That’s not what an alpha is at all, that’s just an asshole.
I think the whole concept is bullshit, honestly. What people are attracted to in an “alpha” is the illusion of fearlessness. To maintain that illusion is one hell of a feat in itself, though.
And, yeah, you’re describing a douche. Possibly even a sociopath.
I direct each of you to my reply to Phoebus.
Not quite true - the alpha will still feel fear, that’s not the issue. The issue is what behaviour the fear causes and what consequences this behaviour has.
The result will be the submission and attention of those around you in the wake of any instance. The OP characteristics will be apparent, though looked at in a positive light. If it is a fearful instance, the alpha male reaction is distinguishable from the reaction of other males. The reaction may appear to be more fearless compared to the reactions of others, yes. In any situation the alpha is going to come across as more cool and in charge. But this is not a “feat” as though it is some kind of trick or effort. It’s just a group emergence and relativity of reactions that results in somebody becoming more familiar with leadership etc.
In a group of two the more cool and in command person may not be a typical alpha in a larger group. There will be more “alpha-ness” apparent in them, but it would take a while to become honed and familiar if that person was not already accustomed to alpha behaviour. This “alpha-ness” would be evident in such a small group even if only slight, but it wouldn’t be so recognisable as alpha male behaviour in a larger group where the alpha male is more accustomed to his role.
A valid question might be how significant this distinction is today.
With much more variable social groupings - compared to, say, a pack of wolves - the alpha role is much less prominent, refined and it is more variable. It is, however, still significantly apparent and not an illusion.
I never argued the “alpha” doesn’t fear. I said he/she is proficient in the ability to seem fearless. The “alpha” persona is almost certainly a costume, in my opinion. Some people arrive at this behavior naturally - they learn it over the course of their lives. However, many also seek and learn the behavior with the intention of projecting an illusion.
The former just isn’t to be trusted, assuming the characteristics listed are of honest sentiment. The latter is an actor in the worst sense, and, in the end, a joke.
Of course it is to be trusted. Not trusted to give you an equal share or sacrifice itself so you may live, but trusted to be the one to look to for direction and capablity in handling situations. They can be counted on to be good company and a symbol of cool strength.
This isn’t a costume, you said it yourself that it can be arrived at naturally. As such it will be reliably what it is, and not faulter.
The actor will experience holes in his performance because so much of being an alpha is genuine comfort in his position, at all times immediately drawing from the subtlest of experiences. Acting can be very good though, and a good actor may find he no longer needs to act once his acting pays off. Then he too can be trusted.
The failing actor cannot be trusted, that much is true. They will be a joke.
Hmm? Reply?
My choice of archetypal characters is bad. ‘Carers’ carries the wrong implication, as does ‘supporter’. Family man is more accurate but, ah ha, burdened. When you say:
You come closest to what I think an alpha male really represents, that is, someone who stands in a certain relation to a group through which they embody and uphold a certain social standard. By being leaders they themselves represent the embodiment of the rules of the society that they protect, thus they gain their actual characteristics from this relationship. In this sense they are carers, supporters. As with many things, I’m not sure any exhaustive lists are possible, only a finite set of rules that makes building such a list possible.
I’m with those who think the OP describes a douchebag.
And not an alpha male?
I wouldn’t say that any of the charcteristics mentioned in the OP are necessitated by being an alpha male. A couple of them are often bi-products but that’s about it.
Also it depends a lot on what group you are in. Sometimes I am alpha male, but other times I am not.
So if Silhouette is off base with his idea of an alpha male, can we get some alternate conceptions?
It’s easy to confuse self-confidence with arrogance. I think that is where the ‘douche-bag’ comments are aimed.
Confidence is sexually attractive, but men (particularly young men) are notorious false advertisers, a trait most successful women are especially tuned in to.
This is exactly right, such false advertising often comes in the form of outrageous boasts - which fits very nicely into the definition of arrogance: “making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud”.
Arrogance is only interpreted as negative in those who do not have the self-centred imperviousness and the being fine with it (confidence) - to “back it up”. But often the claims themselves can be left completely unproved, as long as the male is alpha enough to arrogantly puff himself up with enough imposition and threatening dominance.
So whilst arrogance doesn’t pertain to “alpha-ness”, “alpha-ness” does contain arrogance.
What happens when the impulse to lead, an alpha nature, is combined with an aversion to other people, and an anti-social nature?
I expect plenty of non-alpha males strive for leadership - in other species the alpha doesn’t really last particularly long, sooner or later they are challenged and replaced. Rankings are in flux.
But in other species there is a fairly fixed group setting, because they rely much more on solid communal grouping. Human groups increasingly fluctuate with our lack of need to stick together, extra stimulation in getting around, and our economy that encourages high-paced, mobile individualism. This exposes us to myriad environments for every version of the many different social groups we involve ourselves in.
An internet forum will exhibit ranking despite differing from normal social interaction. Technologies have broadened social environments, or arguably “desecrated” them by allowing other environments to flourish that don’t fill out the full requirements that social environments “ought to have”. But internet environments are clearly not just crippled normal social environments, they bring out different aspects of social interaction for every aspect of normal interaction they sacrifice.
The point is that an anti-social nature in normal social environments may not be an anti-social nature in other social environments.
An impulse to lead is constrained to the group environment and subject to the other group members. Potentially all males are alphas in some environment or other. This goes back to what I said about “a group of two” exhibiting more “alpha-ness” in one member than the other, but in the wider array of social environments they may not be that alpha at all. This means that potential alphas are not alphas.
Though in small groups, the “more alpha” male may get accustomed to “alpha-ness” over time in only this group environment, and this might pass back over to a wider environment once re-exposed.
But for all these nuances, the cold hard reality is that if you are unable to sublimate your impulse to lead, you are not an alpha.
And if the wider social environment that you have access to, that has access to you, does not bring out the alpha in you, you are not an alpha - no matter how relatively “more alpha” you are in temporary or limited group environments.
Yes I am defining the alpha male fairly ruthlessly.
The king of some group of geeks may be their alpha, but to the wider population they are nothing much at all. The wider the environment, the more true they will be to the OP characteristics, and the more recognisable they will be as “alpha male” in general.
The main interest inspiring this OP was to test how much this comes out in such a social environment as this forum. Or perhaps philosophers in general. So far nobody has really stood out as being particularly alpha, which is somewhat interesting.
Any who have “reserved themselves” from such an “immature” test is clearly not alpha - for all their self control and maturity, this is exactly what keeps one lower in the rankings of social groups in general. A real alpha is much more contesting regardless.
The greater the alpha-ness, the more isolated the individual becomes, regardless their so-called social “networking”. I would suspect that you would find few examples of your definition on the internet. Alphas are control people, and if you try alpha-ing me, all you get here is fuck off and one click of the mouse, you disappear. So much for being an alpha male on the internet. We’ve seen those people who come in ready to tell everyone “how it is”. They don’t last long. Why? Because they can’t control the venue. I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as alpha anything on the internet, even though carleas might want to argue the point.
I agree that we all have certain roles where we may act out alpha behaviors. I have never chosen a leadership role (not alpha) but I have been a leader in several circumtances and may god help you if you fucked with me. But here on the net? I don’t see alpha as a viable role.
You honestly find those characteristics you listed to be those of a trustworthy person?
You can’t be serious. A symbol of strength inasmuch as he is detached from emotion, maybe. Looking to such a person for direction would probably result in your employment as means for his own ends. I don’t see the appeal or the logic.
A person who is naturally as described is the most dangerous. That is the person I’m talking about, who is of honest sentiment in all those characteristics. You’re describing someone who doesn’t care because he doesn’t have to, and doesn’t want to.
Sure, but on the other hand, sometimes the actor becomes his act.
Hehe 
I like the boasting! More of that and I might have to “alpha you” 
I’ve seen a fair amount of "those people who come in ready to tell everyone “how it is” ", but they’re clearly not alphas are they. Some have even been pretty intelligent and had good points, but their attitude completely betrays how familiar they are with being a lower rank. That is why they cannot control the venue.
I’m not going to get deleted from this place because of how I am. So do the “big guy moderators” control me or do I control them? Being alpha is more than being the one who has menial cleaning power with regard to unworthy members of an internet forum group.
As for your threat of telling me to “fuck off” if I try to “alpha you”, clicking your mouse and making me disappear, it’s about how this is perceived by the group. You won’t have usurped me or anything like that if you back off, right? It’s not particularly dominant just because you have the “power” to do that. Anyone can back out of this thread, or continue to not participate, but none of this is challenging - that’s up to you and them. It’s not a reflection on me.
Trustworthy of what? You’ll have to explain what you mean by this. You want to tell them all your secrets or something? It’s a predictable role, the alpha. What more do you need for trust than predictability?
There is nothing necessarily emotionally detached in the OP characteristics. They might not be emotionally sympathetic with certain people who they’re not particularly caring about, but that doesn’t mean they’re not emotionally engaged at all. It takes plenty of emotion to be an alpha, but there’s a difference between being selectively emotional and being indiscriminately sympathetic - and it’s not that the former is emotionally detached.
Are you saying that all the alphas of all those species out there are dangerous to those they lead? Not caring doesn’t mean those who are uncared for by the leader are worse off.
Are you implying that care is the best and only way to be better off? A group being protected by an uncaring leader isn’t necessarily a contradiction. Somebody’s own means might intentionally or unintentionally serve your own - but who cares about intention when all you are looking for is that your interests be served?
And on the other other hand, the act can become what is most sexually appealing as well as what is most powerful. There is nothing that necessitates that an alpha must be genuine and completely open. Some masks are more appropriate than others, and who said the strong cannot wear masks out of richness? Acts aren’t only for the weak and needy.
Perhaps this is what you mean by trustworthy. Nothing forces the alpha to be completely genuine and open, preventing you from emotionally engaging with him - though he may choose to let you. This is a cause for some to not want to trust him, not that he can not be trusted. Others may prefer to trust a man with many masks - they keep things in as well as keeping things out. Blackmail would be a particularly desperate resort, not becoming of an alpha - there is not too much danger of that.
Silhouette says,
Ah, but is is a reflection on you and your ability to lead. If people simply refuse to participate in your thread, who do you plan to lead? 
It’s fine for you to be alpha in your own mind, but as you point out, “it’s about how this is perceived by the group”. No group, no alpha. Participants may not be alpha by your definition, but they control the venue - an alpha moment? 
Indeed! If my ability to lead was limited to keeping this thread going, and everybody refused to participate I would certainly be no alpha 
But that aside, I have certainly led my thread so far.
Who does control the venue of this forum?
With my observation in mind, that moderators are akin to nothing more than janitors by virtue of their moderation powers (to which they are by no means limited), it is not necessarily the moderators who run this place.
There are the old hands of the place, and the newercomers. There are the many who exhibit nothing special, and the few who do. Each is a point of respect, and where I may be no old hand (my earlier than usual start date and post count not truly representing when I really started contributing to this place) I am certainly one of the few creators here.
If this alone is enough to start this thread yet still receive so little contest, then who else who creates or has longer ties to this place is really here to stop me gaining more and more respect until it is clear I am on top?