Calibrating attraction by controlling the venue.

Susan Walsh did an interesting post last week on meeting a good man in a bar:

Is it possible to meet the love of your life in a bar? Of course. Is it easy? No. The odds are not in your favor. Should you bother then? Well, I do know several happy couples who met in a bar.

She breaks the dos and don’ts down in her post and offers specific advice on how to choose the bar, how to dress, and appropriate body language and how to signal attraction.  This way a woman can better her odds of being taken seriously by the kind of man she is looking to attract.

It all strikes me as sensible advice, and I suggest reading it if you haven’t already.  But I think there is an additional challenge a woman creates for herself by going to bars whether looking for nice guys or not;  she makes herself more likely to fall for a player.

Of course, falling for a player isn’t necessarily a bad thing for many women.  So if that is what you want, I say have at it.  But if you have given the issue serious consideration and decide this isn’t what you want, then you not only need to put yourself in a position to meet the right kind of guy, but to find this kind of guy attractive.

But how is this possible?  We know that women are hypergamous by natureDon’t mess with nature Dalrock.  You can’t change it anyway.

Yes and no.  Women are hypergamous by nature.  They all want the leader, the successful man who is in command of his environment.  But this of course leaves the question;  which environment?  Want to get gina tingles for aging rocker Brett Michaels?  Spend some time on a bus tour with him.  Before long you will be rocking your own misspelled tattoo while enjoying three way kisses with other women.

If you are looking for a man in a bar, or even spending time in bars or keg parties, you are unknowingly stacking the deck against being attracted to the kind of nice guy you have decided you want.  So even if you do meet him, he just plain won’t shine in your eyes.

Alphas/Players/PUAs tend to thrive in pretty much any setting where the rules are ambiguous and when interacting with strangers.  They will feel perfectly natural starting a conversation and building rapport with an unknown woman at a bar, the grocery store, a mega-church, or the local library.  But a bar is their natural habitat.  You are literally giving players the home field advantage by going to a bar and comparing different types of men. The kind of guy you want to be attracted to will be a fish out of water.  They will seem weak, players will seem strong.  Even when you leave the bar, those preferences will likely stay with you.

Imagine a church with strong moral leadership and which highly values masculinity along with faith, loyalty, honor, intelligence, etc.  I know this is hard, but really try.  My father in law belongs to a cowboy church out in an area mostly populated by ranchers, so I have seen such a church.  My guess is Jewish orthodox temples probably have a similar culture/values.  Now imagine dropping the king of the local bar into that environment.  Sure he is naturally social with everyone, including strangers.  But he won’t be the guy the men and women there admire;  the ones the other young women looking for husbands wish they could get.

For women looking for a husband my advice is simple.  Picture the kind of man you want to be attracted to.  Picture him in the prime of his power.  If you are a young woman who wants to marry a man more your own age, now picture that prime of his power man as he would have been at a younger age.  A little less confident and powerful, but with real ability and a basic goodness about him.  Now picture the kind of setting the younger version would be most comfortable and dominant in.  That setting is where you should look for your husband, and the only kind of setting where you should position yourself to compare different kinds of men.

See Also (part 2): Overcivilized men, uncivilized women.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Finding a Spouse. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Calibrating attraction by controlling the venue.

  1. I find this post fascinating. Although I first met my husband in a quaint and quiet neighborhood setting, the first time he asked me out, we were both at a nightclub with friends, and neither of us really wanted to be there, and were bored to death. Clubs grow boring pretty quickly to people who don’t drink, and neither of us did (or do).

    So, while I firmly believe that a club (or bar) is the absolute worse place to meet someone if you’re looking for a lifelong commitment, my own experience stops me from saying it’s impossible. Improbable maybe, but not impossible.

  2. Lily says:

    This is a very good post. Interesting.

  3. dalrock says:

    Thanks Terry!

    Interesting story. I think it wasn’t unimportant that neither of you were comfortable there. If you had been someone who found bars and clubs comfortable or exciting, I’m guessing he would have seemed like a very boring guy to you. I’m working on another post on this, but for now all I’ll say is that part of it is about the environment, and part of it is about who you are.

    I probably should have made it more clear in the post though that I’m targeting the message to women who want to fall for a nice guy but don’t seem to be able to. Not all women struggle with this. In fact, many (most?) don’t. They just aren’t as visible when the discussion is about dating, etc. They tend to do as you have and find the right man and get on with the business of living life and being happy.

  4. Mormon Man says:

    Good stuff Dalrock. I’m sure you’ve already come to this conclusion, but this works for men looking for the right kind of women too. If you want someone who’s going to complement you instead of competing with you, it’s best to not take out the college girl who’s scheduled is stacked with classes on gender relations and women’s lit.

  5. JD says:

    In my youth, I always went to bars with my pals just to…get drunk. Had no interest in meeting guys, not seriously anyway.

    Although, I did run into the nice guy I had met somewhere else, at the bar and we started hanging out; eventually married a couple years later. He had never called me to go out because he felt he was too old for me and I would never be interested. He was wrong.

    Good thing I was at the bar (a dive bar at that!) that night; our paths would probably not have crossed otherwise.

  6. Hope says:

    All these bar meetings… I never drank so it never would have worked for me. I met my husband online, while playing a video game. We still play together, sometimes with other married couples, although most often the wives and girlfriends don’t participate.

    These days, if a guy in his 20s and 30s is not out doing stuff, he’s often playing some video game. Not a lot of women play, so the numbers were in my favor. Alas, the “culture” is a bit lacking. There are small communities that can be made up of adults, but often you run into rude little teenagers and young kids.

  7. All these bar meetings

    Ha! Hope, I have to admit that about two seconds after I hit the “post comment” button, I wondered how many of my readers who have found Dalrock’s blog through my blogroll would be shocked that I made such an admission. Then I remembered that 1) I don’t care, and 2) I’ve been pretty open about the fact that neither of us were Christians when we met.

    In fact, I was the only one of my girlfriends at the time with a running vehicle (so I was actually a taxi) and I was also the one they all joked about because at 20, I had never been to a club, a party, nothing. I’d grown up going to church 2 times a week. My daddy kept his girls (not the boys, though) on such a short leash my sister left home as soon as she graduated from high school. She was 17 and couldn’t take anymore. That gives you some idea of how completely out of place I was in a club. Of course, it worked in my favorthat night because my husband says that’s what he liked about me.

    Wonderful things can happen in unlikely places…

  8. J says:

    I too met my husband in a dive bar, but I view it as a real fluke. We both happened to be there when we wanted to be some place else.

  9. J says:

    But I think there is an additional challenge a woman creates for herself by going to bars whether looking for nice guys or not; she makes herself more likely to fall for a player.

    At least more likely to be disappointed by the quality of men she might meet.

    … then you not only need to put yourself in a position to meet the right kind of guy, but to find this kind of guy attractive.

    True.

    Want to get gina tingles for aging rocker Brett Michaels’ wallet?

    Fixed that for you. I can’t imagine that any of those girls is actually attracted to Brett.

    Excellent advice in your final paragraph. Great post!

  10. Susan Walsh says:

    Great post, Dalrock, and thanks so much for the link. I didn’t even consider the idea that by going to bars women may be spoiling themselves for more relationship oriented men, but it makes sense as I think about it. On the other hand, I know women who will reject outright any guy who approaches with routines. Women who wish to avoid players can certainly pick out the most obvious ones.

    The challenge is in determining the character of the guy who is not hitting on women, but he seems confident and comfortable with his companions. I’d agree that finding him in a completely different setting is preferable – but where? You’re in Texas, where the ratio of men to women is pretty high, so it may not be that hard to meet guys in all sorts of places. In Boston, the bar scene is very dominant, maybe because of all the colleges.

    In any case, going to bars as a specific strategy to meet a life partner is a terrible strategy, and one that women rely on far too heavily, in general.

  11. J says:

    I’d agree that finding him in a completely different setting is preferable – but where? … In Boston, the bar scene is very dominant, maybe because of all the colleges.

    You make a very valid point. When I met my husband, I was living in a town where, like it or not, bars were the hub of social life. I had a far greater chance of meeting a man in bar than anywhere else, simply because of the numbers involved. And I find that singles in my town still tend to avoid houses of worship during the dating years. (Sleeping in after a night at the bars, I suppose.) People come back to church/temple once they have kids.

  12. Lily says:

    I met my ex and my boy in bars. In both cases we had mutual friends though.

  13. This is a great post, Dalrock. I particularly liked this paragraph

    “For women looking for a husband my advice is simple. Picture the kind of man you want to be attracted to. Picture him in the prime of his power. If you are a young woman who wants to marry a man more your own age, now picture that prime of his power man as he would have been at a younger age. A little less confident and powerful, but with real ability and a basic goodness about him. Now picture the kind of setting the younger version would be most comfortable and dominant in. That setting is where you should look for your husband, and the only kind of setting where you should position yourself to compare different kinds of men.”

    Grerp had a post up the other day asking what advice she should give young women. You should post this over there.

  14. by_the_sword says:

    Bar chicks are no good. Don’t trust them.

