Who here is an alpha male?

No, he’s really not a lone wolf. That’s someone who has no friends or relationships for whatever reason…fear of commitment perhaps or some kind of anti-social being…he wishes to be an island. The Omega does have a few friends, just not as many as the alpha usually has - all of those hanger ons. Like I said, the Omegas friendships are few but deep. For him, quality pawns quantity. And he is a social creature, just not such as the alpha wolf.

He may have started out by being an outcast - self imposed or otherwise and it strengthened him in such a way that he came to realize that he can stand alone (usually does but not always) It is the intent that matters. But if he needed to be, he could be the lone wolf…being in the forest all alone can be a wonderful thing. Don’t you think? At the same time, he can hear the howls of the others…he doesn’t need them as much as all of the others do…and his howl is different than the others.

He isn’t the lone wolf but he may at times be the lonely wolf because of how he chooses to live his life…and lonely isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s a great thing not to have all of those minons hanging on you. He loves his aloneness and when he chooses not to be alone, it is because it is his choice…not his need.

We got the same vision just different terms …

Sounds to me like you’re just describing your ideal guy - and I don’t think omega is quite the right term.

Think scrawny, bitter, inept, hideous nerd with no self-esteem and not much to him, wishing he was popular. That’s your omega right there - compliant, overly self-conscious and vulnerable, pretty much everything that seems to encourage being dominated and probably bullying. Your ideal guy sounds more like fuse, gobbo or ww3 - none of them seem to give too much of a fuck what others think and appear to like where they are. Middle to higher ranks.

So you’re not into alphas, no biggie. Alphas like girls who nigh on won’t be won, who don’t want to have to put up with more compliant, modest males, who will only accept the guy who comes out on top. You don’t seem particularly alpha female, though perhaps middle to higher rank - matching your taste in men.

Btw, alphas don’t depend on minions… they tend to be friends with betas who are hardly puppets. Dependency doesn’t come into it for alphas, other people come to them - but that doesn’t even necessitate that the alpha requires friends. In order to be cool around people you pretty much need to be fine on your own, or a dependence and compliance out of fear of loss of friends will compromise your dominance.

You try to paint this picture of the vulnerable alpha, it really doesn’t compute I’m afraid. And preference for alone time is reserved for middle to higher ranks - as distinct from having no other choice than alone time since everyone thinks you’re lame…

Silhouette

Maybe I am…maybe I’m not.

Silhouette, I think you need to take a course in reading comprehension. That is not what an Omega is at all.

I really don’t know these guys at all so I couldn’t determine whether they are alpha, omegas or whatever.
But it’s true that the Omega does not really care what others think of them (but not in a ‘I don’t give a shit’ fashion) that’s just self-denial -and they do like who and where they are. They don’t actually think in terms of hierarchys - they don’t need to - because they are content with who they are though they reach for more.

I don’t actually label myself so much, Silhouette. I flow in and out of wherever I go. I don’t consider myself to be alpha or omega…I just am…wherever I am at the moment. Though I do love my lonely and alone moments in the woods and I love wolves…but I love the wolf that doesn’t travel in the pack…unless he wants to…I love the wolf that is not afraid to go it alone, though he is not a loner. I don’t see myself at the beginning or at the end…I travel forward and backwards. So what does that make me?

I’m not so sure that alphas don’t depend on minions. Perhaps there are some who don’t - perhaps the ones closer to becoming omegas…lol…but I also think many do - they need the recognition and the support though they might not admit to it. I would even imagine that Omegas at times do - we are after all human - the Omega just doesn’t need it so much nor does he thrive on it.

I never actually said that alphas are vulnerable but they are more vulnerable as a result of not realizing that they can be, as humans. Perhaps what I ought to say is that the men who think they are alphas are more vulnerable as a result of not realizing…etcetera. The same goes for men who may think they are Omegas.

And those ‘everyone’ may be in actuality, more lame than the one who is left alone. Who knows, he may be the true Omega. The supposed Alphas are a threatened bunch…that poor lame one may have much more to offer than the all the rest put together. One never knows what one might find deep below.

For whatever reason, you seem to be taking this thread too much to heart. Why is that? Do you think that you are an alpha? Anyway, they are just labels and how much do they really mean, especially since we are all capable of change. And they are just labels to portray a particular kind of person and since we are not so fixed and determined in our personalities and characters, don’t worry, Silhouette, you may become a flowing Omega at some point…maybe you already are but don’t know it. But labels are just not important. And look what they just did. This is why they really are so stupid - and of course, I’m just as guilty of perpetrating a farce here.

Cool, tent, very cool.
You bring out the ‘herd mentality’ in me. omg, I hate the herd mentality. You make me want to follow you. [-o<
You’ve ruined me for life.
Only kidding of course.
I hope.
You may actually be an Omega guy, tent.
At the very least, a true alpha. Aooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
I don’t know…I’m just playing.
The below is an alpha male - a true one.

Why? So I can catch up on the course you’ve been taking on trashy faddish articles? I don’t know where else you could be getting your ideas on omega males other your own overly romantic imagination.

The human male equivalent of “the one who eats last” is not the endearing “loser” who has attractive self-knowledge and charm to make up for his rejection of the modern rat-race and wealth, sports and competition. Have you seen much of the world? There are males who are even more compliant, shy and inept than what you have in mind - they are the real omegas of society. Pop-culture doesn’t properly cover them - what it covers is males who actually have something to offer (just not in the traditional “man” sense), and it’s only the more appealing of this lot that meets your descriptions: middle/low ranks at the least.

Playing hard to get? lol. This is what so many women do: try to deflect labels at all costs in favour of portraying mystique, not realising that they only reinforce such labels in doing so. And it works - it’s as appealing as it is maddening.

Dominance ranks have very little to do with “hidden talents” or whatever else you might have in mind when suggesting “more to offer”. I’m sure the middle/lower ranked dream boy of yours has plenty “deep below”, and that’s not exclusive to his rank at all. You probably think of alphas as always completely superficial - no doubt through lack of real experience? Who exactly is threatening the “alpha bunch” by the way?

So you’re playing that card are you? I suppose if you " " at everything that seems a bit serious and treat everything as a farce then you can go through your life without ever really needing to know anything, and without ever having to worry about being laughed at - because you beat everyone to it. I know this is all just another dubious classification of many.

I laugh a lot and always walk around with a big smile, but I choose to take some things seriously because I want to immerse myself in knowing more and I want to take the risk of emerging the fool. All because I like life.

Please, kids. I’m begging you. I have to read every single post on the godforsaken thread. Please remain cordial to each other. If I actually have to more than skim this thread-about-nothing, I’m gonna be in a very bad mood.

And Faust shows everyone who’s boss with his Alpha Dominant nature

Not at all. You’ve all got me by the balls, here. I have to read this stuff.

Touché

I’m not talking about myself. I used myself as an example to illustrate a point, but I’m not meta. That is not to say the position doesn’t exist.

There was an episode of Star Trek where Data had to play this game against a Galactic Grand Master. Data knew he could not win - he did not have the computational power to out-whit the master’s years of experience. Data plays a strategy wherein he plays for a stalemate. The match ends with no winner. In this case Data plays the part of the meta because through his actions he illustrates the nature of winning and losing - of the entire game itself - without ever doing either of those things. He knows from the start he is not engaging in the game, but rather demonstrating the game. Neither the Alpha nor the Beta can be said to do this.

This really isn’t hard to get. It’s like saying the referee is beta cause he’s not the winner of the game. Does that make sense to you? He didn’t alienate himself from the game to be cool - it cannot exist without him. Someone has to full that spot. The fact that we’re talking about this arises instances of meta. That’s why threads like this get so many responses. Everyone here is driven by that elucidated need to win, but in philosophy there is no winner. The tension you feel here, with everyone unsure if they are winning or losing the discussion - that is meta.

Lol I was thinking the same thing WW3 , though Faust is right, he is in fact being as compliant as he is showing dominance. He is wrong about this being a “thread-about-nothing”, it is about everything that underlies everything that goes on in this forum and in all other social interactions anywhere. In fact, it’s possibly the most philosophical thread on the forum. Feel free to laugh if you don’t get why this is.

It’s strange what happens in systems that man has set up: tools can be used to maintain positions of dominance without the bearer requiring much natural dominance at all. For other animals, tool usage is still at a minimum or non-existent, so they can’t interact with anyone on grounds much different than natural dominance. Humans can use the technologies that everyone is, by choice, embedded within to artificially control with much more precision from afar, with guns and other instruments of harm at the end to ensure it all stands up (more tools to sway things in favour of the system of tools).

So the question becomes whether or not these people who have earnt modern positions of power are the higher ranks now - regardless of their natural dominance. The appearance suggests that this distortion is now the case, though it explains a lot about contempt for authority on the grounds that it doesn’t seem deserved. Somehow it seems difficult to respect someone just because they have some powerful privileges, when they don’t come across as naturally powerful. I use the word “natural” in the sense that whilst tool manipulation is natural, the assertive force behind the tool manipulation doesn’t necessarily demand respect.

