Alpha vs Beta Mentality

[TheFinalWord]

Does that sound like Alpha or Beta mentality that I have. I think I am an Alpha underdneath the surface, but my demeanor may come off as Beta.

 

Good questions and I think it's good to analyze your reactions to situations so you can find out how you can improve your life. A lot of people have a hard time saying "no" to things, and it causes them all kinds of stress. Being alpha doesn't mean you have to be a jerk, but generally speaking, you have assertive personality traits.

 

Rollo states the main distinction is that an alpha male (alpha/beta are a set of general traits, not a biological construct), is that an alpha male makes HIMSELF his own mental point of origin. In other words, when making a decision or taking an actions, he puts his needs first.

 

The beta male puts the needs of others first and supplicates himself to others.

 

A lot of men fall into beta male mentality and supplicate to women as they believe this is going to win them over. Women don't like needy men, so when you put yourself first, you naturally will display behaviors that show a woman you want her, but you don't need her. That women are a compliment to your life, not the focus of it.

 

I recommend you read The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi. Also, the Tactical Guide to Women by Dr. Shawn Smith. As well as No More Mr. Nice Guy by Robert Glover.

Edited October 26, 2019 by TheFinalWord

[major_merrick]

In other words, when making a decision or taking an actions, he puts his needs first.

The beta male puts the needs of others first and supplicates himself to others.

I think that's where the concept falls down. To me, a good man doesn't put himself above everybody else, and doesn't supplicate to everybody else. He serves his community and others, but in a dominant position. My husband puts his personal needs second, because he's man enough to put others first.

 

And even dominant men have emotional needs too. I know my husband picks me up and cuddles me because he likes it as much as I do. He just doesn't tell me in words.

[basil67]

an alpha male makes HIMSELF his own mental point of origin. In other words, when making a decision or taking an actions, he puts his needs first.

 

If so, he would make a very poor father, partner, leader or employer. Basically, anything involving team work for the good of a group.

Edited October 26, 2019 by basil67

[TheFinalWord]

If so, he would make a very poor father, partner, leader or employer. Basically, anything involving team work for the good of a group.

 

Not at all! In fact, too many people with beta mindsets are running organizations which is why a lot of them fail. Weak leaders that get paralyzed by the opinions of those around them.

 

The alpha would be at the top of the chain of command. He must decide which decisions will better the company, and that that will not...among a sea of opinions of those under his authority.

 

At the end of the day, he has to do what he feels is best for accomplishing the mission of the company. Someone has to make the decisions, and if he is not his own mental point of origin, nothing will get accomplished.

[TheFinalWord]

I think that's where the concept falls down. To me, a good man doesn't put himself above everybody else, and doesn't supplicate to everybody else. He serves his community and others, but in a dominant position. My husband puts his personal needs second, because he's man enough to put others first.

 

And even dominant men have emotional needs too. I know my husband picks me up and cuddles me because he likes it as much as I do. He just doesn't tell me in words.

 

Does your husband have the final word when it comes to major decisions of the household? If so, he's coming from a place of being his own mental point of origin. That does not mean he does not consider your opinion, or that he is a jerk. But if he has internalized his family as being his primary objective in life, he will have to make a decision based on what he believes is best for the family. That's alpha.

 

A beta male will be wishy-washy in his decisions. Those around him are not in his frame. Instead of basing his decisions on what he considers is best, he will default to a people pleaser mode, even if the resulting outcome is not really what is best to solve the particular problem.

 

Hope that makes sense. I'm trying to distill a massive topic into a few sentences. Alpha/beta constructs are a small part of the entire redpill philosophy. It's kind of hard to discuss it in isolation, but I'll try for you guys

[basil67]

Does your husband have the final word when it comes to major decisions of the household? If so, he's coming from a place of being his own mental point of origin. That does not mean he does not consider your opinion, or that he is a jerk. But if he has internalized his family as being his primary objective in life, he will have to make a decision based on what he believes is best for the family. That's alpha.

 

Thing is, Alpha keeps being portrayed by those who support this stuff as a desirable mate. But this guy sounds like an arrogant douche.

