Two Ways of Looking at the Alpha – Beta – Omega Spectrum

Let us look at the Alpha – Beta – Omega spectrum. Feminists and leftwingers all insist that this spectrum is pseudo-scientific nonsense, but I assure you that this theory is on solid grounds. Humans are competitive and hierarchical, and there is not much we can do about it.

There are two ways of looking at them, hierarchical and behavioral.

Heirarchical or Statistical

Society is divided into Alphas (15-20%), Betas (60-70%) and Omegas (15-20%). People seem to be able to move around in these categories but these percentages will always stay the same in any society. Y

You can never have a society of 100% Alphas, and you probably can’t have one of 100% Omegas. Women will probably always slice off the top men and monopolize them with sexual attention and priority, and they will probably always lock out the bottom men no matter how these men behave, if only because they are on the bottom. The Betas in the middle will be treated variously by women depending on the society.

Let us say you had a theoretical society where all of the men acted Alpha. An average woman would be approached by easily 10+ very high value men every single day. What’s a girl to do? Go out with all of them? Have a gangbang every day? Not going to happen.

Women being hierarchical-minded creatures, when faced with a society where 100% of the men acted Alpha, women would probably cream off the top 20% of the Alphas (the Super-Alphas) and shower them with sex and attention.

Women would probably slice off the bottom 15% of the Alphas (the Lesser Alphas who are nevertheless quite Alpha in behavior) and ignore or mistreat them as failures and rejects.

And women would probably put the remaining 60-70% of the Alphas (the Ordinary Alphas) into some sort of a Beta category and treat them however Beta men get treated in that society.

It’s probably always going to be this way no matter how men act. Women will always look for the top 20% of the men, slice them off from the rest, designate them Alphas and reward them with sex and attention. Why? Because of this quote:

“Women always want the best.”

-Oscar Wilde

That’s why. Think about it, and you might just agree with me.

The 20-60-20 rule will probably be static in most any society because otherwise you would end up with situations like on the PUA blogs where you have 80% of the retarded men all claiming to be Alphas – in other words, on PUA sites, 80-100% of the men all insist that they are in the top 20%. Can someone explain to me how 80-100% of the men can be in the top 20%?

It would be like Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average. It’s not happening. The insanity of the PUA fraudsters and con artists is that they insist that 100% of men can be in the top 15-20%! Tell me how that is supposed to work.

A Game site called Return of Kings which is full of PUA con artists linked to my critique along these lines, beat around the bush and refused to answer the question just like con artists always do. Nevertheless, the point remains. There are only so many spaces at the top. No more than 15% of the men can be in the top 15%. Think about it! Real hard!

Please do not ever call yourself an Alpha whether you are one or now. It’s gauche, crude, rude and very un-Alpha to ever refer to oneself as an Alpha. Let other people do that for you. Whether you are in the top 15% or not is frankly for others to decide and not you.

You can run around like an idiot screaming, “I am an Alpha!” like these clowns on PUA sites, and it won’t necessarily make you one. It is as if saying you are rich would suddenly mean you can buy a mansion. Your opinion of yourself is irrelevant. Where you end up on that spectrum is for others, particularly women, to decide, not you.

Behaviorial

The other way of looking at Alpha – Beta – Omega is behavioral. In this sense, there is Alpha behavior, Beta behavior and Omega behavior.

We all know what Alpha behavior is. The Game sites have gone over it endlessly. There are many definitions of it but I am sure most of you get the picture.

We also have a pretty good idea of what Beta behavior is from multiple descriptions on Game sites.

And Omega behavior where no woman is attracted to you can also be easily envisioned.

I would argue that although no more than 15% of men can actually be Alphas, nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to have societies where all men act Alpha, or act Beta or act Omega for that matter. How men behave can be divided up in all sorts of ways, and it has no limits other than 0-100% (think about it).

In this case, I would argue that most men would probably do better with women if they acted more Alpha. If you want to know what acting Alpha is, go to the Game sites and read up. If you are not acting Alpha now, and if you start incorporating more Alpha behaviors into your personality, you may indeed find that you are doing better with women. I find that I do better with men too when I deliberately try to be Alpha.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Two Ways of Looking at the Alpha – Beta – Omega Spectrum”

  1. Why make a dividing line at 20% rather than 10, 15, 25, or 30?

    It’s arbitrary, isn’t it?

    Not that I disagree with the basic idea that some guys are highly attractive to women and might be labelled alpha for the sake of talking about them. It just escapes any kind of real scientific definition.

    Before you say it, 20% of men don’t monopolise 80% of the women. Not according to reason or evidence anyway.

    I like to think of it in terms of social dominance.

    1. Because anecdotal evidence along with some scientific data (which you folks have rejected) shows that the number of Alphas is ~15-20%. I always thought it was 15%, and in high school, it seemed like it was 10%, but now that we have some good science on it, it looks like the Alphas seem to be ~20%. There’s just never any more than that, ever. And everyone who looks tends to find 15-20% (some say 25%). I don’t think it’s ever going to change.

      As I noted, you could have a society of all very Alpha acting males, and IMHO women will simply slice off the top 20% Super-Alphas and call them the Alphas and shower them with sex and attention. They will probably no doubt slice off 15% at the lower end – the Lesser Alphas – and call them Omegas and throw them in the trash. And the other 60-70% of the regular Alphas are going to be designated as “Betas” and they will be treated however women treat Betas in that society.

      No one has ever shown a case where the Alphas are 10%, 25% or 30%. All of the experimental evidence seems to be honing in on 20%. I note that you guys reject this evidence though.

    2. Well the evidence from STD clinics in the Black community found that almost all of the women showing up were getting STD’s from only a small number of the men. They thought it was 20% of the men who were giving almost all of the female patients STD’s.

      I think it shows that at least those women showing up in those clinics seemed to be preferentially selecting those 20% of men above others, I will say that much. But the idea that 80% of men in the Black community are locked out of sex is ridiculous.

      I would say that there are 20% Alphas in the Black community, and quite a few of the women are “rotating” through those guys on some basis. Women probably just “move through them and move on.” It’s not like 80% of the women are forming relationships with 20% of the men. It’s more like a Hell of a lot of the women are using 20% of the men as boytoys and rotating through them at some point or another. Of course most of these women are probably having sex with the other 80% of the men as well, but that group is not their first pick or their preference.

      1. Who are ‘you guys’?

        The STD clinic evidence is weak. It in no way establishes that 20% of men monopolise 80% of women. Are the women who go to STD clinics representative of 80% of women?

        As US govenrment report says:

        “In 2013, 993,348 cases of chlamydia were reported among
        females for a case rate of 623.1 per 100,000 females” (0.623%)

        “During 2005–2008, the overall prevalence of chlamydia
        among persons aged 14–39 years was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.2%,
        1.9%). Prevalence was highest among non-Hispanic blacks
        (5.9%, 95% CI: 4.5%, 7.7%) (Figure 10). ”

        I would have to look at a study but I think what your STD clinic evidence is likely to show is that the most promiscuous women disporoportionatel fuck the most promiscuous men. It looks to me like there are a group of highly promiscuous men and a group of highly promiscuous women in society and they are having sex with each other.

        The so called ‘top’ 20%’ of men simply aren’t having sex with the majority of women. The majority of women, over 30, are in committed relationships with men. The bottom 80% of men have as many sexual partners as the bottom 80% of women (in promiscuity, not attractiveness). The best evidence I’ve seen has shown this.

        What other evidence? Anecdotal evidence can’t possibly establish some special significance for the 20% figure.

        1. I am not saying that 80% of the women are monopolizing 20% of the men. You keep saying this over and over and you are putting words in my mouth.

          Anecdotal evidence is superb if it goes along with experimental evidence. Anyway, most of my beliefs are formed by anecdotal evidence and so are the beliefs of anyone with a brain. You look out at the world and see what you see. Over time you observe patterns. You see the same pattern repeating a certain number of times and you start to call it a truth.

