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.

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Falconer
Guest
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. Loading...

Team-Red
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
John Galt

Martel – you just got called up to the Show.

Martel
Guest

@ 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
Guest
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… Read more »

Kate
Guest
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
Guest
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… Read more »

Jeff Thomas (@hey_wilber)
Guest

“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… Read more »

Martel
Guest

@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
Guest

@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
Guest
Vicomte

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

DeNihilist
Guest
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
Guest

@ 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… Read more »

meh
Guest
meh

No Money No Honey. Fuckem.

meh
Guest
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
Guest
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… Read more »

ProofNeeded
Guest
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
Guest

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… Read more »

Rob
Guest
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 more »

DeNihilist
Guest
DeNihilist

The Shocker, hillarious definition of Zen!

Jeff Thomas (@hey_wilber)
Guest

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
Guest
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… Read more »

Westcoaster
Guest
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… Read more »

trackback

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

FuriousFerret
Guest

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… Read more »

FuriousFerret
Guest

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’… Read more »

3rd Millenium Men
Guest

“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… Read more »

taterearl
Guest

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)
Guest

“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
Guest
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… Read more »

Matthew King (King A)
Guest

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… Read more »

Matthew King (King A)
Guest

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

Tilikum
Guest

@ 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… Read more »

Martel
Guest

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,… Read more »

trackback

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

Lazarus
Guest
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
Guest

“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
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest

@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
Guest

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

Matthew
Guest
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
Guest
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… Read more »

DeNihilist
Guest
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
Guest
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… Read more »

Matthew King (King A)
Guest

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… Read more »

trackback

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

OlioOx
Guest
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… Read more »

OlioOx
Guest
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,… Read more »

Martel
Guest

@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… Read more »

Kate
Guest
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
Guest

@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… Read more »

Yazz Michael Michaels
Guest
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… Read more »

Rollo Tomassi
Guest

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)
Guest

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.… Read more »

Kate
Guest
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)
Guest

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,… Read more »

Martel
Guest

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
Guest
Kate

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

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

Martel
Guest

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

Tertullian
Guest
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
Guest
Tertullian

*elsewhere

DeNihilist
Guest
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
Guest
Kate

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

Tertullian
Guest
Tertullian

Your noise is usually music.

Nitelily, on the other hand…

AD
Guest
AD

Rollo,

any comments about the subject material of this song?

OlioOx
Guest
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… Read more »

DeNihilist
Guest
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.… Read more »

Tertullian
Guest
Tertullian

@OlioOx – +1

Anna
Guest
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
Guest
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… Read more »

Professor Ashur
Guest

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
Guest
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
Guest
gaoxiaen

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

gaoxiaen
Guest
gaoxiaen

First orgasm is a powerful influence.

gaoxiaen
Guest
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.

trackback

[…] 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 […]

rugby11
Guest
rugby11