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 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.
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.
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.
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?
The Alpha male concept here is really a product of desirable herd mentality traits by other followers. I see most alpha as hanging with weaker minded individuals simply to feed their own ego and dominate as well as to portray an image to the “suckers” whom are observing and biting on it. Silhouette touched on it nicely here, big the common image of an Alpha is just a reflection of societal norms, which of course on average, is simply an average standard
I agree with this, the alpha traits requiring the context of followers and their herd mentality. An alpha must be accepted as part of his group of followers - though not in equal measure or there would be no hierarchy. A good King may be connected to his subjects by more fear than love, but all his subjects feel their herdlike connection to him along with a respectful gratefulness to his earned standing. (Those in power today carry no such connection nor respect, no?)
As for “hanging with weaker minded individuals”, this is not the same as hanging with weak minded individuals. Many on this forum may not be flawless, but they are not weak minded. It takes a stronger mind to feed the ego of someone you are in discussion with, just as to accept such praise. Eachoftheselinks contain explicit approval for me in the past week alone. This pleases me and feeds my ego - is that so wrong of me?
We’re not a pack of wolves, and animal behavior is not universal in any case. Fighting for position within the herd, when the “herd” has reached the size that our societies have, will only take one so far before the ability to foster cooperation and collaboration becomes more valued than ego-feeding, self-promoting behaviors.
BTW, no true “alpha” would feel compelled to start or promote a thread flaunting his own alpha-ness; it would be self-evident, rendering PR unnecessary. The truly exceptional man feels no need or desire to convince others of his greatness. He simply doesn’t have to.
Explicitly pointing out your own alpha status is a self-negating endeavor.
Yes, we are not a pack of wolves. Though we can be seen to have things in common with a pack of wolves.
I am a firm believer in man as the measure of all things. Every behaviour we recognise in other animals is a reflection on ourselves. We perceive differences between the behaviours of animals, but only ever in light of the differences that our own physiological make-up is prone to valuing the perception of. You are correct again that animal behaviour is not universal in any case.
Societies of this size must foster cooperation, also yes, but the ranking of group members is not contrary to cooperation. It structures cooperation.
Ego-feeding, self-promoting, flaunting alpha-ness - do you really think an alpha does not flaunt his alphaness? An alpha is actively expressive, perpetually giving across the message that he is in charge.
Whilst there is PR for the purposes of bumping up an artifical sense of worth - through a need to be validated by others, there is also the explicit pointing out of one’s own alpha status in celebration - through richness.
Humility, a kind of self-repression, is counter to the alpha’s propensities. Whilst the alpha is clearly in charge without needing to convince anyone it does no harm to demonstrate his greatness. In fact, if an alpha did not periodically remind the lower ranks of his superiority, he would run into doubt - because in the case of an alpha it is a surplus of health that is indicated by ego-feeding, self-promoting behaviours.
Perhaps an alpha female does not experience this. In terms of this forum, I’m tempted to regard you as the most alpha of the females. Any comments?
Perhaps you are accustomed to only lesser men, whose self-flaunting is not flattering. In the vein of a guy showing off his beer-belly.
All the above aside, you miss the subtlty of the thread. It is intended to test if there is some kind of passion evident in philosophical types. But not only through outburst, but commanding outburst - indicative of a philosophical leader. Is there such thing as a philosophical leader?
So far there has only been fear of/aversion to the OP characteristics. If we cannot be proud in all things, what are we but lesser men? Nobody has yet overcome their vanity - fearing to be seen in a negative light - even if it is the one thing I have placed in the way of claiming supremacy. So how can there be any pride in anyone else here? Does nobody here really want supremacy? This is all very telling.
I like the boasting! More of that and I might have to “alpha you” 
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? 
But that aside, I have certainly led my thread so far.