          I am saying that the the people who did the study felt that the women at the clinic were evidence that many of the women were having sex with a small number of men, as they put it, 80% of the women in the clinic got their STD’s from 20% of the men. There is no evidence that those were the most promiscuous women. If they were, things would be even because both cohorts would be equally represented and there would be no 80-20 thing going on. Instead they might find the opposite, that 80% of the men at the clinic were having sex with 10-20% of the women (the sluts, or the most promiscuous women). That would be for your theory (the men are all having sex with a small number of sluts theory) to be true.

          I also point out that you reject the OK Cupid experiment that found that 80% of the women were chasing only the top 20% of the men. It doesn’t mean that that’s who they will end up with. But those top 20% certainly seem to be their first choice. Who their second choice is is unknown. Women seem to be preferentially selecting these men is how I would put it. These guys get preference. That’s not the same thing as monopolization which you accuse me of saying.

          Now that’s two studies you rejected. You rejected the OK Cupid study on grounds that people on dating sites were not representative and you rejected the STD clinic study on grounds that STD clinic people were not representative.

          You many more studies are you going to reject.

          How do you know that the bottom 80% of women are having just as much sex as the bottom 80% of men. What’s with all these incel epidemics going on here? Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not case. There seem to be epidemics of incels and the number of incel females is near zero. All so called female incels are volcels.

          Oh yes, you dismiss the incel epidemic too. You say there are just as many incels as ever, but the only difference now is the Internet so everyone is talking about it. Yet back in the 70’s and 80’s, no one was talking about such things that I am aware of. Why do I have all these guys in their 20’s coming to my site and saying that they have done everything they can to change themselves to get a woman and all they can get is a fatty. I have had quite a few commenters come to my site and coming to my site and telling me just this. A common complaint of the incels is that they cannot get a looks matched woman. Guys who are 5’s or 6’s say all they can get is maybe a 3. I hear this over and over.

          Personally, I think there is something weird going on here.

          I really wonder whether you have been alive and aware for all of these years. As I said, I noticed this in high school when at one point I said, “10% of the guys are getting 90% of the best women.” What I meant really was that most of the best women were “cycling through these guys” at one point or another. I did not mean that 10% of the guys were monopolizing 90% of the girls.

          Also having lived this way for a while, I assure you that female hypergamy exists. Simply put, the more females I got, the more new ones came running to stand in line and get a number. A lot of them were just observers. Others would hear about my reputation and they would show up asking where they can stand in line and get a ticket. Bottom line, females like guys who get a lot of chicks. The more you get, the more new ones come around to see what the fuss is all about. Men are not like this. So only females are hypergamous.

          However, I was not monopolizing any women honestly. It was more that quite a few females were “cycling through me” at one point or another.

          For so much of my life, some version of this 80-20 rule or however you want to put it seems to ring true as something I have been observing my whole life. I am stunned that you have lived your whole life and never seen hide nor hair of this general principle.

        2. “I am not saying that 80% of the women are monopolizing 20% of the men. You keep saying this over and over and you are putting words in my mouth.”

          Well I got that from you and you’ve written it more than once. Even at the end of your comment you wrote:

          “For so much of my life, some version of this 80-20 rule or however you want to put it seems to ring true as something I have been observing my whole life”

          So are you saying 20% of men monopolise 80% of women (or something similar), leaving 80% of men with the least attractive 20% of women, or are you not saying that? it seems like you are saying it, which is why I keep addressing it.

          “I also point out that you reject the OK Cupid experiment that found that 80% of the women were chasing only the top 20% of the men.”

          Actually, I didn’t. If the study showed that, the study showed it. I actually said this about it: it makes sense that women are more picky than men because they can only have one baby at a time so the rational evolved tendency would be to greater selectiveness. Perhaps most women are chasing 20% of men, I said, but that doesn’t mean they are getting them. And that’s what I’m concrned with- the actual patterns of who is getting sex.

