greek mercenary in Persia.  He fought for the king's brother who lost to the king and was killed.  The king then wanted to eliminate the mercenaries but they continued to defend themselves.  So the king called for a meeting with the leaders of the mercenaries, and when they met, the king killed the leaders.  The king just assumed that the mercenaries would disintegrate without their leaders.  This is what would happen in an alpha/beta army.  But the Greeks were co-alphas and they immediately elected new leaders, so they continued to defend themselves.

America today is in transition from a co-alpha society to something else.  The real power in America today rests with the financial elite, not with elected government.  One standard trait of a co-alpha society is trust between men and this clearly has been lost.

Even in a co-alpha group, some co-alphas will be more alpha and some will be more beta.  The more alpha ones will take leadership roles.  As I said, social categories aren't perfect.

The height issue probably matters most in a disintegrating culture where every man is for himself.  Just out of curiosity, I looked up the heights of American presidents which can be seen here.  Women got the vote at the 28th president.  What you can see from the graph is that the height of presidents varied much more before women got the vote than after.  In a more co-alpha society, one would expect height to matter less because trust would be valued more and intimidation would be valued less.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture