House of Cards

house-of-cards

Rational Reader Martel (who’s blog I’ve only recently become aware of) trapes into the shark infested waters of the manosphere with another attempt at defining the elusively subjective definition of Alpha. It’s almost a red pill right of passage now; become Game-aware – offer self affirming definition of what makes himself a Man an Alpha.

Before I begin here, let me state emphatically that this is not a take-down piece. Martel’s observations here made me consider a few things I’me not sure I developed adequately when I wrote the Desire Dynamic.

Martel does make a good stab at the beast. Most anyone familiar with my reductionist approach to Alpha mojo knows I don’t mince semantics into the debate. Alpha is as Alpha does – as popular as Vox Day’s delineations of degrees of Alpha, beta, sigma, delta, omega, etc. are I’ve always held that Alpha is a mindset and not a demographic.

I do agree with Martel’s observations, I’m not sure he’s considered a few things in forming his Alpha perspective. I think one of the primary stumbling blocks Game-aware men have with regard to Alpha-ness is the disparity of defining it in male terms. When Martel uses Michael Jordan’s example as a male definition of Alpha, he’s disappointed that women don’t share that estimation. Rationally, logically, and certainly perceptively, men see and appreciate the accomplishment, status, talent and stature of Jordan. Why wouldn’t women see and appreciate the same?

Martel figures that it’s women’s innate solipsism and irrationality that makes them count Alberto Tomba as an athlete to be reckoned with (actually I was surprised it wasn’t David Beckham, but that Spice Girl in the picture ruins the fantasy I guess). However, it’s not solipsism or illogic that brings women to this, it’s that men have a different criteria amongst themselves for what makes a man an Alpha. It seems illogical, and yes I’m sure Tomba inspired tingles of imagined self-role fantasies, but the fundamental disconnect is the disparity in men’s ideal of Alpha and women’s perception of Alpha.

Relational Equity

One of the more rage inspiring posts I’ve ever published here was Hypergamy Doesn’t Care. It’s become a manosphere meme now. It was simplistic in its measure, and it struck a nerve. I got so much enthusiastic follow up on that post (thanks red pill reddit) I had to elaborate and explain the dynamic in greater detail with Relational Equity.

It is from the male concept of relational equity that much of what men determine as Alpha characteristics for men comes into conflict with what women perceive as Alpha. Martel’s male expectation was that Michael Jordan, or even one of his peers, would be the obvious athlete that either sex would agree upon as being an elite example. As men, we understand the dedication, determination and personal investment necessary to achieve this level of accomplishment.

Jordan’s is one extreme example, but in other arenas, and by order of degrees, men have an appreciation of  the achievements of other men – even if only because they have a common frame of reference. Those positive character attributes – determination, confidence, fidelity, humility, sacrifice, dedication, commitment, etc. – even in marginal degree, men believe should have Relational Equity. These virtues should be factors in attraction for a woman.

It seems logical and entirely rational that women would have the same appreciation for this equity, but time and again men’s expectations are trumped by women’s hypergamous response. From Relational Equity:

As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.

Women love opportunistically, men love idealistically. Much of men’s idealism is rooted in the mistaken notion that women have the capacity to appreciate their sacrifices and they’ll be loved for who they are rather than what they represent to women. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements for women. As Martel elucidates, a couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to pull tail despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate.

Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her husband because what he offers is attractive to her. This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

House of Cards

From Martie Hasslton on Sexual Pluralism and Mating Strategies:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

The vast majority of men (i.e. betas) fall into this latter category. One of the reasons the scattershot sexual strategy of more Alpha men is considered a social deviance (Playa’s) is because it’s in direct conflict with the socially normalized, investive mating efforts of beta men – as well as the maternalistic, security side of women’s sexual pluralism. Betas are invested in relational equity as a sexual strategy.

The problem inherent in this mental model is that it is entirely dependent upon maintaining that singular, personalized investment in their mate. The root of male providership, the personal sacrifices men endlessly expect themselves to make, are all contingencies against feminine hypergamy. Once those provisions and sacrifices falter, the house of cards risks collapse.

In the words of Chris Rock, “Men, if you lose your job, your woman will leave you. It might not be right then, she might tell you, ‘It’s OK baby we’re gonna get through this’, but just know, the clock is ticking.” This is the time you will hear “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” or “You’ve changed, you’re not the man I fell in love with.”

Men’s idealistic love expectations being to conflict with women’s opportunistic love expectations. His idealism predisposes him to believe the strength of his relationship is dependent upon his intrinsic qualities – fidelity, compassion, empathy, sacrifice, humor, determination, etc. – qualities he’s convinced make him Alpha and up to this point his wife or girlfriend claimed were appreciated. It’s only under conditions where he’s unable or less able to provide extrinsic resources, or conditions in which she (or women in general) can provide for themselves that feminine hypergamy takes mental precedence.

It’s at this point of disillusionment that these men realize that his self-perceived Alpha status, based on what he believed women, his woman, would appreciate, has no equity for her.

Genuine Desire

Martel continues:

Even if reliable beta-boy wasn’t as exciting as the greaser, there was a chance the reliable guy could get the girl. The tingle had to compete with her reputation, the chance of unwanted pregnancy, advice from her elders, her own moral code, and curfews.

She might want to bang the butler, but there was a chance she’d be faithful to her husband instead. There’s more at stake than women deciding who they want to boink, there’s also who they actually boink.

Genuine desire is a very difficult trail for most guys to follow. I emphasize the want part of Martel’s quote here because while hypergamy is often mitigated by personal and social elements, the underlying, ambient desire for a hypergamously optimal mate (or mating) is always the operative for women.

The problem with Martel’s assessment here is that it’s founded on a definition of Alpha rooted in an expectation of Relational Equity on a woman’s part. Intrinsic attributes, invested effort and extrinsic rewards will never be enough to make a woman desire to bang you. In various combinations they may be a sufficient buffer against her hypergamy, they may be endearing qualities she loves about you, but they aren’t sexy in and of themselves. She may not fuck the pool boy due to moral convictions, fear of loss, or simply because she lacks the capacity to attract him, but it wont stop her from wanting to.

There will come a point when a woman’s conditions will make her more dependent on a man’s intrinsic qualities. His empathy, love, loyalty and compassion makes a world of difference once she’s past the Wall.  As her ability to remain a sexual competitor diminishes, her dependency on her husband’s emotional and security provisioning takes precedence. This may even be a genuine appreciation for a woman, but it’s important to understand that this new appreciation is the result of her opportunistic understanding of love. At some point she will need to love these intrinsic qualities.


79 responses to “House of Cards

  • Falconer

    So much deliberation over what constitutes the Alpha…I say fuck it. You want to be Alpha? Ditch the provider traits and start living for yourself only. Get out of the 9 to 5, become location independent, make money for yourself. You see an attractive woman, seduce and desert. Rinse and repeat. Be nomadic. Be Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West. Know you will die someday and live accordingly. This is the only viable lifestyle for the 21st century man in a grim decaying society. You follow this path and the Alpha will come naturally.

  • Team-Red

    Can anyone give me advice on how to properly spin plates with women seriously seeking commitment? Every single one wants a serious relationship whereas I want to openly date and take things slow with my commitment to one woman. I online date and they all expect me to suddenly stop because of a few encounters. Then they get weird.

    [Plate Theory II, Non-Exclusivity]

  • Snoeperd

    I disagree with your dichotomy about how men love idealistically and women love opportunistically. Both sexes love opportunistically; ie if a suitable suitor comes up we will fuck them.
    Men just have a stronger developed sense of in-group (emphasis) justice that makes inter-male cooperation more productive. This fits nicely in with their evolutionary role as worker drones to protect and care for the bottlenecks in human reproduction

  • John Galt

    Martel – you just got called up to the Show.

  • Martel

    @ Galt: Too bad it’s because I’ve been misunderstood. Rollo and I are talking past and not to one another. When I have time a bit later I’ll explain.

    I agree with damn near everything Rollo says, I’m just taking it in a different direction.

    I appreciate the attention, though.

  • Dreamer

    In short is Alpha vs Beta is “Want versus Need”. I think it is pretty reasonable to say that every man want their the girl to want him rather than need him. “Love me for what I am” can be viewed in the same light, is it not?

    I think the whole commentary of nice guys, beta, providers, nerds and anything similar lines including negative associations of such categories goes to being the desired man. Lots of people wants have a nerdy nature defined as interests in certain subjects and line of thinking. Lots like some qualities of 9-5 work or just jobs that involves 9-5. Lots of people wants to be or are fathers and care for the kids. I think it is safe to say no one want to think that means falling into the category of the unwanted (unaroused) with only ability to compete is by need rather than desirable by possession of some quality.

    Despite the discussions by many bloggers, commentators, and posters of the state of mind, or personality traits, and/or behaviors. When one of the most prominent examples if Corey Worthington. It is hard to discern the mindset as an example to adopt but asks that the other qualities can really not come with it. People who are categorize as one of the listed above and yet holds as Alpha with the capital “A” defined by Martel seems to be rare if not incompatible and oxymoronic. Yet Corey Worthington Alpha are common enough to be conceptualized and discussed with anyone (in the Western world at least).

  • Kate

    “Can anyone give me advice on how to properly spin plates with women seriously seeking commitment? Every single one wants a serious relationship whereas I want to openly date and take things slow with my commitment to one woman. I online date and they all expect me to suddenly stop because of a few encounters. Then they get weird.”

    I have a thought. Have a conversation about your dating philosophy early on or include a reference to it in your profile to know if you have a compatible approach.

  • Revo Luzione

    Team-Red,

    This is a tough question. There is no single answer. Openness without excess transparency is the only across-the board recommendation I can make that seems to work with most women. My personal success with it has been to remain intellectually congruent by never promising commitment, and never bringing it up myself. If she brings it up, I address it curtly, but don’t belabor the point. It’s a shit test, like any other, and all the usual methods for obliterating those tests apply.

    It also helps to be very busy and engaged both socially and professionally, and to date others that have the same M.O. This ensures plausible deniability on any given night of the week for a new adventure.

    Remaining free of jealousy is also important. Women who know you’re spinning plates will attempt to date other men, if only for leverage. You must remain unmoved. This is massive frame control–you must own your frame at all costs. That can and will mean dropping some plates that don’t conform to your plate-spinning needs.

    Joking with women about your other girlfriends (or, less optimally, her other boyfriends) is a way to disclose the nature of the unfenced relationship without just dropping that bomb directly into the hamster wheel. It works much better that way, trust me.

    Some women will actually be OK with you seeing other people. Or, let me amend that. The more alpha you are, or the higher your SMV relative to hers, the more leeway you’re going to have to date other women. Put simply, spinning multiple plates and the soft harem are a very strong test of your game, charisma, and SMV.

    For me, spinning plates is not a strategy I forsee using forever. It is simply the best way I can build my SMV and sociosexual skills, while building my professional life. Eventually, I hope to find a woman worthy of the ultimate commitment, but if not, I’m happy with myself and my life the way it is, and I know I can sustain plate spinning for decades, if need be, though I hope that’s ultimately unnecessary.

    Good luck!

  • Jeff Thomas (@hey_wilber)

    “This may even be a genuine appreciation for a woman, but it’s important to understand that this new appreciation is the result of her opportunistic understanding of love. At some point she will need to love these intrinsic qualities.”

    Simply awesome, Rollo!

    This maybe sheds some light on a text message I received yesterday from a post-wall SM I’ve been dating…

    Her – “I just want you to know that I think you are such a wonderful dad. I love that about you. I wish my kids could have had a dad like you. You care so much about your boys & do so much for them. You need to know how rare & wonderful you are! Im so happy you are mine!”

    She sent this text almost an hour and a half after a conversation (The hamster never stops spinning) in which I was describing the situation my oldest son (25) is in right now with his current GF. I was telling her how I advised him to dump her fat ass, realize his true value, save his money and do his own thing. I was very up front and blunt about my (Red Pill) views on the male SMV and how he needs to NEXT the fat fucking harpy and get on with his life.

    I am not sure as to how genuine her appreciation is or if I just scared the fuck out of her?

  • Martel

    @Jeff “I am not sure as to how genuine her appreciation is or if I just scared the fuck out of her?”

    Same thing. Gratitude in the female mind is perpetually intertwined with the fear of loss. If she suspects she’ll always have it, she takes it for granted and there is no gratitude.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Martel, as I stated, this was in no way meant as a take down. In fact your post clarified for me the association of men’s expectations of Relational Equity and how it influences their concept of what Alpha is.

  • Vicomte

    Even a take down would amount to a knighthood in these parts.

  • DeNihilist

    Yup Rollo, where we live, how we have lived, our culture, our physical strengths/weaknesses, our view of the opposite sexes SMV, all determine alphaness. But anyone who is the same 24/7 is missing so much of life.

    As Ali said, “if at the age of 70, you are still thinking, feeling, living as you did at 20, you have missed life”

  • Martel

    @ Rollo: Considering I agree with damn near everything you said, I didn’t read it as a takedown.

    We’re arguing different principles. I don’t have the time to get into it in detail now, but you’re discussing one of the three essential foundational principles, and I’m arguing another. In short, you’re making an observational case, whereas mine is attitudinal.

    I’ve made this case in regarding other issues, and while it’s notoriously difficult to do in person, in writing it’s even harder. However, eventually my case does get made.

    Still, I thank you for the credit and the link, but more importantly I thank you for opening my eyes to so much of reality I would never have seen otherwise. I’ll prepare an in-depth response this evening.

  • meh

    No Money No Honey. Fuckem.

  • meh

    P.S. Jeff, you scared the fuck out of her. You should definitely go anal next time. Give her a three second warning to be nice.

  • The Shocker

    Team-Red: Same boat. IMO, most girls who are unattractive enough to where you aren’t interested in locking them down (or are online dating for that matter), have plenty of men around them who don’t see her as a worthwhile sexual investment and will tease or even be blunt about the limits of their interest, or communicate that other men’s interest will be limited as well. When you’re with someone you often treat them with sateen gloves, but other men don’t and if you level and say you’re not a match you’ll spike interest since it resonates as pure alpha- she’s ready for it trust me. If you want her as a backup then don’t say anything. It’s basic nature of man to only want someone really perfect or stimulating- i.e. love idealistically. Ignore what Kate said- head smacker to think woman doesn’t want man to position himself as a perfect match when they’re just meeting (ruining the fantasy). Classic don’t take relationship advice from women example.

    :+:+:+:

    I haven’t thought about game for a while. Lately it’s a marrow-deep disinterest in participating in the bar & club entertain-or-be-entertained routine (even though I’m always there- just been doing it too damn long). This sounds beta and probably appears that way 90% of the time. Expending more energy than those around you to achieve equal levels of social currency is a beta trait. It’s one of the reasons alpha asshole-ism exists, to make it draining for lower status men to hang around them. But really people who see earning attention in bars & clubs as an end in itself just don’t interest me any more. Now if I see a cutie I’ll introduce myself, perhaps creatively, and see if they’re vibing with my state and outlook. If not whatever, but if they do you have a real connection, assuming you know who you are and can speak from there. More enjoyable & ‘real’ than approach, line, roll the dice. There’s probably a happy medium I’m just not there right now mentally. All of this doesn’t come from negativity, btw, but zen. I used to pursue conversation, interaction and advice, but I know now I am more aware of what’s going on around me than others, that I can only add value and there is little for me to take. To outsiders I look lame, since they think inaction is due to beta lack of energy, then I have two or three conversations and leave with someone.

    I didn’t mean to write that much on pickup since it means little to me at this point. I want to talk about the relationship between beta & alpha game, i.e. intimacy and.. idk dominance. Beta game, to be read as relationship building, is just as important as alpha game in turning a woman into a little girl prancing through a daisy field in your bed. Lots of guys reject beta game. Alphas reject it because they aren’t good at it, same way nerds reject jocking around to attract girls, they suck at it. Game aware Betas reject it, since they’re annoyed they have to invest more energy to get a girl than alphas. Well it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. You’re not going to have sex because you don’t like that she likes you so much she wants to try and manipulate you into a relationship, versus just giving it up to a dirtbag. Chill, zen, take her to bed, know who you are decide not to get in a long term thing. Done, no fuss. Anyway.

    In bed, dropping my energy level probably looks like beta game. I’m not duct taping her to bed posts. I’m not trying to slip a finger in her butt when she’s near orgasm. I’m enjoying myself, talking in a higher octave voice, controlling how she’s judging me but also soothing her. If a girl really really likes you she’s often going nuts on how to lock you down in a relationship. Actually girls are usually going nuts haha. Well, lie with her, hold her in your arms and stroke her temple, behind her ear. idk I hear I’m good with my hands. Talking becomes cooing. She’ll usually challenge that frame, not very hard though, just like an energy spike, or start talking about important things, just hold her and be zen and say relax. It’s pretty alpha, total control. She’ll recognize you’re putting her in a trance, but she’ll love it. She’ll feel girly. She’ll come really fast, and multiple times. She’ll fall in love when she leaves and will do anyythinnggg for another night, months and years later. So beta game has tons of merit done right. I did this with two different girls last weekend and they both reacted the same way.

    To come full circle, have you ever had a girl try and challenge your frame when you’re being super alpha? Like in bed, being aggressive when it’s not part of an S&M game? When she tries to buck you, she fucking means it. It can blow up. The emotional conclusion is totally unclear- where are you taking her when you’re being abusive alpha? It can break down fast, and you lose. Her challenges are much more serious and shitty, we call them shit-tests at this point since things so frequently turn to shit. SAME THING in bars. YOu come at her super alpha, pickup line, kino, boom boom, panting like a dog, what always happens, SHIT test. She bucks you. You weren’t that alpha. You suck. Wellll, that doesn’t happen when you droppp your energy level. Be more zen, talk to her and say real things. Left eye to left eye without feeling like you’re staring or challenging. You can say more beta things and it’s congruent with frame so it doesn’t result in a shit-test, or you aren’t sheepish when it pops out of your mouth so it’s ‘cute’ and attractive (assuming she’s over 25). Personally, I think self-qualifying has tons of merit and is hugely attraction building when you’re meeting, where you’re (“indirectly”) highlighting you’re genius ✓, athletic ✓, funny ✓, have DHV’s ✓, rich ✓, special ✓, etc. Ultimately it’s about controlling her feelings. If you had a remote control over her emotions, where would you take her?

    Anyway, end rant on total-control, edgy alpha/beta fusion game.

  • ProofNeeded

    Risk-Taking is the first category in determining alpha-hood. A man who takes risks qualifies himself as a competitor in life – while the results may vary (including forces beyond control) – the propensity to engage in risky behavior is an important component in female attraction. The female’s security need is less important almost necessarily than the child’s, who would benefit from risk-taking sons.

  • Mark Minter

    Tomassi said about the loss of provisioning component of attraction,

    “On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.”

    Roissy had a post on Jan 8. called “Declining Intimacy vs Declining Attraction. He said a loss of intimacy or rapport will not necessarily kill a relationship. She will view it as the man pulling away and seek to redouble efforts to recover intimacy.

    “When a woman is VERY attracted to her boyfriend, it will seem to her as if there is never enough rapport between them. If rapport DOES start to decline, she will paradoxically feel MORE attracted to him. This is her biology’s way of channeling her emotions toward the pursuit of bringing him “back into the fold”. ”

    But the loss of attraction is deadly.

    “If a woman is losing attraction for her boyfriend (these things happen all the time), she will also lose her desire to maintain rapport with him. When a woman has stopped making efforts at rapport, there is nothing a man can do to reinitiate rapport except through reestablishing his attractiveness to her. The attraction MUST PRECEDE the rapport. Any supplicating efforts to “force rapport” will only result in her losing more attraction for him, and the cycle becomes a negative feedback loop ending in house celibacy (for him, only).”

    Roissy list some signs to look for in both the loss of rapport and the loss of attraction. But since the loss of attraction is more important, here are some, but not all, of the key signs from his list :
    ——–
    She’s stopped having sex with you. (A woman can feel an erosion of attraction before she stops fucking you, but the time between her heart shutting down and her vagina shutting down is typically very short.)

    She negs you, except that her negs are more backhanded than complimentary, and not meant to put you in the mood.

    She scoffs at your idle musings.

    She’ll take any excuse to denigrate you.

    She looks bored. Especially when you talk.

    She winces when you touch her.

    She no longer initiates any physical contact. You must do all the work, and it feels like more work than ever.

    She’s begun showering her cat with an excessive amount of sloppy affection, while you sit on the sofa wondering if you need to purr and poop in a box to get her to love you like that.

    Remember when she used to punch you affectionately? Now she punches you for real.

    You try to talk about your relationship, and she hastily changes the subject.

    You start to feel like the woman in the relationship. Even worse: she’s started to feel like the man.
    ————–
    So, I have noticed that, recently, on a “meta” level that the greater body of women is now displaying, in general, these signs to the greater body of men as if the greater body of women is losing attraction to the greater body of men.

    So I would say, that as the service economy, society, and government substitute for the beta provisioning qualities of men, what is left is the visceral repulsion for most men which women display when they lack or lose attraction for a man.

    On the reddit seduction page, there was discussion about shit tests and particularly the “What do you do for a living?” question.

    About the worst answer ever was “Sysadmin”.

  • Rob

    “…In the words of Chris Rock, “Men, if you lose your job, your woman will leave you. It might not be right then, she might tell you, ‘It’s OK baby we’re gonna get through this’, but just know, the clock is ticking.” This is the time you will hear “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” or “You’ve changed, you’re not the man I fell in love with.” ”

    – This happened to me 6 years ago when the company I was with began downsizing and I lost my job, I couldn’t help but smile when I read the part about hearing “I love you but I’m not in love with you” – I couldn’t believe what I was hearing after all the years I had invested in supporting my wife and kids.

    I thought I was the only person in the world that this could happen to, crazy astonishment when I learned I wasn’t as unique as I once believed.

  • DeNihilist

    The Shocker, hillarious definition of Zen!

  • Jeff Thomas (@hey_wilber)

    Thank you, Martel. Makes perfect sense now that I think about it. I’ll head back to my seat in the back of the class and study some more. This unplugging is difficult and sometimes quite painful. Wish me luck?

  • Johnycomelately

    Superb post, one of your best Rollo.

    “The root of male providership, the personal sacrifices men endlessly expect themselves to make, are all contingencies against feminine hypergamy. Once those provisions and sacrifices falter, the house of cards risks collapse.”

    A friend married a woman with two children from the war torn Balkans and provided for her and her children for some 20 years. He retired and blew his retirement funds on an extravagant holiday for the family and upon returning she divorced his ass and took everything, the guy is now an alcoholic bum.

    Despite her age her SMV was above his once he retired and now she is on the carousel.

    Once the provisioning was off the table the house of cards collapsed.

  • Westcoaster

    This blog is a god-send. Anytime I start slipping into my AFC ways, I read this and get quickly cured … or cyber-slapped. I sent “Hypergamy Doesn’t Care” to a friend of mine whose wife is treating him like hell despite that he put a huge house over their heads, gave her three great kids (he does all the parenting, BTW, while she gets drunk and passes out), and many luxuries. He’s trying to get out, but feels trapped. I hope he reads this blog, man it is good.

    The only thing I need — and perhaps this should be linked — is a dictionary of acronyms (SMV, AFC, red pill/ blue pill), sometimes I get confused.

    Thanks for educating Rollo. I read on a previous post about the soul mate and I agree with oneitis being a mental disorder. It was either that article or another where two posters related to the suicide of your cousin (?) and said the blog helped them sort through suicidal thoughts. This blog is doing more good than people can imagine. Needs to be in book form!

  • Rollo-Playing | Alpha Is Assumed

    [...] is a response to Rollo’s analysis of my previous [...]

  • FuriousFerret

    I think people simply get hung up on the term alpha male.

    In the PUA community the alpha male was simply an adaptation of evo pysch and applying it to modern day social situations. It was a term to quickly define behaviors that got women to fuck them. It wasn’t meant to convey this God amoung men that scaled mountains and conqured lands. I think that it serves it’s purpose when you are trying to explain to men in an easy analogy of you should strive to imitate in order to get sex from the modern day woman.

    The problem arises is that the manosphere isn’t the PUA community. It’s an all inclusive pro masculine movement. So the whole lifestyle gets put into play and that’s where the PUA alpha male falls apart. It’s fails because it was never meant to define the concept that some of the men of the sphere want it to define. So you get these little alpha male dichotomy fights that are just pointless because it’s two sides describing two different concepts.

    I think that Martel did a good job in splitting down the terms. He uses ‘Alpha’ with a capital A to bascially be shorthand for ‘Guy women want to fuck’. ‘alpha’ means ‘ man that has power through society standards of money, influence, land, equity, smarts but women are replused by his personality’ and ‘ALPHA’ for ‘ guy that both women want to fuck and has traditonally high status’.

    It also seems like alpha male debate reallys gets into a massive clusterfuck depending on where that person stands in his viewpoints. MGTOW crowd will almost always say that the only ‘alpha male’ is a this leader of men because all women suck and anything that they want can’t be good so the men that they envy (men that pull hot ass) are made to be the real losers according to them. Regular men don’t like that they aren’t considered alphas when they face the hard truth that doing what they were raised to do and play by the rules ultimately makes them chumps more often than not.

    It’s acutally the players that have the more realistic view of an alpha male because they are the closest to achieving ‘ALPHA’. How many players are really the down and out losers? Not many real players are. Many are self employed or decent jobs and have the ability to score. Their mentality allows him to succeed in mutiple facets of life because it’s that internal mindset of not backing down and ability to crash and burn that makes them successful with women and the other massive obsticles of life. I guess the naturals get women but they usually fall apart somewhere down the road and become betas.

    I think that’s what Rollo is getting at. It’s the internal mentality that defines the alpha, really the self idealized man. A guy that can take massive risks and not give a fuck. A guy that just won’t care about rejection because it’s in his blood to succeed and not care. The money, status and women are symptoms of alpha not the cause. It’s simply an aura.

    Maybe the term alpha male should be sidelined and instead replaced by a single word: Man. You are a Man or you are a mangina. Choose.

  • FuriousFerret

    I just thought of another idea after writing the last post.

    What if the act of supplicating to women is simply the unforgivable sin in terms of masculinity or simply the act of supplicating too easily to actually anyone (male or female)?

    Building a financial empire or even being a great general will not matter if you are weak in your interpersonal relationships especially to women. We instinctively view this as the unholiest trangression against the church of man. A guy should at least give a good fight and have his pride and dignity.

    That’s why even ‘leaders of men’ are not be thought as alphas because they have lost their manhood. They are facade. The very essense of what we view as a man has been betrayed so any accomplishments that they would traditionally be celebrated for are in vain. These men become more of a worker drone that has simply done his task by bringing services to the people that matter in the evolutionary sweepstakes.

    I believe that’s why despite the knowledge that these guys should be alphas on paper they simply won’t be aknowledged as such by our primal monkey brains.

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    “Alpha is a mindset and not a demographic”

    This is SO TRUE Rollo. The only difference between a successful night out picking up women or not is the male mindset. It’s literally possible to turn around a bad night into a good night within a couple of minutes just by getting your mindset/frame right. Girls respond to your frame far more than anything else, which is why a few small changes can result in massive improvements from a nice, beta guy to an alpha that women actually love. http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/training-field-report-and-my-going-out-checklist-part-2/

    “There will come a point when a woman’s conditions will make her more dependent on a man’s intrinsic qualities. His empathy, love, loyalty and compassion makes a world of difference once she’s past the Wall. As her ability to remain a sexual competitor diminishes, her dependency on her husband’s emotional and security provisioning takes precedence. This may even be a genuine appreciation for a woman, but it’s important to understand that this new appreciation is the result of her opportunistic understanding of love. At some point she will need to love these intrinsic qualities.”

    Damn that’s brilliant. I have a Best of the Manosphere on Female Age and Sexual Market Value ready to go in 3 hours… but I’m adding this post in right now!!!

  • taterearl

    The most important thing a man can possess is a strong heart. I refer both to the beating one and the mindset one.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    “Alpha is as Alpha does” is a tautology.

