I'm so glad I'm a beta
Except that I'm not. Glad that is. But I'm very much what you'd call a beta type.
I used to be one of those guys who complained about how girls only liked arsehole guys. I wasn't really socially brilliant. Girls told me I was cute and told me I'd make someone happy, but they were always talking about someone else.
I got over that shit. I got more assertive. I realized that its ok to riff on sex with girls around. I upped my confidence. I stopped waiting for a super obvious indication of interest before I dared to indicate any myself.
I got into Myers-Briggs and Keirsley. This was super useful because it pointed out to me that what I was thinking of as social retardation was really just introversion/NT-type personality.
So far so good.
But,
There's things I hear, on this forum and generally that niggle at me. 'if you have to ask how to be an alpha, you'll never be one.' 'you should stick to people with the same attractiveness and social skills as you.' I'm not unattractive, but I'm short, which for some people seems to count as worse. And like I've said, I'm not socially mangled but it's not automatic; I dislike new social situations and find them draining, I can't do small talk (I'm the guy who asks you about your life plan and political ideology in the first five minutes.
The comments made as literary criticism in my work pointed out my character wasn't alpha, he was a beta faking it. That's possibly very true, and makes sense to me because I don't know what it's like in the head of someone who just 'gets it', but I do know what it's like to be someone who has had to learn those skills in the same way other people learn to get good at poker or playing the violin. There's a difference though, is what we're saying, between a social extravert and someone who's learned the skills to succeed in a social environment. So again where does that leave me? Is there an expectation that I stick with the beta crowd rather than inconveniencing the genuine alphas with my second rate imitation of social skills?
What does that mean for me? I should stick to the socially semi-coherent not-overwhelmingly-attractive types? It might seem to make sense to say that when you're gorgeous and extraverted but I can't accept it. I don't get another life. I can't rely on being beautiful and extraverted next time around. I need to get everything I can out of life; everyone does (if you were so inclined I suspect you could regard it as Dharma) but I wonder, after people make comments like the ones I've discussed, what do they expect this social 'caste' to do? Because no matter how fake my social development may be, it gets me further than my 'real' introversion, and I'm happy with that.
TL;DR
Telling people they can't be alpha or should stick to a lower class of people they belong to (the unattractive, socially limited etc) is frustrating advice because it asks you to go against your inclination to succeed in life.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 16, 2011, 09:20:13 PM
TL;DR
Telling people they can't be alpha or should stick to a lower class of people they belong to (the unattractive, socially limited etc) is frustrating advice because it asks you to go against your inclination to succeed in life.
Who said anything like that?
I AM genuinely glad I'm a beta. I don't need or want to be on top.
Applying myself to situations I can overcome requires absolutely zero alpha skills, I guess. I just don't need or want them. Being beta is a skin that I am comfortable in and I'm not going to pretend I'm something I'm not. That game King of the Mountain, I can let people play that all day long while I take care of my shit.
As far as dates and ladies and such...I think a lot of them aren't necessarily looking for an alpha and do in fact get tired of it. Being assertive doesn't necessarily mean being completely on top. I think it's about doing what you do well when you do it. Then again, I don't think being a beta is about taking everyone's shit either.
In a hierarchy, not everyone can stand at the top. I personally don't like anything about being on top, though I enjoy competition I don't have this pressing need to dominate.
I also try not to separate myself or others into alpha/beta though.
These social categories are far more fluid than you think.
Cue RAW's winner and loser script/self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think this goes right along a lot of gender issues. You have to ask: What makes an alpha an alpha? Is there something inherently good in being an alpha? Is an alpha in one situation an alpha in all situations? Just how should these roles apply to primates with a highly developed, complicated sense of higherarchy? Should these roles be applied?
Quote from: Alty on December 16, 2011, 09:30:20 PM
I AM genuinely glad I'm a beta. I don't need or want to be on top.
.
I don't give a shit about being on top.
But nobody treads on me.
Right. And in regard to OP, which seems to have a focus on meeting people, not letting people step on you is all the confidence you really need. Few enjoy the company of a doormat.
Alpha's don't generally hang out with other alphas. They end up butting heads.
