Is the alpha male more alpha than someone who laughs and looks down on him?

[Riva]

Discussing the definition of words while believing to discuss a complex theoretical question: Ti.

The alpha male is the alpha male and 'the real alpha male'; otherwise he would not be 'the alpha male'. There are no alpha males in human societies, just men with big egos and small pensis.

Teehee at Ti.

Disagreed on the second.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't care much about these sorts of definitions; this is a purely intellectual pursuit.

I'm not sure if your hypothetical alpha male is acting alpha as I understand the term. From the little I've read on the stereotypes, beta males will often attempt to act tough in order to be perceived as tough, but alpha males tend to care less about the perceptions/opinions of others (or won't obsess about them). So, if some guy is trying to act tough, and you ignore or laugh at him, and that makes him mad, then he is, by definition, not an alpha male.

This.

Without elaborating much on it, any bully who bullies his into getting what he wants could become a alpha. However if the bully is a bully and if there is anyone with a spine in the group or if the group is mature the bully would lose his alpha status and become openly disgusted or ignored. If the bully os tactful the group has to be mature see through him lest he'd use tact and charm to disarm people's defences.

I've seen this happen a plenty of times. Bullies fetting away with shit, people eventually waking up or someone with a spine standing up to the bully directly and indirectly.

 

[Elfboy]

So lets say there is some big shot alpha male acting all big and shit, then there is someone who doesent care about the alpha male trying to be all alpha, but just finds it amusing, laughs at him(understanding it, but not caring if it hits the alpha males ego and makes him angry) and doesent take the alpha male seriously in any way(which will most likely piss off the alpha male and making him try to act bigger, which is just met with more amusement and looking down on the alpha male).
So which is the real alpha male?

I don't think you have an accurate understanding of what an alpha male is. an alpha male is someone who is a leader, who has authority and whom people are naturally inclined to follow. you are describing a narcissistic, cock slinging, frat boy-ish douche who wants attention and validation and gets pissed off when people don't kiss his ass (likely an unhealthy 2, 6 or 7).

 

[Elfboy]

Discussing the definition of words while believing to discuss a complex theoretical question: Ti.

 

[Bullet]

It seems absurd to give this term any significance outside of a structured organization, such as a workplace, which requires a certain degree of authority or supervision. In the social realm, there is no designated hierarchy; it's all subjective. Being loud, obnoxious or trying to dominate other people (however one chooses to define that) doesn't necessarily put them in any sort of leadership position. If simply using any means necessary to satisfy a person's wishes when dealing with others is what constitutes being alpha, then manipulation, passive-aggression and other subtle methods of exerting influence would oftentimes be more effective than overt bullying in this invisible chain of command.

Look at the prison system. You've got a bunch of men and women who probably view themselves as alphas, but have basically no freedom or power whatsoever. They have a strictly regimented lifestyle which requires them to obey whatever their overlords command them to do, lest they suffer the consequences, including stripping down naked and spreading their ass cheeks for cavity searches. Of course, gangs form in the prison system and there is a constant struggle for dominance among inmates, but as soon as you remove a leader from their sphere of influence, they are no longer alpha. The word only has significance in relation to other people in a specific set of circumstances; any number of variables could put a person in that position or remove them. Being alpha isn't a character or personality trait; it's a temporary status at best. The importance that pop culture puts on men to strive for this status is inane.

 

[Elfboy]

Seriously? All you people think makes someone alpha is how much power they have in society?
It isn't just their current power, but their potential to have influence in the future, that makes them alpha. It's for this reason that I brought potency/sexual prowess into the picture. If a male can't reproduce then his ability to influence society after his death becomes somewhat more limited. The degree of status he needs to have increases dramatically.

of course we do, because alpha male is a social dynamic. granted, the motivation for seeking this positional dynamic might be (and often is) sexual in nature, but the dynamic itself serves a social function (particularly if the alpha male is in such a position due to greater experience and/or competence. for those with less experience, skills, etc, taking a back seat and letting someone else call the shots is beneficial to survival)

 

[INTP]

I don't think you have an accurate understanding of what an alpha male is. an alpha male is someone who is a leader, who has authority and whom people are naturally inclined to follow. you are describing a narcissistic, cock slinging, frat boy-ish douche who wants attention and validation and gets pissed off when people don't kiss his ass (likely an unhealthy 2, 6 or 7).

I think i can asnwer to you by answering with to this as well:

If "the group" is essentially commanded, willingly, by a person, then that person is the alpha. If the group isn't with the person, then (s)he isn't the alpha anymore. Meaning, if one person is unafraid of them and laughs at them, but they are the only one that does so, then they are of no threat to the alpha's status or authority. They're only a threat if people listen to them and start to follow them instead of the alpha.

Agreed. In the situation i mentioned one is from outside of the alphas tribe and the alpha from one tribe is unable to gain authority over this other person who instead of submitting to alphas authority(what ever the way he gets the authority), just treats the alpha as a fool for even trying. In my eyes by doing this, the person puts the alpha under him. If this would happen inside a group of people and the alpha would be challenged like this, it would naturally be a power battle of the position of the leader.
Now since the other person in question is outside of the group of alphas authority, the alphas position as the alpha isnt challenged in the group.

