591

The most effective mental model is thinking of alpha and beta traits, not of being alpha or being beta (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by G_Petronius

Summary: alpha/beta essentialism is a misconception whereby people believe that a man is entirely alpha or entirely beta; equivalently, that women perceive any given man as either alpha or beta. To understand sexual dynamics and how to exploit them, it is far more conductive to think in terms of alpha and beta traits

The alpha/beta dichotomy

A periennial topic of discussion on TRP, a topic that has existed in much the same form among PUAs, is what defines alpha and what defines beta.

Much of that discussion is done in terms of alpha men and beta men, which means with the underlying assumption that a man can wholly be described as an "alpha" and another entirely as a "beta".

And much of that discussion barely goes anywhere because it clashes with the fact that most men display traits of both an alpha and a beta. A man might be physically imposing, which people recognize as a characteristic of alphas, but then be pussywhipped, which everyone knows is beta. So is he alpha or beta?

The answer to that question is recognizing that the question itself is posited incorrectly. It is posited incorrectly because it moves from the underlying assumption that it makes sense to define a man as entirely alpha or entirely beta, an assumption that clashses with observed reality.

Alpha and beta traits

Instead, it is much more useful to think in terms of alpha traits and beta traits. If we refer to evolutionary psychology, we can derive meaningful, self-consistent definitions that allow us to correctly model sexual behaviour, which is the first step towards exploiting it. Notice that these are traits that any given individual can possess in any combination: we no longer think of a man in terms of wholly alpha or wholly beta, but in terms of which alpha and beta traits he displays.

Alpha traits are those that make a male desirable as a sexual partner. In evolutionary psychology terms, they indicate that you appear to possess desirable genes. These traits includes:

  • physical size (height, broad shoulders)

  • muscularity

  • masculinity (deep eyes, prominent brow, deep voice, beard, masculine body and facial proportions)

  • social dominance

  • personal dominance

Beta traits are those that make a male desirable as a relationship partner. In evo-psych terms, they indicate that you appear to possess desirable resources and/or the ability to provide more in the future. These traits include:

  • meekness

  • willingness to compromise or acceed to demands easily

  • reliability

  • lucrative skills

Notice that while some alpha and beta traits are incompatible, others are compatible. For example:

  • personal dominance is (mostly) incompatible with meekness and willingness to compromise easily

  • lucrative skills are not necessarily incomptabile with any alpha trait

Why this model is better

When you think in terms of any given man "being alpha", you almost inevitably encounter contradictions, like "that guy is tall and built, but he's rich so bitches only want him for his money, so he's a beta"; we have a frontpage post right now attacking this exact misconception.

When, instead, you think in terms of alpha traits, you get a much clearer picture. The tall, fit rich guy is not alpha or beta: he displays some alpha traits that make women want to fuck him, and also some beta traits that make women want to be in a relationship with him. His overall management of those traits will determine which kind of relationships he gets.

Once you understand this, you can use it to your advantage. Want to generate sexual attraction? then work on your alpha traits. Want an LTR? then you know you also need to show some beta traits. Want an LTR without a dead bedroom? then you know you need to work on your alpha traits, like being fit and dominant. Want an LTR without your woman thinking she's just a fucktoy? then be nice to her once in a while.

Essentially, this mental model gives you enormously improved fine-tuned control over your sexual strategy. It also rids you of maddening mental contradictions, and might even get you over hangups such as "I'm short I'll never be alpha and get bitches".

Recap and conclusion

Thinking in terms of "being alpha" and "being beta" gives you a contradictory mental model that only enbles rudimentary control of your sexual strategy. Understanding and displaying alpha and beta traits promotes you to much finer control, enabling you to control outcomes much more closely.


[–]MEpicLevelCheater[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (3 children)

Informative and concise. I am awarding you with a point.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 63 points64 points  (3 children)

Who you are is simply the sum total of the pieces that make you up. Those pieces are the traits you refer to.

