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 fed into your definition of what is alpha, but quite frankly, the definition is limited to that which is public display. A true alpha is invisible. They may be known but exercise their leadership in more subtle ways. The sage or wise person does not claim attention, and therefore is given attention. The true alpha seeks obscurity and therefore receives aclaim. This isn’t to suggest that we don’t recognize and even need the John Wayne alpha hero from time to time, but as Anita pointed out, The true alpha is the person comfortable with themselves and has no need for display. A real alpha leads from the rear of the herd. But that person rarely makes it on “60 Minutes”.
Trustworthy as in worthy of trust [not just capable of being trusted - you can trust anything you’d like]. Trust is a reliance more than an expectation. So, yes, trust is more than predictability – there is also a loyalty involved. You can trust a liar and get the truth every now and again, but he is still predictably dishonest. Could you trust your “alpha”? Sure. What I’m asking is whether such a person deserves to be trusted.
And obviously my opinion is that he cannot and should not.
Emotionally detached, not emotionally vacant altogether. In other words, emotionally detached from others [or ‘reality’].
No, I’m saying your definition of “alpha” is askew.
Exactly. Then you agree, your “alpha” is an actor who may, inadvertently, work for the good of the group. All in all he is a selfish douche, though. And, yes, I’d contend that compassion would be an improvement.
Nobody. The strong do wear masks. And half the time their apparent strength is part of that mask. Nobody said anything about completely open, but I believe a real “alpha” is genuine insofar as he becomes the alpha without request or appeal.
Though, even if he did let you, you’d never know if it was genuine.
[/quote]
And some people preferred to trust Charles Manson. He seems like a pretty good example of your “alpha”.
JT, seems I’ve missed both the salient and the subtle. Completely hopeless.
Sil, we clearly have different notions on what we consider an “alpha male.” As I alluded, the alpha as I see it has no need to “celebrate” his status – he is what he is, does what he does, without needing to prove himself to anyone but himself. He holds himself to higher standards of integrity not to impress others, but to be true to himself.
That is neither humility nor self-repression – it is self-assuredness, freedom from the need for external validation.
As I see it, flaunting oneself is never flattering, if you’ve truly “got it,” there’s no need to flaunt it – it’s already out there, plain as day, for people to see. It’s only when one is worried that it’s not apparent that boasting is employed. The need to flaunt stems from insecurity – which I think we’d agree is NOT exactly an alpha trait.
The person you describe sounds more like a needy adolescent than a man to me. His false bravado may fool his immature peers, but as this thread demonstrates, he likely wouldn’t capture the interest of many adults. Being self-absorbed is not an especially charismatic quality.
Shall we battle it out to see who is more correct? No, that would certainly be adolescent.
If there is nothing adolescent, young and healthy in an alpha male, I would see little appeal in him. There is much that is charming in an old adult man, but does his tired moderated fatigue inspire leadership? Perhaps if physical health is cut out of the equation - which it pretty much is today. I understand the appeal of the mature humble male.
Your idea of the alpha male has much in common with the respectful old hand, tentative:
The true alpha is one who shrinks into obscurity? - or perhaps they only seek this only to find themselves unsuccessful? Each seems somewhat opposed to the largeness of the alpha and his capability.
Are we to leave it at “the alpha uses his strength toward the ends of not needing to use it”?
This would ultimately lead to the alpha having nothing but potential strength - nothing material, only unproved, unreal, unasserted.
The sage or wise person is explicitly non-alpha. You describe a recluse who is content with themselves. This clearly inspires respect, but it does not inspire following. It does not inspire togetherness in a social context. There is no group for the hermit to lead.
A John Wayne is charming, but fleeting. His highlight is in his brief individual heroism, not his prolonged social role. Western film is pretty terribly limited to the individual in a crisis situation, followed by the triumph of good over evil. This is intensely trivial…
A liar consistently does not tell the truth. You can trust him to do that. An alpha will consistently lead you best through adversity, and in the meantime provide you with strong character. You can trust him to do that.
If this does not inspire loyalty, if you cannot rely on him to do this, then by all means challenge him and cause him to fuck off, or depart yourself on your lonesome. What different kind of loyalty and reliance do you need?
Reality is others and their surroundings. Let’s say an alpha is emotionally detached from others (but not their surroundings). They are going to have a speciality in knowledge of surroundings. But they are not emotionally detached from others in the sense that they have emotional connection with others. It’s just not warmth, pity and affection etc. A cold emotional attachment is an attachment all the same. It’s just in the favour of one who does not desire warmth when warmth is unwantedly requested from the lower ranked individual.
Would you call someone who saved ur ass, through being “selfish”, a douche? “You douche, you just made a decision that benefitted us all loads. How dare you not have compassion while you did this”.
The thing is, Sil, I lost interest in adolescent males when I turned 14. And if that’s really what you see as an “alpha”…well, that’s pretty much all you needed to say.
In biology, “alpha male” is a specific term for animals with strict hierarchical societies; wolves and gorillas are such animals, humans aren’t. At least, the biological evidence (relative male vs. female size, sex organs, and the organisation of nearest primate relatives) indicates that humans didn’t evolve that way. There is no “leader of the pack” with other males constantly vying for the one position and control of breeding rights. Humans are political; you seem to be trying to reason based on the wrong paradigm.
The lectures I’ve seen indicate that humans don’t quite fit into hierarchical or equal social structures. My interpretation of this is, of course, that humans can identify both hierarchical and equal structures in other species because we know the influences of each from our own societies - hence my remark about believing man to be the measure of all things. There are tendencies to both hierachy and equality in human society, meaning my paradigm is not “wrong”.
Really? What grabbed your attention since then?
I see adolescence in males of all ages, in direct correlation to how happy, healthy and strong they are. I see maturity as a calming of one’s drives, in line with an aging and tiring of the body and spirit. The result is something much more balanced and latent, but never properly released except in snaps of frustration or pitiful sadness. This is much more “socially adjusted” in the sense that one amounts to someone disarmed and malleable… but none of this is impressive, admirable, nor inspiring of obedience and following.
Is that what grabbed your attention since then? Perhaps you would define it differently, or you see it differently.
A reduced harmless adult is a nice, modest, safe sight - conducive toward equality in human society. This relates to my above reply to O_H. There is both the equal and hierarchical in the human. Each has its relative advantages, but I cannot help see the hierarchical version as much more healthy.
In response to the idea that there are no human alpha-males vying for breeding rights, consider this: you have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. I will let you think about the implications of that.
I didn’t say that males don’t vie over breeding, just that humans don’t operate according to pack dynamics.
But do explain the ancestors thing. I’ve seen a family tree and I’m pretty sure I have as many great^n-grandmothers as -grandfathers. I can only think it implies vertical incest (father-daughter, grandfather-granddaughter); though I have a vague memory of reading that cousins were thought to be the predominant pairing couples in pre-civilised human society.
It seems to me that a true alpha controls their ego-driven predilictions. It isn’t a snap of frustration or pitiful sadness, but careful and thoughtful knowing who, what, when, and where. Contrasted with an “action Jackson”, a real alpha has the larger picture in mind and follows a methodical agenda that gets the job done with the minimum amount of fuss and furor. Moreover, a real alpha works through others. An alpha understands “buy in”, and gives all credit to those that are led. Riding around on a white charger sounds romantic, but ensures a short damned life. Leading as a martyr to the cause may be alpha, or it just might be adolescent stupidity…
all sex is incest - well not in the technical/legal sense, but in the sense that everybody is related.
and what you’re pretty sure about you’re also incorrect about. you have more great^n-grandmothers, if we limit n to large numbers (like probably over 100, maybe over 200).
anyway, it doesn’t really take that much explaining: if, historically, the average sexually successful male had twice as many mates as the average sexually successful female…well, that would account for it pretty much. that’s it. that’s all it takes.