That need to be in control of a situation, to be the one that the attention is on, isn't something that can easily coexist for long with someone else with those same urges.
Alpha's aren't better looking than betas, they aren't more socially apt either, they are just the ones that lead and that get the attention. There's good and bad in that but any social group is going to have both, and is going to have more betas than alphas.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 16, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
Alpha's don't generally hang out with other alphas. They end up butting heads.
That need to be in control of a situation, to be the one that the attention is on, isn't something that can easily coexist for long with someone else with those same urges.
Alpha's aren't better looking than betas, they aren't more socially apt either, they are just the ones that lead and that get the attention. There's good and bad in that but any social group is going to have both, and is going to have more betas than alphas.
ONCE AGAIN, THE NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING SOCIOLOGIST AND CYBER-MASTURBATION FREAK BABYLON HORUV STEPS IN TO TELL THE IGNORANT MASSES HOW PEOPLE WORK, AND MANAGES TO DO THIS DESPITE HIS HANDICAP OF NOT HAVING A SINGLE FRIEND IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
HOW
DOES HE DO IT?
Who needs Alpha status when you have "Bob"?
Quote from: Cainad on December 16, 2011, 09:56:10 PM
Who needs Alpha status when you have "Bob"?
"Bob" is actually a beta. The True Pipe is the alpha. And it smokes "Bob".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 16, 2011, 09:56:10 PM
Who needs Alpha status when you have "Bob"?
"Bob" is actually a beta. The True Pipe is the alpha. And it smokes "Bob".
Do I even want to know who's the Gamma in this context?
This "alpha" and "beta" stuff is just one lens to look at socializing through.
How is it useful to you Dingo? If it's not, perhaps there are better elements of the social experience for you to focus on.
Though the terms might be somewhat accurate in describing social phenomena, it's not the be-all end-all dimension of peopling.
I don't find it very interesting or conducive to having a good time with other people.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 09:23:04 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 16, 2011, 09:20:13 PM
TL;DR
Telling people they can't be alpha or should stick to a lower class of people they belong to (the unattractive, socially limited etc) is frustrating advice because it asks you to go against your inclination to succeed in life.
Who said anything like that?
Nobody.
He's wildly misinterpreting what I said about manipulative poseurs having a self-imposed social ceiling because they're icky.
And what I said about people being able to find other, similar people to partner with.
And what I said about betas who think they are mimicking alpha behaviors coming off as creepy jerks.
I don't think he understood the takeaway lesson of what I was saying, at all; he honestly thinks that "Alphas" are horrible people, and that in order for "Betas" to become "Alphas" they need to manipulate and humiliate people. The truth is almost the exact opposite; people who are naturally dominant try to put others at ease and make sure they are doing OK. They don't use people, and they're comfortable in their own skin.
You can get there, but it takes a bigger change than just pretending to be a dick.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 16, 2011, 09:56:10 PM
Who needs Alpha status when you have "Bob"?
"Bob" is actually a beta. The True Pipe is the alpha. And it smokes "Bob".
This raises the question, can an alpha have Slack™?
Also, what Net said about it being a lot more fluid than most people think. A "natural" alpha is just someone who is not trying, and simply is. It has nothing to do with an inborn nature, and everything to do with being in their element and comfort zone. Have you ever seen what you thought was a meek, shy person walk into, say, a workshop or lab or library and suddenly be at home in their domain?
Most people seem to associate being "alpha" with being most at home in bustling social situations. But someone can be alpha at a party and beta in the office, or vice versa.
The alpha isn't always the guy or chick you think is running the show, either. If you watch people's social interactions very carefully, you can often see that the loud confident blustery guy is usually not the most dominant person in the room. The most dominant person in the room is very much not making a show of it, while the blustery guy is trying too hard. Look for the quiet person who is relaxed and smiling, especially if they frequently defer to others.
Quote from: Cainad on December 16, 2011, 10:02:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 16, 2011, 09:56:10 PM
Who needs Alpha status when you have "Bob"?
"Bob" is actually a beta. The True Pipe is the alpha. And it smokes "Bob".
Do I even want to know who's the Gamma in this context?
I DUNNO, BUT I'M HAPPY TO BE A DELTA!
