@adam-l Thanks for your thoughts. It makes me reflect that we have quite a big problem here. All the views you mention are out there. We all sort of know what we mean by Alpha and Beta but we also all mean slightly different things.

The fact that many different views can coexist, suggests to me that we are looking at some core of inner truth but that we are then taking it to two letters and using them in a lot of different ways.

I agree that the archetype of the leader of the pack -the leader of the hunt or of the war band- is a strong one. We all know its a man who is physically and mentally competent above average, who is experienced in the field, who has social clout, who acts with confidence, enthusiasm and self control. Men follow him, women desire him and his word, when spoken as a final decision, is the law.

The biggest problem I find with this is when bringing this definition to the relationships between men and women. People take their conclusions too far. Its like they assume that if men can take on the spirit of the leader of the pack, they will be able to do as they please in relationships because women will just submit. That not how people work. Even men will topple a strong capable leader if he is a jerk and does not care enough for the group -if insufficient value passes to the men, now what about women? They are known for liking that value transfer.

Tke the difference between initial courtship and in long term life with a woman.

In courtship its just you and her. You usually don't know much about each other and you judge each other by small signs, by looks and actions and you judge against against hopes and archetypes. The archetype of the Leader of the pack is a strong one, hard wired into people. In courtship a woman can demand some transfer of value (as per Briffault's law) up ahead of commencing the relationship or she can begin the relationship on credit. If a man appears to be of such potential that he will elevate her -that great value (power, money social standing or genetic value) will pass to her in one way or anther, then she will be happy to put out on credit. This could be called a response to an Alpha. In real life your life and her life come together. You have to be who you are and interact as together and in the world. Briffault's law must apply for the relationship to continue. This can only overall be a response to a Beta.

So here the case I have shown it makes no real difference if the man is Alpha if we are talking about value having to pass to a woman. My biggest problem is that so many guys think "Just be more Alpha with her and she will submit" Sure but only if value is passing. You can't act like a selfish self important dick and expect plain sailing with women.

A lot of men find the manosphere when they have been hurt by life. Many were bullied at school by boys they saw as being more alpha, guys who got the girls. They assume that dick head and alpha go together. They do not realise that they saw immature male behaviour and that they only saw the bad side of it.

@adam-l

,The TRP sidebar has a more fluid definition of Alpha and Beta being sets of behaviours which invoke female reactions

Oh does it? It's been a while since I've read everything, but I don't recall seeing such there. I could be wrong, because again, it's been a while.

As far as I know, that originated with Athol Kay, whose "Married Man Sex Life Primer" is one of the essential books in the MRP sidebar.

And yeah, that's how I tend to use them when I use them at all: alpha = attraction/arousal, beta = comfort.

I'm in favor of getting rid of the unnecessary use of Greek letters and just saying the fucking terms "attraction/arousal" and "comfort".

More on this another time, perhaps. I still have stuff from the last few days and weeks on here I've been meaning to respond to and still haven't!