 

I know very few women who want a man who will always take final word in the running of a household. (Traditional households being the exception) Generally speaking, I hear of women wanting a man who respects them enough to be a team player with both parties giving and taking as required.

[basil67]

The alpha would be at the top of the chain of command. He must decide which decisions will better the company, and that that will not...among a sea of opinions of those under his authority.

 

But how does he rise up in the company if he's all about number one? So many businesses advertise for team players, and your Alpha is not a team player. While he may be successful at his individual role, I can see him putting others offside because he's all about himself. Would his contract be renewed if he's a source of staff conflict due to being unyielding?

[thefooloftheyear]

But how does he rise up in the company if he's all about number one? So many businesses advertise for team players, and your Alpha is not a team player. While he may be successful at his individual role, I can see him putting others offside because he's all about himself. Would his contract be renewed if he's a source of staff conflict due to being unyielding?

 

 

Its a big part of the reason why a lot of Alpha's either run their own companies or have positions where its not as they don't have people that they can count on, but at the end of the day the buck stops with them

 

 

TFY

[basil67]

I just can't figure out why men are told that a guy who isn't a team player is desirable to the the average modern woman. Most women these days want a guy who works together with her as a team, choosing direction and making decisions jointly.

[major_merrick]

Does your husband have the final word when it comes to major decisions of the household? If so, he's coming from a place of being his own mental point of origin. That does not mean he does not consider your opinion, or that he is a jerk. But if he has internalized his family as being his primary objective in life, he will have to make a decision based on what he believes is best for the family. That's alpha.

Yep. My husband pretty much has the final say. He always asks for counsel, but it is pretty clear who's in charge. That's part-and-parcel of the patriarchy, and it is how God set it up. My husband has a saying he repeats, though. "You don't have authority unless you are under authority." I think the idea of the lone alpha who always gets what he personally wants is basically crap. My husband acknowledges the authority of God, of his own father, and the elders of our community.

 

 

Thing is, Alpha keeps being portrayed by those who support this stuff as a desirable mate. But this guy sounds like an arrogant douche.

I know very few women who want a man who will always take final word in the running of a household. (Traditional households being the exception) Generally speaking, I hear of women wanting a man who respects them enough to be a team player with both parties giving and taking as required.

I think patriarchy can lead to a guy being an arrogant douche if he doesn't have his head on straight. We have a relatively traditional household, but my husband doesn't go around barking orders. That would get old FAST. The chain of command is there and it is clear that our home is not a democracy, but none of that would exist without "the consent of the governed." Even in a community where patriarchy is expected, autocracy would not survive.

 

I come from a feminist background. My husband earned my respect and my loyalty. I can willingly yield much of my autonomy to be part of a family and a community that is worth my effort and involvement.

[basil67]

I get that Merrick. That's why I made a caveat for traditional households in earlier posts.

[Gretchen12]

If a guy is single and lives alone, and is self employed (or unemployed), then he has the final say, that makes him an alpha male?

 

A man being more dominant than a woman in a relationship is no more alpha than the single man who's alpha by default. Dude, you are just dominating one woman who thought you were cute. It doesn't make you the head honcho in a group of men.

 

And in the male dominated culture, the dominance is handed to him by society. So every male in that society is an alpha male?

[TheFinalWord]

Yep. My husband pretty much has the final say. He always asks for counsel, but it is pretty clear who's in charge. That's part-and-parcel of the patriarchy, and it is how God set it up. My husband has a saying he repeats, though. "You don't have authority unless you are under authority." I think the idea of the lone alpha who always gets what he personally wants is basically crap. My husband acknowledges the authority of God, of his own father, and the elders of our community.

 

I agree with you MM.

 

If you look at the bible, it's the ultimate red pill book. It describes the role of the alpha male to a tee. If you think about what I said that the alpha considers himself his own mental point of origin, then you read...

 

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

 

We see the causal connection there. A man loves his wife as he loves himself (being his own mental point of origin), this leads to the wife respecting her husband. The aforementioned husband considers how he treats his wife from his own mental point of origin.

 

If he can hold his frame, his wife will feel safe to submit to his leadership because she can trust him to lead. If a man does not have confidence in his own decisions, and is wishy washy, a woman will not trust his leadership. And there may be times when he has to make a decision that the wife does not want or like. He will have to be very careful in this situation, to not lose frame and stop being his own mental point of origin. The woman will also be tested in this situation regarding her willingness to let her husband lead.