(Will respond to Nigel, et al, when I have a few more minutes.)
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2011, 10:18:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 16, 2011, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 16, 2011, 09:56:10 PM
Who needs Alpha status when you have "Bob"?
"Bob" is actually a beta. The True Pipe is the alpha. And it smokes "Bob".
This raises the question, can an alpha have Slack™?
Also, what Net said about it being a lot more fluid than most people think. A "natural" alpha is just someone who is not trying, and simply is. It has nothing to do with an inborn nature, and everything to do with being in their element and comfort zone. Have you ever seen what you thought was a meek, shy person walk into, say, a workshop or lab or library and suddenly be at home in their domain?
Most people seem to associate being "alpha" with being most at home in bustling social situations. But someone can be alpha at a party and beta in the office, or vice versa.
The alpha isn't always the guy or chick you think is running the show, either. If you watch people's social interactions very carefully, you can often see that the loud confident blustery guy is usually not the most dominant person in the room. The most dominant person in the room is very much not making a show of it, while the blustery guy is trying too hard. Look for the quiet person who is relaxed and smiling, especially if they frequently defer to others.
Yes. For most other mammals, there is only one way to be an alpha, and that's to be the most physically intimidating. It's different for modern humans. If we can't dominate in some arenas, we'll gravitate towards others where we can. Most people seem to have something we can do better than most of the other people we know, and our brains give us the same kind of status rewards when we do well at those things as an alpha chimpanzee gets when he swaggers and others bow down.
I can't help but feel like this alpha/beta crap is just missing the point or buying into some sort of preconceived notions of how you're supposed to be, I just seem to put it into words...
I don't believe it's how we're "supposed to be" -- more like how our brains are hardwired to be. Is =/= ought.
ETA: by "we" and "our", I am referring to all mammals in general.
Quote from: Risus on December 17, 2011, 12:56:09 AM
I can't help but feel like this alpha/beta crap is just missing the point or buying into some sort of preconceived notions of how you're supposed to be, I just seem to put it into words...
The recognition of the alpha is something we are biologically programmed for.
The idea that there's an alpha/beta binary and that "betas" are the most inferior/subordinate is pure seduction community bullshit, as far as I can tell, and I don't think that "everyone but the alpha is a loser" is a useful status hierarchy to train our brains to recognise.
"Alpha" is a role, not a person.
Quote from: Telarus on December 17, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
"Alpha" is a role, not a person.
This. And also "this" to whoever put forth the idea that a real alpha doesn't feel the need to impose themselves on people or try to overtly dominate them all the time.
If you come into my kitchen and want to work with me in that context, I am naturally going to assume the leadership role. But it's a learned skillset. I'm not the alpha in that context because I was a head chef the second I popped out of a vagina, it's a learned skillset that I have put a considerable amount of effort into acquiring. I'm the alpha in the kitchen because I not only know how to get a group of people to work in concert towards a common goal but I am genuinely interested in seeing them all learn, succeed, and develop the skills needed to do so in that arena. I might yell for emphasis or to stop someone from doing something that could either bring them harm or cause a serious setback in the work at hand but never for the sole reason of saying "I'M IN CHARGE AND YOU'RE NOT!" If I have to resort to that, then I've done something wrong to bring things to that point. And the fact that I am an alpha in that context doesn't have any bearing OUTSIDE of that context. If I find myself in the engine room giving one of the engineers a hand with something it would be dangerous and foolish of me to try to assume the alpha role in that situation. I use this example because it's easier for me to articulate due to my own familiarities but it certainly applies in social settings just as much (if not more) than in professional settings.
TL;DR version: people like the Adrian character in that story aren't alphas at all, and people who think they're top dog all the time in any setting are foolish at best, dangerous at worst, and are not to be trusted let alone followed.
Fuck, that was well put.
:mittens:
Quote from: Telarus on December 17, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
"Alpha" is a role, not a person.
Yes.
And in any given situation, the alpha is usually the one chosen by the others to be the alpha, whether they want to be or not.
It makes people feel safe.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 02:16:55 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 17, 2011, 02:03:46 AM
"Alpha" is a role, not a person.