Some people get confused and think TRP is about changing the sum total, about trying to posture and put on a mask. But in reality it is about changing those pieces, bit by bit. Developing new habits. Changing your mindset.

As you think, you shall become ...

[–]Nikases 23 points24 points  (1 child)

"Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor." - Alex Carrel.

Being a person with a bipolar dissease and several other odds against me I think its important to set goals and be ready to slow down and take your time improving yourself one thing at a time. If you keep building your fundament with brittle sticks and quick fixes instead of bricks everything will crumble when you loose your balance on your brittle ground.

[–]bp_reject 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Keep honing yourself.

[–]TNNRR 13 points14 points  (0 children)

"Act the way you want to be and soon you'll be the way you act" - Leonard Cohen.

[–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79 78 points79 points  (12 children)

That's great advice. Nobody becomes Alpha from the get-go. Noobs will try to apply TRP on hardcore mode, and will find it's almost impossible to always maintain frame, always be the leader, always be unfazed. So they crash and burn and end up equating Alpha with being assholes.

It's much better to see it as alpha and beta traits, and work your way up increasing the amount of Alpha traits in oneself.

[–]razormachine 29 points30 points  (8 children)

So they crash and burn and end up equating Alpha with being assholes

I did that at the beginning, went 180 degrees from beta to "alpha". However that made me beta-asshole (bitter loser) :D Woman are more than able to sniff out when you try to over-compensate.

I had acknowledged that my goal was right, however I had took the wrong path, and decided to take a couple of steps back and climb up gradually.

Instead of trying to act 24/7, truly change myself. If you become true alpha on the inside, you do not have to "hold the frame at all" you can simply be natural.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (2 children)

To be honest with you - and from my own personal experience - I think that is the natural pathway for a man who initially accepts RP philosophy (become the bitter loser). At least that same thing happened to me, I just came off as some asshole who thought he knew everything, dark times indeed. There was a light at the end of the tunnel though and finding this subreddit definitely helped in understanding that RP is more than about sexual strategy, but also manhood.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 5 points6 points  (1 child)

become the bitter loser

Largely projection by sjw and feminists.

Almost all of the time, I initially ask people nicely for things. Some people don't listen. So I am an asshole to get their attention. Then they are like what happened to you ?

[–]midlifedick 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This happens to me a lot in the office.

My swing from polite and nonchalant to real busy and no time for your shit can be so drastically different, it is jarring. Some particularly entitled women can get upset, they adopt the attitude of indignace at the thought of a beta switching to an alpha and think 'who does this beta think he is, bossing me around like an alpha?!'

[–]Endorsed ContributorPopeman79 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Thats the right way to do it. Because it's long and tedious and painful. But also the rewards stay with us forever.

As TRP becomes increasingly popular, I'm afraid a lot of newcomers are here for a quick fix. They're bound to be disappointed.

[–]razormachine 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Sure... it is long and tedious and painful. However I wasn't rewarded only with sticking my dick into woman.

My whole life had changed in the last 3 years for the better. The change is drastic.

Only negative thing is that bitterness still hasn't washed completely off. But it's the small price for all the gains.

[–]bp_reject 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why are you bitter? There is no point in dwelling in the past. You found the answer, you were able to implement, and you are now reaping the rewards. I am working to be in your place come three years.

[–]midlifedick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I carry more disappointment in my progress than bitterness. Then again, I'm only about 1 year into Iron, and just a few more months before that I swallowed that bitter pill.

Which changes faster, the body or the mind?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not too worried of it being more popular. Most people still will not be able to apply it or swallow the pill anyhow.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (1 child)

remember, its a marathon, not a sprint

[–]sir_wankalot_here 2 points3 points  (0 children)

find it's almost impossible to always maintain frame

Paraphrasing art of war.

Let your strengths appear to be weaknesses and your weaknesses appear to be strengths. That way your enemy will attack your strengths.

Everyone will break frame if you find that weakness and attack it. It is a matter of finding the weakness. TRP is to some degree BS/bluff you probe for weakness, see how the guy reacts. If you get a reaction you probe deeper to verify. Then you slam into it.

