« Robert Frank on the relative nature of wealth | Main | Idiocracy »

January 19, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6ae53ef00d8350f6b4b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alpha, beta, and omega males:

Comments

Your proposal makes more sense than a simple Alpha/Beta dichotomy but oversimplifies matters a bit. Lumping 70% of men into the Beta category does not recognize subtle but non-insignificant differences among them.

I'll illustrate my point by example. Take two men, Charlie and Joe. Neither is an Alpha by any stretch of the imagination, but they aren't hopeless Omegas either. Charlie dated a few decent-but-ordinary girls during high school and college, none of them cheerleaders or sorority types, and got married in his 20's to a woman who, like the girls he had dated, is pleasant and reasonably attractive but won't be on America's Top Model anytime soon.

Joe didn't do so well for himself at first. He never was able to get any girls to date him in high school or college, and had only slightly better luck in his 20's. He probably lost his virginity somewhere along the way, most likely through a drunken one-night stand or at a massage parlor, but never got to the point with any of the very few women he dated where one could say that he had a "girlfriend." Nonetheless, at some point in his late 20's or early 30's Joe found a woman to marry him. Chances are she's not what most men would consider an ideal catch, maybe being relatively unattractive and/or a previously married woman with a child or two. But nonetheless, Joe finds a woman and hopefully lives happily ever after.

Can Charlie and Joe really be lumped into the same Beta category? I think not. The Beta category really needs to be subdivided to recognize the differences between the two.

"Can Charlie and Joe really be lumped into the same Beta category?"

Based on your descriptions, Joe sounds more like an omega male than a beta male. 85% of men would have had girlfriends by their mid 20s, and Joe didn't, so he'd be in the bottom 15%.

Based on your descriptions, Joe sounds more like an omega male than a beta male. 85% of men would have had girlfriends by their mid 20s, and Joe didn't, so he'd be in the bottom 15%.

Your Omega description seems more restrictive, to the point that Joe's minimal dating during his 20's would have lifted him out of that category.
If you prefer, I'll modify Joe's history a bit, and say that he dated one or two women long enough for them to be "girlfriends" though with the relationships being short-lived. He still would fall short of Charlie's experience and therefore wouldn't be in the same category.

Like I said in the post, there's no bright line separating the categories, nor is the post an effort to identify the exact qualities that define alpha beta and omega in U.S. society.

A beta male who's close to the alpha borderline is obviously going to have different qualities than a beta male who's close to the omega borderline.

You could give every man a rank from 0 to 100 to define their position in the hierarcy more exactly, but is that conceptually more useful?

So, what about women - how do we categorize them? I'd say that there are definitely alpha females, but are the beta & omega categories equally useful when talking about lower status women?

Yeah, not to be ungracious, but pesky Spungen is reminding you once again of that other 51 percent of the population. I appreciate the effort at clarification, but I can't use the model without factoring in women. You've proposed a percentage of men for whom women are supposedly grasping, but our relative rankings must factor in, too.

And we must have some distinguishing features, beyond "hot" or "not." What about those of us who are smart, don't we do anything differently? At all?

And now you're distinguishing omega male as a guy who's desirability is too low to get a woman. Do you still stand by your earlier characterization of them as guys who would be willing to treat women well?

If their wives cheat on them while they are married, it's probably an alpha male whom they would be cheating with.

You know better than that. Cheating is about opportunity and variety.

And you still don't tell us how to tell whether a particular guy is an alpha or beta. How do we know if we're going for them or not? Commission a Gallup poll and see what percentile they rank in?

Spungen wrote: And we must have some distinguishing features, beyond "hot" or "not." What about those of us who are smart, don't we do anything differently? At all?

It seems that we've hit upon a blind spot in this cultural discussion. How about this group come up with a lettering system for women?

I'm thinking it has to be something other than greek letters, just for clarity. (Roman letters? Roman numerals?)

Whatever we decide on, it would be kinda cool, if we could popularize its usage. After all, if somebody could popularize that useless word "meme," we could do it with something actually enlightening, like this.


that was the most omega post ever

that was the most omega post ever

And we must have some distinguishing features, beyond "hot" or "not." What about those of us who are smart, don't we do anything differently? At all?

This might sound really sexist, but men have a tendency to tolerate anything a girl does as long as she's hot. As the hotness decreases, the tolerance for her less than desirable traits decreases considerably.

And now you're distinguishing omega male as a guy who's desirability is too low to get a woman. Do you still stand by your earlier characterization of them as guys who would be willing to treat women well?

I won't speak for HS, but I as an omega male, I would say that omega men are the least likely to treat women well. With each passing year, these men tend to build up their bitterness and resentment towards women and the rest of society, especially if they feel envious of the men who do get women.

You know better than that. Cheating is about opportunity and variety.

I lost my virginity to an older woman who cheated on her boyfriend. I'd agree with you, but with the caveat that one cheats with a man who's either an alpha or a higher ranking beta than your boyfriend.

I agree with Peter: we need some category for the average and cuckolded. I propose a 3 way system, with alpha (the best), Beta (second best) and Gamma (least desirable but often married). I´d reserve the omega category for the absolute anti-social losers. It´s sort of similar to the Indian caste system, with the omega men being part but at the same time out of the system, like the untouchables.
Alexander, you sound more like a gamma than an absolute loser, if it helps.Otherwise no woman would have cheated on her boyfriend just to sleep with you.

Alexander, you sound more like a gamma than an absolute loser, if it helps.Otherwise no woman would have cheated on her boyfriend just to sleep with you.

I'd like for you to explain what is a gamma male?

She was a pot-smoking Canadian who just moved to the States. I think either she was mentally unbalanced, or botched up. Plus, it's quite possible that then I was a beta male and that I fell into the omega male status after continuing to botch up college and stay barely employed and financed.

but with the caveat that one cheats with a man who's either an alpha or a higher ranking beta than your boyfriend.

If you don't mind me asking, would you say that was the case in your situation?

