Who here is an alpha male?

[encode_decode]

If there is such a thing as an alpha male in human terms then it can not be so easily related to any other species. Humans are just that complex. We generally travel in more than one social circle and for this reason a man might be an alpha in one circle and not another. So no, you can not have a true alpha male in human terms. Therefore nobody here is an alpha male.

Given that we are usually involved in more than one social circle, it is also true to say that we are not pack animals. It might have been more correct and applicable in centuries past to apply alpha terminology to humans(although still very doubtful) but I would think that if evolution is fact then we have not been able to apply alpha status since the last stage or jump in evolution. One benefits from attempting a logical look at this very topic and applying some deeper thought.

It is worth pointing out however that women do tend to have preferences when it comes to males that include height and deep voices among other things and again I am speaking generally - this is like due to biological imperatives - however - the same can be said of men having preferences involving women and it is here that things get very complicated because what seems good to one individual can seem disastrous to another individual. If alpha males exist then it is also possible that the attributes that make up a definition of an alpha male change with time due to the fact that the structure of society changes with time.

It may be truer to say that humans are the alpha species even though humans are probably the only species that would waste their time on such debate for possibly millennia.



And so concludes my rant and two cents worth . . .

[Meno_]

let me add my particular view/spin on this topic.

In addition to the variability of belong- ing to certain groups, added dimensions can be particularized by the common understanding of the way wearing different hats has come to be understood in terms of limits to perceive the preception of inauthentic existence. To the more liberal experience, based on praxis rather then on practice, such limits may not be properly understood.

The political right may support the prior rather then the later point of view, reducing the problem three fold into preceptions~perceptions of a more significant approach below any arising arguments surrounding an anomoulus theory within the argument.

In fact , the liberal point of view is basically contradictory in essence, in that interpretation , because it legitemizes a de-differentiation of cognitive clarity for the sake of more general understood perception, based on more basic levels of understanding.
There is a problem with such understanding, most of which revolve around precieved assumptions which have no credible basis, as on such which relate to various levels of economic tie-ins.

However, such assumptions , candy wrapped by sophistry, have to be modified by the most finely calibrated methods, to coincide with the political reality of various affiliations based on simplified levels
social reality.

De-marginalizing social reality too brusqually may create an effect similar to a diver emerging from a depth not appreciated. It will come back with a vengeance. The alpha male will be resented with the same force that necessity of submerging in the first place.

The absolute corruption of power may only be held credible until it becomes obvious that the emperor really is wearing scanty or clothes , if that.

Then the bottom line is the morphing of the hero, to that of the antihero.

The idea that short term gains are worth such longer term reversals, then may be seen as an opportunity to gain time and needing a submerged hat , that is hoped to be forgotten.

[Silhouette]

We generally travel in more than one social circle and for this reason a man might be an alpha in one circle and not another. So no, you can not have a true alpha male in human terms. Therefore nobody here is an alpha male.

And what of the man who is an alpha in more than one circle - perhaps in very many circles? Do they not exist? Is it possible to be alpha in all social circles??

[Ecmandu]

We generally travel in more than one social circle and for this reason a man might be an alpha in one circle and not another. So no, you can not have a true alpha male in human terms. Therefore nobody here is an alpha male.

And what of the man who is an alpha in more than one circle - perhaps in very many circles? Do they not exist? Is it possible to be alpha in all social circles??

I thought about posting the same exact thing, but was otherwise distracted - glad someone else noticed it

[encode_decode]

Hello Meno_, I have spent some time thinking about what you have written here over the last several days. I wasn't certain whether I should respond at first. I think the concept of the alpha male can be extended beyond a political assessment and for that reason I am offering yet another twist.

I agree that there is a lack of consistency in the feeling of belonging to any given group. We humans do tend to spread our experience out to include many unrelated events in our lives. This leaves us not genuinely belonging to a style or period. It seems to me that this is part of the more liberal experience and in turn leads to some uneasiness in our life.

