Uncategorized

A thought…

July 19, 2010

An Alpha can be Alpha without “game”.  A person who uses “game” isn’t necessarily an Alpha but plays one on TV.

A godly Alpha will “be the man” in a way that  honors G-d and leads/protects/provides for his family.

Am I correct in my assumptions?

How much of “game theory” is merely men trying to learn what it means to Be The Man?

Is it conceivable that much of this conversation has been because you are saying apples and we are hearing oranges and vice versa?

Thoughts?  Anyone?

Bueller….

  • That was exactly my concern and why I posted in the first place. I don’t think Game, the PUA or LTR aspect of it, is a good place for a Christian man to learn to Be The Man. It was frustrating to me that most people seemed to think I was concerned about men using Game to get sex.

  • That was exactly my concern and why I posted in the first place. I don’t think Game, the PUA or LTR aspect of it, is a good place for a Christian man to learn to Be The Man. It was frustrating to me that most people seemed to think I was concerned about men using Game to get sex.

  • John Quincy Public

    Yep, you’ve got the advocates position down. The bulk of this is men trying to give up White Knighting — correctly — by taking up Black Knighting. Which ain’t so good either.

  • Doom

    I would love to say, “Yes, absolutely!”, but there are some catches. First, alphas are not good at what you suggest, in a way. Not a real alpha. Alphas are sort of on their own. A woman might be of interest, or might not. Commitment is difficult. There are weaknesses to alpha that must be overcome, natural tendencies which need to be handled, for an alpha to be what you suggest. Even as a weaker alpha, I am having to rearrange some notions and soften, or I will find nothing but short term or wrong relationships. No, I think, sadly, you are talking about a beta or alpha/beta mix (what is called a gamma if I have it correctly). With or without God in our lives.

    The PUAs, on the other hand, are simply using alpha traits to obtain sexual gratification. They could not, in any way, be other than actors. On the up side, they might well ‘flip’ to being a better mate with the right woman more easily. Well, that is how I understand it.

  • Thank you, Doom, for your input. I truly am trying to understand and make sure that your terminology means the same thing to me.

    It’s like talking about Jesus to a Mormon. Same words, different definitions.

    Loovveeee the interwebs.

    So, a “true alpha” wouldn’t be be the man who “leads/protects/provides for his family.” Right?

    But an “alpha/beta” blend, this “gamma” would be the kind of man who does these things?

    Yet, I have seen, at Vox’s (which is kinda like people watching at a mental hospital) that the “gamma” is often ridiculed while the “alpha” is shown to be the idealized persona.

    Has this been your experience as well?

    Which leads me to this observation:

    In order to be or become a true “alpha”, according to the definitions I have been given in these discussions, a man would have to willfully disobey the mandates in Scripture in order to be true to his “alpha” identity.

    I am, of course, referring to the verses in Torah (OT) where specific marital responsibilities are listed. I am also referring to specific texts in the NT where it is both stated and implied that a righteous man should take exceptionally good care of his household, his wife and his children.

    None of which I have the time at this moment to list for you. I am assuming that my discussion group is sufficiently Biblically literate to follow along.

  • Thank you, Doom, for your input. I truly am trying to understand and make sure that your terminology means the same thing to me.

    It’s like talking about Jesus to a Mormon. Same words, different definitions.

    Loovveeee the interwebs.

    So, a “true alpha” wouldn’t be be the man who “leads/protects/provides for his family.” Right?

    But an “alpha/beta” blend, this “gamma” would be the kind of man who does these things?

    Yet, I have seen, at Vox’s (which is kinda like people watching at a mental hospital) that the “gamma” is often ridiculed while the “alpha” is shown to be the idealized persona.

    Has this been your experience as well?

    Which leads me to this observation:

    In order to be or become a true “alpha”, according to the definitions I have been given in these discussions, a man would have to willfully disobey the mandates in Scripture in order to be true to his “alpha” identity.

    I am, of course, referring to the verses in Torah (OT) where specific marital responsibilities are listed. I am also referring to specific texts in the NT where it is both stated and implied that a righteous man should take exceptionally good care of his household, his wife and his children.

    None of which I have the time at this moment to list for you. I am assuming that my discussion group is sufficiently Biblically literate to follow along.

  • Since I just know everyone is dying to hear my two thoughts on this…

    There is a difference between an ALPHA, as identified by a natural charisma that men willingly follow, and the alpha that is a cad but that women so adore. These can be the same people, but or not necessarily so. We could say that someone like JFK was an ALPHA and an alpha or we could point to Reagan as an ALPHA, but not an alpha. Or to Roissy, who is certainly not ALPHA, but is definitely alpha. Same word, different concept. Women flock to both, but men only flock to the ALPHAs

    Most can learn to be an alpha by learning to mimic the right behaviors, but being an Alpha is a combination of factors that likely can’t just be learned. I imagine that upbringing is a big factor, but also there are some intangibles that are just bestowed at birth. That being said, I know that men can learn the right behaviors so as to be the leader in his small circle, ie the family or social group or at least to not be the low beta on the totem pole.