Plus, it's quite possible that then I was a beta male and that I fell into the omega male status after continuing to botch up college and stay barely employed and financed.

Oh yeah, 'cause poor people never get laid. ;)

One thing men seem to consistently overlook in all their little sex theories is the role of female vanity. Apparently men don't particularly care if women find them attractive, as long as the woman is willing for whatever reason. Women are the opposite. When it comes to sex, a woman needs to feel a man thinks she's really hot. (Unless she's got pathetically low self esteem like the Bridget Everett character, and doesn't think anyone will find her hot anyway.) That's one reason women will hook up with less attractive men, even though we'd never admit it to them. Acting appreciative will get you far.

that was the most omega post ever

Christy, men will use these labels, silly as they are. Better the seminal article come from the mind of HS than some of the other possibilities out there.

I find the original animal harem-specific definition helpful. Do you think a guy (or girl) could be the alpha within his particular little group, but less desirable in society at large? I think that happened a few times to me in school. I'd meet some guy in class or whatever, and he was sort of geeky and OK-looking, but not particularly handsome. I'd let down my guard, figuring he wasn't going to be the type to cheat or screw me over. Then it turned out he was the big cheese in his big clique, (which comprised people I didn't know), probably in big part because he had the most money (which I didn't know about either). So he had many options and acted accordingly. And none of the people outside the clique could believe I got tossed over by such a dork, and they figured I must have done something weird to blow it.

The people who devised this terminology to describe wolf pack hierarchies did have alpha females as well (alpha pair, the two top dogs) and only the alpha female would have pups.
As a model for predicting human behavior, this seems to have serious shortcomings. It works well as an amorphous target for people to project their own concerns on to though :-)

There is no need to assign labels to females, for the same reason we judge the ability of a hunter by how many deer he gets a season, but don't judge deer by how well they fall down after being shot. The point is the hunt and the kill, and the women are the prey. Modern society (rightly) prevents using force to obtain the desired end, and so other means have sprung up. Good hunters are alpha, mediocre hunters (and scavengers) are beta, and trainspotters are omega.

for the same reason we judge the ability of a hunter by how many deer he gets a season, but don't judge deer by how well they fall down after being shot. The point is the hunt and the kill, and the women are the prey.

Wow, what a turn-off.

I think what HS is getting at is positing that the distribution of male desirability is a normal distribution, with the beta guys representing the ~70% within 1 SD of the mean, and the alphas and omegas representing the parts of the curve after it hits an inflection point and begins to "tail off" in either direction. The further beta/gamma distinction, then, would be that betas are the ones from 0 to +1 SD, and gammas are those from -1 SD to 0.

I'd guess that the distribution is actually log-normally distributed, since male desirability is made up of many components -- height, IQ, wealth, charm, penis size, what have you -- few of which are highly correlated. The effects, I'd guess, are multiplicative: if a girl saw 3 guys, each of which scored highly only on one trait (say, height, IQ, and good looks), and then saw 1 guy who scored highly on all 3 traits, her reaction in the latter case wouldn't be simply the sum of her reactions to the guys in the former case, but their product. There'd be something synergistic about the appeal of the "has it all" guy.

Log-normal distributions are generally more skewed than normal curves, which I think jibes with women's complaints that most guys are losers or near-losers, and that there are damn few good men "left in the world" (they're wrong, though, that there was a golden age where the average guy was 6'3, charming, monogamous, and financially secure).

Bogus.

There are alphas and betas. Alphas are guys who know how to attract girls, while betas do not.

All you're observing is that among betas there are some who do not have enough redeeming features to even get lucky sometimes. Not omegas, just ugly betas.

Alpha behavior can be learned.

And we [women] must have some distinguishing features, beyond "hot" or "not." What about those of us who are smart, don't we do anything differently? At all?

Honestly, not really. There are other factors than just physical appearance, though that dominates everything else. But the other factors are personality traits: they can vary from guy to guy, the way some guys prefer a large butt and others a small butt. So, some guys prefer shy, coy females while others prefer cocky, hot-headed females. But intelligence is pretty orthogonal in most guy's minds -- it doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt, per se.

Females, for their part, don't care apart intelligence per se in a guy. During adolescence & young adulthood, they could care less about the brainy guys, or even the future law firm partners. Once they reach, say, 25, then they start focusing on a guy's IQ, but only to the extent that it's an honest signal of his earning ability.

So, she'd be excited to hear that her blind date is a Harvard grad, but then would become de-aroused if she discovered that he's an unemployed Wikipedia-editing geek. A guy who barely graduated State U but who's made a killing in sales would be more likely to turn her on.

Do you think a guy (or girl) could be the alpha within his particular little group, but less desirable in society at large?

To an extent. It's basic human nature that almost all groups will have natural leaders even in the absence of formal hirearchies. This occurs whether the group consists of Alphas (e.g. a college fraternity or group of cartball buddies), Betas (e.g. a bunch of average guys who get together each week to watch a game on TV and play cards), or Gammas (e.g. a clique of Star Trek fans). In each case there'll be one or two guys who just naturally seem to be in charge.

I said "to an extent" because this doesn't apply among Omegas. And it doesn't apply among them because Omegas usually are solitary and therefore the concept of a leader is pointless. If you're an off-the-charts, friendless, pathologically introverted nerd who lives in Mom's basement and does nothing except play WoW, you certainly can't have a "leader."

If you don't mind me asking, would you say that was the case in your situation?

After thinking about it, I wonder. Her b/f was in his forties, good looking, athletic, somewhat bright but not particularly intellectually curious, Jewish, but he worked in a blue collar union position that paid decently, but nowhere near what he needed to buy a house on Long Island, especially during the past 5 years.

When I met her, it was about three years ago, and we had met in a community college class. Back then I was unemployed and living off my large savings, and it was my second semester at that school so I was still somewhat optimistic about school and my life in general. We had sex, we stayed friends, but every so often, we crawled back and had sex, and the last time was in May where her boyfriend caught us. I haven't seen her since then and I miss her.