Inherently women are better at finding weakness, they are hardwired that way.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Beta traits are those that make a male desirable as a relationship partner.

True.... very true. Be careful though: having purely beta traits (relationship and not sex) makes you prime target for provider-hunters and ends up with you being a sex-starved orbiter (whether married to her or not).

But yes, good observations. This place needs more sanity as regards alpha and beta as sexual strategies rather than "good" and "bad".

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Be careful though: having purely beta traits (relationship and not sex) makes you prime target for provider-hunters and ends up with you being a sex-starved orbiter (whether married to her or not).

Yep. Like NeoReactionary said, a pure beta is a slave, a feckless provider type with resources and zero ability to say "no" to a woman who wants them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Off topic but I never understood that.

I understand and respect that sometimes people just are not in the mood for sex. But if we are married and my wife constantly turns me down and uses sex as a dog reward, we are done. I have zero tolerance for that shit.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Women know this at some level.

Funnily enough, this "not in the mood for sex" will increase over time. Reality is that "not in the mood for sex" is really "not in the mood for sex WITH YOU".

If she's clever she won't use sex as a reward. She'll use her mood as a reward. That way she's not responsible for her actions, you can't expect her to FORCE her feelings can you, you brute? No we can't have sex because I'm not in the mood. I was in the mood last week after you bought me that car though.... coincidentally

[–]midlifedick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think ailments begin to appear due to those moods, if it carries on long enough.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. TRP doesn't tell you what to be. It just explains the alpha/beta dynamic. It's just that most men, after digesting the red pill, find it hard to continue justifying their beta behavior.

But the beta sexual strategy is certainly a valid strategy if that's what you want to pursue.

[–]xray777 17 points17 points [recovered]

Most of this is a concise summary of RP boilerplate, but the inclusion of "lucractive skills" in the beta category is very good.

Fellas....if you possess a lucrative technical skill, that shit is not panty-wetting material and can very much produce the opposite effect if you wave it around trying to impress women. All it says is "I'm so beta, I need to try and impress you with this skillset that has nothing to do with me."

Yes, the vast majority of people can be trained to design a fighter jet even if most won't.

The average developing man must realize that he is generally playing 2D interpersonal chess in a world full of women walking around with naturally-developed chess supercomputers as standard equipment. Most of them have no self-awareness of it. Its like an 8 year old playing chess against the masters by just punching the current board layout into a chess-playing supercomputer and acting on the result. She wins most of the games.....but knows nothing about it.

Women today are the inheritors of mate-finding supercomputers and most simply know that if they trust their "gut", it will tend to land them fuckable men. Even deeper than that, it simply gives them a wet crotch when a man in their company is given a "FUCK HIM HE'S VALUABLE MAN MATERIAL" solution by the supercomputer in their hindbrain.

One of the more subtle applications of this is when a man tells a woman he has a very lucrative skill. In your mind, you are a badass fighter plane designer but in her mind you might as well have said "Hi, I don't know you, but I have $100 in my wallet and you should fuck me if I give it to you."

Contrast this with the brilliant Chadly Super Man who can design a fighter jet (among many, many other things) and only demonstrates he can do so when a fighter jet is required. This maintains that all-important level of mystery.

Let your incredible knowledge or skills chops shine only when they are required to shine. Let your conversation reveal that you are a very, very smart man but only tell your date that you are a project manager, or some vague occupation. If she's intrigued, she'll ask for details, but be sparse with them. Meanwhile, if you find yourself having to say anything technical while explaining what you do or study to a date, be aware that the CRAY SUPERVAG 5000 in her hindbrain is blowing a claxon and reading out the near 100% confidence interval solution that you are a beta who is not only so deficient in masculine qualities that you must resort to your job description as an SMV hook....but that you are also so low on the social totem pole that you have no idea why you just fucked up hard. Vagflaps on maximum dehumidify setting and attention devoted to the phone until she can leave at the earliest socially acceptable moment.

Even if you are a badass who designs fighter jets.