    Vox Day’s typology is contrived, twee, pointless, tryhard, and gay. Very SyFy.

    Tomba was a sex symbol in the early 1990s, rising to international fame at the 1988 and 1992 Olympics. Beckham was a mid-to-late 90s phenomenon and didn’t date/marry Posh Spice until near the turn of the millennium. Likely he wasn’t on the radar when Martel’s survey was published.

    Details, people.

    Matt

  • Team-Red

    Thanks to the readers for responding to my questions and to Rollo for directing me to the article that was very insightful. I plan to read through all the spin plates articles.

    I am direct in my profile about taking things slow because I am busy (work fulltime and working towards a second degree in medicine). I want to meet as many women as possible and not commit to a woman until i’ve properly screened her for a period of time. I see nothing wrong with myself or any of them dating other people while we date each other and I can only encourage it because if she finds a better man in her mind I want her to follow that.

    Many of the women online are weary of players looking for nsa, which I have no interest in. Because of this, they are quick to label you a player if you disclose how many women you are seeing. My response is along the lines of “just trying to meet someone I click with and take things slow.” They still ask about the other women and dig at it before I reframe by asking about the guys they’re dating. I know they’re being hit up by dozens of guys all day, so it’s easy to redirect the topic. It’s funny actually, how women refer to her previous dates as creepers or jerks. Aka nice guy or asshole. I run interesting, sophisticated, intelligent, and judgment game and women eat that shit up. All you have to do is get them qualifying themselves to you then sit back and be cool. If they like you, you’ll know. It’s still a tricky topic though because if you meet a woman and you sleep together early in the process the shit tests begin immediately. Just checking your daily online dating email is a shit test if a woman you slept with sees you online. The whole dynamic is crazy and foreign to me.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Alpha as PUA shorthand will always be defined around sexual conquest. Meanwhile, outside of the pick-up ghetto, particularly in the discipline that invented it (ethology), it means “superlative.”

    Using the caps lock, title case, and +/- is a clever way to distinguish hair-splitting differences, but you can’t invent a language only you use: that’s contrary to the idea of communication. It has to develop organically rather than positively.

    At the same time, Martel is smart for recognizing a deficiency and attempting to correct it. Categorizing gamesters will squabble about definitions forever, trying to one-up the last guy in terms of precision. But these are all just naked assertions declared past each other and independent of their descriptive usefulness. The connotation or denotation is simply posited by a hundred different people with a hundred different concepts. There is no interaction or synthesis of those concepts.

    Martel’s typology indicates the need for a broader understanding of “alpha” if only because the PUA’s narrowly construed definition is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the broad concept. This community is obsessed with one characteristic in the alpha’s repertoire — which is fine — but it gets into trouble attempting to make that characteristic a synecdoche for the popular understanding of alpha. For this switcheroo to work, an alpha’s non-sexual dominance must be shoehorned into the specialist language that describes the domination of merely women. This backward, retrofitting process is the enemy of clarity.

    Concepts and their names have to be discovered and described in existing terms rather than invented like Klingon. Unfortunately the ego thrill of having invented a “meme” leads a man to abandon effective communication for cheap glory, and sophistry results.

    Matt

  • Matthew King (King A)

    “Alpha is a mindset and not a demographic” = spot on.

  • Tilikum

    @ Matt

    “Concepts and their names have to be discovered and described in existing terms rather than invented like Klingon. Unfortunately the ego thrill of having invented a “meme” leads a man to abandon effective communication for cheap glory, and sophistry results.”

    Words and concepts like “man cave” hit the dictionary in 1992, and its pretty ubiquitous in its use and understanding, enough so that it made Merriam-Webster! (cheap glory and sophistry notwithstanding)

    At some point the world moves past your own myopic desires to preserve the glory days, we shed our chains, exit the cave, and see more than dancing shadows on the wall in front of you as your defining reality.

    Let me guess, 3rd year English major, minor in Philosophy (clearly a state school, feels like rust belt based on the attempts to sound metropolitan) highly religious and mad as hell.

    Meh, I’m bored already.

  • Martel

    My response post addresses some of what people disagree with:

    http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/rollo-playing/

    My issue with “Alpha” being defined ENTIRELY based on women’s desires is that it concedes unnecessary ground to the feminine imperative. In nature (where the term initially applied), the Alpha gorrilla is he who effectively dominates the other males, and the tingle of the female results from such dominance. Sexual success for the male derives from the male hierarchy, leaders of “men” (or gorillas) end up being the ones the females bang. I doubt we’ll ever know for certain the actual sexual preferences of the female gorilla or wolf, but it doesn’t matter because regardless of her sexual proclivities, her sexual ACTIONS derive from the masculine imperative.

    If Alpha depends ONLY on who women want, we reverse the natural order and allow women to do our rankings for us. Although the tingle has always been an entirely female phenomenon, sexual success for males has not.

    Rollo’s definition is descriptive (how things are), and mine corollary to it is admittedly PRESCRIPTIVE (how things should be). The focus of this blog is on describing things as they are, which is extremely important, and Rollo is a master at it.

    However, I focus more on how things SHOULD BE, and certain beta traits SHOULD affect your SMV to a greater extent than they do today, as it has been in prior eras (although what inspires the Tingle has been a universal constant).

    Individual women may never recognize “relational equity”, but the courts should, our churches should, and if she’s considering leaving Bob, she should hear “After all he’s done for you! from her friends and neighbors” It SHOULD matter to women that you’ve got a decent head on your shoulders, even though her instincts tell her otherwise.

    My Tomba/Jordan example was meant to illustrate that the Tingle, as immutable as it may be, is an AWFUL judge of character and confuses damn near everything in the female mind (and therefore in our schools, legal system, etc). Queen Tingle dominates our society today, and it’s ruining us. We need also to rank males according to objective merit in ways that the FI ignores.

    Rollo’s Alpha is what is, my alpha is what should be. Sometimes they overlap, but they are distinct, although they don’t contradict.

  • Manosphere: Female Age and Sexual Market Value (Part 2) | 3rd Millenium Men

    [...] 3. Rollo writes about a key mindset change in women post-wall: [...]

  • Lazarus

    I don’t know how useful it is to constantly debate Alpha/Beta terminology. I always think of it as a model. It’s a useful one, that will bring you closer to an understanding of reality, but once you’ve got that understanding it shouldn’t then be mistaken for reality itself.

  • yaser

    “You see an attractive woman, seduce and desert. Rinse and repeat. Be nomadic. Be Charles Bronson in Once Upon a Time in the West. Know you will die someday and live accordingly. This is the only viable lifestyle for the 21st century man in a grim decaying society.”

    Yeah, you do that while i outbreed you and my children take over everything your ancestors have built up and you so carelessly are choosing to abandon.

    Deal?

  • Good Luck Chuck

    I won’t make too many friends around here by pointing this out, but the obsession with everything “alpha” in the manosphere is BETA with a capital “B”.

    Count how many times the word alpha is used in the average manosphere blog post these days. Even the titles and taglines for many of these blogs (even some that I read on occasion) contain some kind of reference to the term.

    I can’t help but imagine that the general public would get a pretty good laugh if they were shown a picture of a group of these manosphere alphas.