          So, so far i’ve only rejected the argument that STD clinic studies can establish this 80-20 (or thereabouts) principle for the general population.

          ‘As I said, I noticed this in high school when at one point I said, “10% of the guys are getting 90% of the best women.”’

          Sure, 90% of the best women (I would expect the ‘best men’ to get the ‘best women’)….but the best women are what percentage of women overall?? What do you mean by the best women?

          “I did not mean that 10% of the guys were monopolizing 90% of the girls.”

          huh…but you do later say that something like this is the case, probably not that extreme but something like 80-20. Am I misunderstandign you? Please calirify. Again:

          “For so much of my life, some version of this 80-20 rule or however you want to put it ”

          “Also having lived this way for a while, I assure you that female hypergamy exists. Simply put, the more females I got, the more new ones came running to stand in line and get a number. A lot of them were just observers.”

          I’ve experienced things along these lines too. I’ve noticed women pay more attention to you when you are with an attractive girl.
          e.g. I was in a restaurant in the middle fo the day with a beautiful Korean girl, like a solid 8 or maybe a 9 in facial beauty and fashionably dressed and on my way to the toilet I noticed two older women staring at me lasciviously. I thought ‘wow, women don’t usually look at me like that!’ So, I totally believe you on that.

          “How do you know that the bottom 80% of women are having just as much sex as the bottom 80% of men.”

          Like I wrote below, the basis of my argument on this and the incel epidemic is the surveys I’ve seen about number of male and female partners. I accept that the results may be false and I may be wrong. But the results of more than one survey agree. here are the results of one again:

          males 30-34, number of sexual partners:
          0: 2.8
          1: 10.7
          2: 6.9
          3-6: 28.5
          7-14: 21.9
          15+: 29.2
          median sexual partners: 6.4

          females 30-34, no. of sexual partners:
          0: 1.9
          1: 20.5
          2: 9.4
          3-6: 38.8
          7-14: 18.0
          15+: 11.3
          median sexual partners: 3.8

          Also, 60-70% of men aged 30-35 are in LTR’s. In the younger categories, the figure is lower but nothing fundamentally different looks like its going on- its just becasue they are younger.

          There probably are a lot of guys in their 20’s deprived of regular sex, maybe even as high as 30%/40% for all i know. Yes, that’s an awful lot of guys. Im not sure what it was like in the 1970’s but I think people married earlier so it could have been less then. I think there are probably lots of females of that age not getting any either these days though.

        3. “I am not saying that 80% of the women are monopolizing 20% of the men. You keep saying this over and over and you are putting words in my mouth.”

          Well I got that from you and you’ve written it more than once. Even at the end of your comment you wrote:

          “For so much of my life, some version of this 80-20 rule or however you want to put it seems to ring true as something I have been observing my whole life”

          So are you saying 20% of men monopolise 80% of women (or something similar), leaving 80% of men with the least attractive 20% of women, or are you not saying that? it seems like you are saying it, which is why I keep addressing it.

          NO. I am not saying this. I am saying that a Hell of a lot of the best women are going to “cycle through” the top 20% of the men. That’s all I am saying. I don’t believe that 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women leaving 80% of the men chasing 20% of the women. That’s absurd and looking at real life, you see it’s not happening. That’s what the OK Cupid study suggested, but really that’s not true.

          It’s just that 80% of the women were preferentially selecting for 20% of the men. That is, those men were their first choices. Also the women were extremely selective in who they regarded as goodlooking. I believe they said only 15% of the men were goodlooking and 85% were unattractive. Men were much fairer.

          Also 80% of the men were not chasing 20% of the women. The men didn’t seem to have a lot of preference. They were pretty much going after all the women, anything they could get.

          “For so much of my life, some version of this 80-20 rule or however you want to put it seems to ring true as something I have been observing my whole life”

          Yeah, as a GENERAL RULE. It’s not hard and fast. Just means something like a Hell of a lot of the women preferentially select for a small number of guys and seem to “cycle through” them at some point or another.

          ‘As I said, I noticed this in high school when at one point I said, “10% of the guys are getting 90% of the best women.”’

          Sure, 90% of the best women (I would expect the ‘best men’ to get the ‘best women’)…but the best women are what percentage of women overall?? What do you mean by the best women?

          Maybe the top 30% of the women.

          huh…but you do later say that something like this is the case, probably not that extreme but something like 80-20. Am I misunderstanding you? Please clairify. Again:

          “For so much of my life, some version of this 80-20 rule or however you want to put it.”

          I do not know. I do not mean that literally. It’s just something you observe, that lots of the women “cycle through” a small number of guys. Why you have never seen this in your life is an eternal mystery to me.

          Men always have more sex partners than women. Also a hell of a lot of the guys have sex with a small number of sluts.

          I think there are probably lots of females of that age not getting any either these days though.

          And you realize those are volcels right?

          Like I wrote below, the basis of my argument on this and the incel epidemic is the surveys I’ve seen about number of male and female partners. I accept that the results may be false and I may be wrong. But the results of more than one survey agree. here are the results of one again

          You can’t look at social surveys to contradict what your eyes have been telling you your whole life. I am dumbfounded that you have never noticed this tendency in humans. It’s seems impossible not to see this.

          There probably are a lot of guys in their 20’s deprived of regular sex, maybe even as high as 30%/40% for all i know. Yes, that’s an awful lot of guys. Im not sure what it was like in the 1970’s but I think people married earlier so it could have been less then.

          That wasn’t what was going on back then. It didn’t really matter if you were married or not back then.

          I think there are probably lots of females of that age not getting any either these days though.

          Why are we not seeing epidemics of incel women complaining and forming groups all over the net then? Doesn’t make sense.

      2. Look Bob, here’s where I am may be going wrong: trusting self reported sex surveys. I’m really not sure the extent to which they can be trusted but I’ve based the view i’ve argued here lately on these.

        On the alpha question, yeah… I’m not convinced that 20% has a special significance.

        1. Well what do you think the number is then? 5%? 10% 15% 20%? 25% 30%? Exactly how many men can be in some elite Alpha group anyway? Everyone? 100% of men can be in the special elite group?

          Once again, once I started seeing those 15% anecdotal figures for Alphas, once again it rang a bell in my mind as something I have been observing my whole life. Then I saw some experimental evidence that suggested it was 20% so I revised my figures upward.

          It’s really one of those squishy social issues that you’re never going to be able to prove though.

          I am rather stunned that you have gone this far in life and not observed that women seem to slice off about 15-20% of the top men, label them as Alphas, and utilize them heavily for sex and attention. You have simply never observed such a thing in your life?

        2. “You have simply never observed such a thing in your life?”

          I honestly haven’t.

          I went to an all boys catholic school. However, in my street/neighbourhood there were a bunch of guys and girls. All we really did was make out but everyone got some. I think we all made out with each other at some point. Most guys I knew who hung out with girls outside of school were at least making out with girls.

          At university, lots of guys were not getting any (these guys were typically ones who didn’t go to clubs or hang out with girls) but I would think more than 20% were getting some.

          In my current social world, more men I know in their 20’s/30’s have girlfriends than don’t. It seems like they nearly all do.

          So that’s the honest answer. i haven’t observed it.

        3. At university, lots of guys were not getting any (these guys were typically ones who didn’t go to clubs or hang out with girls) but I would think more than 20% were getting some.

          When did I ever say that only 20% of the men get any sex? You want to quote me on that. I do NOT say this.

          In my current social world, more men I know in their 20’s/30’s have girlfriends than don’t. It seems like they nearly all do.

          Yep and as you move on in life, you will begin to notice, especially after they have had a couple of kids, how many of those men are in sexless marriages. I cannot tell you how many men I talk to in their 30’s and 40’s who are married with a couple of kids and there’s no sex. The women cut off the sex after the kids show up at some point.

          Another part of the theory is that women will hook up with Beta Providers maybe in their 30’s to have kids, but they might lock them out of sex and lose interest in the men sexually at some point because the marriage was based on provisioning not attraction.