  15. Lily says:

    It is probably the best paragraph on this blog!

  16. dalrock says:

    Thanks Susan,

    You raise a great question, and I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to it. If someone knows of the kind of church environment I mentioned that would be a great option. But I’m afraid this is another case where our churches as institutions are failing us miserably. I wouldn’t put my life on hold while waiting for the church to get its act together.

    College classrooms (but not the party scene) would seem to be a good place for women to look based on the criteria I mentioned. But college culture is so debauched now that I’m not so sure any more. Also, there is a big split by sex regarding the types of classes each group tends to take. The guys majoring in child development, drama, and sociology are less likely to be the manly powerful nice guys of the future. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’m just sayin… And entry level STEM courses probably aren’t the ideal place to look for a powerful young man in command of his environment. The same guys will be in the mix, but they likely won’t have found their legs until several years in. It is probably best to give these guys some time to grow into their pocket protectors. For those women able to attend higher level business or science courses this might be an option if they can avoid having their preferences skewed by the rest of the college scene in the interim years. Maybe a sharp young woman will read this blog and decide to audit some of these courses as a freshman and report back on her findings.

    But I think if nothing else there is value in women understanding how their own choices might be skewing their sense of what is attractive. Maybe this will spark a discussion and someone wiser than me will have the perfect answer.

  17. dalrock says:

    Wow. Thanks Lily and Augustine DeCarthage!

  18. Susan Walsh says:

    It is probably best to give these guys some time to grow into their pocket protectors.
    Haha, indeed. I often recommend this strategy – give them time, and keep your wits about you in the interim.

    But I think if nothing else there is value in women understanding how their own choices might be skewing their sense of what is attractive.
    This is the real takeaway, I think. We are changed by the company we keep, and it makes sense that might apply to acquaintances or even strangers in the places we frequent.

  19. Badger Nation says:

    This is another case where the difference between stated wants and actions is so wide as to be cognitive dissonance or flat-out dishonesty.

    If you’re going out tarted up to a nightclub or a swanky bar, you’re not open to falling for a nice guy; you may tell people that’s what you’re about, but you’re actively participating in a fantasy environment. All but the most self-satisfied people who go to these places are secretly, desperately hoping and praying they end in the arms of a charming raconteur or a hot, classy babe.

    Forget this “it changes the way you look at men;” by going there, you’ve ALREADY changed the way you look at the opposite sex. You’ve volunteered to play the part of prey and be judged accordingly, or for a man to be judged as a hunter.

    Susan frequently contends that most young women want relationships with decent guys, but are derailed by the hookup culture/players in bars/popular culture/whatever from actually getting that. She cites various research and discussion betwixt her and young female advisees. She is always opposed in the comments by those who say “value actions over words – given the opportunity, these young women choose Mr Alpha or Mr Superficial Mr Beta and Mr Stable.”

    I have to admit I’m more on their side than hers – young people in general are not particularly future oriented, and while they may riff on their long-term mating goals, most have a semi-subconscious “have their fun” tape in their heads. As has been noted by Dalrock and Susan, this behavior forments destruction and pain that can change your life forever, and put you out of the running for those later dreams.

  20. Thag Jones says:

    Wish I’d read this advice about 20 years ago, lol.

    That video was hilarious!

  21. Hope says:

    Most guys nowadays love computers, gadgets and technology. Places like tech conferences, computer stores or video game shops are full of them. Best Buy on a weekend afternoon has tons of guys going there. I know when my husband was single, he would go to stores like that just to look and window shop (okay sometimes he still does it).

    Big malls aren’t good because they usually market clothes and fashion. Most single guys don’t go to those places. The library tends to be too quiet for conversations to be had easily. Coffee shops might work, but there’s really not much to talk about there. A gadget/tech shop is the man’s natural environment these days. Some good lines for a girl could be, “These sales reps are just interested in selling me something. Do you know anything about XYZ that isn’t a sales pitch?” Have the guy demonstrate knowledge and competence, and it’s not a super awkward situation.

  22. ExNewYorker says:

    As for young people not particularly future oriented, I think this has been exacerbated by a culture which has been promoting a more and more extended “adolescence” across the board. I mean, the whole housing bubble and collapse is a culture wide example how that sort of thinking has infected everything. Maybe with the harder times we’re seeing, that’ll change, but who knows?

  23. Badger Nation says:

    Thanks for reminding me…I wanted to ask Susan and Dalrock if they’d heard of/read “Escaping the Endless Adolescence” by two University of Virginia psychologists:

    The title pretty well captures what I consider to be the single overbearing meta-problem of young people’s problems today: a lack of acclimation to reality in the teenage years leading to a lot of poor decision making int heir 20′s, when the stakes are much higher.