This. And also "this" to whoever put forth the idea that a real alpha doesn't feel the need to impose themselves on people or try to overtly dominate them all the time.
If you come into my kitchen and want to work with me in that context, I am naturally going to assume the leadership role. But it's a learned skillset. I'm not the alpha in that context because I was a head chef the second I popped out of a vagina, it's a learned skillset that I have put a considerable amount of effort into acquiring. I'm the alpha in the kitchen because I not only know how to get a group of people to work in concert towards a common goal but I am genuinely interested in seeing them all learn, succeed, and develop the skills needed to do so in that arena. I might yell for emphasis or to stop someone from doing something that could either bring them harm or cause a serious setback in the work at hand but never for the sole reason of saying "I'M IN CHARGE AND YOU'RE NOT!" If I have to resort to that, then I've done something wrong to bring things to that point. And the fact that I am an alpha in that context doesn't have any bearing OUTSIDE of that context. If I find myself in the engine room giving one of the engineers a hand with something it would be dangerous and foolish of me to try to assume the alpha role in that situation. I use this example because it's easier for me to articulate due to my own familiarities but it certainly applies in social settings just as much (if not more) than in professional settings.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 02:18:51 AM
TL;DR version: people like the Adrian character in that story aren't alphas at all, and people who think they're top dog all the time in any setting are foolish at best, dangerous at worst, and are not to be trusted let alone followed.
:mittens: fucking YES.
The notion that girls have a 1 - 10 ranking system and that the goal in the relationship game is to wind up with someone as close to a 10 as you can get away with isn't quite right, either. I think it's better to find someone that you can be supportive of and who will support you in return than someone who merely scores highly on someone else's scale of attractiveness and social standing.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on December 17, 2011, 04:24:23 PM
The notion that girls have a 1 - 10 ranking system and that the goal in the relationship game is to wind up with someone as close to a 10 as you can get away with isn't quite right, either. I think it's better to find someone that you can be supportive of and who will support you in return than someone who merely scores highly on someone else's scale of attractiveness and social standing.
Yeah, it's actually completely fucking stupid. While we all appreciate physical beauty, I have turned down second dates with extremely attractive and well-off men because I found them boring or otherwise incompatible, and gone so far as to marry and have children with an unattractive and chronically underemployed man because I found him interesting.
I have never, not even once, rated a man on a scale of 1 - 10, nor heard another woman do so.
I have never had the thought "I like this guy, but he's not good looking enough for me". I might think "We look cute together", but that's a different thing.
^This!
I have no problem with using the 1-10 scale as a means to describe someone's general physical attractiveness, but the idea that a huge number of people hold that as the single most important criteria in finding a mate (ahead of such trivial things as personality and compatibility) is repulsive.
Physical attractiveness is associated with health cues, so it's not something to be disregarded, IMO. It's a part that reflects the greater whole. I don't see personality or compatibility as the determining factors either though. Attraction is a highly complex, rapid process that occurs mostly outside our awareness, so I think it's irreducible to any singular factor.
Also, nonverbal behaviors that give information about personality are subsumed into this general impression about someone's physique. The way people move their eyes, the qualities in their voice and posture, distinctive movements—these are often huge elements that influence that instantaneous judgment about what we might say is only someone's physical appearance. Really, we're inferring a gestalt from a wide variety of signals.
I think it's best to avoid rationalizing about it too much. Get out of your head, just be in the moment and trust your instincts.
I don't think anybody was suggesting that physical attractiveness should be disregarded, just that people for whom "scoring with a perfect 10" is the most important factor in choosing a partner are repugnant mongloids.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 08:19:54 PM
I don't think anybody was suggesting that physical attractiveness should be disregarded, just that people for whom "scoring with a perfect 10" is the most important factor in choosing a partner are repugnant mongloids.
And fooling themselves, at that.
That too.
Something I find disturbing are the men and women who are angry and resentful at others because they can't attract a mate who is of significantly higher, for lack of a better term, attractiveness level than themselves. Not merely physical; also consider an out-of-shape 40-year-old retail employee bitching because she can't find a rich guy to take care of her, or the high-school dropout who doesn't understand why she can't seem to end up with anyone with a higher education.
The (not-so-odd) thing is that the anger and resentment themselves are such unattractive traits that at some point, they become a major deciding factor in their level of social desirability. I once worked with a guy who had the most wretched sadsack demeanor and was constantly complaining that women wouldn't give him the time of day; he was repulsive in part because of the bitterness that rolled off him in waves. He was only 26. Men and women avoided him, because he was fucking awful to be around, and it didn't have anything to do with his perfectly acceptable physical appearance. When you meet someone who is already angry at you because you won't sleep with them, or because you're part of a category of people who won't sleep with them, you know pretty instinctively that they have no interest in getting to know who you are, so why bother? Avoid.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2011, 09:48:44 PM
Something I find disturbing are the men and women who are angry and resentful at others because they can't attract a mate who is of significantly higher, for lack of a better term, attractiveness level than themselves. Not merely physical; also consider an out-of-shape 40-year-old retail employee bitching because she can't find a rich guy to take care of her, or the high-school dropout who doesn't understand why she can't seem to end up with anyone with a higher education.
The (not-so-odd) thing is that the anger and resentment themselves are such unattractive traits that at some point, they become a major deciding factor in their level of social desirability. I once worked with a guy who had the most wretched sadsack demeanor and was constantly complaining that women wouldn't give him the time of day; he was repulsive in part because of the bitterness that rolled off him in waves. He was only 26. Men and women avoided him, because he was fucking awful to be around, and it didn't have anything to do with his perfectly acceptable physical appearance. When you meet someone who is already angry at you because you won't sleep with them, or because you're part of a category of people who won't sleep with them, you know pretty instinctively that they have no interest in getting to know who you are, so why bother? Avoid.
I've got a friend who gets himself in similar situations. It's not that he's offensive, it's that he can become cripplingly indecisive and withdrawn around people he's not comfortable with, which costs him potential relationships, which only feeds his insecurities and indecision.
It's some sort of ridiculous positive feedback loop.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2011, 09:48:44 PM
Something I find disturbing are the men and women who are angry and resentful at others because they can't attract a mate who is of significantly higher, for lack of a better term, attractiveness level than themselves. Not merely physical; also consider an out-of-shape 40-year-old retail employee bitching because she can't find a rich guy to take care of her, or the high-school dropout who doesn't understand why she can't seem to end up with anyone with a higher education.
The (not-so-odd) thing is that the anger and resentment themselves are such unattractive traits that at some point, they become a major deciding factor in their level of social desirability. I once worked with a guy who had the most wretched sadsack demeanor and was constantly complaining that women wouldn't give him the time of day; he was repulsive in part because of the bitterness that rolled off him in waves. He was only 26. Men and women avoided him, because he was fucking awful to be around, and it didn't have anything to do with his perfectly acceptable physical appearance. When you meet someone who is already angry at you because you won't sleep with them, or because you're part of a category of people who won't sleep with them, you know pretty instinctively that they have no interest in getting to know who you are, so why bother? Avoid.
I can tell from personal experience that usually this is the cause why the less attractive or successful don't get the attention from the "alpha" group. Once you stop feeling sorry, feeling angry, or play the victim role, and just be yourself, you'll get all the attention you need.
I don't know about other cases, but that's what I discovered personally and in real life.
Quote from: Slurrealist on December 17, 2011, 11:21:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2011, 09:48:44 PM
Something I find disturbing are the men and women who are angry and resentful at others because they can't attract a mate who is of significantly higher, for lack of a better term, attractiveness level than themselves. Not merely physical; also consider an out-of-shape 40-year-old retail employee bitching because she can't find a rich guy to take care of her, or the high-school dropout who doesn't understand why she can't seem to end up with anyone with a higher education.
The (not-so-odd) thing is that the anger and resentment themselves are such unattractive traits that at some point, they become a major deciding factor in their level of social desirability. I once worked with a guy who had the most wretched sadsack demeanor and was constantly complaining that women wouldn't give him the time of day; he was repulsive in part because of the bitterness that rolled off him in waves. He was only 26. Men and women avoided him, because he was fucking awful to be around, and it didn't have anything to do with his perfectly acceptable physical appearance. When you meet someone who is already angry at you because you won't sleep with them, or because you're part of a category of people who won't sleep with them, you know pretty instinctively that they have no interest in getting to know who you are, so why bother? Avoid.
I can tell from personal experience that usually this is the cause why the less attractive or successful don't get the attention from the "alpha" group. Once you stop feeling sorry, feeling angry, or play the victim role, and just be yourself, you'll get all the attention you need.
I don't know about other cases, but that's what I discovered personally and in real life.
I've seen this happen too... when people snap out of self-pity and resentment and start participating, really participating, people who once avoided them will suddenly start talking to them and inviting them along.
Funny, that.
I'll say another thing, too, from the female point of view... if anyone approaches me with something like "I can't imagine that a girl like you would give someone like me the time of day", I have learned to take them at their word, and not bother. Because if I do, our entire interaction if going to be full of obsequious flattery and pathetic catering, I'll never know what he's really like and he'll never know what I'm really like because he's not actually paying attention to anything but his own projections, IF I kiss him he'll instantly start imagining us as practically married, and when I stop returning his calls after the first or second date he'll go on a self-pity freak-out rampage.
So now, whenever I hear any form of "you're too good for a guy like me" I bolt.
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2011, 11:48:25 PM
I'll say another thing, too, from the female point of view... if anyone approaches me with something like "I can't imagine that a girl like you would give someone like me the time of day", I have learned to take them at their word, and not bother. Because if I do, our entire interaction if going to be full of obsequious flattery and pathetic catering, I'll never know what he's really like and he'll never know what I'm really like because he's not actually paying attention to anything but his own projections, IF I kiss him he'll instantly start imagining us as practically married, and when I stop returning his calls after the first or second date he'll go on a self-pity freak-out rampage.
So now, whenever I hear any form of "you're too good for a guy like me" I bolt.
This is true when you switch the innie and outie.
Furthermore, all women I've been with who has been like that ended up being psychotically jealous.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 17, 2011, 01:33:30 AM
Quote from: Risus on December 17, 2011, 12:56:09 AM
I can't help but feel like this alpha/beta crap is just missing the point or buying into some sort of preconceived notions of how you're supposed to be, I just seem to put it into words...
The recognition of the alpha is something we are biologically programmed for.
The idea that there's an alpha/beta binary and that "betas" are the most inferior/subordinate is pure seduction community bullshit, as far as I can tell, and I don't think that "everyone but the alpha is a loser" is a useful status hierarchy to train our brains to recognise.
Yes. The "alpha/beta thing" is a valid terminology in behavioural biology, but in the "seduction/influencing" sense it is short-sighted at best.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 18, 2011, 12:32:23 AM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 17, 2011, 01:33:30 AM
Quote from: Risus on December 17, 2011, 12:56:09 AM
I can't help but feel like this alpha/beta crap is just missing the point or buying into some sort of preconceived notions of how you're supposed to be, I just seem to put it into words...
The recognition of the alpha is something we are biologically programmed for.
The idea that there's an alpha/beta binary and that "betas" are the most inferior/subordinate is pure seduction community bullshit, as far as I can tell, and I don't think that "everyone but the alpha is a loser" is a useful status hierarchy to train our brains to recognise.
Yes. The "alpha/beta thing" is a valid terminology in behavioural biology, but in the "seduction/influencing" sense it is short-sighted at best.
Yeah, outside of the seduction community a beta is a different thing altogether. They seem to have just taken the words and given them new definitions based on their own idea of what social status should be based on.
Quote from: Waffle Iron on December 18, 2011, 12:20:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 17, 2011, 11:48:25 PM
I'll say another thing, too, from the female point of view... if anyone approaches me with something like "I can't imagine that a girl like you would give someone like me the time of day", I have learned to take them at their word, and not bother. Because if I do, our entire interaction if going to be full of obsequious flattery and pathetic catering, I'll never know what he's really like and he'll never know what I'm really like because he's not actually paying attention to anything but his own projections, IF I kiss him he'll instantly start imagining us as practically married, and when I stop returning his calls after the first or second date he'll go on a self-pity freak-out rampage.
So now, whenever I hear any form of "you're too good for a guy like me" I bolt.
This is true when you switch the innie and outie.
Furthermore, all women I've been with who has been like that ended up being psychotically jealous.
It makes sense that they would be... if she is already so insecure that she thinks she's not good enough for you, it stands to reason that she would also always be perpetually afraid that you will leave her as soon as you find somebody "good enough". My first husband was like that, and didn't like me out of the house to go watch TV with my friends when he was gone working night shift.
:lulz:
I'm having so much trouble imagining you putting up with that at all.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 08:19:54 PM
I don't think anybody was suggesting that physical attractiveness should be disregarded, just that people for whom "scoring with a perfect 10" is the most important factor in choosing a partner are repugnant mongloids.
When I really, really like someone, they start morphing into a 10 in my eyes.
And the most physically attractive person in the world starts to look ugly if he/she is a bad person.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 18, 2011, 10:16:08 AM
:lulz:
I'm having so much trouble imagining you putting up with that at all.
Oh, that shit didn't last long! It was my first serious relationship and it rapidly degenerated into a battle between his insecurity and my independence. Once I was an hour late coming home from work because I was getting a haircut, and he was frantic and accusatory, resulting in me winging a bowl of orange sherbet at his head and narrowly missing. It hit the wall and exploded, and he was cleaning bits of glass and sherbet off the walls and ceiling for hours. Later, I found out that he was a chronic cheater, which explained his perpetual paranoia.
I was 18 and he was 27 when we got together. I think he thought he could train and dominate me. He was very wrong, and eventually I just got a truck and moved all my shit out.
It was far messier than that, of course, but you get the gist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2011, 06:20:25 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 17, 2011, 08:19:54 PM
I don't think anybody was suggesting that physical attractiveness should be disregarded, just that people for whom "scoring with a perfect 10" is the most important factor in choosing a partner are repugnant mongloids.
When I really, really like someone, they start morphing into a 10 in my eyes.
And the most physically attractive person in the world starts to look ugly if he/she is a bad person.
Likewise. I have met people and not initially given them a second glance, but after talking to them for a while and finding them interesting/good, they become extremely attractive. When I'm in love with someone they become the most gorgeous creature I've ever seen.
And I've known people who were physically "beautiful" but their personalities made them completely unattractive.
Though it started as a joke, my friends came up with a binary ranking system that makes quite a lot of sense. Either they're a 1 or a 0. Either you find them attractive, or you don't.
And Dingo, I think the reason Adrian comes off as a poser is because you're describing his actions as calculated and emotionless, and you're showing both the actions and the results in a very clinical manner. A "real" alpha would most likely simply be that way -- somehow he instinctively knows the rules of non-verbal communication. If questioned about his 'technique', he'd most likely say something like, "I just talk to them, you know?" because he hasn't analyzed and deconstructed how he behaves. You've created Adrian as someone who isn't and alpha, but desperately wants to be one and has studied the routines. It doesn't come naturally for him.
I like the binary rating system! Of course, appearance is one thing, but someone can go from a 0 to a 1, or vise versa, after talking to them.
The most "alpha" guys I know, in terms of being attractive to women, would scoff if asked about "technique" and if you asked them about how they approach women, LMNO is right, that is exactly what they would say: "I dunno, I just talk to them". They both share a particular quality, which is that they really pay attention when they're talking to you. They aren't faking; they are interested and they care.
Even though they both got around a fair bit when they were younger, neither of them could really be considered "players", both have many close friends of both sexes, and both of them are happily settled down.
Quote from: Nigel on December 19, 2011, 02:43:55 PM
I like the binary rating system! Of course, appearance is one thing, but someone can go from a 0 to a 1, or vise versa, after talking to them.
Exactly. There are plenty of "conventionally attractive" people I know who are TOTAL ZEROS.
Thanks all for responses.
I wasnt too worried about how this applied to my writing, it wrote it separately because it was something else I'd been playing with.
I don't think Nigel's quite right when she says what I 'honesty think', but I certainly was using the idea of alpha beta as attributes of people as types, rather than contextual roles. That shift in thinking is useful.
And Net, you're right, it's not the most useful frame, and it's odd I've spent so much time thinking around it.