Why do you think it would be a lower rank? Could a Beta ever dominate an Alpha?
Yeah of course - I’ve written about how ranks are subject to change. But if they’ve not yet dominated the alpha they’re still beta, still flexibly compliant and dominant rather than primarily dominant - and definitely not “outside” society and its social groups in general just because they’re content with their lot and thus feel free to be themselves.
I guess the whole system is pretty complex, though gets more simple the higher the rank. The alpha is a lot more clearcut and rare - lower ranks are less and less distinct, and more messy.
It’s often a sign of compliance to desire equality, due the simple fact that only the dominated benefit from more equality. Though of course it’s possible you might just not feel too much drive for either domination or compliance, in which case you’ll have learned relative submission and found your place in between somewhere, not really dominating or complying - which by default puts you in a position where some are going to be more imposing than you. You have to comply relatively more amongst them, and relatively less to the more predominantly submissive.
Not seeing yourself clearly in terms of rank places you nicely in the middle.
I get your model, but since you aren’t removed from society and its groups you are not outside anything. The alpha and beta don’t need 3rd party confirmation, they are defined off one another fine. By not feeling you fit into either you have much in common with what’ve just said about fuse.
Silhouette,
Note that I said I would prefer a mutual relationship with close friends, partners, etc. not an equal relationship. I do not wish for a partner to treat me exactly as I treat him/her. I do not wish for equality, but understanding. We may both be leaders according to our strengths. Neither person must always play the dominant or submissive role. We can “switch off” like two runners drafting in an endurance race.
At any rate, what is your explanation for this?
As I said, for people I don’t know or am not close with, which is most people, I would rather be in a position of dominance versus submission. Alphas are not the only type who are dominant or desire dominance.
Meh. I’m still lone wolf, I don’t accept your placement. I simply do not get dominated.
Can I join your wolfpack?
There is no wolfpack 
Characteristics of a certain kind of human, not necessarily an alpha male.
Do you find yourself challenging males a lot? Or being challenged by males?
Do you find yourself puffing up to the biggest men in a group and displaying your wares to them and any females within earshot?
Are you regularly challenged by males?
Or are you the type of person who easily gets others to do your dirty work for you? That is, you dominate others to the extent that they will do your bidding? A bit like Napoleon and his Imperial Guards?
Quite often an alpha is one who by his ‘fearful displays’ reduces the desire to risk a full challenge by others. Or an alpha quite simply is the toughest male in the group able to repel all challengers…for a while at least.
Those who like to spout about being ‘lone wolves’… are most certainly not alphas unless and until they stumble across a group, the leader of which by pretty quick assessment (the alpha opportunity door being a small one to knock on), could be taken or be forced by such a display of bravado to back down. Sometimes a group will be split by such challenges where both challenger and challenged are fairly evenly matched. Then it’s tic-tac-toe, eh girls? Or maybe loyalty comes into it…
As for the fine Silhouette? Ah… confident aintcha?
So far so pack social.
Who here amongst the humans is for pair bonding?
Sings like a nightingale in Berkeley Square…
I believe we are referring to the same thing due to how I meant “equal”: equal in the sense that you lead/follow in equal measure rather than treating each other entirely equally.
In this case there is just as much compliance as dominance, which is still consistent with my placement of you in a middling rank. There’s nothing wrong with anyone in middle or lower ranks, it’s just what happens when people grow into groups throughout their lives.
I agree - I’d even say all ranks desire dominance to some degree. Those who deny they do are usually those settled into lower ranks. It’s a case of how much you want dominance along with how able you are to get it. Even the most ably dominant guy might not want dominance and the most motivated guy might never be able to get it. So there is some degree of correlation between how much you want it and how high ranked you are, meaning that middle ranks more than likely want dominance more than submission.
Preference for equality in leading/following is a sign you want compliance - in equal measure to dominance. For someone who wanted and had dominance, such equality would get in the way and be unpreferrable. For someone who didn’t have dominance and wanted it, equality would grant their wish to a degree by promoting them to a middle rank from a lower rank. So we have equality benefitting some and not others, right?
Clearly this sentiment is a show of dominance, showing yourself to be a higher than average rank - perhaps alpha. You don’t have to use the terminology but there’s still clearly some dominance going on in what you are writing, fitting in nicely with the alpha->omega model…
Another dominant gesture that’s consistent with the metaphorical wolfpack…
Yeah, but one plus one makes two, and then you have a wolfpack!
Nonetheless, nobody is being dominated, we are having a mutual exchange. These suspicions are just speculative inference.
If you ‘win’ something it hasn’t exactly ‘come to you’ unless you’re talking about the lottery here. If you win, you’ve fought in some way or other. Even if you only stared someone down with your eyes…
Alpha status is very high maintenance because there’s always going to be some young gun lurking about the perimeter (or sitting at your feet) who thinks they can win in the arena. 
Of course eventually some young gun will win what you’ve carefully maintained for a while.
So, to die in a blaze of glory, or ride off into the distance on a fine, white horse…
Yes, I am. Fortunately I have good reason to be.
I find tournament much more appealing, I prefer the tension and challenge in such engagement to the release and resolution in compromise.
I consistently find myself challenging males a lot, yes. Even this thread itself is for tracking down potential “biggest men in the group” on certain grounds - because I desire good competition and am making even the means to competition into competition. There have been plenty of challenges from other males along my way.
I’m not into dirty work, so I just stick to what I like doing and let others fit around me. If they’re not sure about the equality then I just explain things to them. It’s not like I don’t pull my own weight - and my life is lighter than most.
‘Fearful displays’ are not always called for. Firm displays are the norm, and sufficient.
In other species, one tactic is for the female to get two males to challenge each other - and she then goes off into the bushes with a lower ranking male who would lose such a confrontation. But the alpha still gets the biggest share, so nothing is really lost in the ideal case where I find an equal rival.
So I relish the appearances of “young guns” - blaze of glory please.
I agree and have recently covered this aside from your short quotation of me.
Perhaps dominance hasn’t been established, but it has been asserted. Such is the exchange, which leads toward some kind of conclusion or other - though not necessarily a clearcut one.
One more thing:
Where is it written that alpha males are ‘violent’ and omegas ‘nice’? The violence sometimes comes in when there are threats to a dominant male. The male who beats off other males with ‘displays’ will not need to resort to violence. Nor will an alpha have to be violent towards females. I would say violence is more likely to send females, especially alphas, running in the opposite direction.
Yes but conclusions don’t lead to dominance or a revelation of an alpha male, regardless if one is clearly right or wrong.
Oh yes? What good reason would that be?
Your grammar has suddenly improved. Do you get lazy sometimes? If so, that’s when a challenge will floor you.
And what was the outcome of all those challenges?
Of course your not into dirty work. That sort of thing is for chamber maids.
Well if your displays are firm enough, others will be fearful.
What ‘species’ is that? Males challenge each other and so do females. There’s very little sharing going on.
Tickles feet.
Not sufficiently to be persuasive which is why I have picked up on it.
Anyone who wears shades at night is crying out to be dominated.
I wouldn’t interpret wording such as “more likely” in such a black and white manner.
What I was describing was tendency. Omegas tend to be nicer, particularly in the non-threatening kind of way, and alphas tend to be more violent due to the fact that they never had to learn to control themselves and compromise to quite the same extent as omegas. Notice use of words such as “tend” and “extent” - they are very important to my point.
I have also previously covered the fact that, despite the tendency of alphas to be relatively more violent, violence is often not necessary.
With regard to female selection, it turns more toward alphas during times of threat and scarcity of resources, and more toward lower ranks when things are calmer, richer in resources - so more attention can be given on both accounts to care and nurture, particularly toward offspring. And it is never only one or the other, so no, violence does not necessarily send females running in the opposite direction.
Nobody gets a medal or levels up like in a video game. The dynamics are subconscious when not conscious: respect changes, opinions change etc. - and all on potentially very subtle levels. Often, like I said, the change doesn’t reveal anything particularly clearcut. But clearcut boundaries aren’t needed for one person to be more dominant than another to the smallest of degrees. Small degrees often don’t finally resolve matters of rank, so alphas can “battle it out” potentially for a long while, but it gets resolved eventually. Likewise with a beta challenge to the established alpha.
Whether one is “clearly right or wrong” is immaterial, the turning point is when one starts conceding to the other to a signficant degree, in a way that is not necessarily related to the topic at all.
I guess it’s just something you’ll come to realise in time.
I find I can afford “laziness” without too much danger. If it gives someone a way in then all the better.
I get something out of each one and find my worth to be increasingly proven each time.
Yeah, if fear is what you want. It’s not the only way to earn compliance - I don’t need to expend huge effort to attain something small and simple.
It was some primate, I forget which - most likely gorillas, though it’s probably something that extends beyond just them e.g. humans.
And when “significant degrees” do not occur for some?
Hasty Generalization
Fuse, you’re probably more on the way to being an Omega guy. They may have some friends but like to do things on their own without being part of a group a silly clique. They don’t feel the need to be leaders. They can relate to all kinds of people and like to get things done on their own. They don’t feel a need to use people. They are not haughty or arrogant where it comes to what they’ve done or accomplished. But they happily realize they’ve achieved something and do take pride in that.
As opposed to the alpha, the Omega man does not need the kind of recognition or support that the alpha does - he knows exactly who he is - what his human worth is, and doesn’t need to be worshipped by his minions or friends. He knows he’s capable of mostly standing alone (prefers it even) even when he chooses not to, and his relationships, which he may have far far less of, than the alphas, are much deeper and more meaningful than that of the alpha male. They’re both strong in their own ways, but the Omega man has more inner strength - he just does not need to exhibit it.
Two alphas are fighting over a female in a club, vying for her attention, while she looks on, bored. The stronger alpha gets to take her home and he absolutely knows he will have sex with her…after all, he is an alpha male. 
Meanwhile, in walks the Omega man, goes over to her and says hi, smiles at her…they have a few words…and out the door she walks with him…while the two alphas haven’t even noticed that they’ve lost their prize. 
The Omega takes her home, doesn’t assume sex, there isn’t any - just a wonderful intimate conversation and many, many more and 2 years later they get married and live happily ever after. Meanwhile, those 2 alphas are still in the club fighting over that female…long gone.