[Ice]

(03-22-2014 12:19 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

Westcoast is dropping gold all over this thread.

Alpha is contextual. As I see it, most guys find their "thing" at a young age and do that at the expense of other areas - the jocks stick to sports and the nerds stick to the books. This is probably instinctual as our ancestors tended to focus on what they excelled at to survive. There is no point being a warrior if you are weak or an accountant if you are illiterate.

But nowadays you don't need to choose. I'd much rather be an all-rounder. Make money, get in great shape, learn to fight, dress well, have social skills, speak half a dozen languages. I want to be as alpha as I can in all of these areas. This puts me ahead of 90% of the male population.

Obviously it is good to know your strengths but you don't want to rely on any one thing. Rather than relying on your straight right, you want to attack life with a mix of blows.

Yes, I agree, nowadays one can - and should - be well-rounded, although with a "spike" in skills in one's special area of expertise.

But as I said before, I think just because you're good at something that doesn't make you alpha. That's just my personal opinion though. If you dress well, for example, that's great, but it doesn't really have anything to do with being alpha. There are a lot of metrosexual pussy boys who dress sharp, but who are pretty weak-willed and effeminate. But as was discussed above, if you define alpha as just being "best in class" then you can call anybody who is good at something "alpha" in that specific filed.

[anonymous123]

Ahem, ahem! Excuse me. There are some really hot gold diggers out there gentleman!

You just need to know how to get in and out! Like snatching a big piece of salmon from a bear trap! It can be done.

[Seaver]

(03-21-2014 11:18 AM)Ice Wrote:  

Well, I wouldn't necessarily define success in the corporate world as the litmus test for being alpha ..

But again, I think it depends on the specific environment. I have been in professional environments where it was pretty obvious that the guys(s) running the company just tried to gather weak-willed individuals around themselves so that they can feel superior and powerful. But needless to say that companies like that tend to not be very successful.

But not all companies are like that, of course.

Being stronger than those around you is pretty much the exact definition so I don't see your point.

alpha - adj - being the most dominant, powerful, or assertive person in a particular group.

[UrbanNerd]

(03-22-2014 01:01 PM)anonymous123 Wrote:  

Ahem, ahem! Excuse me. There are some really hot gold diggers out there gentleman!

You just need to know how to get in and out! Like snatching a big piece of salmon from a bear trap! It can be done.

Exactly! All you have to is make the gold diggers THINK they are getting something. Sure you make get dumped later but you have already banged.

[Ice]

(03-25-2014 06:36 PM)Seaver Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 11:18 AM)Ice Wrote:  

Well, I wouldn't necessarily define success in the corporate world as the litmus test for being alpha ..

But again, I think it depends on the specific environment. I have been in professional environments where it was pretty obvious that the guys(s) running the company just tried to gather weak-willed individuals around themselves so that they can feel superior and powerful. But needless to say that companies like that tend to not be very successful.

But not all companies are like that, of course.

Being stronger than those around you is pretty much the exact definition so I don't see your point.

alpha - adj - being the most dominant, powerful, or assertive person in a particular group.

Dude ..

thanks for the definition of alpha - I didn't know that.

1.) The guys at the company weren't necessarily very alpha themselves, the they just wanted to be surrounded by people who were weaker than themselves - that doesn't necessarily speak for their alpha-ness. To the contrary, it shows a lack of self-esteem and a lack of the ability to lead strong-willed individuals based on one's natural dominance.

2.) The guys didn't "climb the ladder" in a corporate setting, but started their own company. So the example above doesn't say anything about being alpha in corporate environment or succeeding in a corporate environment with regard to the guys running the company.

3.) Even if they had been "alpha", the question remains what to do if you're alpha yourself - I am definitely not weak-willed and pussy-ish, so clearly I was in the wrong spot in that company, as I didn't fit in with the pussy boys that those guys gathered around themselves.

[Seaver]

(03-26-2014 02:47 PM)Ice Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 06:36 PM)Seaver Wrote:  

Being stronger than those around you is pretty much the exact definition so I don't see your point.

alpha - adj - being the most dominant, powerful, or assertive person in a particular group.

Dude ..

thanks for the definition of alpha - I didn't know that.

1.) The guys at the company weren't necessarily very alpha themselves, the they just wanted to be surrounded by people who were weaker than themselves - that doesn't necessarily speak for their alpha-ness. To the contrary, it shows a lack of self-esteem and a lack of the ability to lead strong-willed individuals based on one's natural dominance.

2.) The guys didn't "climb the ladder" in a corporate setting, but started their own company. So the example above doesn't say anything about being alpha in corporate environment or succeeding in a corporate environment with regard to the guys running the company.

3.) Even if they had been "alpha", the question remains what to do if you're alpha yourself - I am definitely not weak-willed and pussy-ish, so clearly I was in the wrong spot in that company, as I didn't fit in with the pussy boys that those guys gathered around themselves.

Sure it does, a corporation is a particular group.

They started a company (pretty alpha) that generates your paychecks (again pretty alpha).

Also, consider that avoiding competition is something that happens all the time.

Do you only go for the hardest women to pick up?
Do you never isolate them from cock blockers?

[Seaver]

(03-26-2014 02:47 PM)Ice Wrote:  

Dude ..

thanks for the definition of alpha - I didn't know that.

1.) The guys at the company weren't necessarily very alpha themselves, the they just wanted to be surrounded by people who were weaker than themselves - that doesn't necessarily speak for their alpha-ness. To the contrary, it shows a lack of self-esteem and a lack of the ability to lead strong-willed individuals based on one's natural dominance.

2.) The guys didn't "climb the ladder" in a corporate setting, but started their own company. So the example above doesn't say anything about being alpha in corporate environment or succeeding in a corporate environment with regard to the guys running the company.

3.) Even if they had been "alpha", the question remains what to do if you're alpha yourself - I am definitely not weak-willed and pussy-ish, so clearly I was in the wrong spot in that company, as I didn't fit in with the pussy boys that those guys gathered around themselves.

This looks like your judgement is off somewhere. You say they surround themselves with weak individuals. You claim to no be like that, but they did hire you.

So either you are wrong about your analysis of them or yourself. My opinion is you sound like you misjudged yourself, most likely b/c you have been a dominant person in other areas so you expect that to carry over in the same way.

It really sounds like you aren't a strong willed enough person to put your ego aside in the short term to learn from them or bide your time until you can make a move up the ladder in that type of environment.

[Ice]

(03-28-2014 07:24 PM)Seaver Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:47 PM)Ice Wrote:  

Dude ..

thanks for the definition of alpha - I didn't know that.

1.) The guys at the company weren't necessarily very alpha themselves, the they just wanted to be surrounded by people who were weaker than themselves - that doesn't necessarily speak for their alpha-ness. To the contrary, it shows a lack of self-esteem and a lack of the ability to lead strong-willed individuals based on one's natural dominance.

2.) The guys didn't "climb the ladder" in a corporate setting, but started their own company. So the example above doesn't say anything about being alpha in corporate environment or succeeding in a corporate environment with regard to the guys running the company.

3.) Even if they had been "alpha", the question remains what to do if you're alpha yourself - I am definitely not weak-willed and pussy-ish, so clearly I was in the wrong spot in that company, as I didn't fit in with the pussy boys that those guys gathered around themselves.

This looks like your judgement is off somewhere. You say they surround themselves with weak individuals. You claim to no be like that, but they did hire you.

So either you are wrong about your analysis of them or yourself. My opinion is you sound like you misjudged yourself, most likely b/c you have been a dominant person in other areas so you expect that to carry over in the same way.

It really sounds like you aren't a strong willed enough person to put your ego aside in the short term to learn from them or bide your time until you can make a move up the ladder in that type of environment.

Yeah look, it's too complicated to get into all the details. They hired me based on my previous work which other people have been very happy with. They thought that they can profit from my skill & knowledge - which they could. I did work there for a year or so, so I did stay at the company for a while.

But at the end it just became obvious that I didn't fit into the environment. There weren't any good possibilities to advance within the company either - it was a rather small company. The whole situation was exacerbated by the fact that the team was doing a lot of activities together outside of work. Oftentimes, the guys running the company were involved in these activities too.

At some point it just became too much for me. Fitting in in a work environment is one thing, but being expected to play that role outside of work at regular team events that's a whole another story.

But whatever, there are situations where one just doesn't fit in and that's ok - it doesn't make any sense trying to force it.

Even if you move up the ladder in that environment - so what? The situation won't change just because you moved one step up the career ladder.

[killongy]

Being alpha does not go hand in hand with a career....
That moment where Neo accepted the red pill , he accepted emancipation and the frugal life he did not accept the pill under a condition where he should be allowed to return to the matrix for the creature comforts and stability...


If at the end of the day you have to make someone richer before you get paid , have an ass crack scratching finger waved at you and even have someone dictating part of your time = part of your life...how can you be alpha?

A man that holds control over women but is afraid to control his life?
Where is the WIN in that type of lifestyle?

You go to the club score a lay feel alpha but the next morning you have to go work for some beta pussy whipped boss then again money has to be made and a man has to survive but if the job is more than a crutch to hold you while you prepare your ideas then a truly alpha lifestyle cant be lived.

Alpha in my definition is full emancipation.....Work , play , game under own rules , time and leisure

[Suits]

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

[killongy]

(03-29-2014 11:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

I have a slight dislike for the word "alpha" but that is the word that I see majority identify with so...

But I agree that is a much better question to ask yourself

[Suits]

(03-29-2014 12:18 PM)killongy Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

I have a slight dislike for the word "alpha" but that is the word that I see majority identify with so...

But I agree that is a much better question to ask yourself

If you forgo marriage and kids (until at least 35, but preferably never), you could work a "job" and still be a winner.

Even if you earn a "measly" 50K, without wife and kids, you should be able to live quite comfortably on 30K. If you start saving 20K per year at age 23 and do it till age 40, that's 654,003.21 in the bank assuming a 7% annual ROI. Then you move to Thailand, teaching English for the next ten years just to pay the bills and watch that money grow.

At fifty, you've got 1,314,324.99 in the bank, which means you have 90,002.75 per year ROI to do whatever you want with.

Working a job doesn't mean that you have to "lose" at life.

Simply by not marrying and getting jammed up with all the costs associated with children, you can put away a significant nest egg well before normal retirement age, if you live within your means.

[TonySandos]

(03-29-2014 12:18 PM)killongy Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

I have a slight dislike for the word "alpha" but that is the word that I see majority identify with so...

But I agree that is a much better question to ask yourself

This thread could've have been avoided entirely.

Instead of looking at all things through the scope of dividing what is alpha from what is not, it should be looked at for what it is. True sovereignty and success of a man is measured by his self guidance.

Instead of is it alpha, they should ask themselves;

-"Am I making good decisions for myself?"
-"My plans are well thought out, friction against them is trivial and just a challenge to surpass."
"Am I being a true leader?"

[killongy]

(03-29-2014 01:54 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 12:18 PM)killongy Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

I have a slight dislike for the word "alpha" but that is the word that I see majority identify with so...

But I agree that is a much better question to ask yourself

If you forgo marriage and kids (until at least 35, but preferably never), you could work a "job" and still be a winner.

Even if you earn a "measly" 50K, without wife and kids, you should be able to live quite comfortably on 30K. If you start saving 20K per year at age 23 and do it till age 40, that's 654,003.21 in the bank assuming a 7% annual ROI. Then you move to Thailand, teaching English for the next ten years just to pay the bills and watch that money grow.

At fifty, you've got 1,314,324.99 in the bank, which means you have 90,002.75 per year ROI to do whatever you want with.

Working a job doesn't mean that you have to "lose" at life.

Simply by not marrying and getting jammed up with all the costs associated with children, you can put away a significant nest egg well before normal retirement age, if you live within your means.

Well here is the thing I need wealth and I need it while I have the vigor and relative youth to enjoy it. I wont be satisfied with less than 40 mill at least and I would be a happy man with $70m in cash and NOT net worth. My attraction to money isnt for happiness but freedom , In my case freedom = happiness.

With that being said you should pick up that , this sum of money in most cases cant be earned making someone richer whilst you get paid after the juicy part is in your bosse's pockets.
Compound interest/ROI/ those things cant get me wealth in the now and I have no desire whatsoever to retire with a catheter shoved up my dick in some third world country I am already from a third world country and its only paradise to "tourists" and the "financial free"...Now I wont rule out retiring in my country just not under the circumstances of "retirement' defined by today's society, to me that is just too depressing.


Retirement while relatively young , with a nurturing non westernised woman , financially mobile and having logistics down pat ...now that is win.


Working a job is just not for me unless it contributes to my end goal.

[anonymous123]

Killongy - so, enlighten us how you plan to nail $40mm at a young age (you know, so you can barely scrape over the line to happiness).

Are you already at least making an attempt?

[killongy]

(03-29-2014 01:54 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 12:18 PM)killongy Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

I have a slight dislike for the word "alpha" but that is the word that I see majority identify with so...

But I agree that is a much better question to ask yourself

If you forgo marriage and kids (until at least 35, but preferably never), you could work a "job" and still be a winner.

Even if you earn a "measly" 50K, without wife and kids, you should be able to live quite comfortably on 30K. If you start saving 20K per year at age 23 and do it till age 40, that's 654,003.21 in the bank assuming a 7% annual ROI. Then you move to Thailand, teaching English for the next ten years just to pay the bills and watch that money grow.

At fifty, you've got 1,314,324.99 in the bank, which means you have 90,002.75 per year ROI to do whatever you want with.

Working a job doesn't mean that you have to "lose" at life.

Simply by not marrying and getting jammed up with all the costs associated with children, you can put away a significant nest egg well before normal retirement age, if you live within your means.

(03-29-2014 03:41 PM)anonymous123 Wrote:  

Killongy - so, enlighten us how you plan to nail $40mm at a young age (you know, so you can barely scrape over the line to happiness).

Are you already at least making an attempt?

My attempts at the moment are small but here they are so far.

I have stripped down my space and organized it , a bed , the internet and a printer.

Having the space organized and clean has helped in keeping a clear head. papers square with the desk , pens right where I need them and a filing cabinet I scored cheap.

After studying I spend 2 hrs researching (better an browsing Fagbook) the local interweb looking at complaints and how I can create a solution that will make people "here take my money".

Every idea I think of I make a powerpoint/MW/flowchart (still learning) document print it then make a business model and lastly I compress the all the complaints that lead to that idea in a file , print that as well and store it at back of the business model.

I have accepted a job at the local bar where some of the whales (financially successful men) usually have drinks and sneak away with bar girls.

So far I have have a couple meetings lined up and I have documents ready but most likely things wont pan out so I have prepared for the worst but pushing for the best although I am in the process of getting an NDA drafted or something.

There is much more I want to do but I dont have the skills at the moment to execute but I will learn them because right now its pretty much learn as I go.

[Suits]

Looks like a foolproof plan, killongy.

Best of luck.

[Ice]

(03-29-2014 02:46 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 12:18 PM)killongy Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  

"Is this alpha" is a bad question. "Am I winning" is the better question.

I have a slight dislike for the word "alpha" but that is the word that I see majority identify with so...

But I agree that is a much better question to ask yourself

This thread could've have been avoided entirely.

Instead of looking at all things through the scope of dividing what is alpha from what is not, it should be looked at for what it is. True sovereignty and success of a man is measured by his self guidance.

Instead of is it alpha, they should ask themselves;

-"Am I making good decisions for myself?"
-"My plans are well thought out, friction against them is trivial and just a challenge to surpass."
"Am I being a true leader?"

Yeah definitely, I see it the same way. It can be good to work at a company to learn skills and get experience - in that case one is still advancing one's own life. As was mentioned above, there are jobs where one can basically act as an entrepreneur within a company.

[Beyond Borders]

There are too many uses of the word "alpha" in this thread to take it seriously.

[Ice]

(03-30-2014 08:35 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

There are too many uses of the word "alpha" in this thread to take it seriously.

Yeah whatever, doesn't matter what you call it - fact is, there are some people who are more dominant than others and who can manipulate social situations to their advantage.

You can call those people alpha or something else. No need to get too hung up on a word or label.

[Beyond Borders]

(03-30-2014 11:11 AM)Ice Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:35 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

There are too many uses of the word "alpha" in this thread to take it seriously.

Yeah whatever, doesn't matter what you call it - fact is, there are some people who are more dominant than others and who can manipulate social situations to their advantage.

You can call those people alpha or something else. No need to get too hung up on a word or label.

I call your "whatever" and raise.

It's not just about it being a word or a label. When it comes to guys constantly wondering if their life choices are "alpha" or not, they are far from dominant-minded, in their life or in their mental frame. Self-employed or not. A guy in control of his own mind frame would not ask this question to begin with, in my honest opinion. He'd already know the answer.

Male dominance is not on some end-to-end spectrum where clean-cut answers are possible. It's far more complicated than that.

The fact that the word has been played out so much is a huge testament to how off-base many guys in our sub-culture are.

The criticism was not meant to be aimed at you specifically, but that's just my thinking on the subject. I'll try not to drag your thread too far off course.

[TonySandos]

(03-30-2014 03:27 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

"...guys constantly wondering if their life choices are "alpha" or not, they are far from dominant-minded, in their life or in their mental frame. Self-employed or not. A guy in control of his own mind frame would not ask this question to begin with, in my honest opinion. He'd already know the answer.

and that's pretty much the bottom line to this.

when I was growing up the adult men called it "letting your balls swing"

[Ice]

(03-30-2014 03:27 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 11:11 AM)Ice Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:35 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

There are too many uses of the word "alpha" in this thread to take it seriously.

Yeah whatever, doesn't matter what you call it - fact is, there are some people who are more dominant than others and who can manipulate social situations to their advantage.

You can call those people alpha or something else. No need to get too hung up on a word or label.

I call your "whatever" and raise.

It's not just about it being a word or a label. When it comes to guys constantly wondering if their life choices are "alpha" or not, they are far from dominant-minded, in their life or in their mental frame. Self-employed or not. A guy in control of his own mind frame would not ask this question to begin with, in my honest opinion. He'd already know the answer.

Male dominance is not on some end-to-end spectrum where clean-cut answers are possible. It's far more complicated than that.

The fact that the word has been played out so much is a huge testament to how off-base many guys in our sub-culture are.

The criticism was not meant to be aimed at you specifically, but that's just my thinking on the subject. I'll try not to drag your thread too far off course.

Yeah definitely, if one has to constantly ask oneself whether or not one's actions are "alpha" and second guess every move, that's a sign of weakness / insecurity.

But one can still think about the concept of alpha and how it manifests itself in one's daily life. Especially on this forum or in the "manosphere" (hate that name) in general where people are very analytical about social interactions. Maybe that's also because many people on these websites - I am guessing - haven't always been very dominant themselves, and only later in their lives became "red pill". At some point you internalise the mindset and behaviour, so you don't think about it anymore, but I think in the beginning for many people it's a process of consciously alpha-ing up.