Perhaps it’s debatable whether the traditional and animal power structures, based on natural dominance, inspire more respect from the submissive. I’m inclined to think they do. Afterall, natural social situations cause ranks to emerge according to natural dominance and group members respect the most dominant male.

Cases of hatred or resentment toward dominant males emerge between natural social groups (not including artificial social situations), not within. The only exceptions might occur when a beta emerges as a challenge to the alpha, resulting in one of them losing, and also when middle ranks might be a dick with their rank, taking out their frustrations toward higher ranks on lower ranks.

In line with artificial social situations, I enjoyed your anecdote about Star Trek and games in general. It’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that you’re talking about a different thing.

In your example, Data’s forcing of a draw is an assertion of dominance, just not one powerful enough to result in achievement of dominance. He wasn’t just demonstrating the game, anyone who played it would be doing that whether they won, lost or drew even in a friendly match. The difference in Data’s case is his assertion of the most effective strategy available to him. Nobody won but then the game-dominance was established right from the start with Data’s knowledge of his superior.

So once again, like I said to WW3, dominance isn’t necessarily related to winning or losing a battle on limited grounds (e.g. game rules, philosophical debate), it can be implied by gestures separate to the game or philosophical argument. So whilst there may not be winning or losing in some philosophy, there can still be dominance and submission even in a philosophical “draw” or whatever you want to call it. A referee is like a moderator who is protected from competing in the same limited way as the teams or forum members. In these cases, all have to comply to their role just as the competitors or forum members have to comply to their’s - in order for a specific game/subject matter to be distinct from mundane life.

So philosophical proficiency and game results aren’t enough on their own to indicate alphaness in general. Alphaness is an all-round thing that isn’t restricted to games or specific subjects.

(response to yours in bold specifically)
Yes but that may not be the case as well.

Then you have social recognition based on isolated group values that may not favor alpha dominate traits and in turn favor a beta, in which case the beta would dominate… and be the alpha? But would that really be what we consider to be an alpha male? Not necessarily, because they can just be creating a social qualifier based on emotions, perhaps they would favor a genetically weak, unintelligent, un-sexy person. Because you know people aren’t necessarily rational nor do what would be best for them, the group, or whatever.

Yes, I agree as discussed in the 3rd paragraph of my previous post that you quoted.

I meant to imply that we come across problems of authority acceptance when, for example, “betas in general” become more complied with and thus “become the new alphas”. Think of times where leaders have come across as undeserving of their leadership, where others - perhaps yourself - could do a much better job. I think I remember a small-scale example from another thread that’s relevant to you: your new boss who inherited his position from his dad, or something?

Systems are in place that ensure undeserved ranks emerge and are protected. At least they could be inspiring of respect through natural dominance, but being naturally of lower rank in uncontrolled social situations, they come across as unable to do so. But the human use of such systems and tools can allow them to assume positions of leadership anyway.

So I might be so bold as to hypothesise that human’s proficiency in tool use may have a direct correlation with authority rejection.

I don’t think you can…

Damn it! I’m so let down.

…I don’t get why that is. Unfortunately, I find your statement to be more tragic than humorous.

If that is the case, and there are no self-evident rules, then these gestures must be, somehow, evaluated. So we’re back to to having a referee.

Stalemates of syntax.

Lovely assonance but the “rules” are self-evident. Behaviours are continuously evaluated at least subconsciously to distinct effect, whether subtle or dramatic, even when there is no “referee” or conscious recognition of what’s changing. It’s probably a lot clearer when you look at unconstrained social interaction rather than game performance and results. It’s just absorbed from a young age (probably pre-natal in some ways even) until second nature…

Do you mean you need a referee to pick out similarities and differences to proposed structural models? Because that’s no different from any conscious philosophical analysis.

Oh yeah, that’s the other card you can pull: “I pity you” rather than " ". Pity away! I suppose you’ve not considered that thought requires intention to think, and intentions depend on environment, including social circumstance. That is to say your rank correlates with your philosophical outlook and thoughts in general, including your resort to pity and AR’s resort to laughter.

Infants think without intention. We’ve gotten into a habit of over emphasizing intent, which is a mistake in my opinion. ‘Intentions’ are probably the easiest way to misunderstand motives.

I said nothing of pity. I just don’t get your statement and think you’ve missed out if you meant it.