[party1981]

I think the obsession is based on the simple fact that (in my view) the alpha/beta distinction is the most powerful and helpful distinction to explain what women want and don't want.

It simplifies something (women's preferences) that otherwise seems hopelessly complex.

[TheFinalEpic]

(07-04-2014 04:25 PM)party1981 Wrote:  

I think the obsession is based on the simple fact that (in my view) the alpha/beta distinction is the most powerful and helpful distinction to explain what women want and don't want.

It simplifies something (women's preferences) that otherwise seems hopelessly complex.

It doesn't however. Women, at different points in their cycle, prefer different traits in men. Women on birth control also prefer a different type of man than they would naturally without hormonal change. Being an alpha is a way to dominate all women, and receive easy sex from those that have the higher sex drives. Being a provider gets a certain type of girl as well. But in that relationship, the man has to also take a lead. There will never be a one fix fits all women kind of thing. Sure we can make generalizations, but they aren't correct in many cases.

[arribaperro]

(07-04-2014 04:18 PM)Ice Wrote:  

If that guy has supreme self-confidence and really is alpha, then he should be getting pussy. There is no reason why he shouldn't. Because he's poor? I think that doesn't really play much of a role in the West.

The poor self-confident guy can only work his game until he hits his own SMV peak. I had a friend exactly like that. He was considered handsome by women, he worked out a lot thus was somewhat ripped, and he was a smooth talker. He didn't have much money, but he always conveyed confidence in his abilities and spoke intelligently to women. He bedded over 100 women up to age 30. However, he confided to me that he knows he was gaining some weight, losing hair, and didn't look as young as he once was, and he needed to increase his wealth to maintain the same quality of women.

I agree with you that wealth is having less draw toward women, and that's due to well-known factors of women themselves gaining education, careers, and their own wealth, thus they have become even choosier. So, to score pretty women one would have to migrate down the social ladder.

I know RVF forum says that every year there are thousands of new 18 year or 21 year old chicks. Now older women can say the same thing about new 18 or 21 year old men every year. Recently Jennifer Lopez just dumped Casper Smart.

[Ice]

(07-04-2014 04:45 PM)arribaperro Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 04:18 PM)Ice Wrote:  

If that guy has supreme self-confidence and really is alpha, then he should be getting pussy. There is no reason why he shouldn't. Because he's poor? I think that doesn't really play much of a role in the West.

The poor self-confident guy can only work his game until he hits his own SMV peak. I had a friend exactly like that. He was considered handsome by women, he worked out a lot thus was somewhat ripped, and he was a smooth talker. He didn't have much money, but he always conveyed confidence in his abilities and spoke intelligently to women. He bedded over 100 women up to age 30. However, he confided to me that he knows he was gaining some weight, losing hair, and didn't look as young as he once was, and he needed to increase his wealth to maintain the same quality of women.

Yeah but I think alpha should transcend looks. At its core, alpha is not about being handsome and ripped.

I think it's more a mental state and how one interacts with women and dominates social interactions.

But I agree that part of being alpha is also having an innate drive to achieve things. That doesn't necessarily need to translate to money, it could also be (micro-)fame or social connections.

[Ice]

(07-04-2014 04:45 PM)arribaperro Wrote:  

[quote='Ice' pid='771783' dateline='1404508710']

I know RVF forum says that every year there are thousands of new 18 year or 21 year old chicks. Now older women can say the same thing about new 18 or 21 year old men every year. Recently Jennifer Lopez just dumped Casper Smart.

Yeah but I think women generally don't really feel that great about hanging out with guys who are 20 years younger. Some do, but I think that's a minority. Or then it's young guys who are also famous - for example, Jennifer Lopez I guess would be dating a successful young singer or actor etc. But dating a guy just because he is young and looks good is something that only few older women actually do / want in my opinion.

[Mister X]

(07-04-2014 03:29 PM)arribaperro Wrote:  

So can a guy with supreme self-confidence and won't take shit from anybody, but is poor as a homeless guy and gets no pussy be an alpha male? Most people judge others by results, not by how he thinks about himself. If an athlete thinks he should belong in the Olympics, but he cannot run or swim fast enough, then obviously he is not an Olympic caliber athlete.

The concept of manhood as I believe it to be is way, way more complex than this issue. I don't think a guy with supreme confidence and "won't take shit from anybody," is necessarily masculine. Part of being a man is knowing when to not take shit, and when to take it. Example, if you're a father of two and your wife is a stay at home mom, your entire family is counting on your paycheck to survive. You may work for a dick boss, and there may be times you want to tell him off, or just up and walk out of the job -- but you have 3 other people depending on you. Being responsible and considerate, and having the restraint not to punch your boss in the face takes discipline and maturity, the markings of a real man.

Quote:

Another example. Say there's a prince born who is small in stature, shy, and has no confidence. Yes, we could call him a beta. But does it even matter when he has the kingdom's wealth, the power of his military, and the ability to order any woman to join his harem? Does it matter if he's a physical and mental beta? And the alpha warrior that was just sent to a far away dangerous mission to his doom. Does it matter he's an alpha? Who got to bang the babes and reproduce? Only results matter.

I measure a man by who he is, not what he has. To me, if you're a lady killer -- if you're good at getting pussy, congratulations. You are good at getting pussy. Does that make you more or less of a man? I don't think so. I don't think it changes anything. You can be, like a mentioned before, a pussy who happens to get women, or a man who happens to get women. Getting pussy doesn't change it one way or the other. If you've got a lot of money, awesome, you tirelessly worked your way up the ladder to be in a position of power? Awesome. But you can still be a pussy.

We say, well, confidence is the mark of a true man, a true "alpha," but that's only a small part of it. That's one thing of many. There are a lot of things that go into being a man, many of which are not talked about on here. The purpose of this site and many like it is to get guys who aren't good with girls, good with girls. Sadly, some fall into the trap of trying to find themselves and who they are inside the vagina, and measure their self worth based on how much vagina they actually get.

Knowing how to treat a woman, knowing how to spark attraction in women is absolutely a masculine trait, but again, not the only thing.

For example, to me, men aren't afraid of getting dirty, they're also good with their hands. If you have a pretty boy who bangs a different girl every week, he's driving his pimped out ride and it catches a flat...and he has to call another friend to help him change the tire because he doesn't know how to do it, or because he's wearing nice clothes and doesn't want to get them, or his hands dirty -- is that guy a "man?" Is he alpha? Because he kills it with women? I don't think so. If you can't get down and dirty, if you don't at least make an attempt to take on physical tasks by yourself, you're not a man, in my eyes. Asking others for help when you're perfectly capable of doing something yourself, is the complete antithesis of what I believe a man to be. I don't care if he banged two girls in one day the week before.

Quote:

The only purpose of debating alpha vs. beta is to quickly illustrate certain principles for the final purpose of banging quality women. The rest is semantics.

Agreed.

[el mechanico]

Balance. Actual balance and no worry about getting hurt.

Start there.[/quote]

[Cattle Rustler]

(05-23-2014 08:56 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

What a waste of a 3 year account

He was on here for 3 years and most of his posts were negative, ie "don't use tinder, it won't work for you unless you have good looks". He could have used a lot of the material written in those 3 years but I guess you can't make a horse drink.

[eradicator]

(07-05-2014 03:50 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 08:56 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

What a waste of a 3 year account

He was on here for 3 years and most of his posts were negative, ie "don't use tinder, it won't work for you unless you have good looks". He could have used a lot of the material written in those 3 years but I guess you can't make a horse drink.

I somewhat afgree with him about tinder, but would rephrase to "tinder works best if you have amazing pix: e.g. If you are not great looking but you have amazing pix of you at the great wall, then a pic of you petting tigers in Bangkok, then at Machu Picchu. Then at the Eiffel Tower. Then maybe doing some extreme sport. Then you run youngblood game on them when the hotter chicks match with you.

[arribaperro]

I confused some concepts earlier within this thread.
In the animal kingdom, it's usually simplistic. The only SMV that matters is the alpha male because the beta males don't get to mate (usually).

SMV (alpha) = brute physical strength = dominance = owner of most resources

By definition, there are only a few alpha males, whereas most males are betas.

In the civilized human world, SMV is more evolved and complex, especially due to law and order, developed economy, feminism, and western monogamy. I know we have a generalized SMV chart, but in fact one's SMV is highly individualistic and comprised of a number of factors.