 

I don't know who is saying those with alpha traits are loners that always gets what they want. I've never head of those attributes in the red pill community. Alphas will become leaders, naturally, in groups. The main difference with a man with alpha male traits is he will operate from an abundance mindset, rather than a scarcity mindset. If you think about needy men for example. Why are they needy? They believe they may not meet another woman or that they aren't good enough for a woman. That beta mindset repels women because such a man is not someone she can put her confidence in to lead her. The alpha male essentially think, "I would love is she comes into my frame and complements my life. But if she does not want to, or does not want to come into my frame, I will find someone else that does." I would argue way too many men are in a scarcity mindset these days.

[alphamale]

alpha v. beta is not a mentality, it is a lifestyle

[TheFinalWord]

But how does he rise up in the company if he's all about number one? So many businesses advertise for team players, and your Alpha is not a team player. While he may be successful at his individual role, I can see him putting others offside because he's all about himself. Would his contract be renewed if he's a source of staff conflict due to being unyielding?

 

I don't think you're following what I am meaning. The alpha is leading the organization. If his job is to make profit for a company, then of course, he will only succeed if the company succeeds, which in turn, benefits all of the team members.

 

If you think of an executive officer of a company. If he is not making a profit for the shareholders, he won't be there for long. But at the end of the day he has to be his own mental point of origin when it comes to making the big decisions.

 

I recall President Obama saying once in an interview when asked "what's the worst part of your job" He said, basically, that he gets only the toughest problems. He only gets problems that other people are unable to solve, or else they would have been solved already by the time they get to him.

 

The President of course has advisors and his decisions affect the entire country. But at the end of the day, if he sends the military into a country to attack, that is his decision. He has to sit with that decision when he lays his pillow down at night. He better be his own mental point of origin! Even Trump, if you think about it, has half the country against him, the media, and Hollywood. If he's not his own mental point of origin, the stress would kill him in a month.

 

You can maybe think of it like this. The alpha has to make decisions. Tough decisions that impact those around him. He has to have confidence in his decisions, even when those around him don't agree, or don't like the decision. He must be his own mental point of origin.

 

Now if a guy is single, he should consider women that he dates from a "my needs first" perspective. Not what the woman wants. Otherwise he's going to come off as needy and operate from a scarcity mindset. If they are in an exclusive LTR or marriage, then his needs change. He still has to be his own mental point of origin, but, as the bible says, they become one flesh. So, while the husband is the leader, the husband will internalize his family as his top need and will consider his decisions as to what is best for his household.

 

I'm not explaining this that well, but hopefully helps!

[basil67]

Sorry, I have nothing positive to contribute, so will bow out.

[major_merrick]

I think the Red Pill folks miss it when it comes to the Bible. The man isn't the "mental point of origin." God is. And the red pill community likes to talk about a lot of casual sex...which the Bible doesn't support. A man has to have courage and take initiative, but he doesn't have to be the end-all be-all source of everything.

 

I do believe that a successful man will have a code of behavior that uses as a base. My husband calls his rules of life "non-negotiable, unalterable terms." Sometimes sticking to those might cause a temporary setback, but they work out long-term.

[TheFinalWord]

I think the Red Pill folks miss it when it comes to the Bible.

 

If you think that, I guarantee you haven't studied it enough. Because a lot of Christian men are leaders within the community.

 

Red pill is a set of principles. Those principles apply whether a man is seeking casual sex or not. It's not really fair to say because this portion of red pill people engage in premarital sex, therefore red pill is wrong. That's like me saying that a lot of people that go to church have pre-marital sex (they do), that means Christianity is wrong.

 

Of course God is the focus of life. You are making too much of mental point of origin. It just means you don't make decisions based on people pleasing. You make them based on your own internal knowledge. It's a basic leadership principle. You're making it sound sinful to be confident in your own decisions. If the husband is not confident in his decisions, he can't lead a paperbag, led alone a wife and kids. Case in point, the bible even says a man that can't rule is own house cannot have a position of authority in the church. You already said your husband has the final word in making decisions. That is an example of him being his own mental point of origin.