    Many of the behaviors for ALPHA and alpha would be the same so I guess it comes down to usage of the tools themselves. I think this is where much of the resistance comes from. Some see a bird coated in oil and beyond saving. Others see something precious that with some cleaning up is well worth pursuing. I am of the latter group. Some of those birds are just too far gone, but with some reworking, others can be cleaned up and brought back to their rightful place in the world (as a tool that we men can use in our daily life for the betterment of all)

  • Since I just know everyone is dying to hear my two thoughts on this…

    There is a difference between an ALPHA, as identified by a natural charisma that men willingly follow, and the alpha that is a cad but that women so adore. These can be the same people, but or not necessarily so. We could say that someone like JFK was an ALPHA and an alpha or we could point to Reagan as an ALPHA, but not an alpha. Or to Roissy, who is certainly not ALPHA, but is definitely alpha. Same word, different concept. Women flock to both, but men only flock to the ALPHAs

    Most can learn to be an alpha by learning to mimic the right behaviors, but being an Alpha is a combination of factors that likely can’t just be learned. I imagine that upbringing is a big factor, but also there are some intangibles that are just bestowed at birth. That being said, I know that men can learn the right behaviors so as to be the leader in his small circle, ie the family or social group or at least to not be the low beta on the totem pole.

    Many of the behaviors for ALPHA and alpha would be the same so I guess it comes down to usage of the tools themselves. I think this is where much of the resistance comes from. Some see a bird coated in oil and beyond saving. Others see something precious that with some cleaning up is well worth pursuing. I am of the latter group. Some of those birds are just too far gone, but with some reworking, others can be cleaned up and brought back to their rightful place in the world (as a tool that we men can use in our daily life for the betterment of all)

  • Doom

    I think DMMan cleared some things up. I have confussion at Vox’s too. The seeming dissing of alpha and in the next breath the praising of alpha. I think a lot of that comes from the notion that Vox, whether in truth or merely as a netizen creation, is seen as an alpha in the sense that both male and female find him attractive or leadership worthy. And yet, there is a play on time where what he was is not what he is… some don’t like that he is or once was, or the other, or contest whichever or both… and that some want to be what he is or was and so praise it out of one side of their face while cursing it as Christian or ethically based men (or simply because they do not like him, no matter what).

    It’s a rat race over there. I read his articles. I sometimes drop a note to no one in particular (which I never check anymore), and I head out. I would advise the same. The opinion, value, and belief variances, not to mention intellectual or faux intellectual spans, are so wide in the comments section that… they are meaningless.

    I would guess it might be the same with all the “popular” sites as well. Stick with the author, if they are explaining it well. Leave the comments for the nerds, geeks, alpha wannabe’s, and other assorted misfits and nuts. Then again, I think Vox likes to play “Lord of the Flies” crazy games himself too, sometimes.

  • Doom

    I think DMMan cleared some things up. I have confussion at Vox’s too. The seeming dissing of alpha and in the next breath the praising of alpha. I think a lot of that comes from the notion that Vox, whether in truth or merely as a netizen creation, is seen as an alpha in the sense that both male and female find him attractive or leadership worthy. And yet, there is a play on time where what he was is not what he is… some don’t like that he is or once was, or the other, or contest whichever or both… and that some want to be what he is or was and so praise it out of one side of their face while cursing it as Christian or ethically based men (or simply because they do not like him, no matter what).

    It’s a rat race over there. I read his articles. I sometimes drop a note to no one in particular (which I never check anymore), and I head out. I would advise the same. The opinion, value, and belief variances, not to mention intellectual or faux intellectual spans, are so wide in the comments section that… they are meaningless.

    I would guess it might be the same with all the “popular” sites as well. Stick with the author, if they are explaining it well. Leave the comments for the nerds, geeks, alpha wannabe’s, and other assorted misfits and nuts. Then again, I think Vox likes to play “Lord of the Flies” crazy games himself too, sometimes.

  • John Quincy Public

    The problem is that people are trying to make a chimera out of several things.

    Game/Roissy hierarchy: Alpha is a narcissist, Beta is everyone else.

    Vox hierarchy: Game/Roissy with finer grained distinctions. Soft pedals some of the narcissism; keeps most of the behaviours. Gamma is a White Knight. Full description at the URL; it’s been fleshed more since then as to specifics.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

    Married hierarchy: Beta is me. Alpha is me with more marital congress. Discards most behaviours.

    Without meaning to pick on DMM, this leads to the semantic confusion of “alpha” and “ALPHA” amongst other variants as witnessed. All of this follows from Game or a subset of Game. Some know and some don’t, which is why the re-casting of the specific behaviours in Game as “tools” rather than adopted facets of personality and character.

  • No worries JQP. There is inherent confusion in the subject because the terms used have two meanings. Most don’t try to distinguish between the two as its not really in anyone purview. Roissy likely couldn’t care less and for the rest its just more work than is worth it. Trust me, I have tried to come up with a term that would work but I end up explaining it too much and its just not worth it.

    This is similar to when the Progressives took over the name Liberal. It used to be an honorable word meant to describe near libertarians, now it means big government socialism. In the same way, the PUA community coopted the term Alpha to mean cad that gets laid. Hafta admit, it sounds a whole lot better

  • John Quincy Public

    I hear ya, Brother. That’s why I’ve stuck with the old standby: Man up.

    Wordsnitchers are like lawyers. And I’m with the bard on lawyers.