  • DeNihilist

    Martel, I now see where you are coming from.Agreed. I am not an alpha in the woman slaying sense, though before marriage was decent with getting laid. Yet I consider myself an alpha in the world, as I run my own business, have employees that depend upon me, have raised 2 fine young men, and am still married after 25 years. This to me is the definition of alpha.

    As I have said before, our life experiences inform our world views.

  • Martel

    @DeNihilist. Thank you, but just to clarify, although you’re “alpha”, you’re not “Alpha”. The FI is the ruling paradigm in our society and must therefore be taken into account.

    I acknowledge and agree with everything Rollo says regarding what Alpha is, I only insist that it’s not all that it should be. Men need to know how and why females rank us, but we must also rank ourselves by our own standards.

  • Martel

    Or, I should have said, “you’re not necessarily “Alpha”. You might be, but I can’t tell for certain either way.

  • Matthew

    King A, Vox’s system has more sense in it than you have perceived, but it’s not fully fleshed. I believe he has identified from an empirical basis some social distinctions that are worthy of further abstraction.

  • DeNihilist

    @ Martel, Got it. From my perspective (and again, this is my experience), the FI is not the ruling paradigm. But I realize that this may be skewed as I live/work in high mid to upper class area of Canada. In about 70-75% of my jobs (mechanical business) it is the husbands who are making the decisions. But then the market I am in, it is normal for them to do this with their own businesses/jobs. Most of the wives are stay at home and rear the children.

    As an aside, I have very few long term clients who have gotten divorced/seperated since I have been working for them. So again, my experience is very different from a lot of the men who frequent these blogs.

  • DeNihilist

    PS – I think like 99% of the people on these blogs, I am a combination of all the Greek letters. Depends on the situation doesn’t it?

  • Lucky White Male

    I’d say Michael Jordan is actually a Butthurt Beta (true story):

    At one time in D.C. some years ago, he used to frequent a certain restaurant with his guy pals.

    Jordan was working a certain White college girl but not getting anywhere with her.

    In one incident, she was at his table briefly talking with some of his guy friends. She said hello to Jordan.

    Jordan responded by turned his back completely to her and started talking with another guy.

    It wasn’t a joke, no one was laughing. Basically MICHAEL JORDAN GOT BUTTHURT BY SOME COLLEGE GIRL. :)

    She told me later surprised that some college girl like herself could get a superstar like him to react like that.

    Another ancedote: I knew another guy involved with the NBA. He told me Jordan “hated white people.” There were various remarks tossed around this guy had heard enough times, including on the court. The mainstream media no surprise, never got into any of this. This “white hatred” was the secret motivator for what drove him to be the best player of all time.

    If you watch Jordan’s disastrous Hall of Fame acceptance speech, you see echoes of this – and also Jordan’s less than Alpha character.

    You see the wheels start to come off around the 8 minute mark. You will see what provokes it is Jordan’s recollection of Dean Smith when Jordan entered UNC as a freshman.

    Jordan was one of the first black stars in a white era in the South. Everyone on earth deals with some form of “breaking into the club” – this is part of what makes you a Man.

    A true Alpha, in his moment of triumph, which a Hall of Fame induction is, does not resort back to butthurt anger, sarcasm and frustration.

    Is Jordan really an Alpha? I’d say he was a “basketball wonk,” and a very talented one, and shone brightly in that narrow prism.

    But as a Man, in terms of Manliness, this kind of Butthurt Beta display shows that Jordan never developed into a Fully Developed Man.

    Does an Alpha act like this?

    Rick Reilly of SI sums it up:

    “Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame talk was the Exxon Valdez of speeches. It was, by turns, rude, vindictive and flammable. And that was just when he was trying to be funny. It was tactless, egotistical and unbecoming. When it was done, nobody wanted to be like Mike.

    … Here is a man who’s won just about everything there is to win — six NBA titles, five MVPs and two Olympics golds. And yet he sounded like a guy who’s been screwed out of every trophy ever minted. He’s the world’s first sore winner.
    In the entire 23-minute cringe-athon, there were only six thank yous, seven if you count his sarcastic rip at the very Hall that was inducting him. “Thank you, Hall of Fame, for raising ticket prices, I guess,” he sneered. By comparison, David Robinson’s classy and heartfelt seven-minute speech had 17. Joe Montana’s even shorter speech in Canton had 23. Who wrote your speech Mike? Kanye West?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4477759

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Good Luck Chuck wrote:

    I won’t make too many friends around here by pointing this out, but the obsession with everything “alpha” in the manosphere is BETA with a capital “B”.

    True enough. But we need just this sort of obsessive categorizer to describe and pass along the new wisdom to the generation that can apply it.

    Such is the nature of scholars and scientists. The problem isn’t their nerdly impulse to quantify life experiences. The problem is that they are performing this experiment haphazardly, without training, and without guidance — some of them on an ego trip to derive the satisfaction of recognition without faithfully pursuing truth, wherever it leads. And revenge against women is another of their petty motivations that spoils the project.

    They are an unruly lot, proud of their unruliness because of the erroneous belief that adamancy is the mark of independence. They have no training in obedience or deference to superior virtue. Worse, they have no understanding of the broad utility of those duties, much less an ability to even recognize something better than themselves. It is the poisonous residue of the self-esteem generation.

    In other words, tussle with these Late Enlighteneds for shits and giggles, but the real effort will be among the next generation of men, who are young enough (and not yet falsely puffed-up) to suspect they know nothing. They are the eagerest to drink deep from the cup of life, unembittered by female treachery, willing to face the pain and humiliation required for the acquisition of knowledge.

    Matt

  • When Alpha is not Alpha | Alpha Is Assumed

    [...] Rollo has responded to this post here.  My response to Rollo [...]

  • OlioOx

    Without having actually read Vox Day, I would be surprised if he considered his own scheme of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta etc. as a genuine ‘demographic’ in the sense of “the science of vital and social statistics, as of the births, deaths, diseases, marriages, etc., of populations.” Correct me if I’m wrong.

    In any case, when it comes to identifying actual Alphas, Betas etc. in the population, clearly one doesn’t want to look at anything so nebulous as ‘mindset.’ One wants to look at actual behavior. There is no guarantee, for example, that a man who has a completely Alpha mindset will manifest that mindset, although there is probably some correlation between mindset and behavior. It’s not enough merely to think Alpha; one has to do Alpha.

    Another argument against considering Alpha, Beta etc. as demographic categories is that their very definitions are not even agreed on. Compare with typical demographic categories, in which even the controversial ones are so within a much more narrowly defined sphere of debate: Married/single/widowed/divorced, male/female, black/white/asian, living/dead, place of residence/country of birth, level of education, income, etc. etc. To consider Alpha a demographic would require a complete re-working of the term ‘demography’, if I understand it correctly.

    But there is a way that these categories could be demographically relevant: if they had a measurable effect on vital statistics, which is what demography is all about. To determine that, it would be necessary to study behaviors, and their results, and then try to determine the relation to the ‘mindsets.’

    What is often said about women — “pay less attention to what they say, and more to what they do” might also yield valuable insights when applied to men.