Edited October 28, 2019 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[mr_ybor]

Rolo Tomassi? Like, the British prog band on Mike Patton's label?

[Mysterio]

This is how I would like things to be with a Romantic female prospect.

 

We are both romantically attracted to each other. We have interesting conversations and laughs. We do social and recreational activities. Lot of desired mutual physical affection. Support/Respect/Space and Felxability between us.

 

I don't really want kids. I want us to go to see a lot of bands playing around our city. We work out together like boxing or Raquetteball/Long walks or hikes. Sex/making out at least 3 times a week. We give each other space so we don't overdose on each other. Flexable with fitting in with each others life schedual. Respect and support each others life goals and dreams. We are

 

It takes time to make this evolve. That ideally would be what I would like things to like. I made the post to see what people think about the two mentalities.

 

I look at myself and I don't think I should be having major problems with dating. Adding to that. I wonder if our culture has changed. It feels to me that most women I see are not as gung ho to date these days. Its not like Sex is on the table right away. Or even Kissing/making love. The only thing I could see a woman being hesitant is having sex, with a man that has not shown her commitment in the early stages. Even though we all know it does not mean anything.

 

The more I listen to the Red Pill/Alpha/Beta conversations on the net and written about. The more it makes sense to me. I feel if I was a Beta. I would give in to all my exes.

[Libby1]

"Alpha" and "beta" seem to be words that people use to denote how much respect they have for a particular person more than anything else. I've always thought of the "A" type personality as being more intense, controlling and a bit uptight than the more laid back "B" type.

 

I've met people I'd define as being those driven, intense, "wanting to take charge" A types who really aren't suited to a position of authority because that more uptight type of personality is too prone to spilling over into issues like bullying, neurosis, narcissism, creating conflict and drama for the sake of it etc. However, I know other people who seem to gravitate towards wanting to put personalities like that in charge for precisely the reasons that I'd reject them. And of course, the more B type personality might be a bit lazy, conflict avoidant and so on. Their approach might fall short when it comes to trying to succeed in an environment that's competitive to the point of being very dysfunctional.

 

If an "alpha" is somebody who is widely respected whereas a "beta" isn't, I think the alpha is probably the one who is more in tune with the environment and can adapt swiftly to it. So they're not running about being aggressive dicks for the sake of it, and neither are they easily provoked into being aggressive dicks (ie it's not easy for others to pull their strings), but if an occasion arises where they really do have to be an aggressive dick, then they're capable of fulfilling that role.

 

Much as people love to see themselves as excellent judges of character who can easily differentiate leaders from followers, it's not easy to see who fits into that "excellent leader - alpha" category. A lot of laid back people will claim that when crunch time comes, they can be alphas who take no ****...but that might just be self soothing talk, and the reality might be that in a difficult time they'll just run away or fade into a corner until the crisis is over. You don't really know who somebody is until you've watched how they operate in a genuinely difficult situation.

[Libby1]

My former female friend JT, called me up and told me that I had to call her ASAP, because she was mad at me. I did not put up with that and I never called her back.

 

People can behave like aggressive idiots when they're angry or upset about something. I don't think just cutting somebody off altogether for being upset/angry enough to lose their cool is a particularly admirable move. Especially not if it's somebody you care enough about to class as a friend. In a situation like that, I'd probably send a short message saying "I'm sorry you're feeling mad with me right now. We'll hopefully have a productive conversation about it later, when you're feeling less mad." Which would no doubt annoy them, but very angry people are sometimes triggered by pretty much anything and you can't waste too much time trying to respond to their anger without pushing any buttons.

 

I think if you genuinely care about another person you're probably going to strive a bit for some balance between refusing to dance to their angry tune, and forgiving any rash or immaturely demanding behaviour they engage in in the heat of that anger (unless of course the anger spills over into seriously abusive behaviour). Tackling a situation like that from the perspective of "what's the alpha way to deal with this" seems a bit shallow and childish, if you'll forgive me for saying so. I don't think it's the way a mature and rounded adult will generally seek to approach difficulties with people they care about.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Libby1

[somanymistakes]

"alpha" and "beta" ideas are based on complete misinterpretation of science and the people who invented those terms by accident keep desperately begging people to stop thinking that way.