          “You have simply never observed such a thing in your life?”

          I honestly haven’t.

          That is absolutely incredible. I even told my Mom about this. She is 82 years old and she is the go-to person for the “wisdom of ages.” I told her about the Alpha – Beta – Omega thing and she got very interested real fast. I told her the Alphas were maybe 15% and she thought a bit and said, “That’s about right.” Then she started asking me all of these questions and it turned out she was just reciting basic Red Pill Alpha Beta Omega Theory. And she had never even heard of it before! She knew as much about it as Roissy and Roosh, She could practically be a guest writer on Roissy or Roosh’s site. Her attitude was, “Well, of course. Anyone knows that. That’s just common sense.”

        4. HL Mencken on hypergamy (1918):

          But here I rather depart from the point, which is this: that the average woman is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal—two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well-aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy,

          Mencken pretty much agrees with everything you’ve said here Robert. I too am starting to wonder what world Steve lives in.

        5. You sometimes say things that seem utterly strange, unrealistic and unrelatable to me.

          I wonder if it could be anything to do with the fact we live in different countries?

          All I see is most guys having girlfriends…how am I supposed to know if they end up in unhappy marriages or not or what their sex lives are like?

          Most men I know have had multiple sexual partners. Its common sense some men will have a lot more sexual partners than others but how am I supposed to know who they are having sex with, what percentage of women and how attractive they are? Maybe they are making their way through a large share of the women. I don’t have some kind of God’s eye view. I can only go by studies and apparently they are unreliable. I don’t go to night clubs and if I did, so many different people are coming and going that I couldn’t possibly keep track of it enough to observe percentages.

          As for female hypergamy, I’ve never disagreed with the principle that women desire the best mates but how the hell do I know how happy they are with current boyfriends or husbands? How could I or anybody possibly know how many sexual partners the 20th, 50th or 70th percentile man or woman has had? Impossible without a study ..and apparently they are unreliable.

          I know for a fact that if I presented these ideas to friends and family here, they would have no more intuitive or observational knowledge of it than me. How could they, beyond some guys get a lot of women and some guys get none and some guys get an average amount, which is obvious? (Its certainly not obvious that the average woman gets more than the average guy…if that’s the case).

          Very few people even hold these ideas outside the alt right blogosphere or the ‘manosphere’ or whatever. Speaking only for my country of course.

        6. Shit Steve, I figured all this stuff out before I was even out of adolescence. My teachers were my womanizer friends. They taught me all of these things (not obviously of course, I had to observe and listen very carefully to what they were saying as it was all very subtle and hintlike) long, long ago. And then with a lot of experience with a bunch of girls and women, you tend to learn a few things about how they operate. What women like and what they don’t like. Why women friendzone some guys (they used to do it to me all the time).

          You don’t have any married friends? I have friends who are married who tell me they are getting zero sex. One guy told me she just uses him for a wallet. I sort of get it as unfortunately he is not real masculine and though he did great with women, he always had some problems due to his feminine nature and I even used to his girlfriends fighting with him over this so it all made sense. I have friends who were Omegas their whole lives and now they are married and guess what? Their wives cut them off.

          I have had gf’s who told me that all of their friends in their 30’s and 40’s who had a few kids have all cut their husbands off and want no more sex. One has sex with him once a year on his birthday. I really doubt these guys are Alphas.

          I never knew anything about this Alpha Beta Omega Theory, but when I first started reading it, it slammed home with me immediately. Of course! I had been seeing this exact same thing my whole life.

          I think there is a lot of work to be done on this theory. Sure the 15-20% Alphas are getting tons of sex. Sure the Omegas are getting none, but I know Omegas who married landwhales and apparently they are getting enough sex. Are all of the Betas really being cut out by their wives and gf’s who only got with them for being a Beta provider? I am dubious. I suspect a number of these Betas may be getting quite a bit of sex. I had a young man neighbor who was White trash married to an average Mexican woman. I have no idea what he’s is, but he’s no Alpha. He told me his wive had sex with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 times a day.