  24. Susan Walsh says:

    If you’re going out tarted up to a nightclub or a swanky bar, you’re not open to falling for a nice guy
    I agree, but going out to bars is so popular among people in their 20s, not all of the patrons are cads and tarts. As Dalrock points out here, there may be some cost to observing cads in their natural habitat. Still, for many young people, going out with friends to bars beats staying home. It’s gonna happen. I do say that it should represent only 10-20% of the time you spend meeting people of the opposite sex, so I agree with Dalrock that other venues are better.

    @ Badger
    Gotta respond to this:
    Susan frequently contends that most young women want relationships with decent guys, but are derailed by the hookup culture/players in bars/popular culture/whatever from actually getting that. She cites various research and discussion betwixt her and young female advisees. She is always opposed in the comments by those who say “value actions over words – given the opportunity, these young women choose Mr Alpha or Mr Superficial Mr Beta and Mr Stable.”
    Clarifications:
    1. You missed one key factor that I often cite in derailing women: the women themselves. Women go for players because they find them sexually attractive. For women to successfully get with a decent guy, two things have to happen. She has to think with her cerebral cortex rather than her hindbrain. And she needs to find a decent guy with social dominance, or at least self-confidence. Those are the ugly biological truths.
    2. I do indeed do a lot of research, and use it in nearly every post. Discussions “betwixt myself and advisees” generally come up only in the comment section, and not frequently. Maybe a couple of times a month. The truth is, I get together regularly with a couple of dozen women – their insights are often interesting, but their sample size is too small to offer anything other than anecdotal tidbits. I’ve never claimed understanding of the SMP based on those conversations alone.
    3. I often advise both men and women to value actions over words, and have never disagreed with that statement from anyone. I don’t consider that opposition.

    I am not familiar with the book you mentioned, but it looks very interesting. I do believe that extended adolescence plays a huge role in the SMP, but I’m not sure what’s cause and what is effect. I’ve ordered it from the library.

    Re good places to meet good men, my most favorite idea was one shared by an “advisee” – a woman of about 25. She invited 5 women and 5 men to a potluck dinner at her apartment, asking each to bring one platonic friend. So a total of 22 people altogether. I think there were slightly more women than men but it was a big success. I haven’t followed up to see if any romances develop, but meeting “friends of friends” is a great strategy and the third most common way marrieds meet.

    Also, every time I go to Trader Joe’s I see half a dozen cute young guys. One commenter on my site said he met a woman (fellow Scrabble player) there one afternoon and they dated until she moved away. Of course, one doesn’t expect to strike up a convo at the market, but eye contact and a smile works. In his case, they were next to each other in line. Worth a try!

  25. Before long you will be rocking your own misspelled tattoo while enjoying three way kisses with other women.

    The sad part is that some of those women are attractive to me, and far better looking than what I see on a daily basis. :-)

    FWIW, I always point out to Athena that she and her friends need to find alternative places to find potential boyfriends. To a certain extent, the problem is that they still want attractive alpha males with money, and there isn’t much of an alternative to bars and clubs out here in the suburbs. They’ll beg me to go out clubbing with them and promise to find me a good girl or some easy sex to satiate my desires, but my idea of fun is not to hang out in suburban club littered with the rejects from Jersey Shore or a bar filled with young angry drunks that have less than tolerant tendencies. Regardless, if the attractive men are all at bars and clubs, and there isn’t much in the way of competing locations to meet people other than chance encounters at stores, then there isn’t much choice except to go such dreaded places and hope for the best.

  26. Saint Louis says:

    Right on, Dalrock.

    One suggestion I have for young women in college: Go to College Republicans meetings. You’ll be one of the only women there. Admittedly, there are many maladjusted and nerdy men there, but not all of them are. Even if 50% or more of them are geeks, there will be so few women at the meetings that the decent guy-to-woman ratio will still be like 3 to 1.

    Furthermore, as Dalrock pointed out the atmosphere is a good one for solid men to stand out. I would go to bars and frat parties, but I just hung out, played pool, and chatted with my other guy friends because I wasn’t comfortable approaching girls in that kind of environment, and I didn’t really want to approach the kind of girls who were there.

    But, in the College Republicans atmosphere I was much more socially dominant and comfortable. Also, I wasn’t worried that the girls at the meeting were the type I had to worry about introducing to my parents. After one of the very first meetings of my junior year, I approached a nice freshman girl I had been sharing glances with for the last couple of weeks and asked her out. Four and half years later (after she finished school) we were married. Over five years later, we still are.

    P.S. Needless to say, College Democrat meetings are a non-starter. For one, there will be a lot more women who are a lot more promiscuous than you. Second, the guys are mostly wimpy pushovers or homosexuals.

  27. ExNewYorker says:

    Nah, wouldn’t recommend the college republicans: seem to attract Randroid types threatening to go Galt while on Daddy’s dole, or ne0-con types who want to destroy the village to save it. I’d recommend something more intellectually serious, like maybe SCA or the Anime club…

  28. J says:

    The best strategy is probably to have some coping skills that will allow you to be comfortable in a bar, but to have other options as well.

    It’s too bad that few women are into trains, because hobby groups are good, low pressure places to meet people. I joined a dog club to train the family dog. There were loads of interesting people both men and women. If I found myself back on the market, the dog would get some advanced training, maybe learn agility nor flyball.

    It’s also worthwhile to cultivate a large group of acquaintances who like you, Close friends will know the same people you do, but acquaintances can introduce you to new people. I’d even include older women among my acquaintances; they love to fix people up.

  29. dalrock says:

    @J
    The best strategy is probably to have some coping skills that will allow you to be comfortable in a bar

    Yes. We talked about this on Susan’s blog. I think her advice to men was something to the effect of Don’t expect to be successful at something you don’t become really good at. In the context, it meant unhappy betas need to suck it up and learn some game, how to approach women, etc. A lot of the men on the site were unhappy with that, because the discussion was about women who ignore betas for more alpha guys. But she was right. If talking to a beta man who isn’t having any success, the right advice is to learn some game. If talking to a girl who falls for players instead of nice guys, the right advice is to knock off what she is doing to keep falling for jerks and learn to appreciate betas. The two aren’t inconsistent.

  30. Reinholt says:

    Naturally, were there an obvious venue choice, everyone would already be there; the problem is that what you really need to do is accept the reality that every situation is different, and instead come equipped with a set of criteria to determine if any particular setting is the right one.

    Namely, I would advise young women look for those which:

    1 – Allow for the demonstration of socially functional dominance, as opposed to socially dysfunctional dominance.

    2 – Where the express purpose of the venue is not ultimately to get laid.

    3 – Where social skills are still demonstrated (so avoid the filthiest of nerds), but not the only thing that matters (so avoid bars).

    A few examples from my past college days:

    - The less “popular” sports teams and games, where the people there are only going to be there because they are actually interested.

    - Various forms of clubs organized around a purpose (the young Republicans might work at some schools, I know that I’ve seen some exceptionally interesting business related clubs that you simply wouldn’t show up to in order to get plastered and laid)

    … I would say more, but my phone just rang and I am off.

  31. Hope says:

    Hobby groups are nice if you have a hobby that lends itself to social activities. But my hobbies were rather solitary, aside from playing online computer games which is still “sitting alone at home.” I did a lot of art, drawing and web coding when I was younger, none of which involved other people.

    It was really blind luck that I met my husband.

  32. The best strategy is probably to have some coping skills that will allow you to be comfortable in a bar, but to have other options as well.

    Drinking is not a coping skill. :-)

    Close friends will know the same people you do, but acquaintances can introduce you to new people

    It’s probably a sensible idea, but admittedly, I don’t see it working for those of us on the margin of attractiveness. If you’re a relatively average, good-natured person, it can theoretically work*, but if you’re rather obsessively nerdy or geeky, or of another race or ethnicity, then it may not work as well as intended.

    *Even presuming she doesn’t become bored, and she ends up falling for some alpha.

    it meant unhappy betas need to suck it up and learn some game

    I’m not against game, and I recommend it to other men to find women, but I’m not interested in using it for myself. I could write a long essay on why I choose not to, but in short, once you realize what women want, it does become depressing to realize what it entails, and I’m not willing to go change permanently to satisfy that. Yes, it means that I’ll be lonely, but I’m aware of the consequences.

    learn to appreciate betas

    I’ve seen Athena attempt to date betas and it leaves her unhappy and unfulfilled. Even if women don’t have sex with alphas, their friends will hype their alpha boyfriends leaving one wondering if she’s missing out on something better. She may like the beta as a person, but it’s hard to find one sexually attractive, and I don’t believe that forcing a woman to like a beta is good for the beta male who gets lured into a false sense of emotional security.

    Hobby groups are nice if you have a hobby that lends itself to social activities.

    Admittedly, that’s the thing about my preferred hobbies of railfanning and roadgeeking. While a few people meet up and sometimes become friends, it’s ultimately a hobby that’s done alone sometimes out of shame, fear, or convenience. People are surprised when I tell them that I blew a sizable bit of money playing tourist alone in Germany, but I had to go alone because it’s not easy to drag around another person to go ride trains for fun or to drive aimlessly on the Autobahn.

  33. Suz says:

    Great post, Dalrock.
    “They all want the leader, the successful man who is in command of his environment.”

    This is essentially my personal definition of an alpha, or a “true alpha.” I realize this is at odds with the accepted definition within the Manosphere; it’s no coincidence that I take my understanding of the alpha status from my interest in canine pack dynamics. It’s my perception that the current definition for humans is primarily about sex, and diminishes the importance of the other skills required to be “in command of his environment.” I understand that sex is a very important motivator in all things “survival,” but I also remember Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning.” It was his observation that when the even more primary needs of food and shelter were not met, sex fell by the wayside.

    If an alpha is a man who can bag all the babes he can use, what do you call a man who excels not only in sexual power, but in warrior power (both offensive and defensive,) and in “hunting” power? In my view, THAT man is the “true alpha” because he has power over the men we would even call super-alphas, even if he has fewer notches on his bedpost. There are plenty of contemporary “alphas” of every rank, who could never actually lead a pack or a tribe, regardless of their sexual prowess. A true alpha must be well-rounded in his accomplishments.

    I do recognize that women are attracted by sexual power because we see it as a predictor of other power, though we all know it’s not necessarily a reliable predictor. So why do we call a footloose and fancy free seducer “Alpha,” and a “responsible” man who leads an entire tribe a “Beta?” I see this priority as backward, not only in my bias as a pro-family female, but because it goes against the primary biological/anthropological purpose of alpha skills – species survival. Survival rates are highest in social groups with the strongest leaders.

  34. Rmaxd says:

    “So why do we call a footloose and fancy free seducer “Alpha,” and a “responsible” man who leads an entire tribe a “Beta?” ”

    Because beta’s dont lead tribes …leadership isnt really about responsibility, its about being willing to take risks, be innovative, staying ahead of the pack, the big picture, the visionary

    Responsibility is for chumps .. risks are for leaders willing to take the risk to stay ahead of other tribes

    Extra-tribal warfare has different dynamics from itra tribal mechanics, as you’re no longer trying to create a stable society, thats left to the betas & women

    Alpha’s are made to compete, not take responisibility

  35. Rmaxd says:

    intra-trobal mechanics …

  36. Rmaxd says:

    intra-trobal mechanics … gdmn late night posts … lol

  37. Suz says:

    Rmaxd:
    Terminology again.

    “Submissive” responsibility IS for chumps – betas and females, but effective leadership requires the responsible application of risk. In addition to risk and power, good leadership requires maturity, judgment, and an obligation to the well-being of those being led – there’s no point in leading them off a cliff. The most effective tribal chiefs are usually warriors, in their physical prime but inching past it, and on track to retire their alpha status and become elders.

    In a wolf pack, the alpha is the only male who mates, he leads the hunt, and he is the primary protector of the pack. He also teaches the juveniles by example. Adolescents with alpha potential take more risks, and more reckless risks, in their efforts to become alphas. Some of them die, some of them overthrow their own alpha, and some of them become lone wolves who go on to create their own packs. However the lone wolf doesn’t achieve full alpha status UNTIL he possesses a pack. Contemporary human alpha behavior strikes me as similar to that of adolescent wolves – all risk and conquest, but little energy spent maintaining what they possess. (Granted, like humans, wolf betas and females do much of the leg-work in maintenance, but the alpha leads by doing, participating, especially in smaller packs.)

    With all of the parallels between human and wolf societies, why is the title of “alpha” assigned to different classes of members? The men we call alphas display plenty of power, but not much of the maturity and judgment required to sustain tribes (like the alpha-to-be lone wolf.) Is the human alpha no longer an alpha when he takes on the additional responsibility of the well-being of his whole tribe, rather than that of only himself? For a wolf, the ability to accomplish ALL of this successfully, is what makes him an alpha. By these definitions, alpha wolves have a much broader range of skills than do human alphas. Why do we assign the top title to the guys who could be “all that,” but choose not to, skipping the balance/judgment/mental maturity part?

    I know it’s all about the words, but what’s the word for a human who is the equivalent of a wolf alpha?

  38. Suz says:

    Barring how the sexual revolution messed up the system, haven’t women always been attracted to risk-taking conquerors because of the secure future we presume they can provide for us? Of course, we do it wrong all the time because we don’t look for signs of stability along with signs of strength…
    *sigh* I guess I think it’s unfaaaair that men who are conquerors, providers, AND mentor/leaders, are seen a high-ranking betas.

  39. Suz says:

    “*as* high-ranking…”

  40. Rmaxd says:

    Theres no such as stable risk taking … risk taking is the antithesis of stability

    It’s precisely because alpha’s take irresponsible risks, theyre chosen as leaders & looked upto by women

    To successfully carry out a risk, you need massive amounts of emotional detachment & detachment from the responsibility of the damage it might cause the people around him, in order to focus on the gains or reward of the risk

    Emotional detachment & detachment of the possible consequences of risk to the people around him, are crucial to maintaining your composure & intelligence in the face of a risky endeavour

    Your confusing an intelligent but dangerous risk, with a low i.q risk

    Taking risks intelligently requires a cold detachment & focus on the cold hard facts of the goal, without the involvement of emotions or the possible consequences, as they simply get in the way of achieving the goal

    Women being attracted to risk takers is a completely different subject, risk implies doing whatever it takes to protect a womans fertility & child, of course this has no meaning in modern day life, but it’s still a biological function for women …

  41. Rmaxd says:

    “why is the title of “alpha” assigned to different classes of members? The men we call alphas display plenty of power, but not much of the maturity and judgment required to sustain tribes (like the alpha-to-be lone wolf.) ”

    You’re applying a feminine context to leadership

    Men prefer emotional detachment & detachment of the possible consequences of risk to the people around him, over maturity & ensuring well being

    Your ascribing feminine terms of maturity & well being to a masculine concept, objectivity is far more important then safety when leading

    Safety is a liability, cold detached objectivity is true masculine leadership

  42. Rmaxd says:

    Women want contextually, socially correct versions of risk, men want cold detached objectivity

  43. Suz says:

    I’m mostly with you, except for this:
    “You’re applying a feminine context to leadership.”
    Regarding “well-being,” I was applying a military context. It was explained to me by some current and former military men. It goes a step beyond the team practice of relying on each other; the most respected men and best leaders in combat are the ones who feel a strong obligation to support their men in extraordinary ways, under extreme circumstances. I don’t see this as a feminine trait, even though it can be construed as “nurturing.” Frankly, when the fecal matter meets the oscillating device, I see women retreating from their community obligations and protecting themselves and their own children.

    “risk taking is the antithesis of stability”
    Isn’t creating and maintaining stability, as in a safe environment for one’s tribe, a primary motivation for risk-taking? I can’t completely separate the motivation from the action. Is the ability to do so a part of the objectivity you describe?

    “cold detached objectivity is true masculine leadership”
    Yes, and this objectivity should be a part of the “nurturing,” but not coddling, role of leader/mentor.

    Now this, I disagree with:

    “It’s precisely because alpha’s take irresponsible risks, theyre chosen as leaders & looked upto by women.”

    Genuinely irresponsible risks, as opposed to extreme but well thought out risks, are too costly to the entire tribe. A reckless alpha is a short-term alpha. If he doesn’t earn a Darwin award for himself, his actions will kill off too many good warrior/protectors, and he will eventually be overthrown from within. And yes, women will drool all over him in the meantime, because he’s sooo exciting!
    I have the impression that the alpha as you describe him is what I call a warrior alpha, whose focus is conquest and protection, but not leading in the development of the tribe – settling internal disputes, arranging marriages, training the young, etc. This is a more subtle kind of power, but still, it’s a lot of power to delegate to others. And don’t the warrior alphas answer to the man who wields ALL of this power? I see this man as alpha-plus, not alpha-minus. He runs the whole show. How do you see him?

    While I’m trying to minimize the influence of my feminine bias, I realize I can’t possibly comprehend the masculine bias. I’m trying to see the whole picture, from an elder’s perspective. Could you explain what you see as feminine in my perspective, because I honestly don’t see it, and I’d like to.

  44. Suz says:

    Incidentally, Rmaxd, I’m not challenging the current definition of “alpha,”or trying to show how smart I am; this line of thought arose from my efforts to figure out the differences between my understanding of it, and the manosphere’s use of it. Dalrock had stated that, “It strikes me as more instructive to leave the concept there if nothing else as a cautionary form.” I wholeheartedly agree. This “Guy” that I call a Warrior Alpha and you call an Alpha, is unequivocally the stereotype to which women respond viscerally. Consciously, women will flesh him out to suit our personal tastes, and I’m sure that’s part of what I’m doing. Rest assured, this is not a one-woman campaign to correct “you men.” I really do appreciate your insights.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Rmaxd

    There are different definitions of Alpha though, even within the manosphere. Roissy’s definition is very explicit that alpha isn’t about being a leader of men, but about being a man women are attracted to who knows how to manage women.