Furthermore it seems that humans have collectively corrupted the idea of what it means to be free on a few if not many unrelated levels. Humans seem to be on an everlasting search to reduce things to simpler methods of reasoning which lend a hand in removing the substance of reality and how complex that reality actually is. I think it is safe to say that humans do not want to embrace complexity.

I can see the pros and cons of all this - on one hand there is a certain amount of efficiency that can be gained for the human species and on the other hand I can see how this all leads to a destruction of the mental and physical environment that can be achieved.

There is obviously potential danger holding onto preconceptions that are automatically applied to a situation. A less than optimal outcome will present itself. I do believe that the concept of the alpha male is not standardized and that the modern discourse(2000 onward) involving this concept is a gross deviation from its original intention - much like comparing apples to oranges - certainly they are both roundish on the outside but they taste completely different.

I think that most humans despite their political leaning can fall prey to a too simplistic understanding of how hierarchies work. We often forget or fail to take into consideration the importance of the person at the bottom of the hierarchy for without the one at the bottom there is simply no top.

I think that the problem of asking "Who here is an alpha male?" comes down to the fact that you are asking an individual to identify themselves as something that they may not understand completely and that others might disagree with them on. If you are asking me whether I have come across any alpha males on this forum then my answer would be no. I see a few arrogant males - I see a few clueless males - I also see a number of reasonable males - indeed I see males that fit into different categories. What I do not see on this forum is a male that is being followed by the rest of this forum.

Despite this, a characterization to base an answer on was given in the OP - therefore it would seem that this post like my first in this thread is metamorphic.

In this soft new world I see a whole bunch of males who place themselves at the top by default and don't admit to the appreciation of the ideas of others. This is especially apparent in the keyboard warriors of the internet who never seem to band together to form a cohesive group with unified ideas.

Forgive me for saying that the current social reality seems more like white noise than anything resembling an organised reality. From the outside it is difficult to see any consistency. On the other hand who says that reality need be organised, structured and consistent to be reality.

Oh well - white noise on the surface seems consistent. Catch my drift?

[encode_decode]

Silhouette

To be fair, my post was not in-line with the original idea of this thread therefore I am limiting the way I answer you.

. . . nobody here is an alpha male.

I don't see anybody on ILP who the rest follow but then again we are not characterizing alpha-ness this way, are we? but instead we are doing it the following way:

Let's characterise an alpha male as:

• Arrogant,
• Self-centred,
• Uncaring,
• Unapologetic,
• Selfish,
• and fine with it.

Yes, I have seen a number of men on ILP like this - a number of them have posted on the same day too.
It would seem that we have more than one alpha male in the ILP group(circle).

And what of the man who is an alpha in more than one circle - perhaps in very many circles? Do they not exist? Is it possible to be alpha in all social circles??

On one hand: I suggest the man who is alpha in more than one circle is perhaps spreading himself too thin given what it would take to maintain all those many circles. I think conceptual alphas can exist in many circles but I don't think they are in the best position to lead each circle - speaking of the optimization of each circle. Is it possible to be alpha in all social circles?? I can not see how, have you met a man that is without any doubt, in this situation?

On the other hand: Sure, based on the characterization that you originally gave, a man can be an alpha in very many circles and even all of his social circles.

[lordoflight]

i am as alpha as it gets

[Mad Man P]

Let's characterise an alpha male as:
Arrogant,
Self-centred,
Uncaring,
Unapologetic,
Selfish,
and fine with it.

Let's not do something so confused.

An alpha in any species is defined by who the rest of the species will naturally defer to. If we wanted to conceptualize what makes an alpha we would examine what superior characteristics the identified alphas have in common...
If we find universals we could say those are the traits the species looks for in their alphas.

With humans our nature is obscured by nurture... We have learned values atop intrinsic ones, the line is blurred and we can't easily tell what's instinct vs indoctrination.
So we have to look cross culturally to see what universals remain when we correct for culture and socialization as best as we are able.

I have only been able to find 3 very broad universals for males
1. Power - Being a dangerous foe or rival
2. Wisdom - Comprehending people and the world
3. Charm - Being popular with members of the opposite sex

In that priority order.. and there seems to be only one disqualifier and that's being antisocial (tyrannical, egocentric, psychopathic etc)

That's what we look for, mind you.. so in a larger society where we don't all intermingle, it tends to be far easier to fool us by merely "appearing" as having those traits.
But even so, it's telling that those are the traits that are mimicked in such an attempt.

[Silhouette]

I have only been able to find 3 very broad universals for males
1. Power - Being a dangerous foe or rival
2. Wisdom - Comprehending people and the world
3. Charm - Being popular with members of the opposite sex

Not that I set up this thread 7-8 years ago in any serious capacity, but our lists differ in that my list was trait based. What traits (if any in particular) tend to lead to power, wisdom and charm?

And obviously my list was not a list of ideals, the intention was to stay away from what we think "ought" to result in alpha male status in favour of what actually does in practice whether we like it or not.

[A Shieldmaiden]

fuse wrote:

When I was in elementary school I was kind of like the leader of the pack among my friends. I remember doing what I wanted and making a lot of the decisions for the group. But I think I was also a fair leader.

Ever since my turbulent teen years, I've kind of been on my own. I'm social and I have good friends, but it doesn't compare to the kind of control and cohesion that I had with my earlier group of friends. I don't lead or take charge of other people mostly because I don't feel like dealing with it. I do my own thing and I gravitate towards people who are of a similar nature.

I respect lots of people for various things here and there, but getting lasting respect from me is not easily earned. When it is, however, I am extremely loyal.

So no, I'm not an alpha.

You sound the most closely related to an alpha male.

[Silhouette]

fuse wrote:

When I was in elementary school I was kind of like the leader of the pack among my friends. I remember doing what I wanted and making a lot of the decisions for the group. But I think I was also a fair leader.

Ever since my turbulent teen years, I've kind of been on my own. I'm social and I have good friends, but it doesn't compare to the kind of control and cohesion that I had with my earlier group of friends. I don't lead or take charge of other people mostly because I don't feel like dealing with it. I do my own thing and I gravitate towards people who are of a similar nature.

I respect lots of people for various things here and there, but getting lasting respect from me is not easily earned. When it is, however, I am extremely loyal.

So no, I'm not an alpha.

You sound the most closely related to an alpha male.

What traits are you identifying here?
Focusing on what you have bolded, I feel like I'm detecting (in order of appearance) apathy, independence, being discerning/discriminatory, being respectful & loyal. Overall, an attitude of conditional social strength with past experience in leadership, subsequently rejected.

Would you say these are the traits of an alpha male? Is there anything you'd add/take away?

[lordoflight]

fuse wrote:

When I was in elementary school I was kind of like the leader of the pack among my friends. I remember doing what I wanted and making a lot of the decisions for the group. But I think I was also a fair leader.

Ever since my turbulent teen years, I've kind of been on my own. I'm social and I have good friends, but it doesn't compare to the kind of control and cohesion that I had with my earlier group of friends. I don't lead or take charge of other people mostly because I don't feel like dealing with it. I do my own thing and I gravitate towards people who are of a similar nature.

I respect lots of people for various things here and there, but getting lasting respect from me is not easily earned. When it is, however, I am extremely loyal.

So no, I'm not an alpha.

You sound the most closely related to an alpha male.

When I was in school there were no leaders like that, just a guy who bullied people and molested me, I pretended not to like it but I did, the guy wasn't an adult but my age. The closest thing to a leader like you describe was this mongrel troll who, would go around making up fake and ludicrous stories all the time, usually stories about being a eunuch or getting a sex-change, eventually found out it was fake news though, but most popular guy in school actually.

[Mad Man P]

What traits (if any in particular) tend to lead to power, wisdom and charm?

Those are traits.. and what leads to them is valuing them enough to pursue them and it's always comparative, so if you lost the genetic lottery you may well just be screwed.

The one problem I have with my list is that it's not very precise... It's too broad and I wish I could narrow it down more precisely but when I try I run into trouble.

For example, shield was pointing out a show of independence and selectiveness... traditionally characteristics of someone with power.

So maybe "independence" is more precise than power...
But then I think if you're "independent" and selective out of necessity or fear, due to being a social reject or easily defeated by people's expectations of you... that just makes you sad and pathetic, not an alpha.

It always seems to default back to power...

[MagsJ]

When I was in school there were no leaders like that, just a guy who bullied people and molested me, I pretended not to like it but I did, the guy wasn't an adult but my age.

..and is it this incident that you have formed the basis of your whole entirety on? if so, is that a helpful thought to hold onto for all these years?

i am as alpha as it gets

What would you say the main traits that you exhibit are?

[Silhouette]

What traits (if any in particular) tend to lead to power, wisdom and charm?

Those are traits..

When I say traits, I mean in the psychological sense of dispositions. These can lead to power, wisdom and charm, for sure. You might even be able to say that someone has a wise or charming disposition, but even these seem to be a result of more fundamental "ways of being that you tend to demonstrate" i.e. traits. Power certainly isn't a disposition, but to clarify whether or not you consider the terminology debatable, I want to consider the kinds of more precise things that you mentioned you were running into trouble with - that's what makes it an interesting subject in my opinion: that it's troublesome.

Surely the reason it always seems to default back to power is that "alpha" is basically a rank of power by definition - it's a little tautological of an observation, but I guess not without value altogether.

For example, shield was pointing out a show of independence and selectiveness... traditionally characteristics of someone with power.

So maybe "independence" is more precise than power...

This is more like what I was after, but it seems strange to me to associate the kind of social dominance that defines an alpha with a trait that appears to counteract that. I see where it comes from: being able to dominate but not needing it or seeking it out. It results in a demonstration of lack of social weakness, which is essential to being dominant and is linked to what I identified as apathy. If independence is meant in this way, then sure - although like apathy it can also be indicative of social statuses that are very much not alpha-like - as you pointed out. That's not to say it can't be added to a list though.

[A Shieldmaiden]

Silhouette wrote:

Let's characterise an alpha male as:
Arrogant,
Self-centred,
Uncaring,
Unapologetic,
Selfish,
and fine with it.

The alpha male would exhibit a keen awareness of his surroundings and the people in it. He would be an observer rather than a charismatic charming male seducing every female. He has no concerns or necessity to prove anything, he may be a loner. The female who catches his attention is the one who stands apart, waiting for him to approach, he may feign disinterest in her, because he is the one in charge of the chase. He is a man of many thoughts, few words initially, he has a quiet personality, physical strength, but not necessarily in the conventional ideal, he may even be rather unattractive, but his intellectual prowess is strong, interesting. He is a man you are drawn to and the discerning female instinctively knows this man has much more to give and only a few are allowed through the portals of intimacy with this man.

Which reminds me of quote from Pride and Prejudice

“no one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved.” says Caroline Bingley

“All this she must possess,” added Darcy, “and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.” Mr. Darcy

“I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any.” Elizabeth Bennet

Alpha males are just as rare.

[Silhouette]

The alpha male would exhibit a keen awareness of his surroundings and the people in it. He would be an observer rather than a charismatic charming male seducing every female. He has no concerns or necessity to prove anything, he may be a loner. The female who catches his attention is the one who stands apart, waiting for him to approach, he may feign disinterest in her, because he is the one in charge of the chase. He is a man of many thoughts, few words initially, he has a quiet personality, physical strength, but not necessarily in the conventional ideal, he may even be rather unattractive, but his intellectual prowess is strong, interesting. He is a man you are drawn to and the discerning female instinctively knows this man has much more to give and only a few are allowed through the portals of intimacy with this man.