          Looks Theory says only goodlooking men will receive true love and all women are only attracted to goodlooking men. Well a lot of women are homely. They hook up with homely men. All of these women have no sex drive? There are no homely couples who screw each others’ brains out. If you are a homely man, no woman will ever give you true love? Huh? If you are homely woman, you can never feel true love for a homely man?

          See where I am going? This guys are onto something in some very broad strokes and the theory is correct is sort of an extremely general impressionistic sense that it sort of “feels” right, but beyond that, these guys are saying a lot of wild things and I think we need to pin them down a lot more and shine the light on where their theories are not making sense.

          Just to tell you, I had a client with a marriage that was falling apart and I advised him to act more Alpha and I taught him basic Redpill theory, and the guy took it to heart and saved his marriage. His marriage was failing because he was too Beta.

          And yet you say there is nothing to any of this redpill, Alpha, Beta stuff.

        7. “And yet you say there is nothing to any of this redpill, Alpha, Beta stuff.”

          Now who is misquoting who? I never said there was nothing to it. You are assuming I am more hostile to this stuff than I am. I agree completely with this:

          “This guys are onto something in some very broad strokes and the theory is correct is sort of an extremely general impressionistic sense that it sort of “feels” right, but beyond that, these guys are saying a lot of wild things and I think we need to pin them down a lot more and shine the light on where their theories are not making sense.”

          That’s what I’ve been doing. I never doubted that there are some minority of men who have a very large amount of sexual partners, maybe 100+ lifetime sexual partners. I’ve known some of these personally: 1) my second most important male role model after my dad, my uncle, who was a huge womaniser and an alpha male of men too. 2) another mentor who actually got me talking to the girl I lost my virginity to and also hooked me up on a date with the aforementioned Korean girl. 3) my cousin, who would get like 8 numbers in one outing.

          I also know that there are guys who never get any sex throughout their twenties and one of my close in uni was a textbook case.

          Then there are average guys, who you call the betas. And some of these betas can be alphas among men but they aren’t huge womanisers, so there is some discord there. Even though woman are attracted to alphas of men for ev psych reasons. This distinction has always bothered me because I grew up thinking of alphas in the zoological sense as dominant males.

          So yeah, absolutely, in “broad strokes”. I never disagreed that this typology broadly describes reality. I was just trying to demand of it more precision. Where is the dividing line between alpha and high beta…maybe there doesn’t have to be a clear one…perhaps there can be valid scientific categories in a continuum.

          Then where it gets more sort of mysterious and remote to observation is exactly who are these alpha guys fucking, what share of the women, are women having more sexual partners than men on average etc. (Of course I noticed when I was young that women can get sex easier).

          I have some married acquaintances and casual friends and many married cousins but no close married friends who will tell me about their sex lives. Also, I think my cousins tend to be towards the high beta/alpha end of the spectrum and they have good looking wives who seem into them.

          As for general red pill stuff, as in what attitudes are attractive to women and so forth, I’ve not said anything against that. I’ve always thought that women would be attracted to masculinity and the physical and psychological signs of high t, ie men who are masculine and strong and air on the side of dominance. For example, one instinctively knows women will like a deep voice. Its just like men are attracted to femininity. I’ve always thought women don’t like insecure, indecisive, weak men- that’s obvious.

          I was writing on the guardian website just yesterday that deep down they don’t really desire approval seeking, pussy whipped male feminists. I wrote that we are spiritual beings but we are also bald apes.

          I’ve been arguing for a long time that gender is not socially constructed and criticising feminism.

          For a moment, I believed the data from surveys about sexual partners but then I said maybe they aren’t telling the truth.

          Am I really so at odds with you on this, or are we just coming at it from different angles? I think our views are more similar than you think.

          Your job is to promote a theory you think is generally valid. My job is to criticise it, to try to knock it down and see what is left. Just because I am criticising something doesn’t mean I have no sympathy with it. Its like the old metaphor about a gold merchant who hammers the gold to see if its real gold.

        8. Now who is misquoting who? I never said there was nothing to it. You are assuming I am more hostile to this stuff than I am. I agree completely with this:

          “This guys are onto something in some very broad strokes and the theory is correct is sort of an extremely general impressionistic sense that it sort of “feels” right, but beyond that, these guys are saying a lot of wild things and I think we need to pin them down a lot more and shine the light on where their theories are not making sense.”

          So yeah, absolutely, in “broad strokes”. I never disagreed that this typology broadly describes reality. I was just trying to demand of it more precision.

          Hey this is great, Steve. Looks like we are on the same page here after all! We have been talking at cross purposes!

          Where is the dividing line between alpha and high beta…maybe there doesn’t have to be a clear one…perhaps there can be valid scientific categories in a continuum.

          Right, I am not sure if this sort of thing can be defined anyway. I am afraid like a lot of social science stuff the data here if it even exists is going to be messy as Hell like all social science data so we just have to satisfy ourselves with broad strokes impressionistic stuff, which honestly is the basis for most of my beliefs about humans anyway!

          Then where it gets more sort of mysterious and remote to observation is exactly who are these alpha guys fucking, what share of the women, are women having more sexual partners than men on average etc.

          They aren’t. Men always have more sexual partners, but often the same guys are screwing a small number of sluts.

          (Of course I noticed when I was young that women can get sex easier).

          Shit this is so elementary man. How can people even deny this?

        9. Its elementary. if you are a reasonably attractive woman, like a 6 or 7, you could probably have sex with every guy in class. All you have to do if offer yourself. They probably all want to fuck you. You will get a bad reputation, which perhaps is a deterrent, but you could do it. That’s not really true of guys who are 6 or 7. They’ve got to put in some effort to get the one girl they like. That’s why its been said women are the gatekeepers of sex.

          I think there are some women, though, who are like 3’s (maybe obese) and most guys are not going to want to touch them. So they are going to struggle. Plus add to that an introverted personality, someone who wont dream of putting out, someone who doesn’t socialise much, and they could be sexually frustrated. You have to think of the internal barriers as well as the external. You have to also factor in the different priorities of men and women. Most young men would be extremely happy with just sex. Women want love and commitment. Some women might be able to give a drunk guy a blowjob but he isn’t going to want to ‘go steady’ with her?

          As for red pill, there’s a good saying that men are turned on by their eyes, women are turned on by their ears. Of course each is a bit of both but its a matter of emphasis.

          Take a look at this brilliant national geographic documentary about alpha males:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd2NTQPl7D8

  2. The implication of the behavioral theory is that if the percentage of men acting “alpha” went up, people would have more sex. Women would agree to have sex with more men than in the past. If the percentage of men acting “alpha” went down, people would less sex. It would work the same way with omegas.

    It should be possible to test this, by comparing a society where lots of men act alpha with one where few men act alpha, and seeing (maybe be doing surveys?) if people are having more or less sex.

    I do think that sexual activity actually does vary between societies, or between generations. Japan is sometimes cited as a society where the younger generations are having less sex. But I think this mainly has to do with overpopulation.

  3. As far as music goes, “power to the people” doesn’t work. An open market where there is no financial incentive to produce good music has only lowered the quality of music. Where is the Led Zeppelin nowadays? There was nothing magical about thier music. It wasn’t learned from Greek Gods or something. 🙄

    Anyhow, comparing this to dating perhaps a society in which hot women go after any man would just lead to weak men, as it’s led to weak music. ?? 🙄

  4. Seems alpha scores lower in anxiety while omegas score higher. Anxiety ”is” a women thing, ”sexy fragility”.

    Attitude also is a very important thing to be socially dominant, anxious men tend to show lack of self-confidence. Women like men of almost averages appearences with self confidence and some degree of ”masculinity” behaviour.

    Humility (personality dimension) with ”omega phenotype” may be causal for lack of success in the market of sex and/or love.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *