Who here thinks the Alpha/Beta Male theory is false?

Post Reply New Topic

So one of my friends, who knows all the tricks of the trade of being a pick-up artist...is standing very firm on his belief of the "Alpha/beta male" theory. One thing is that all animals in the wild, have alpha and beta males. "The alpha spreads his stronger genes while the weak ones die out." He said he was at the zoo and the alpha of the gorillas was having sex while the other "beta" males just sit back and watch. Not to mention that, but he also mentioned, "Women don't know what they want in relationships. They want a man to be dominant." I have seen this topic come up many times on forums. It seems there's two sides of what each gender "wants." Also I heard women are more interested in tone...but seriously, I did listen to his tips. But it's not me...haha...I wouldn't feel like myself.

I have heard of this theory, but from my standpoint, don't really believe in it much. The way I see it, is women, are attracted to all kinds of men. Some like macho men, some like intelligence, some like men that are laid-back. So in theory, if it were me (laid-back, mellow) and my friend (small scrawny guy who is tatted up) and the woman is more interested in a laid-back personality, I'd "win" the game, right? Not to mention, most people have standards.

We are humans, not dogs, not cats, not gorillas, not tigers chillin' in the jungle. So since our minds are so much more diverse, we would be "ahead" of this theory, then. (not to mention in 2014...there's so much more diversity than in 2000).

Why does science believe in this theory for humans?

Good question.

Human societies, like most other primate societies, are intensely hierarchical, so in that sense there are people who are higher and lower on the sh!theap, and males tend to be higher on it than females, although some females are higher on it than some males (other factors including wealth, attractiveness, physical ability, mental stability, ethnicity and so on). This is basic kyriarchy theory.

On the other hand, many of the behaviours espoused by pickup artists (a low breed of manipulative scum, IMV) will be seen as deeply misogynist by many women (certainly most of the women I have much respect for). That doesn't make those men alpha males, it makes them sexist, overbearing douchebags.

Most Aspies are pretty low down this pile, mostly because we have trouble reading social cues. A pickup artist is an **sehole, An Aspie pickup artist is an incompetent **sehole.

There are ways I can think of for an Aspie male to play the reproduction game. One is the assortative mating strategy - romantic involvement with females who, if they are not on the spectrum, may be less extroverted than the females chased by the **seholes. There is some evidence this is happening anyway. The other is to play to your strengths, such as intelligence and focus, rather than acting like a baboon.

Women are not attracted to pick up artists.

Teenage and early 20 something girls who haven't matured beyond their need to be swept off their feet by the captain of the football team are, which is why those stupid 'negs' and other PUA tricks ever work at all.

To make it more simple: A girl who falls for a PUA is a girl you don't need in your life.

competence and self-confidence are attractive; a patronizing attitude and 'god's gift to women' outlook are not.

Context matters, too; a guy who's out of his depth in a night club (the *worst* place to look for mates that can be imagined for aspires) might be confidently at home (and therefore more attractive) in a laboratory or a dojo.

False

Beta male gorillas get to have sex with females too.

Therefore, it's false.

I would suggest to your friend that he might actually want to pick up a book on the subject of primate mating behavior before making such statements.

It definitely exists, but it's not replaceable by learning PUA stuff - that's just fool's gold, you'll only be alpha to the naive.

A nicer way of putting the "Alpha/Beta" thing is calling it social intelligence, which includes charm, humour and self-confidence.

"Science" doesn't believe in alpha/beta designations for human beings. Those terms were developed from the study of social relationships in wolf packs and baboon troupes, and cannot adequately describe the more complex social dynamics of people. Writers for popular audiences started using them as a lazy shorthand for human heirarchies, which got picked up by the PUA fellows, but it's not science.

It's a giant steaming load of crap--even animal behavioral dynamics are context driven (especially when it comes to mating. Some animals have as many as five different roles in the reproductive process. Cute comic here .)

There are tons of animals where female animals are dominant in the relationship (the more aggressive partner), some with mpreg, lots with polygyny or polygamy, etc.

I think there's some merit to noticing that some people are more driven to control their environment/themselves (hi, there), which I think alpha, while crap, attempts to stand in for. However, as used, it is an overly simplistic and sh***y way to try to justify 'natural winners.' Interestingly, I mostly see it used by people who wouldn't fit their own category of alpha, in the context of justifying their perceived lack of success and/or lack of desire to compete directly in the same fashion. If it's a product of nature, after all, it's justified.

This is silly because evoking nature red in tooth and claw to describe an artificially produced system is a type mismatch.

I think I'm starting to notice a trend here. I'm noticing that too many people are dealing with labels in the PUA world. Bear with me as I try to explain this. I'm sorry if this sounds confusing as I'm adding some stuff I had written. When you have a GF, you need to find out what kind of crap PUA's might try.

Confident people with good manners are less likely to throw labels at people. They are more likely to refer to someone by name. It seems PUA's (when I have read some of their articles) love to throw the labels around stating that women judge and label as they feel like it.
Hell, I read one article where it suggested that if a man is talking to a girl alone and another guy approaches (dialog as followed) this is what you do (not word verbatim I might add, emphasis is somewhat mine)

Random guy: Hey there, Nice shoes. Where did you get them?
PUA: Thanks. (turns to girl). Sorry about that. Would you like to grab a drink?

Then the guy would indicate that this is supposed to tell the girl that the guy interupting is socially awkward and has bad manners. It should also tell the girl that you are confident and high on self respect. What you may not know is that this is guiding people on how to deal with what he calls "potential cockblockers" (he says the guy asking him that question may potentially be trying to throw you off your game. One article even stated that men at bars are like "Sharks looking for the blood in the water." I remember during one Pub night meetup that one guy backed off my GF when I interrupted the conversation, yet he was watching us the whole night after to try and see if I was kidding or not) Google "dealing with cockblocks" and you may find some interesting PUA articles.

It's the PUA way or the highway as these guys like to convince themselves and others. But in all fairness, these guides were meant for people who are naturally playful or physical in how they flirt with others (and potentially Traditional as well). Not sure if the people writing these guides even realize it.

I believe that there is such a thing as alpha males, beta males and so on among humans. With that being said, I doubt that the main reason why some people here do not get laid is because they're not "alpha enough" (unless they're chasing after alpha females, that is).