Have you just described your ideal man or the typical alpha male?
Or perhaps your description is indicative of an alpha by virtue of you being attracted to what you just described, and probably not being alone with your tastes, regardless of whether you were being objective or if there was a tainting element of subjectivity at play.

I'm somewhat reminded of the behaviour of a bull in a field of cows: the bull is an observing loner, needing to prove nothing, until he chooses a female who is standing apart and the deed happens.
A concern I have is that your description also matches that of a stalker or someone who has no social dominance and is thereby forced to be a loner. How much more common is it for the female to be repulsed by the "male gaze" of an observer than excited? Clearly it's not always "intellectual prowess" that clinches this reaction from a distance, and the ability to mimic intellectual prowess would be just as effective at first appearance.
Perhaps you are requiring first a social situation where a true show of intellect is able to be drawn out - but that won't happen if the person is a loner speaking few words due to his quiet personality even in a social situation.

In short it seems, at least from only a few readings through your words and without further elaboration from yourself, that you're describing an ideal that runs into problems when it comes to real situations, such as those I've just been hinting at.

What if the alpha type isn't your type?
It seems like the person who the most people want to be around is the one with the most stories, humour and comfort in his surroundings - they appear to be the ones who demonstrate being enjoyable to be around and command attention simply by expressing what they want to express. The loner doesn't prove any ability to be a good team-mate in a successful relationship in his silence, or directly any excitement or fun for something less long term. At least they can be more mysterious, proving a discerning taste that hints that they are much less likely to stray from somebody they finally find to be worthy - thus the indirect prospect of learning about them in itself can become exciting. But they aren't the ones who social situations revolve around. Group movements revolve around conversation, and people instinctively look to the person at the centre of that for decisions - presumably at least in part through the subconscious acceptance that everyone else is looking in that direction too. It's not so common for everyone to subsequently look to the loner for a final nod of approval or to offer an overriding, more appealing alternative like a mastermind. It's more likely for the mystique of someone of the type you describe to allow the female imagination to run riot and cause the adreneline to flow at the possibility of it all coming true, only to be broken if you actually engage with him. Sure it's possible for them to live up to your hopes, maybe to even surpass them, but that seems like the makings of an exciting romantic encounter more than contact with the alpha.

[Mad Man P]

Surely the reason it always seems to default back to power is that "alpha" is basically a rank of power by definition - it's a little tautological of an observation, but I guess not without value altogether.

Clearly the term "Power" isn't very good at getting the concept across... I'd be tempted to say the term "competence" is perhaps a safer way to express it, but not really...
You can be really competent at utterly useless things, which does nothing for you...
I think the most precise way I could get the concept across is to say the power earned or deserved through competence is the only power that counts.

That would mean being powerful because of who your daddy is should not be of any use when it comes to being an alpha... which I think holds true.

As for it being a tautology...
power does not automatically makes you an alpha... nor is being an alpha the only means of attaining power....

Hence the list and the disqualifier...

For example, shield was pointing out a show of independence and selectiveness... traditionally characteristics of someone with power.
So maybe "independence" is more precise than power...

This is more like what I was after, but it seems strange to me to associate the kind of social dominance that defines an alpha with a trait that appears to counteract that.

I ultimately don't think "independence" is a very good term for anything to do with humans... we're pack animals, we don't do "independence" very well.

It seems to me that we, unlike some animals, neither physically nor mentally "dominate" each other to attain Alpha status.
Our status comes from instilling others with confidence in our power/competence, wisdom, charm and lack of antisocial behavior... and when we face rivals we dominate in groups.
i.e. If I have the biggest gang win.

But we don't attain the biggest gang by being a domineering bully... we can afford to be a bully once we have the biggest gang... but that's not how we get the gang.