  46. Rivelino says:

    “Imagine a church with strong moral leadership and which highly values masculinity along with faith, loyalty, honor, intelligence, etc. I know this is hard, but really try.”

    funny.

  47. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz & Dalrock

    Hi guys,

    From what i can gather, I thought we were discussing the strengths & advantages of risk taking, not any current definition of alpha

    Alpha I think we can agree on, trigger biological & sociobiological traits of authoritarian, as well as preference & deference, from subordinates, & women & beta

    Society & women screen for men in terms of affordability of risk & recklessness, basically the amount of redundancy or advantages they’re able to leverage in the possible drawback of striving for innovation & novelty

    Men & women operate in terms of neurological networks, also known as cybernetic theory, or system theory

    Also all human behaviour, especially group behaviour, operates on the principles of none-linear physics

    Human behaviour in a group is essentially a subset of none-linear physics, & mimics the actions of super fluids, on a quantum level

    In the same way ants & groups of fish mimic the behaviour of gravimetric fields, as well as regulating their biological sense of time according to the gravimetric field surrounding our planet

    This gravimetric & electric felds surrounding our planet is not a simple field, it is a network, which determines behaviour, especially group behaviour

    In a given neuro-network, the controlling factors are uniqueness & innovation, the more unique & innovation something is, the more control that thing has

    This functions on a biological level, as its a universal trait of none-linear physics, ie a universal trait of all objects

    The only way to calculate a none-linear object is to map its network of behaviour, as its too random to calculate mathematically, also known as linear physics …

    If we apply the above to tribalism or human behaviour, we can easily see the effect of uniqueness & innovation as controlling factors

    If we add a random factor, such as a drunk to a group of people, we see his unique behaviour as well as the innovation of his actions, actually controlling the actions of the group, as his actions are no longer conformative & linear

    Conformity & herd behaviour relay information, ie women & beta’s, while the random factor, the random drunk, generate information, ie uniqueness & innovation are information generators, which is why theyre controlling factors

    ie the drunk is generating new information, while the crowd is relaying information

    Which is why affordability of recklessness & risk are rewarded in group behaviour, as alpha’s are generators of new forms of information for the tribe to perform

    It is the EFFICIENCY of how efficiently he generates that new information, which is screened for in a group setting

    As the role of the alpha is to compete with the information generated by the animals around him, & the competing tribes, without the alpha’s ability to generate new data, the tribe would get overtaken by wild animals & competing tribes

    The whole point of any given social structure is to generate new data

    A group of people is determined by its ability to generate new data

    The more objectively it generates uniqueness & innovation, ie risk & recklessness, the more efficiently any tribe or network adapts

    This is a sociobiological preference, because all networks, ie clouds & weather patterns, as well as fractals, depend on the information generators ability to generate new data as uniquely & innovately as possible, in order to allow it to adapt to new factors & also to prevent the system from dying out of stagnation, ie a computer goes out of date, or gets overtaken by advanced idea’s

    Strength, cold objectivity, affordable as well as calculated risk & recklessness, are all highly efficient forms of generating new information

    The alpha’s aloofness & arrogance, as well as his risk & recklessness behaviour allows him to control the network or group of people, in exactly the same way as the drunk controls the network of people in a crowd

    This control, forces the network or group, to align in preference to the alpha, this is a basic trait of any sociological network, this is also why he doesnt have to MAINTAIN the group, all he has to do is show he’s alpha & the group automatically SELF CORRECTS itself according to the alpha

    Women being submissive & wanting to be lead, are biological terms, women & beta’s make more sense, if you see them as relayers of information generated by the alpha

    The more submissive a woman is, the more efficiently she relays the uniqueness, innovations, riches, material, wealth etc generated by the alpha, to the children & her social network

    Of course submission to an alpha, doesnt imply submission to a group, this is essentially why alpha’s screen for women who arent submissive to a group, ie promiscuity

    Promiscuity is submissiveness to a group of people, while chastity is submissiveness to a single person

  48. Rmaxd says:

    lol damn that post came out long …

    Posted without any editing … enjoy … lol

  49. Suz says:

    Wow, long is good! The physical science behind it is beyond me, but your explanation of the broader dynamics of risk is very interesting. It gives me a much better understanding of risk-as-high-priority in the alpha personality. Thank you.

  50. valor says:

    this is golden advice for women, absolute gold with big ass diamond studs welded into it. too bad most won’t follow it. i’m rooting for the few that do though, you girls are keepers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s