So the question really is on whether someone of another group of people(regardless if he is the alpha of his own group of friends class or whatever or not) is able to make an alpha of another group to be "under him" between the two people. Which one is the bigger "alpha"?
[MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] there is a reason why i made this topic on philosophy section

 

[Elfboy]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]
fair enough (I agreed with that post as well), but I still disagree with the connotation of your post. you seem to be under the impression that alpha males are really just tribal, chest beating barbarians out for personal glory and masturbating their ego (even if they happen to be wearing suits). imo, it usually plays out in more sophisticated ways (particularly in high society) and isn't necessarily motivated by status, sex or egotism.

 

[Nicodemus]

[MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] there is a reason why i made this topic on philosophy section

Unfortunately, your implication is quite right. You should aim to imitate the best minds in a given field, though, not the average lecturer.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What about mu males?

 

[ygolo]

What about mu males?

Or Aleph-1? Beyond the Greek system

 

[Eruca]

Bullet has made some excellent points in this thread. The popular adoption of the "alpha" concept is misguided, as for one thing even its original sources have been disproved. Click here for a useful roundup of the criticism now leveled at the wolf social studies the alpha idea rose from. Good quote:

Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The "alphas" are simply what we would call in any other social group "parents." The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has "won" a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.

 

[EJCC]

What about mu males?

Or Aleph-1? Beyond the Greek system

Hipsters...

Bullet has made some excellent points in this thread. The popular adoption of the "alpha" concept is misguided, as for one thing even its original sources have been disproved. Click here for a useful roundup of the criticism now leveled at the wolf social studies the alpha idea rose from. Good quote:

Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The "alphas" are simply what we would call in any other social group "parents." The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has "won" a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.

Interesting. What about dolphins and orcas? IIRC they have VERY strict social hierarchies.

 

[Eruca]

Interesting. What about dolphins and orcas? IIRC they have VERY strict social hierarchies.

They might well. But how does this prove that humans naturally have alphas, or naturally follow an alpha/beta/whatever system? We have adopted a position concerning human social orders based on invalidated studies because it was intuitive. Maybe we can't trust our intuitions here.

This thread is based on the assumption that the human social order is a term in which "alpha" and "beta" are useful or apt. Well, why? When was it proven things were that simple that they could be explained this way? *edit* Because we want it to be this way? Because it boosts our egos? Because its sexy? Because its simple and we like things simple? I don't get it.

 

[Amalie Muller]

A good way to think about it would be this.

Were all the laws of civil society to evaporate, they would probably be running the show among their peers.

Who do you think are running the show right now?

 

[EJCC]

They might well. But how does this prove that humans naturally have alphas, or naturally follow an alpha/beta/whatever system?

It doesn't. I was just curious.

We have adopted a position concerning human social orders based on invalidated studies because it was intuitive. Maybe we can't trust our intuitions here.

This thread is based on the assumption that the human social order is a term in which "alpha" and "beta" are useful or apt. Well, why? When was it proven things were that simple that they could be explained this way? *edit* Because we want it to be this way? Because it boosts our egos? Because its sexy? Because its simple and we like things simple? I don't get it.

It's probably just an extension of this.

 

[Amalie Muller]

An alpha male is defined by his success with women, nothing else.

An 80 year old sugar daddy and a nerd who has somehow perfected the art of picking up women are both alpha males. All CEOs, high-ranking politicians etc are alpha males by default, provided they can get it up.

You could be the most physically imposing man in the world, but if you are impotent, you are not an alpha male. Period.

Then is an alpha female determined purely by how successful she is with men?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Hipsters...


Interesting. What about dolphins and orcas? IIRC they have VERY strict social hierarchies.

Where do you think the kid Jason (or whatever the hell his name was) from Free Willy fit into that?

 

[Amalie Muller]

With the exception of [MENTION=22521]Bullet[/MENTION]'s posts, this has been a pretty dumb thread.

 

[Bush]

If the answer to the OP was yes, then no alpha male would have any open critics ever. There would be some sort of cyclical thing where X is alpha but Y looks down on X and so Y is more alpha but X also looks down on Y so he's more alpha.

Why am I even posting, though

 

[INTP]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]
fair enough (I agreed with that post as well), but I still disagree with the connotation of your post. you seem to be under the impression that alpha males are really just tribal, chest beating barbarians out for personal glory and masturbating their ego (even if they happen to be wearing suits). imo, it usually plays out in more sophisticated ways (particularly in high society) and isn't necessarily motivated by status, sex or egotism.

The drive is the same for caveman and people today. Its just that because society has changed, the expression of this drive has changed as well.

Today the battle for the alpha status might be some stock brokers trying to be the best. Or it might be alphas fighting each others in a cage in UFC match for the title of the ultimate fighter, which will be seen as the biggest alpha in those circles. Sometimes any real battle for the alpha status isnt needed if one of the group has enough alpha qualities that others of the group doesent have(like strong need or skills to aim for the position), for example being highly assertive, socially skilled and maybe as a cherry on the top physically attractive to ladies etc.
But i think alpha male and alpha of the group are bit different, alpha of the group might be someone who isnt even a real alpha male and would get eaten alive by betas of another group.