[–]Wilreadit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The best chad is he who can convince his vag that he can design any fighter jet, and his jets are the best, without even knowing what a jet is.

Infact, lie.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this was a pretty damn funny write up, but quite true

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

What I've never understood, why are homo sapiens (a species about 200,000 years old), on average, 5 foot 10 inches tall, when, as you say, the "best" sexual partner for a women is probably over 6 feet tall and very muscular? It seems like these specimen is the exception rather than the rule. Care to explain why this is the case? You'd expect the opposite result if what you say is actually true. There should be Chads everywhere if all women want to have Chad's children, but there isn't. Chad is the exception.

[–]BlacknOrangeZ 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The average height is always increasing. Genetics, healthcare and nutrition seem the likely factors.

There have traditionally been far more significant evolutionary pressures in the past that prioritised the ability to provide and protect over raw physical appearance. A powerful warlord at 5' would be preferable partner (probably not even by choice, see Genghis Khan) than his chiselled 6'3" slave. Only in the current fantasy of artificial government-backed abundance, in the form of out of control welfare spending and other redistributive practises, have women been truly able to neglect reason and rationality in favour of fucking any pretty dick that wiggles in her general direction.

So we're now seeing that unfettered physical selection, in which height is the most ubiquitous desire. It has always been there, it's just that now there are no more pressing survival necessities standing in its way.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

There should be Chads everywhere if all women want to have Chad's children, but there isn't.

Ah but there is. We're all the sons of Chad. Who's Chad? Chad is an exceptional male compared to the baseline of his peers. We're all the sons of Chads from hundreds of thousands of years ago, who however were Chads compared to their own contemporaries, not to us. Sexual selection, whereby Chads reproduced more often, was one of the driving forces behind human evolution. Today's baseline male is the product of that, and is a superior combination of strength, intelligence and character compared to the baseline male of hundreds of thousands of years ago precisely because he's the son of Chad. The estimate based on genetic studies is that throughout most of human history for every 17 women that reproduced only one man did.

[–]Wilreadit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

True. The only problem is who we think as Chad were not the true Chads. We have an idealized Chad, a ripped, 6'5" dude, on a Cruiser wearing leather jacket and distressed jeans and smoking a hand rolled joint. He is not the Chad that we are descendants of. It is a classic case of reality perception mismatch.

u/G_Petronius: excellent post bro. Long time since we had someone who is intelligent write a post. Keep it up and we expect more from you. Your level of thinking and articulation is what we have come to see from Rollo and Chateau. Awesome.

[–]NiceTryDisaster 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Fantastic post. Very well written. Could you expand on what you mean by personal dominance?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

While social dominance is the ability to lead or be a leading member of a group, personal dominance is the ability and force of character to do the same with single individuals (and, in our particular case, women).

I list them separately because, while usually connected, you can have the case of the high-power executive who takes no shit on the job but then goes home and is pussywhipped by his wife.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

How would you develop personal dominance? I find I'm less confident when it's 1on1

[–]mystikcal1 7 points7 points [recovered]

I'm a bit of the opposite. I would say personal dominance is a product of rock solid beliefs and faith in oneself.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense. Yeah, in groups I'll be fine, pretty confident but then it comes to 1on1 (only with certain people, not always) I kinda lose it.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 13 points14 points  (15 children)

 

Simplified:

 

  • The beta is a slave.

 

Okay, but does not being a slave automatically make you Alpha?

 

  • No.

 

You can be MGTOW and not a slave, but not a master either. The MGTOW represents the idea of the "Hermit" or "Monk" who is separated from the herd. The herd has no power over the MGTOW, but the MGTOW has no power over the herd either.

Chad Thundercock is the animalistic confidence of a guy separate from the herd, but he is vulnerable to traps. He lacks the Fox as Machiavelli would say.

 

The Alpha is the Lion and the Fox built into one.

 

[–]aanarchist 3 points4 points  (10 children)

i never had respect for the fox as you call it. it's like the epitome of a beta to have to manipulate and lie. the only people i've ever known to use machavelian techniques were slime trying to further some agenda, and the kind of people i would have no problem running them through if there weren't laws protecting them. i'd really like to see a society where truth and reality is king, with any attempt at manipulation being seen as immoral and heavily punished.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Never going to happen.

The Alpha knows Game which is manipulation.

The Fox is "defensive Game awareness" and having the discernment to see traps and avoid them.

I'd argue the opposite:

 

"Teach all people about Game then we prevent power from concentrating."

 

The Red Pill teaches Game.

It's actually a lot like the original understanding of the hebrew Torah before they weaponized it into all the "derivative religions".

Game is the "magician's trick".

 

[–]larryjack -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

It's interesting to note your repetitiveness.

Fact: repetitiveness works.

Ironically, your choice of words has the effect of being un-understandable by those who perhaps need them the most.

Your goal is to higher awareness. But understanding is also a function of mental capabilities.

I guess you just shrug about it.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Not sure what you are saying here.

Generally my writing tends to be creative.

Truth never changes so my words can change but the core ideas don't.

 

[–]larryjack 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Truth never changes so my words can change but the core ideas don't.

That's why I wrote "your choice of words".

By what you state in your writings, your goal is to increase awareness. Is that correct or am I misunderstanding?

Your choice of words is peculiar.

You usually describe entities such Game, or Frame, or 777, etc.

It seems you avoid describing the process under such nominalizations.

And, since 'you goal' as stated before, it seems strange, because the first thing I will do if I wanted to talk about abstract things and give the impression of transferring knowledge but do not actually transfer it is to talk with nominalizations and relationships only between those nominalizations but never actually de-nominalize and talk about processes.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 8 points9 points  (0 children)

 

A “nominalized” sentence is one in which abstract nouns perform most of the work. Abstract nouns are things you can’t touch or easily visualize (such as “analysis” or “solution”). These vague nouns contain within them a hidden verb (“analyze” or “solve”); the process of turning a word from a verb into a noun is called “nominalization.” Don’t nominalize. People tend to think writing is more clear and direct when it relies on verbs rather than abstract nouns formed from verbs. Revise your sentences in order to make your verbs do the work.

 

Had to look up "Nominalization" to even know what the fuck you were talking about.

I'm not trying to turn the Red Pill into great literature.

What I do is deflect or avoid those who are "trolls". (which means my first task is to identify who is a "real" person from who is a "poser")

With the "authentic" or "real" people I make a truly heartfelt effort to understand them and based on the response of many they take my comments favorably.

I will throw in whatever "esoteric" thought that crosses my mind or I pick up from Mark Passio, Alex Jones, or David Icke or others.

So there is no method to my madness.

 

[–]trippinallday 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Manipulation and lying are certainly undesirable traits, but not beta. I hate people who do it just as much as you seem to, believe me, but just because we don't like them doesn't make them beta.

Being able to say anything you can in order to further your own personal agenda is about as alpha as it gets, sad as it is. It just proves you don't give a shit about others or their opinion of you, only what you want. Slimy, but alpha.

[–]TNNRR 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Machiavelli said that one has to be a lion to frighten off the wolves, and a fox to recognize the traps.

[–]Wilreadit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The slime you refer to end up being Presidents and Premiers.

[–]harambewasamartyr 2 points3 points  (1 child)

How the fuck are lucrative skills beta traits?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"Beta traits are those that make a male desirable as a relationship partner. In evo-psych terms, they indicate that you appear to possess desirable resources and/or the ability to provide more in the future."

I think your disbelief is due to confusion that a beta trait is incompatible with alpha ones. Not so:

"lucrative skills are not necessarily incomptabile with any alpha trait"

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Tomassi's The Rational Male the fact that some traits are "alpha" can be completely dependent upon the scenario.

An example is given of a high-school teacher that ran off with one of his pupils. The girl that he ran off with only did so because within the classroom he was the AMOG and was dominant over every single teenager.

However, if this girl were 10 years older and saw this dude walking down the street she would have probably thought he was an average 50 year old.

[–]Litl1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Interesting, but I also believe women perceive alpha-ness or beta-ness in terms of what they find turns them on. Some women might actually find someone who is a world-class hacker to be alpha if he has the right personality traits, even if he is physically just average, because they perceive "power" differently.

Generally obesity is a killer to alpha-ness in women's eyes, for whatever reason. Hideous ugliness. Horrible disfigurement. If you're going bald, just shave the head--it is a more powerful look. Super skinniness can be problematic.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

but I also believe women perceive alpha-ness or beta-ness in terms of what they find turns them on

It's not so much an "also" as an "only": "Alpha traits are those that make a male desirable as a sexual partner."

Some women might actually find someone who is a world-class hacker to be alpha

Yes: "lucrative skills are not necessarily incomptabile with any alpha trait"

Generally obesity is a killer to alpha-ness in women's eyes, for whatever reason. Hideous ugliness. Horrible disfigurement.

These are all indicators of bad health, which is an undesirable sexual trait. They're traits on the alpha spectrum, but on the negative side of it: they subtract from your sexual attractiveness.

[–]SPRIGGSEN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fuck that, beta male all the way

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As liberal capitalist society becomes more and more niggerized, the definitions of alpha and beta become less and less sophisticated. Hitler, Moltke , and Napoleon didn't have sleeve tattoos, yachts, or massive pecs peaking out through tiny shirts, but they were real alpha males. To think this is how a man, a great man no less, is defined today is a testament to how far we've fallen, what happens when women (and their romance novels) define what a man is rather than men: all style, no substance.

[–]johncrcf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, as I've already read in this reddit before, the problem is that women usually want both in a man at the same time which in reality is impossible. I strongly believe that there is always one (the strongest) character side which usually dominates our behavior. Given that we are the sum of our "alpha" and "beta" traits, it is most probably that one stack is higher than the other. Of course, we as people can't be reduced to black and white (no racisim intended) but I DO believe that it all comes to the core which is rather simple and can be described by only a few paradigm traits that shape the person. For example, in a relationship I can be supportive, I can wash the dishes once in a while, I can give an occasional shoulder to cry on, but my character core is that I don't stop for anything and if I have a life goal I wanna achieve, then I will - no matter what, no matter how good of a relationship I have, I'll go for what I want so my core alpha trait outweighs all my other beta traits. And it is the one who dominates as it overrides everything else. In other words, yeah if I don't have anything else to do, then OK, but I won't care about the stupid dishes when I have a deadline at work or a photo shoot tomorrow. So I think it's practically impossible to keep a real balance between those traits. I think that one will always dominate the other. If you are a beta with some occasional outbursts of manly acts, it doesn't make you into alpha and vica versa. Feel free to argue.

One more thing (edited): if you put it into alpha/beta frames and you most probably will agree that we are defined by the choices we make, it is impossible to be both just by simple fact that it's a binary thing. you either choose the "alpha" or the "beta" way. of course, it may depend on the situation when and where to choose which, but the sole principle of the binary choice is that you can't choose both at the same ;) so one will always dominate the other.

but the good news is that those sums may change over the time as you said. I agree that men can make themselves. And you should always work on those traits that make you happy and get shit done.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I totally agree.

It seems some people think you must be alpha. All the time every time. I disagree.

It's like being smart at something. You should know your shit, but correcting folks all the time at every opportunity will get old really fast and work against you.

At that moment, people know you are just pretending and really insecure. A witty quip or taking the time to teach someone does way more than trying to push your superior knowledge on them at every chance.

I'm not very good at analogies. TLDR : you're right.

[–]kaane 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can you please explain to me how showing alpha traits in a LTR turns your bedroom to a dead one?

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around ?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Want an LTR without a dead bedroom? then you know you need to work on your alpha traits, like being fit and dominant.

It is the other way around, he said.

[–]Rkih06 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Want an LTR without your woman thinking she's just a fucktoy? then be nice to her once in a while."

This hits real close to home to me.

I ended up pushing way too far the alpha traits to a LTR and that is exactly how she felt in the end, although it was not my intention.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It isn't what you do, it is how you do it. Case in point is Oscar Wilde, a lot of his traits where beta, he also batted both ways. On impulse he decided to tour the wild west, everyone including his publisher warned him against this. They thought the cowboys and outlaws would beat the hell out of a fancy boy who wore tights.

Comcially enough he was loved in the wild west, he knew how to pull things off.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good insights. I think of alpha as dominant and beta as deferential. To be a good leader, in business, sports, relationships, it's important to establish a dominant frame but tactically defer and delegate some tasks and decisions to others as a reward for submitting to your leadership.

[–]Stythe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you are saying is absolutely correct. Psychologically you're referring to black and white thinking, which is the idea that a someone is either or with no grey area. So if you see someone do a nice thing, or be funny, or be an ass, you judge them as a whole based on that one interaction is year of realizing there are any number of things that could have caused that person to act that way in that moment.

The cause is ignorance of yourself and your own mindset and motivations. When you understand yourself you have to awknowledge that others are just as variable as you.

There are so many areas of life this affects it's impossible to cover the myriad of ways it could colour your life but for example this is why frame is important in regards to women, especially with LTRs. When a women falls for you it's because she feels you are strong and she feels safe. She sees what you project and geys what she needs, but when you start acting too much like a bitch she sees that you aren't who she thought you were and feels betrayed. This is why it's best to vet LTRs for a good while before commiting. So you can both see how each of you thinks and acts about things.

Another example is how children think of their parents. To a child with no idea of what it's like to have to live in the world, their parents provide everything they need. A good parent will help teach their child how the world works and ease them into it firmly but safely. A bad parent will either abandon them or overcoddle them leaving them unprepared and blind to reality. This is what we have a lot of in society these days, and these people don't understand that life is a variable. They seek to recreate those extremes they are used to from childhood. These are the drama queens in relationships or the super-betas who sacrifice everything to be seen as worthy.

I'm rambling here because it's something that I had to learn on my own and it was big to me but regardless it's best to be aware of this fact as it ties into everything we talk about here. That said, the more you push yourself the more you'll see the realities of life and that's what helps you develop that grey area of thinking.

[–]Marino4K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely like the mindset OP has going here, I feel like that's what I have going on

[–]foxcatbat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

alpha is person(male or female) in a group with least amount of bullshit

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being "reliable" is surely not a beta trait. I think you need to expand on that a bit.. I am reliable at work, I say I'm going to deliver something and I deliver it if not more. This reliability is what gets me paid more year on year. I don't see how being reliable in a relationship is beta either because it means you consistently deliver on what you propose to deliver, that's surely a positive characteristic.

[–]SirByron -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Ask a woman - reliability and lucrative skills ARE VERY ATTRACTIVE.

Loser.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Ask a woman for dating tips, loser"

Alright buddy.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

are you so scared of being a good partner

"Once you understand this, you can use it to your advantage. Want to generate sexual attraction? then work on your alpha traits. Want an LTR? then you know you also need to show some beta traits. Want an LTR without a dead bedroom? then you know you need to work on your alpha traits, like being fit and dominant. Want an LTR without your woman thinking she's just a fucktoy? then be nice to her once in a while."

Whether you want to be a good partner or just fuck bitches and ditch them is entirely your choice. The point of this post is not telling you what you should do, it's to give you a useful mental model to achieve it. TRP has always said that in an LTR you need something like an 80/20 breakdown in alpha/beta behaviour respectively, which fits precisely within this model.

[–]razormachine 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You are spot-on with your post.

Fellow red-pillers often forget that there isn't one recipe for everything.

[–]Talkytalktalk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I became an alpha behaviorally from reaching the bottom of simp despair and just stopped giving a shit about changing for others or giving them anything. That shit never worked.

You could say it's dark triad traits gained from a life of abuse. I quit my job so I wouldn't have to fight about money. There's none to get. So Fuck me or Fuck off.