I've yet to really figure out what she saw in me then, or why she kept me around for those years. Maybe I appealed to her intellectual side that her boyfriend wasn't satisfying, but I do remember when she said that I couldn't be her boyfriend because I was too boring. At that point, I wondered that if I couldn't be her boyfriend if she was single*, then what girl would accept me? Thanks to her, I have a much healthier appreciation for my sexuality, and she gave into my fetish when were together, but at the same time, I felt less reassured about my ability to find and maintain a girlfriend.

And it doesn't apply among them because Omegas usually are solitary and therefore the concept of a leader is pointless. If you're an off-the-charts, friendless, pathologically introverted nerd who lives in Mom's basement and does nothing except play WoW, you certainly can't have a "leader."

If you change the "Mom's basement" into bedroom, and WOW into just surfing the Internet, chatting with a few other people online or railfans, and playing Sim City, then I'm the perfect Omega.

"she gave into my fetish when were together"

Yeah, you are going to have to expound on that. No pun intended.

>>and the last time was in May where her boyfriend caught us.

See now, it's good in that situation that Nassau doesn't have conceal carry.

I'm generally "armed" at all times with a utility knife. If I were that guy, I would have cut your dick off. And there isn't a jury in America that would have convicted me.

Alexander, Gamma males, as some other commenters have hinted, have a very low status as mates, but usually end up married by the time they get their act together with regards to women and/or achieve some sort of financial stability. This often happens late, typically well in their thirties.
Omegas in my mind have no mating status at all. They´re totally out of the game. Some omegas graduate to gamma status once they overcome acne and adolescence. Most never do.

But intelligence is pretty orthogonal in most guy's minds -- it doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt, per se.

I think the obvious rise of assortive mating indicates that intelligence, education, professional prestige, etc. plays a significant role in high status men's choice of wives. For example, most of my male colleagues from med school dated & married female doctors, lawyers, or other professional women who were in fields that required a graduate education.

They didn't hook up with, say, nurses, paralegals, or secretaries, who were often quite attractive (& more so than the more intelligent & highly achieving women, as well as "easier" - I don't mean sexually necessarily, it's just that those women are dating up instead of laterally, and as a result may be more accomodating).

Looking at these couples, you definitely get a sense that the man & woman are similar in IQ - that's clearly not a coincidence. Whether they're conscious of it or not, these guys are obviously selecting their companions for intelligence in addition to other factors.

I've yet to really figure out what she saw in me then, or why she kept me around for those years. Maybe I appealed to her intellectual side that her boyfriend wasn't satisfying, but I do remember when she said that I couldn't be her boyfriend because I was too boring.

You're overthinking it. You were there. And you were way younger, and you weren't him, and you were interesting, and maybe being "exotic" factored in as well. Women find all that stuff attractive just like guys do.

Now, I can see where a woman wouldn't want to marry based on that, or have a kid based on that. That's a different story. The "boring" thing was just because she felt mean one day, or didn't want to admit the real reason ("You're a kid!" "[And just maybe] You're black!").

Gamma males, as some other commenters have hinted, have a very low status as mates, but usually end up married by the time they get their act together with regards to women and/or achieve some sort of financial stability. This often happens late, typically well in their thirties.

While no doubt the average Gamma male would be happy to become Beta or, ideally, Alpha, it's not critically important. What we're really getting at in the whole Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Omega is a man's ability to find a woman. And as it's true, as you state, that most Gammas eventually find women, they don't absolutely need to change. If you're the sort of man who'd rather watch Star Trek than the NFL, but you've got a wife who loves you and accepts you for the way you are, well, it's hardly a tragedy.* I acknowledge that if the Woman Shortage is getting worse, as may be the case, Gamma-ness might become much more of a handicap and hence the need to improve one's standing will become more critical. We're not yet at that stage, however.

Omegas in my mind have no mating status at all. They´re totally out of the game. Some omegas graduate to gamma status once they overcome acne and adolescence. Most never do.

Now, quite obviously if you're an Omega you absolutely must improve to at least Gamma level unless you want to spend your life alone. That's unlikely to happen very often, unfortunately, because most Omegas are too far gone to "upgrade" themselves. Not to mention the fact that some of them actually prefer being alone.

* = which brings up the point about Alphas stealing other men's wives. While of course that happens, quite probably a lot, I strongly suspect that wife-stealing Alphas usually target the wives of ... other Alphas.

And I forgot to mention one of the ironclad Laws of Blogging - the obligatory "She's cute & smart!!!" post. Any blog authored by a high IQ man & most likely primarily frequented by high IQ men will at least once post a photo of a halfway attractive woman who is also a chess champion, computer/tech entrepreneur, research scientist, whatever and then all the guys in the comment section will proceed to fall over in fits of passion.

Obviously, if brains held little interest to these guys, they could just post pictures of really attractive (instead of passably attractive) women and make no reference to their intelligence at all, because who cares? So, keep hope alive Spungen. It matters to many of us.

Yeah, you are going to have to expound on that. No pun intended.

Maybe it should have been fetishes. I have a particular taste for girls who get their nails done. Any where I go, I'm always looking at womens hands to see if they're done, and how they've styled their nails. My particular taste is for women who have acrylic nails that around about 1/2 in long.

This girl did me a favour and she got her nails done for me when were together for a little bit, and I loved it. She also happened to put on high heels and lots of make out whenever we had sex for me as well. I guess one can blame watching lots of porn for my interest in having sex with heavily made up women with long nails. When I did have sex with her when she wasn't made up with nails, it just wasn't as interesting or exciting, and I didn't even orgasm from the blowjob. Acrylic nails, high heels, and a heavy use of make up just scream sex, and when those things are missing, it just doesn't work out for me.

See now, it's good in that situation that Nassau doesn't have conceal carry.

I'm generally "armed" at all times with a utility knife. If I were that guy, I would have cut your dick off. And there isn't a jury in America that would have convicted me.

I consider myself lucky that it turned out the way that it did given that I could easily ended up injured or dead. It was a bad mistake, and I can't blame anybody but myself for being in that position. I could have said no to her, but I didn't because I was too greedy and didn't give a shit about his feelings.

BTW, I'm unarmed.

David A., watch out for trannies. They're big on that stuff.

You're overthinking it. You were there. And you were way younger, and you weren't him, and you were interesting, and maybe being "exotic" factored in as well. Women find all that stuff attractive just like guys do.

You're right. She grew up in Atlantic Canada, and I was a Caribbean male from a Francophone culture. I was exotic and different for her since she grew up mostly around Scottish maritime culture.

Now, I can see where a woman wouldn't want to marry based on that, or have a kid based on that. That's a different story. The "boring" thing was just because she felt mean one day, or didn't want to admit the real reason ("You're a kid!" "[And just maybe] You're black!").

Well, I wasn't expecting her to ever be my girlfriend, but I had always interpreted the comment as "if we were closer in age and both of us single, then I wouldn't be your boyfriend", and as much as I'd like to have sex with lots of different beautiful women, it's nice to know that somebody likes you enough that they'd even entertain the idea of having a long-term relationship together, especially if she's a white girl.

As for the black issue, her parents met me and they liked me, especially her dad, but they're not liberal enough to allow for an interracial relationship with their daughter. She's also the type not to give a shit about what they think, so I don't think that had a role to play. But, that is one of my relationship fears and why I don't bother in many cases. I don't want to deal with racist parents, and I don't want to cause a rift between parents and their child.

David A., watch out for trannies. They're big on that stuff.

In my deepest darkest moments, I've considered going to one of them because of that reputation. Either that or a prostitute since the women who do that would never, ever have sex with me.

it's nice to know that somebody likes you enough that they'd even entertain the idea of having a long-term relationship together, especially if she's a white girl.

Sounds like she was mean just for the sake of being mean. Women do that too. I suspect that behavior of people who engage in power-imbalanced relationships (like w/a very young man), whether they are male or female.

I think Spungen has asked all the questions I might have... My head is spinning though with so many letters and definitions. I still stand by what I said, these are great in theory, but in "real life" I haven't yet met one man who is a "pure Alpha male" and, also, I have met Alpha males who don't always get the "hot" women.

I can't remember who it was who said this (I think it was Agnositc), but you say that men don't really care much about other characteristics other than "hotness", the rest is subject to personal preference. Well, I hate to break it to you, but the same applies to what women like in men - depends on personal preferences, therefore, the guy I go for will most probably have characteristics of all these "types" - Alpha, beta, gamma and omega - or does that not exist?

Spungen, you say that women like to feel sexy from a guy. But then he's showing too much interest, which is a turnoff.

And by the way guys, if your woman cheats on you, it's HER fault, not the guy she cheats with. After all, he's just trying to get some. And at least you find out your woman is a ho.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the same applies to what women like in men - depends on personal preferences, therefore, the guy I go for will most probably have characteristics of all these "types" - Alpha, beta, gamma and omega - or does that not exist?

If that was true, then why aren't women fighting over me.

And by the way guys, if your woman cheats on you, it's HER fault, not the guy she cheats with. After all, he's just trying to get some. And at least you find out your woman is a ho.

Actually, if the guy knows that she has a boyfriend or significant other, then it his fault as well. Besides, if she cheats on you, is that such a bad thing? Maybe it means she just needs more sex than what you're providing alone.

Spungen, you say that women like to feel sexy from a guy. But then he's showing too much interest, which is a turnoff.

Sexual interest, absolutely not a turnoff. Praise for physical qualities, absolutely never ever a turnoff. Big difference between that and acting smothering or needy, which is indeed a turnoff.

"If that was true, then why aren't women fighting over me."

From what I have been reading about you here, my guess is that you don't give yourself a chance. As you have said before, you "gave up". When you give up, you don't attract anyone. First step is to believe in yourself, and you don't have to be an "Alpha male" to do that.

From what I have been reading about you here, my guess is that you don't give yourself a chance. As you have said before, you "gave up". When you give up, you don't attract anyone. First step is to believe in yourself, and you don't have to be an "Alpha male" to do that.

I stopped giving myself a chance because I tend to fuck up a lot of stuff and secondly, nobody else (that *I* wanted) was giving me a chance. I figured that at 23 years old, the market for a barely employed, non-college educated black male who's only interested in white females was non-existent, and my sexual appeal is limited by virtue of my small, non-athletic frame. Since my ideal woman is a creature that can only exist in the imagination of my porn-filled mind, then I figured that it would be best to stay off the market, and just hope that I'd have some female friends to keep me company. Since I've lost that because of the other issues above, I think it's just best if I really don't bother anymore.

Could any or all of you proponents of the alpha/beta/(optionally other greek letters) model please classify the following men for me so that I can wrap my head around your system?

Woody Allen
Mahatma Gandhi
Adolf Hitler
Andy Warhol
Richard Feynmann
Simo Häyhä
Ron Jeremy
Richard Nixon
Crispin Glover

If that was true, then why aren't women fighting over me.

Non sequitor. She did say personal preference plays a role.

Agnostic and some of you others, I think you overlook the brag factor of intelligence and related accomplishments in whatever shallow system women use to judge men. There is a lot of pop culture respect for the highly intelligent, at least for men. I'm not saying that it will make up for huge deficits in other areas, but it does seem to earn a man some points independently of perceived earning power. I'm basing this not just on my own weird self, but on how other women would react approvingly if I presented a man as being highly intelligent.

If a man is known as being bitter or insulting or creepy toward women, women will generally shun a woman who acts approvingly toward him. The "gross loser" factor. So maybe some of you brains are blowing your Paragraph 1 advantage with behavior in Paragraph 2. Just a guess.

Crispin Glover

Yum, yum, yum. I will automatically dismiss any theory w/o Crispin at the apex of the pyramid.

"Since my ideal woman is a creature that can only exist in the imagination of my porn-filled mind..."

David, at least you realize that :) You have a very defeatest attitude though. How about watching less porn and looking at more real women? That might help.

"So maybe some of you brains are blowing your Paragraph 1 advantage with behavior in Paragraph 2. Just a guess."

I think that is a very good guess Spungen.

"Woody Allen - Mahatma Gandhi - Adolf Hitler - Andy Warhol - Richard Feynmann"

Anyone really famous for their accomplishments is, by definition, an alpha male. So the first four on the list are certainly alpha males.

The last guy is a moderately famous phsysicist whom I never heard of until you mentioned him. Not famous enough, and in a nerdy profession, so not automatically alpha.

I read his bio, and he was married (more than once), so he's at least a beta male. But he might be the rare alpha-male physicist. Not enough information to say.

"The last guy is a moderately famous phsysicist"

Isn't Crispin Glover an actor?

Actually, Crispin might be a good example of a guy who blows it. He's good-looking, but not in a jock kind of way, and apparently brilliant too. I've read that he'd be a lot more successful if he didn't piss so many industry people off. I have no idea how he treats women, but he reminds me of guys IRL who do attract interest, then screw it up with various neurotic or critical behaviors.

David, at least you realize that :) You have a very defeatest attitude though. How about watching less porn and looking at more real women? That might help.

Real women aren't attractive enough sexually. Yes, they're beautiful, smart, intelligent, warm, and friendly, but that's what makes many of them good long term friends, not good sex partners.

With group of guys, I am definitely omega. I do not have dominant personality. Actually I am follower most time among guys. When come to women, yet I had over 30 girlfriends whom I could remember. At one time, I had 3 girlfriends sleeping with for couple of months. Certainly I had to lie to keep all of them. Yes, I even seduced married women. But I am really soft in term of personality.

Am I alpha male?

David A.,

You are the best evidence in the case for criminalizing pornography that I have ever seen, at least in regards to the damage it does to men.

I find it interesting that nails are one of the first places you look when you meet someone. I'm the exact opposite, though. I have a near pathological aversion to gussied up nails.

Peter,

If you're the sort of man who'd rather watch Star Trek than the NFL, but you've got a wife who loves you and accepts you for the way you are, well, it's hardly a tragedy.

You've made allusions to this before, but I find the suggestion that being a fan of the NFL is helpful with the ladies to be deeply contrary to my experience. I can take or leave professional football, but I am conversationally proficient about it. Believe me, if that had been a good card to play with the ladies, I'd have played it, but it was worse than useless.

I would agree that there is a corrolation between interest in professional football and female attraction, but it's not at all causal. Interest in the NFL corrolates with a guy's popularity with other guys and a guy's popular standing within the guy community matters in the dating world, but the relationship between appreciating professional football and success with the ladies is tangential at best.

Spungen,

Actually, Crispin might be a good example of a guy who blows it. He's good-looking, but not in a jock kind of way, and apparently brilliant too. I've read that he'd be a lot more successful if he didn't piss so many industry people off. I have no idea how he treats women, but he reminds me of guys IRL who do attract interest, then screw it up with various neurotic or critical behaviors.

This is how a whole lot of social rejects fashion themselves. In some sense they feel themselves better off behaving this way because it's preferable to trying to be social and still falling where short of where they would like to be socially. It's sort of like seeing a bad hand and folding right off the bat so that you can tell everybody that you may have had a good hand and they can't contradict you.

Now, I can see where a woman wouldn't want to marry based on that, or have a kid based on that. That's a different story. The "boring" thing was just because she felt mean one day, or didn't want to admit the real reason ("You're a kid!" "[And just maybe] You're black!").

Are you saying that because David isn't boring or because boring isn't a reason that guys are rejected?

Jesus HS, you have never heard of Feynman until today!?
Definitely started beta, became alpha in later life.

I'm saying, if a guy's unboring enough to have sex with, he's unboring enough to be her boyfriend. My personal experience and prejudices make me suspect she was not the type of person who would give him an honest answer, but rather would be manipulative.

He could still be boring, I'm just saying that probably wasn't her real reason.

Think of it as the female corrolary of when a guy tells a woman she's too crazy, or negative, or mean, as an excuse for dumping her after having sex with her. It's an excuse to weasel out of a relationship.

"Real women aren't attractive enough sexually."

If you want to change your perspective (which I am guessing you don't), try going without porn for a month and see if your view on "real women" changes.

FWIW, Richard Feynman was an alpha. He writes about it in his first book. When someone with a 150+ IQ devotes themselves to a task, they will achieve it.

He talked up successful philanderer-types and methodically applied the rules/pointers they told him.

At the risk of bringing this thread on-topic, I suggest HS had the classification right from the beginning. There are only 3 types of men:

Alphas can mate-up as they wish
Betas must work to maintain one monogamous relationship at a time
Omegas no chance, no how. Many of these folks either accept their fate or end up as criminals

As for women, only two types: hot or not

Hot are able to mate. They have at least one redeeming quality at least one man can fixate upon inspite of all the other short-comings

Not cannot mate. No man meeting her minimum threshold of what constitute a suitable mate (ie. Beta) would give her the time of day. Obviously there are very few of these women.

And obviously these gross categories have a spectrum within them.

Finally, David A, you are a Beta that through self-delusion is allowing yourself to become an Omega. IMO. Snap-out of it, cast-off your demons, and start working at finding a woman in your league. They are out there. Maybe not in Long Island, but somewhere.

Every ultranerd male academic I've ever known eventually gets married... to one of his students.

This is how a whole lot of social rejects fashion themselves. In some sense they feel themselves better off behaving this way because it's preferable to trying to be social and still falling where short of where they would like to be socially.

Are they right, though, that they really would fall short? Or are they just more insecure than they should be?

Seems that there are guys who do have things going for them who shoot themselves in the foot that way. I had it happen with a couple of the brighter and more talented guys I dated, guys I was genuinely excited about. Early on, they suddenly had to be a jerk about something that seemed small or go on a weird tear. Like before we even had sex.

trumwill: "I find the suggestion that being a fan of the NFL is helpful with the ladies to be deeply contrary to my experience."

I would have agreed with that, except one time I overheard a very cute girl telling her friend that she dated at guy who wasn't interested in football, and she found it weird and a turnoff and a reason not to see him.

She was in her twenties and a graduate of Arizona State University who worked at a cultural organization in Washingon DC, if that helps you put things into perspective.

michale vassar: "you have never heard of Feynman until today!?"

Nope.

Maybe Zonians are different. But I know a lot of attractive women who find football boring and would prefer a guy who agreed with them. Makes sense, if you consider that there are more male fans than female. So, in balance, it would be a selling point more often than a detractant.

Ah, but assortative mating only shows that really brainy / successful guys might care about smarts in a girl, as else equal. I thought we were talking about what guys in general find attractive in a girl -- large, penetrating eyes, non-overweight figure, lustruous hair, and so on.

I think one reason there is more assortative mating for IQ / status is that enough generations of mating between smart / successful husbands and hot trophy wives has produced girls who are both smart and good-looking, so that there's not as much of a trade-off as before.

The suggestion that bitterness among brainiacs it the cause of their loneliness has it backwards: they're unappreciated (which is fine; I'm not suggesting we brainwash girls to worship nerds), and become bitter over time. They know from personal experience that brains per se count for little.

In my case, when in 12th grade I was editor of the award-winning school paper, kicked ass in quiz bowl, and got accepted to elite colleges, girls didn't gravitate in my direction. Earlier in 8th grade when I dyed my hair first purple and then rose red, and behaved like a rebel, almost overnight the popular pretty girls were talking to me in class... first out of curiosity, but then one of them developed a crush on me. Similarly when I sported a Taxi Driver mohawk in 9th grade... I should just dye my hair again.

Agnostic, even if it's only true as pertains to assortative mating, it has to be a high priority if it's valued, because there just aren't many highly intelligent people out there. One has to be flexible on other matters if one is going to demand a characteristic possessed by only, say, 5 or 10 percent of the population.

You are the best evidence in the case for criminalizing pornography that I have ever seen, at least in regards to the damage it does to men.

From my own anecdotal experiences, I view pornography in a similar way to alcohol. It's not something that bad when viewed moderately, but when it's in the hands of a depressed person, it can easily spiral out of control and develop into a severe problem. I'd still say that a pornography addiction is not as severe as a drug abuse or alcoholism.

I find it interesting that nails are one of the first places you look when you meet someone. I'm the exact opposite, though. I have a near pathological aversion to gussied up nails.

I don't know where I got the interest, but I had it before I began watching porn. Sometimes you can find me staring into space, but in reality, I'm probably staring at some girls French manicures. In fact, I started watching porn because it was a great place to see beautiful women who had their nails done.

In fact, that was one of the reasons I hated Queens College. There, very few of the girls had their nails done, but at Nassau, in some classes, the majority of the girls had manicures that were religiously done.

If you want to change your perspective (which I am guessing you don't), try going without porn for a month and see if your view on "real women" changes.

I actually tried going without masturbation which by default meant doing without porn. It was a roughly two to two and half week period, and by the end, I was frustrated, bitchy, and easily irritated by anything little thing that went wrong. The porn effectively serves as my masturbatory device, and without it, it's no longer a fun experience, but more of a boring routine.

I don't watch pornography in lieu of television. I watch pornography as a masturbatory aid. What I've come to notice is that the women in porn look much more sexual than most of the women that I see on a day to day basis. I know that it's the makeup, clothing, and other accoutrement that they wear that gives them this sexual look, and that it's not easy to wear. Since it's not easy or practical to wear in real life, I'm certainly not going to force any woman to do that to make me happy, and it's just easier to stay with the porn that endure half-assed sex or demand some girl comply with my wishes.

Ha! I disappear for a day and this topic get 65 comments. I've never seen 65 comments before. This is hilarious.

Seriously, of course there's an infinite spectrum of desirability. I would like to see Spungen comment on it for women. I like the idea of +1 SD alpha, -1 SD omega, middle beta because it's easy to understand and intuitively obvious...

Wow, that's disturbing and interesting. Now that I think of it, I don't think I could really do that while thinking about someone who was just an actor, someone I didn't have at least some small connection with. Although I remember in my early teens, there were some rock stars ... Huh. I wonder when that changed for me. I wonder if it's a male/female thing, or something else.

I'll give that some thought, SFG.

I would have agreed with that, except one time I overheard a very cute girl telling her friend that she dated at guy who wasn't interested in football, and she found it weird and a turnoff and a reason not to see him.

For her, his lack of involvement in football is a sign of a lack of masculinity.

My personal experience and prejudices make me suspect she was not the type of person who would give him an honest answer, but rather would be manipulative.

You're not the only person to think that she was manipulating me. A good number of my friends didn't like her and one of my female friends* hated her and hated anytime I mentioned that I did anything with her.

I don't think I can really say anything bad about her, and I still believe she was a good friend to me.

*That female was periodically referred to as "my Queen" because I loved her to death as a friend. We're no longer friends since I lied to her and thus betrayed her trust.

Finally, David A, you are a Beta that through self-delusion is allowing yourself to become an Omega. IMO. Snap-out of it, cast-off your demons, and start working at finding a woman in your league. They are out there. Maybe not in Long Island, but somewhere.

Given that there are 2 million people in Queens and 1.3 million in Nassau county, it's possible, but I'm just way too picky and inflexible and rigid. The girls in my league tend to be the unwanted girls that even the desperate betas won't touch, and there's just something mentally insulting about that. At times I wonder what's better, to have somebody who loves me or just wants to have sex with me, but reminds me of my low social ranking, staying alone?

C'est la grande question.

"In fact, that was one of the reasons I hated Queens College. There, very few of the girls had their nails done, but at Nassau, in some classes, the majority of the girls had manicures that were religiously done."

How many colleges have you been to?

I think you need to stop the bull shit and graduate, get in shape and be more social. You make it seem like it is impossible to find a decent chick, and that is baloney. You either aren't trying hard enough or you are trying to get a chick that is way out of your league.

We're no longer friends since I lied to her and thus betrayed her trust.

Says who, her?

Sounds like guilt and manipulation. I bet she lied to you plenty. And while we're on the subject, my God, who gets caught en flagrante delicto!? I bet she planned it for the thrill.

Sounds like you're well shut of her. Chalk it up to youthful experience.

The truth is, males can be divided into only two camps, but on a number of different characteristics.

For example, some males are prepared to get their tongues into the groove, and some not.

On the other hand, some males will invest extroadinary amounts of effort, both immediate, in the form of time, and other, in the form of money and resources. Of course, such men know that there are predators out there that offer to make their reproductive equipment avialable, but will trick them at the drop of a hat.

Isn't life interesting.


my God, who gets caught en flagrante delicto!?


I think the term you were looking for was
in flagrante delicto

How many colleges have you been to?

This is the order for those keeping track:

1) Stevens Institute of Technology
2) Nassau Community College
3) Queens College
4) Nassau Community College

No, I didn't not recieve an Associate's Degree. The next school is up in the air as the local private colleges are overpriced and the local commuter college is one of the worst colleges in the SUNY system. Thus my choice is either to drive about 40 miles away to Stony Brook University, attend Hunter College with my brother in Manhattan, or return to Queens College. The last option is to go to a private school (Hofstra or Adelphi) near by and endure the pangs of inferiority for another two years.

I think you need to stop the bull shit and graduate, get in shape and be more social.

The finish school part is rather obvious. The get in shape part, less so, but I understand. Being more social is much harder because it requires a mind set that I just don't have yet.

You make it seem like it is impossible to find a decent chick, and that is baloney. You either aren't trying hard enough or you are trying to get a chick that is way out of your league.

It's quite possible that's true, and yes, I don't really try. I'm a black male holding out for a white girl. I'll admit that it's much harder to do that, but I'll hold out.

Says who, her?

Yes, "My Queen" said I betrayed her trust. We had a long conversation because I wondered why she had stopped sending instant messages to me.

I should clarify that the female known as "My Queen" is a friend I met before "older Canadian female". I had a crush on "My Queen", but those feelings dissipated after she essentially told me "no". My Queen is the one who informed me of my lack of alpha status.

my God, who gets caught en flagrante delicto!?

I was stupid enough to fool around with her while her boyfriend was in the house. Of course, my foolish mind was so sex addicted that going into my car (which at the time had tinted windows) was safe enough. Apparently, he noticed that his g/f was missing and he subsequently found us across the street in the park.

"I overheard a very cute girl telling her friend that she dated at guy who wasn't interested in football, and she found it weird and a turnoff and a reason not to see him."

I don't know ONE woman (yes, cute ones) who would think that a guy not interested in football was a turnoff. Quite the opposite, the women I know find football very boring and dread football season.

David Alexander - why not take up weightlifting? I really think it would help turn things around for you. You'll get stronger, feel more confident due to the testosterone increase and looking better naked. It'll teach you discipline and help mold a positve mental attitude. Look how it worked out for Arnold.

Is this post going to take the record for most comments?

And isn't David Alexander giving too much information?

Thus my choice is either to drive about 40 miles away to Stony Brook University, attend Hunter College with my brother in Manhattan, or return to Queens College. The last option is to go to a private school (Hofstra or Adelphi) near by and endure the pangs of inferiority for another two years.


I got an AA back in '96, and I've been screwing around with college ever since. I've been plagued by the lack of classes at the local, tiny (1,700 student) satellite campus of the state U, so this semester I finally took the plunge and went to the big campus. (Big campus = 37,000 students, literally 21 times as large.)

It's a 90-minute drive each way, and I do it twice a week. Still though, it feels so good to finally take the plunge that I don't mind.

Being almost 40, I don't expect to meet Ms. Right at this campus. So, going to college isn't an answer to all of my (or your) problems. Still though, I gotta caution you to not screw around for ten years like I did, hemming and hawing whether to really apply yourself to college. Just friggin' go. Get whatever subjects you don't like out of the way, so you can zero in on what you do like.

Hell, I'm getting ready to quit my job, just so I can move closer to that campus. Seeing as I've had my job for 8 years, it's something of a committment. (Of course, my factory will probably close in a couple years anyway, so I guess I'm only jumping the gun in bailing out.)

Still though, if I can walk around that campus with my comb-over proudly displayed, you can peddle your skinny black ass around without shame. Christ, some of the kids at the big campus looked like they just walked off the Springer show. One kid in my class looked like he hadn't showered in a week.


Just go....

David Alexander - why not take up weightlifting?

Eww, testosterone! Actually, I'm considering doing that these days. The small weights in my room that are being used on a daily basis should be sign of something, right?

And isn't David Alexander giving too much information?

It's not a problem for David Alexander since that's not his real name. Since David doesn't live near any of you and will never meet any of you in real life, he feels that he doesn't have much to fear.

Besides, it's more traffic for HS, which means more money for him through his Google Adsense ads, right?

Just go....

The question at this point isn't whether to go or not go, but where to go afterwards. It eventually becomes sickening watching the kids who were in remedial classes get their degrees before you do...

Indeed, Mr. Alexander, we could do without some of the details.

I think one reason there is more assortative mating for IQ / status is that enough generations of mating between smart / successful husbands and hot trophy wives has produced girls who are both smart and good-looking, so that there's not as much of a trade-off as before.

I doubt that smart girls have recently evolved into more beautiful beings - smart man-hot woman pairings weren't (and aren't)frequent enough to raise the overall hotness rating of today's young women.

Male executives used to marry their secretaries & doctors used to marry nurses because that's who they had access to back in the days where high IQ women didn't have as much access to higher education & had fewer job opportunities. Now that successful, high IQ men are easily able to meet successful, high IQ women because both groups flock to the same elite schools & professions, they tend to pick them as mates. Opposites do not attract when it comes to brains & pedigree.

Whether the resulting assortive mating/ cognitive elite is good or bad is another matter altogether (for starters, it means lower social mobility for less-educated women).

You are assuming that men are driving the assortative mating for IQ and not women, although I suspect it's more assortative mating for class rather than assortative mating for IQ.

Women are turned off by men of lower class, but aren't especially more attracted to men of higher class. That's what drives the assortative mating.

I suspect it's more assortative mating for class rather than assortative mating for IQ.

Yes, but in these days of increased meritocracy, where a person's social class is not just determined by his breeding but also by his profession & education (which is obviously hugely influenced by IQ), class & IQ are inextricably tied together.

I know it's late, but this might be worth a separate post.

I couldn't remember where I read it, but I looked it up and Inductivist found that there's been no substantial increase over the past 80 years in assortative mating for education, which is a good proxy for IQ and social status. He used GSS data.

Perhaps our mistaken impression that the trend has increased leaps and bounds is that the absolute number of people who graduate college has increased over the past 80 years, so there are more college-college couples than before, even though people are no more or less likely than before to choose a partner of similar educational level.

Link

"Women are turned off by men of lower class, but aren't especially more attracted to men of higher class."
Huh? Cinderella? 'Maid in Manhattan'? Of course it's a sliding scale! Women are attracted to higher-status men just as men are attracted to higher-beauty women.

"Perhaps our mistaken impression that the trend has increased leaps and bounds is that the absolute number of people who graduate college has increased over the past 80 years, so there are more college-college couples than before, even though people are no more or less likely than before to choose a partner of similar educational level."
Yup. Fussell again: most of the people going to a directional state U wouldn't have gone to any college. Of course, now that college is not just a status marker (although it is that as well), a Harvard degree is not an unmitigated blessing for a woman. Men don't like to date up.

SFG, nope, I haven't observed that women are especially attracted to higher social class men.

So as an upper middle class man I can walk into a prole bar in Staten Island and all the women will prefer me? Nope, that doesn't happen.

Women want a high status man from within their own class.

Cinderella is a 300 year old story so has no relevance to today. But if you look at the story, Cinderella was actually the daughter of a rich merchant who was orphaned and raised by a lower class stepmother. She does not actually rise in class by hooking up with the prince, but rather she is RETURNED to her RIGHTFUL class.

Women are attracted to higher-status men just as men are attracted to higher-beauty women.

Oh, and men don't pine after higher-class women? "Uptown Girl?" "Winter Dreams" or just about anything else by F. Scott Fitzgerald? "Some Kind of Wonderful?" Any Bollywood movie? WHY will you guys not admit this?!

HS, interesting point about Cinderella. But how much have our genes changed in 300 years?

Repeat the prole bar experiment as a guy of your same status, but you're in the top 5% of looks for men (not just at the bar, in general). Different result? Even compared to the other top-5% guys of their same status.

Otherwise I think you are right. Unless a woman is an unusually serious gold-digger, even if she cares a lot about money, she prefers a guy of her class who shows potential. But why would that be, if we are genetically programmed to seek the man with the most resources? Clearly there is something else going on.

SFG, I'm not very strong on stats so I may be misunderstanding your proposed formula. But it sounds like it puts too many men both at the top and the undesirable bottom. And I don't agree that it's all relative, I think there are some absolutes involved. The number of men meeting the absolute requirements to stay out of the lowest level probably varies with the economy.

"Women want a high status man from within their own class."

I agree with this statement in general terms. I think that is usually what happens, however, there are quite a few women who do marry men from inferior classes as well as marry up. Same goes for men. I am being repetitive, but I insist there are no rules, only the more usual.

It sounds like these Greek letters just add an unnecessary layer of complication to the observation that people tend to prefer the most attractive, popular, wealthy people around them. So far, HS hasn't singled out any specific "alpha male" characteristic. The definition is outcome-based.

But you men know that if you just come out and say, "You ladies are shallow, you all want the hottest, richest guys, even if they're way better than you have any right to think you deserve," then we'll just say the same back to you. Because it will be true. So you try to gussy up your humdrum little complaint with this alpha/beta pseudo-science.

"Women want a high status man from within their own class."

This is true. Prole chicks generally don't want to date preppy guys and preppy chicks generally don't generally want to date prole guys.

The reason is that they have nothing in common with each other.

For example, how much will a college educated guy (who works as business professional) have in common with a prole chick who works as a cashier at a super market?

Only if there are other factors, such as the prole chick being super hot, will the guy be interested in her for long.

Because it will be true. So you try to gussy up your humdrum little complaint with this alpha/beta pseudo-science.

Alpha males are the scapegoat for jealous males who want an explanation of why the alpha males have taken all of the "best" women and have left them with "fat girl from down the street", or in some cases, no girl at all. It's much easier for the ego to accept that it's the alpha's fault for stealing the women or the girl's fault for liking the alphas than to say something's wrong with myself.

The reason is that they have nothing in common with each other.

Aha! So at least one man on this thread admits attraction is based in significant part on having things in common, even to the detriment of money and status and looks

"Alpha males are the scapegoat for jealous males who want an explanation of why the alpha males have taken all of the "best" women and have left them with "fat girl from down the street""

I find it amazing that only 15% of all males are capable of getting all the hot women, not leaving any for the poor beta males.

It's much easier for the ego to accept that it's the alpha's fault for stealing the women or the girl's fault for liking the alphas than to say something's wrong with myself.

Or maybe neither is the truth; it's just that the world's mostly full of mundane unexceptional people. And otherwise desirable people who can't get along.

Because nothing here has explained why so many young women are single. It's the big gaping hole in your theory. Why aren't there 2 or 3 young men competing for every decent-looking woman? Is that the best you can do, accuse them all of going without so they can hold out for the elusive "alpha male?"

The comments to this entry are closed.