The various cultures have different rules about how you ought to conduct yourself...
The exact methods by which you can demonstrate power, wisdom, etc tends to be very different... hence why it's very difficult to nail it down to anything more specific.

[A Shieldmaiden]

"Alpha males are jerks, I can't stand how attracted to them I am".

[Silhouette]

Clearly the term "Power" isn't very good at getting the concept across... I'd be tempted to say the term "competence" is perhaps a safer way to express it, but not really...

Ah, so you meant power in that sense. I actually prefer using it in the way you intended, particularly in order to make the most sense of "Will to Power" but it's far more commonly used in the sense of "being in power" - having and using influence over people. So I assumed that, my bad.

I have no objections to competence as an indicator of alpha male status. As is a theme so far, all these things we can associate with an alpha can occur in others who are not alphas when there is a lack of other indicators as well. Perhaps this is inevitable. Also, as before, I don't really regard competence as a trait as it says nothing about the kind of behaviour that results in it, and that was what I was getting at in the OP.

I agree that while inherited power can put you in a position of social dominance, it is not sufficient to generate genuine respect by itself. Undeserved competence can though - whilst it may not show, breed or necessitate adaptable competence, it may engender sufficient respect at least in the short term.

As for it being a tautology...
power does not automatically makes you an alpha... nor is being an alpha the only means of attaining power....

True, indicating that alpha refers to specific types of power rather than power in general. Point conceded.

I ultimately don't think "independence" is a very good term for anything to do with humans... we're pack animals, we don't do "independence" very well.

Agreed, not personally but generally speaking.

It seems to me that we, unlike some animals, neither physically nor mentally "dominate" each other to attain Alpha status.
Our status comes from instilling others with confidence in our power/competence, wisdom, charm and lack of antisocial behavior... and when we face rivals we dominate in groups.
i.e. If I have the biggest gang win.

But we don't attain the biggest gang by being a domineering bully... we can afford to be a bully once we have the biggest gang... but that's not how we get the gang.

The various cultures have different rules about how you ought to conduct yourself...
The exact methods by which you can demonstrate power, wisdom, etc tends to be very different... hence why it's very difficult to nail it down to anything more specific.

We don't dominate each other physically - there can be a physicality in play fighting, but this is much more important to other species than us, at least in our adult stages.
Mental domination is far more appropriate, but again, neither necessary nor applicable in all ways or to all extents. As you say, various cultures have different rules, and an adaptability and tempered use of mental domination to a sufficient degree of competence sees the most success in attaining alpha status.

But even more than this, I judge experiential dominance and dominance in humour (the ability to engage the imagination and to alleviate stress respectively) to be the primary arena of dominance - which we certainly do indulge in even as humans. Intellectual dominance serves as a reliable accompaniment to bolster this, and even a little physicality can accentuate it. Our social quarrels, both individual and in groups rarely come to blows except in less civilised parts of society. Humour, experience, enhanced by intellect and supported by physicality is what wins.

Again, as you say, there are cultural variations, but I think the above pattern has the widest applicability. I would add in a sense of socially consensual justice and we have the charming, social, wise and powerful/competent alpha male.

Returning to my original trait list though, I think a good measure of alpha status is the degree to which you can get away with exhibiting those traits. Strength is best communicated through excess and challenging ideals such as we have laid out. The ideals cover merely the indicators, but not so much the specific behavioural traits that are seen in practice.

[Artimas]

I wanna see where this goes.
Sorry for the exclusion, ladies

Let's characterise an alpha male as:
Arrogant,
Self-centred,
Uncaring,
Unapologetic,
Selfish,
and fine with it.

I reckon this sums me up pretty well, any other takers?

Being a leader is actually opposite of that which is stated. Look at wolf packs as the best example.
Sounds more like a lion in a pride than an alpha which is associated with wolves.

“The lion and tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf does not participate in the circus.”

[Artimas]

This is an accurate depiction.