  • OlioOx

    As much as I like making fun of King A, I have to partially agree with him here; it’s terrible to keep adding unnecessarily to the stock of terms and definitions. Anyone seeking to change, redefine, refine, or create terms should really do a bit of research, to make sure that what they’re looking for doesn’t already exist. ‘Alpha’ is a great case for this: the proper way to go about discussing this term is first to read the entire history of its meanings.

    But Tilikum also has a point. Since the human race obstinately persists in exploring, researching, discovering, reflecting, and so on, it really is necessary from time to time to update or otherwise change old terms, or even to create new ones. The ‘female imperative’ sounds like a reasonable instance of a new and useful term, for instance (one sign that it’s really valuable is that it provokes rage in so many fembos and white knights).

    I know two wrongs don’t make a right and all, but we’re in the Internet age now, and absolutely anyone who can type can and will add to the eternal and growing dust-storm of inaccurate rhetoric, and it’s useless to try to stop it. So perhaps we should all just heave a sigh and live with the bit of extra work we have to do in order to make our meanings clear and to understand those of others, because there are much worse things to worry about.

    (By the way, isn’t it a hoot to read King A griping about “enemies of clarity”?)

  • Martel

    @Olio: I expected my post on my tiny corner of the ‘net to hardly even be read, let alone called out by one of the Three R’s. When that happens, you respond. However, in doing so, I become accused of harping on the eternal Alpha debate. I only wanted to define terms for my own site so as to keep myself from having to go into huge detail later.

    Nevertheless, I believe what I believe and will defend it.

    I’m glad it happened, and I know Rollo wasn’t ripping into me, only disagreeing, but his disagreement was based on a couple of misconceptions that I felt I had to address (most notably the idea that I was disappointed in women being more attracted to Tomba than Jordan).

    If this makes people think I’m obsessively “add[ing] to the eternal and growing dust-storm of inaccurate rhetoric”, fine. The point I was making on Alpha has implications that go far beyond SMV, and I was only establishing some parameters for future discussion on other topics.

    The belief/attitude things is huge but incredibly difficult for people to grasp. What is and what should be are both of immeasurable importance, related but not synonymous. People conflate the two, and I believe it’s essential to draw the distinction.

  • Kate

    I think the concept is so difficult to pin down because its so broad and fluid(“how do you keep a wave upon the sand”). Its like trying to define the word happiness. The overall value of writing is an ordering of ideas. So, whether everyone agrees on the exact definition is sort of immaterial if the purpose is for each man to do his own introspection to give him a heading in life.

  • Martel

    @Kate: Not exactly, it’s pretty simple once you get it, like seeing the monkey in the blurry painting when you unfocus your eyes right.

    The problem is usually psychological. To use Myers-Briggs terminology, some of us are P’s and some J’s. P’s (a.k.a. Rollo as he writes on his blog) view the world through the prism of “what is”, whereas J’s see it through through the prism of “what should be”. If you’re strongly inclined towards one, whenever somebody has a different emphasis it seems like they’re missing the point.

    An example was a couple of posts back when a commenter said that Rollo’s posts seemed to advocate for the reality he was writing about. Not true. Rollo, as a P, was simply describing human behavior as it is. The commenter, as a J, seemed to think that this meant Rollo thought it was all good. If you describe some awful crime with only factual terminology and decline to use harshly judgemental terminology, it doesn’t mean you think the crime was okay, but it will feel that way to a J.

    Likewise, if you emphasize how wrong something is, to the P it will seem like you’re ignoring the factually relevant causes for why something is happening.

    Such miscommunication happens ALL THE TIME, and the only way I’ve been able to rectify it consistently is in person when I can dissect somebody’s responses line by line and in real time.

    I’m a weirdo in that whether I’m P or J depends on the mood; I test smack dab in the middle. I understand that to understand is not necessarily to condone, but I also understand that if you jump to moral conclusions, you’re conclusions will be useless at best and horribly destructive at worst.

  • Yazz Michael Michaels

    OT (and sorry for kidnapping this thread):

    Rollo, Aunt Giggles has made the claim that only a minority of both men and women are participating in ‘Hookup Culture’ on numerous occasions. She claims that only 20% of both men and women are having most of the sex.

    Now, to me this sounds like complete nonsense. My observations have lead me to believe that it is men who are missing out and women who are being pumped and dumped or ending in harems. However, I’ve had difficulties proving this either way.

    I’d be extremely grateful to hear your opinion on this subject. It is one of her core beliefs and, mayhaps, her greatest folly.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I wonder what she’d have to say about this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/fashion/the-end-of-courtship.html?_r=0

    I’ve gotten to the point with Aunt Sue that it’s simply not worth my effort to engage any more. Every comment thread turns into group therapy for the same dozen of commenters and it’s always the same stories.

    She only calls me out when her site traffic dips below a certain point as it is. I’ve got a lot going on between my work and compiling the book right now to get drawn into debates with a mid 50’s house frau as to whether HBO’s Girls is some reflection of modern dating.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Enough navel gazing about navel gazing before we slip into infinite regression. But that’s exactly the point.

    There is a deficiency of intellectual training in this community that aspires to an intellectual grounding for its activities. Seeking a foundation in itself is a noble endeavor — it will make for a sturdier, longer-lasting edifice, serving more men in this generation and beyond. And yet …

    Since the human race obstinately persists in exploring, researching, discovering, reflecting, and so on, it really is necessary from time to time to update or otherwise change old terms, or even to create new ones.

    Complicating the terms of art are not useful to communication. Inventing new words is like trying to invent a better hammer. The tendency should rather be toward simplification, like FuriousFerret’s brilliant suggestion above:

    Maybe the term alpha male should be sidelined and instead replaced by a single word: Man. You are a Man or you are a mangina. Choose.

    A concept appears new to person for one of two reasons. 1) It is actually a new concept, or 2) that person has never encountered the concept. Number two is the far likelier scenario, indeed so likely that it should be the default assumption.

    Kate remarks, “It’s like trying to define happiness.” Happiness or eudaimonia was defined adequately enough for discussion by Aristotle two-and-a-half millennia ago. If both parties have training in Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, the conversation can proceed fruitfully. Without mutual reference to an authoritative, third-party definition, we are consigned to definitions relative to oneself and communication is impossible.

    This is the malady of the manosphere’s fumbling and groping toward a truth accessible for general consumption. At the heart of the effort is a penchant for novelty, because actual study of “the best that has been thought and said” is harder and provides no false ego boost for having “invented” or “discovered” something “new.”

    Matt

  • Kate

    That was, naturally, exactly what I was thinking of, King. But even he had a tough time defining it, changing his mind several times till he came up with his ultimate idea.

    Interesting distinction between “P” and “J”, Martel. I’d never heard of that before.

  • Matthew King (King A)

    Aristotle didn’t change his mind so much as he described various common understandings of happiness before settling on the most rational one (and explaining why he did). We aren’t in a position to imagine “The Philosopher,” as Aquinas called him, “had a tough time” doing anything.

    That said, you employ the very device that will deliver us from the relativist’s inability to communicate, and that is, artistic allusion: “How do you keep a wave upon the sand?” Metaphors and parables convey concepts ten times more efficiently than prose, even Aristotle’s prose, and a hundred times more efficiently than invented vocabulary, because they contain an acknowledged, shared authority within themselves. Everyone knows what a wave is and its nature “upon the sand.”