 

it's not how humans work and it's not how wolves work either.

[pepperbird]

My brother is an Alpha ( what we used to call type "A"). He's a great leader, moved up quickly in the corporate world, is well educated and the ladies love him.

 

 

He's also fundamentally unhappy. I think that's largely because he's always "on". He never really relaxes, and for him, even the fun has to be really intense ( rock climbing, deep sea diving, sky diving, yacht racing etc.). For a while, he was into those Spartan races, and did well, but it didn't last- it's like he's competing against himself.

 

I really do think part of him wishes he could be more laid back.

[Mysterio]

People can behave like aggressive idiots when they're angry or upset about something. I don't think just cutting somebody off altogether for being upset/angry enough to lose their cool is a particularly admirable move. Especially not if it's somebody you care enough about to class as a friend. In a situation like that, I'd probably send a short message saying "I'm sorry you're feeling mad with me right now. We'll hopefully have a productive conversation about it later, when you're feeling less mad." Which would no doubt annoy them, but very angry people are sometimes triggered by pretty much anything and you can't waste too much time trying to respond to their anger without pushing any buttons.

 

I think if you genuinely care about another person you're probably going to strive a bit for some balance between refusing to dance to their angry tune, and forgiving any rash or immaturely demanding behaviour they engage in in the heat of that anger (unless of course the anger spills over into seriously abusive behaviour). Tackling a situation like that from the perspective of "what's the alpha way to deal with this" seems a bit shallow and childish, if you'll forgive me for saying so. I don't think it's the way a mature and rounded adult will generally seek to approach difficulties with people they care about.

 

 

Here is my detail on my falling out with JT.

 

JT and I have had falling outs before. JT is black like me and just has way more problems than I do. I have listened to JT/Took her home from her last major operation/picked up her new family-Husband/step-daughter from the airport/Dropped her at the car dealership when she had an issue for her car. In the 90's. She wanted support of a domestic dispute with an ex Boyfriend. Her friend who took pics of her face for proof of abuse, was reluctant to go to court. JT was so angry that she had to spend at least 20-30 minutes convincing her friend to come that when she got off the phone. She threw her glasses on the floor. I went as it was no problem. The girl that took the pics did come.

 

The problem with JT is that she has a very heavy view of life. She takes it out on me from time to time. I was fed up. I talked to her on the phone in March 2013 on a Sunday I was parking downtown to go to see Heart. She calls me and I talk to her for 10 minutes. I did not abruptly hang up or shoo her away. I said we will talk next Sunday. Then on Wednesday that week. I see that there is a message on my phone. She leaves this very aggitated message say that she needs to talk to me ASAP and that she is mad at me. I was angry to hear that. I can't see what she has to be angry with me about. I talk to her every 4-5 weeks on the phone and get back to her in a day or two at best.

 

So I did not leave her in a lurch. If she was a great friend to me. She would have talked to me in a calm cool manor. I had another female friend JC, that sent me a odd txt. I did not like it. I talked to her about it and it was straightened out. JT vs JC. JT takes me for granted and out friendship was mostly her venting to me. Thats fine, but on the other hand of that. It makes me look at JT in a heavy way. JT is a Nurse and she has to keep her cool. If she can do that at work. She can do that with her friendship with me. All I did was not call her back. She could get a hold of me if she really wanted to. She knows where I work.

 

So its been 6 yrs since we talked. Once again to state this. JT and I have had falling outs before. Mostly due to her getting mad at me and not being able to communicate with me in a calm cool manor. Her default for blowing up is on speed dial for her. So its not like I just walked away. JT was cousins with family friends and Its more that was our link, than if we went to school together or worked together. She does not have a lot of friends. If she did. She would have vented to others. Its just I allowed her to basically Overvent to me. Thats mostley why she called me a lot. There is no way I could be doing anything to cause her stress. We don't have any common friends or family. We mostley talked on the phone and maybe at that time, saw each other in person 3 times a year. Talking 4 to 5 weeks on the phone is actually very good for friendships. There are some friends I only talk/see 2-3 times a year.