General SMV: Age only factor considered (more important for women than men)

Individual SMV = (1) Age + (2) Alpha/Beta gradient + (3) Attractiveness + (4) Economic Resources + (5) Social Status + (6) Power

(2) Alpha: combination of physical, mental, and communicated factors that confer dominance.

(3) Attractiveness: kind of overlaps with alpha, such as the physical trait of being tall, but should be its own component. A body's proportions, i.e. overall symmetry relating to golden ratio is important, but genetically determined. A prime part of physical attractiveness is determined by the appearance of one's Face ("look at that mug").

4, 5, and 6 are not exclusive concepts because they can, and often does, overlap.
Merely having large economic resources does not necessarily confer high social status or power (eg. drug addicted trust fund babies). Having high social status does not necessarily confer economic resources or power (eg. famous and broke celebrities). Having power does not necessarily translate into economic resources (eg. a lawmaker constrained by anti-bribery laws).

However, merely listing components of SMV is too simple a treatment of the subject.

[arribaperro]

The human male pecking order:

1) Alpha with high value
2) Beta with high value
3) Alpha with low value
4) Beta with low value

1 beating 2 is like saying Brad Pitt beating Bill Gates.
2 beats 3 when women want to settle down and get married.
3 beats 2 for short-term hook up sex.
4 is wanted by no women, except of equal or lower value.

[Moma]

(07-07-2014 09:11 AM)arribaperro Wrote:  

The human male pecking order:

1) Alpha with high value
2) Beta with high value
3) Alpha with low value
4) Beta with low value

1 beating 2 is like saying Brad Pitt beating Bill Gates.
2 beats 3 when women want to settle down and get married.
3 beats 2 for short-term hook up sex.
4 is wanted by no women, except of equal or lower value.

In terms of lots of sex for the man, which pecking order will gain the greatest yield? Not relationships to sport on the arm..but which male triggers off the likelihood of a lizard wanting to bang as a top priority?

Across all scales, is it Bill Gates in his prime or Brad Pitt?

[arribaperro]

(07-07-2014 09:34 AM)Moma Wrote:  

In terms of lots of sex for the man, which pecking order will gain the greatest yield? Not relationships to sport on the arm..but which male triggers off the likelihood of a lizard wanting to bang as a top priority?

Across all scales, is it Bill Gates in his prime or Brad Pitt?

I think Brad Pitt at age 40 or even 45 still beats Bill Gates at age 30.

BCTs will go for Betas with high value, and try to avoid Alphas with low value.

[Truth Teller]

Most of the alpha/beta stuff is mental masturbation. It's not a clear cut dichotomy in the least.

Honestly, I believe that it should be along the lines of attractive man vs. unattractive man. As I've said several times, while I think it can be a useful concept, it was introduced by Mystery, who didn't understand the science with the alpha vs. beta stuff.

[Moma]

(07-07-2014 09:55 AM)arribaperro Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:34 AM)Moma Wrote:  

In terms of lots of sex for the man, which pecking order will gain the greatest yield? Not relationships to sport on the arm..but which male triggers off the likelihood of a lizard wanting to bang as a top priority?

Across all scales, is it Bill Gates in his prime or Brad Pitt?

I think Brad Pitt at age 40 or even 45 still beats Bill Gates at age 30.

BCTs will go for Betas with high value, and try to avoid Alphas with low value.

So if you put them both on a beach in Indonesia with some tattered homeless shorts and let in a flood of different lizards of different races who don't know their fame, Brad will pull more for same night sex?

Also, we will remove the glasses from Bill...you still think Brad will beat him?

[heavy]

OP drives me nuts. Reminds me of the PC crowd. Best succinct answer:

(05-23-2014 10:20 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Those that whine about how this terminology is an "oversimplification" betray a complete misunderstanding of how language works when it's at its best.

Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason
Buzzwords become buzzwords for a reason

(07-07-2014 10:08 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Most of the alpha/beta stuff is mental masturbation. It's not a clear cut dichotomy in the least.

Honestly, I believe that it should be along the lines of attractive man vs. unattractive man. As I've said several times, while I think it can be a useful concept, it was introduced by Mystery, who didn't understand the science with the alpha vs. beta stuff.

So instead of Alpha vs beta, it should be attractive man vs unattractive man, with the same definition? Now that sounds like mental masturbation.