    The Philosopher also said,

    The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learned from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.

    Poetics, Part XXII

    Matt

  • Martel

    There’s also I or E (introvert and extrovert), N or S (intuitive and sensing), and T or F (thinking or feeling). You can take tests online to find out if you’re ENTJ, INTP, or whatever other combo.

  • Kate

    @King: Ah. So, he dispelled misconceptions first.

    @Martel: That sounds cool. More fun than a horoscope! ;)

  • Martel

    @ Kate: It’s chick-crack with a basis in reality.

  • Tertullian

    KIng A muddies the waters more than he clarifies them, and on balance he probably offends more than he persuades, but the man is indisputably right about one thing: sites like this are a refuge for men, and women who choose to post comments here and elsewher should recognize that they do so by sufferance, not by right.

    Kate, your charm shows through your posts loud and clear; you therefore get a temporary Manosphere pass, revocable at any time, without notice and without cause.

  • Tertullian

    *elsewhere

  • DeNihilist

    @ King – {Without mutual reference to an authoritative, third-party definition, we are consigned to definitions relative to oneself and communication is impossible.}

    But, but, but Kinngg, Why is my definition to be less the Aristotles? Is not my self worth worthy?
    :)

  • Kate

    I am very pleased to be on good terms with you, Tertullian. I understand you don’t want a lot of noise.

  • Tertullian

    Your noise is usually music.

    Nitelily, on the other hand…

  • AD

    Rollo,

    any comments about the subject material of this song?

  • OlioOx

    According to King A The All-Knowing,

    Happiness or eudaimonia was defined adequately enough for discussion by Aristotle two-and-a-half millennia ago.

    That was just one man’s opinion. Of course it’s a hell of a good one since people have kept it in print for more than two thousand years. But since then there have been many other interesting opinons. There are also other definitions of happiness from the philosophical and ethical components of other traditions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and so on — many of them “defined adequately enough [sic] for discussion.”

    If both parties have training in Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, the conversation can proceed fruitfully.

    This is another example of the usual King A agenda, which is to get you to agree that you yourself do not have the ability to engage in any kind of serious debate on blogs, and should therefore shut up and leave important matters in the hands of learned people like King A unless you are just here to ask him polite and reverential questions.

    Without mutual reference to an authoritative, third-party definition, we are consigned to definitions relative to oneself and communication is impossible.

    This might be true when talking about certain things where the third-party definition really is authoritative. If you ask any professional philosopher, he will almost certainly say that certain parts of Aristotle’s works are still indispensable after two millennia. But his definition of happiness is only ‘authoritative’ if you are an orthodox Catholic, or if you otherwise worship Aristotle as some sort of superhuman. He’s not the Word of God. Rollo never worries himself with issues of “reference to authoritative third-party opinions”, as far as I can tell, yet he’s communicating just fine, isn’t he?

    Aristotle…described various common understandings of happiness before settling on the most rational one.

    It might be the most rational, it might not be; all this tells you is that King A believes it’s the most rational. Don’t disappoint him by — horrors! — trying to decide for yourself!

  • DeNihilist

    O/t warning (sorta) –

    {There’s your female empowerment, there’s you feminist progress, catastrophically subverted from the top down, like it’s in an abusive relationship, satisfied with the house and the car and the 4/7 good days and simply doesn’t want to rock the boat so it expends frantic energy on what is ultimately nonsense. Every stupid parent teaches their girls not to get raped, duh, but have any mothers spent any time indoctrinating their daughters what to do if another woman is being raped? Have they made it a reflex to defend, to attack? “Isn’t that obvious?” Ask the town. “We need to support each other!” sure, as long as it’s from the safety of a computer monitor or a 5K, yay women. Have you explicitly told your daughters that if a woman is passed out drunk and you see a Notre Dame Hat climbing over her couch, it is your responsibility to grab an aerosol can and a lighter and threaten Armageddon, or at the very least yell stop? “Well, that’s kind of dangerous.” Yeah, that’s kind of the point, but I grant you that its safer to giggle and let boys be boys. Do you want power, or the trappings of power? Somebody’s going to have it, you can’t make it vanish. I wasn’t at this particular rape, the town’s defense amazingly appears to be she was a slut and she was asking for it, and my point is: so what? Why didn’t the other women stop it anyway? Why didn’t they just rise up?}

    From here – http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

  • Tertullian

    @OlioOx – +1

  • Anna

    @DeNihilist

    It’s because most of our species is comprised of people who don’t care about their neighbors…or strangers, for that matter. There’s only a few of us left with the empathy required to care about another’s welfare.

    Have you ever watched ABC’s “What Would You Do?”reality/hidden camera show? It’s quite depressing and makes my soul weep for humanity…

  • xclampa

    Women who love only for loyalty, fidelity, commitment – they get called hopeless romantics. If you’re married with kids: for a partner commitment means pulling your weight and co-managing what equals to a small company, setting a common vision of the relationship considering what both of you want, being a lover means you’re responsible for your health and having fun even if it means just cuddling sometimes, being a friend means you stick by your partner and stay connected with them, being a parent is being a caretaker, mentor and friend for your young.
    Those are all in there. It’s not opportunistic to look for someone who you’re sure can handle all this. It’s realistic.

    That would probably be the ideal opportunistic answer, right? There are at least two problems I have with this approach:
    a) for males and females even if you meet someone who is ‘great’, oportunistically or idealistically, you migh not want to pursue them cause you’re not attracted to them. No spark, no nothing, and even the most eligible, fantastic prospect is a … Bore. There are people meant for the ‘friend-zone’ no matter how good they are.
    b) when times are tough and you go through a rough patch you are usually left with how supportive your partner is and how well you connect. You won’t be a good supporter unless you can both give some degree of financial stability (opportunist) and are positive enough (idealist). As it is I’d rather look for a degree of stability and great connection, a mix.

  • Professor Ashur

    Ashur’s Razor:

    The more time one spends arguing about whatever “alpha” is, the more likely it is that they are not whatever an “alpha” might be.

  • gaoxiaen

    Have to agree with Shocker, but I live in Asia, where guys totally ignore a woman’s wants and fantasies. Lift weights, be a miscreant caveman,lick pussy, massage, cook, listen, and you’re the opposite of a sissified Asian man who only cares about themself. Six years of super-hot sex two or more times a day with a rich (married) HB 9.5 is your reward. Nothing to be sneezed at. Especially after you introduce her to anal and B&D.

  • gaoxiaen

    Especially when she buys you a car, motorcycle. microwave, washing , and refrigerator and you buy her sexy underwear.

  • gaoxiaen

    First orgasm is a powerful influence.

  • gaoxiaen

    *washing machine, PLUS you’re free on Friday and Saturday night. Going out to the bar right now (even though it’s Thursday). Daytime game kicks ass in Asia.

  • The House upon the Sand | Alpha Is Assumed

    […] capital “A”) to describe men in whom women may have no sexual interest caused a bit of controversy.  Although I didn’t make the mistake that Blue Pill Moralists make of refusing to describe […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,334 other followers

%d bloggers like this: