Alphas are not thugs and betas are not unrecognized Peter Parker underwear heros upholding society
Posted by xsplat on February 23, 2013
soup Wrote: I think that a lot of people who “uphold marriage” etc. on the conservative side could never let themselves take the real red-pill.. they could never accept the truth that is game. And it is the same for the feminized leftists.
Game is more important than any of the other manosphere concepts. It transcends the two party system. This alone makes it a great threat to the status quo.
ElJefe Wrote: Again, this is good for the alphas in society, but bad for folks who play by the rules. Civilization is highly dependent on channeling the sexual energy of men into productive endeavors. If you spend all your time chasing tail, you’re not building a house, hacking a living out of the wilderness, and raising five little do-gooders. It’s the difference between barbarians where life is ended on a whim, and a modern civilization where society works as a team.
I think a lot of the liberal hating has to do with those who can see that taken to its logical conclusion, it undermines civilization.
This is transparent bulshit, and the ONLY reason it is ever put forward is as a socialist agenda for the underdogs who don’t want to compete.
Look, I’m working hard to build an empire. You know why I’m doing it? Take a guess.
Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called “productive betas”.
There is more than one kind of alpha – they are not all street thugs. Most people compete financially and productively in order to get alpha status – especially as they age. And for players we compete harder and better knowing we’ll get hotter and younger girls that way.
This whole concept of alphas being unproductive thugs is the most stupid, self aggrandizing beta fuel I’ve ever come across. It’s a beta meme that deserves to be brutally killed.
ElJefe Wrote: When I said alpha, I meant someone who spends all their time fucking and seeking out the next opportunity to fuck, ie. the Heartiste definition.
DarkTriad Wrote: Except that’s not the Heartiste definition, not even close.
Yes, it’s a strawman definition of alpha, that creates a circular logic where the alphas are by definition the less valuable members of society.
Where the reality is that women are more attracted to men with greater financial means, and greater financial means tends to come from contributing more to society.
Sure, there is not a direct correlation to income earned and attraction, but there is a correlation. And working to buy that beemer in order to attract hotter women is a prime motivator for aging men to remain productive – and to increase production. The will for pussy access is the will to be more alpha and is expressed through greater production.
So it’s transparent beta-aggrandizing bullshit to pretend that the sexually successful are also social leeches. That’s just a feel good ideology to make the betas seem like the unrecognized Peter Parker underwear heros of the world.
bankster said
“and greater financial means tends to come from contributing more to society.”
False.
xsplat said
Oh come on. You see no connection at all between people giving you money and you fulfilling a need that those people have?
That’s GENERALLY how it works.
bankster said
At most of the jobs I’ve ever had this isn’t the case. Most of the people I’ve ever known who have made serious money did it by swindling others and playing corporate politics well.
Fearless said
“I think that very high levels of wealth (alpha levels of wealth) tend to come more from value transferance (lying, cheating, scamming, taking advantage) then from value creation.”
I have to disagree. The tired examples of billionaires such as Gates (Microsoft), Branson (Virgin), Ellison (Oracle) all created valuable products/services used by millions worldwide. Although they have faced their fare share of scandal it is a cutthroat game and they must make decisions that we as general public deem “scamming” as you put it.
bankster said
Imagine a world where our concept of ownership is different. Say one in which IBM doesn’t hand Bill Gates the MS-DOS liscense for free. Or they decided to use a different operating system (its largely agreed that Windows wasn’t the best operating system at the time, but because IBM was using it others used it too because it was easier). Thus Windows became a top product not due to Gates being some value creating genuis but because another company made his product popular and was too stupid to recognize it should retain the rights to this thing they were giving away.
Did Gates really create 50 billion dollars in value all himself? If IBM had made slightly different business decisions, decisions Gates would have accepted because he had no choice, Gates wouldn’t be worth a fraction of that today. Are you saying all of his “productivity” could be wiped away by change in legal status?
I think the better conclusion to reach is that earnings, ownership, etc are not true correlates to value. And lots of people get lucky and benefit from network effects even when they haven’t created the best products. I think Gates has created a lot of value, probably enough to live a very comfortable life as a millionare, but I really don’t believe he alone is responsible for billions of dollars in value. I think the other 40,000 employees that work for him create that value and he takes a little sliver from each one because of his legal position as owner.
If we lived in a world without Gates the computer revolution still would have happened. We’d still have gotten something just like windows. We’d be talking about some other rich nerd. I respect the guy, I consider him my better, but I don’t consider the guy indispensible, and I don’t think he created 50 billion dollars worth of value.
Chrysalis said
The “productive Alpha” is indeed a notion that goes against my understanding of SMV and Game. Xpat, could you please elaborate on the basic idea? In a future post, please, just leaving a reply won’t cover it.
xsplat said
Just think of any entrepreneur who is motivated by his desire to attract women.
Production isn’t only about sitting down at a pottery wheel and using labor to create objects. It can be a matter of being a hub of organization that brings talents and markets together and motivates people.
Some people think that retailers are unproductive – after all, what do they produce? Well, they produce interchange between buyers and sellers. Most all financial transactions are a portion of production. Even those who primarily deal in capital allocation are involved in production. We have to look hard for examples where pay is made that is in no way tied to production, and in those cases it’s often criminal work. Alphas are not all criminals. Alphas are not all thugs. Alphas are not all leeches. The only people who think that way are jealous guys trying to AMOG (alpha male other guy – short hand for put the other guy down in order to appear superior, thus gaining pussy access).
bankster said
There is legitimate administrative components to production. And even sectors we consider mostly parasitic have elements of value creation in them.
However, anyone being honest with themselves would realize that people make money off scams all the time. Many of those scams are legal.
Let’s take a simple example. I know that company X is going to buy company Y. This acquisition is not public knowledge. I buy up company Y stock and make a 50% overnight profit when its announced.
Everyone in the transaction did so voluntarilty. Yet, I think we can all agree I didn’t create any value. I took advantage of knowledge I had that others didn’t.
That’s illegal in the USA, though insider trading is not illegal in most foriegn countries. And in the US people get away with it a lot. Most of the big money in the finance industry is made by people who are engaged in asymetric information games.
“We have to look hard for examples where pay is made that is in no way tied to production”
It’s not that hard to find examples at all. I can point to dozens in my own career. Let alone the entire world.
xsplat said
Even so you don’t seem to be disagreeing with me that GENERALLY there is a correlation between income and production.
The economy would be unproductive if that were not the case.
And what is your argument anyway? That alphas ARE a demographic of thugs and economic parasites?
The idea itself reeks of petty jealousy and envy, and is so absurd that it falls apart at one quick penetrating glance.
Alpha is not a demographic.
bankster said
I think that very high levels of wealth (alpha levels of wealth) tend to come more from value transferance (lying, cheating, scamming, taking advantage) then from value creation. I think the relationship holds pretty well for lower orders of wealth (the master carpenter creates more value then the apprentance carpenter) but that large scale wealth is mostly accumulated through sinister methods.
So if we view “alphas” as the very rich and we postulate that the very rich mostly get rich through parasitic behaivor then it makes sense to view most alphas as parasites.
You can call if jealousy of envy all you want, but I think most people who get rich actually acknowledge this fact. I used to think earnings were distributed justly myself when I was young. However, after many years of succeeding in the corporate world I’ve realized that’s a laughable notion. The more successful I get the more disconnected success and productivity become. It’s really obvious even to the naked eye.
xsplat said
Perhaps we see the world so differently because of our professional associations.
I’m an entrepreneur, and so I can’t see what you are talking about. For me wealth creation is directly tied to value creation.
I suspect that people who equate alpha with parasite do so for reasons that have everything to do with trying to put down their sexual competitors.
Are you uninterested in wealth creation? And if so why? And if you are, do you plan to create wealth without creating value? There must be a reason why your worldview is so skewed to ignoring the wealthy yogurt factory owners and only seeing the unethical investment brokers. What industry do you work in?
bankster said
I think the smaller the business the closer you get to pure value creation. I’ve got a lot of respect for the small businessmen. But then again most of those don’t get rich either (most small business owners are middle or upper middle class). Even then a drug dealer is a small businessmen giving people what he wants, and he is mostly ruining lives.
“I suspect that people who equate alpha with parasite do so for reasons that have everything to do with trying to put down their sexual competitors.”
Or they have two eyes.
“do you plan to create wealth without creating value? ”
I’ve already made a career out of it.
“What industry do you work in?”
Finance and insurance.
xsplat said
No, you don’t have eyes to see. You deliberately ignore the wealthy yogurt salesmen and only see wealthy con artists. You refuse to even let the concept of a productive alpha into your reality. What could be more blind?
You don’t hear me denying that there are alphas of all stripes. It’s the willfully ignorant who can only live in a world where their more successful sexual competitors MUST be bad guys who have chosen to be blind.
bankster said
I don’t recall saying ALL people with money are parasites. Only that MOST people with money are parasites. This flows naturally from the laws of economics mind you (which postulate that competition would prevent people from earning excessive profits).
The last time I was down at the yogurt store the owner didn’t look like an alpha to me. He looked like a guy who didn’t know if he could afford to send his kids to college.
Johnny Caustic said
Bankster, there’s a book you should check out called “The Millionaire Next Door”. It’s written by a pair of marketing consultants who set out years ago to gather data about millionaires (including meeting lots of them in person) for the purposes of marketing, and were shocked to discover that most millionaires are beer-drinking, coupon-clipping small business owners with a tendency to frugality.
Bankers and hedge funders are a very visible archetype, but they’re not at all representative of typical millionaires. Goldman Sachs types may dominate the $100 million-plus category, but you don’t need that much to attract women.
bankster said
Any schlub can be a millionaire way past their prime if they spend the best years of their life living poor. It’s not exactely “alpha” to retire at 55 because you were too cheap to go out on dates for 40 years.
Alpha means having it when having it means something. When your young enough for it to matter. It means having a million dollars and still having the lavish lifestyle.
To be a millionaire when it counts, in the way that counts, takes more then clipping coupons and being a tight wad for your entire adult life.
Timmy said
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/latest-baumeister-paper-supports-ch-concept-of-the-sexual-market/
Blackburn said
The name Bankster says a lot. Calls to mind Max Keiser’s view of who the real thugs and criminals are. My view from the outside of banking and insurance is as Bankster describes. 95% parasite. I don’t think manufacturing or other value producing industries are the same way. Yes corporate politics are there, and businesses may cheat on quality if they think they can get away with it. That said I take Xplat’s side here on value creation leading to wealth.
I started with my last employer as a contract machinist and rose to VP level and board member of an international business unit by providing value to the organization and more importantly to the customers. I did not get alpha level rich there. For that I quit and am in the process of opening a company to be a supplier to the industry I was in. There is a ton of inefficiency in that business that I have a solution for.
What is alpha level wealth anyway? For me a couple $M/yr. Bankster, what are you saying is alpha level?
bankster said
Basic economics states that competition should prevent anyone from making excess profits. You learn that in econ 101.
So if someone is making money hand over fist the most likely explanation is that they don’t operate in a “free market”. Keep in mind that when Adam Smith wrote about free markets that meant more then free from government. It meant a whole slew of conditions such as perfect information, zero transaction costs, liquidity, etc. I can think of very few markets that are perfect “free markets”. It’s just not a real world condition.
So if most markets are imperfect then there is an opportunity to make money off the imperfections. I think that’s how most people who get rich get rich. And that makes sense, after all nobody should be getting rich in a free market.
My basic rule of thumb is that up until upper middle class there is real value creation going on. I know plenty of really productive engineers making their low six figures. Beyond that I’d say the balance shifts to value transferance over value creation. There are of course a few people who get lucky, and a few people who are spectacularly productive, but show me 100 people in the 1% and I’m guessing most of them are thieves.
Blackburn said
I agree with everything you say here. If you are defining alpha level money as the 1% then yes most are parasites, aside from the few oddballs like Bill Gates, Michal Dell etc that overturn the established order in some business and create a whole new market.
If I am as successful as I hope to be, it will be by exploiting an imperfection in my industry through a mash up of several technologies and just being much smarter than everyone else in my tiny little corner of the universe. I won’t make it to the 1% with this, just upper middle class. And, basic econ says eventually the others will figure out how I am doing it and copy me. Hope to sell out just before that and leave the US. So the question for Xsplat is if your new project is so good, why aren’t other people already doing it?
Also, for a better understanding of the parasite thing spend some time on Zero Hedge. The whole wall street thing mostly is an illusion of providing value. The customers see the brokers helping to manage their investments and sometimes making money for them. Look behind the curtain and you’ll see high frequency trading and all kinds of complete nonsense going on. Anything financial that is “too big to fail” is built on theft. Of course it will get bailed out so the 1% can keep the gravy train rolling.
xsplat said
Alpha level rich? What, like there are no alphas who are not in the top 1% income bracket?
There are no charismatic players in professions that are not parasitic? There are no charismatic players who are are lower class? Middle class? Upper middle class?
Alpha is not a demographic.
Earning more money tends to make a man relatively more attractive to women than he was before he had earned more money. Meaning it makes him relatively more alpha. That doesn’t only occur once he reaches the top 1%.
You can have alpha pool boys, alpha dance instructors, alpha band members. Alpha level wealth? That’s just inventing classifications willy nilly to suit your agenda of demonizing those who are relatively more sexually successful.
Alpha is not a demographic.
bankster said
You can have alpha pool boys, alpha dance instructors, alpha band members.
If these people are not making money doing what they are doing, by what metric are you saying they are “outproducing the fuck out of betas.”
bankster said
“Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called “productive betas”.”
There are alphas who don’t produce much (thugs, slackers with good looks, etc). However, that isn’t what your talking about here. The clear connotation is that alphas produce more and that production is measured by monetary reward.
That’s your claim. Since most middle and upper middle class people are betas your basically implying rich people. Nobody thinks Jim the IT guy or Chad the middle manager are “alphas” because they are upper middle class.
xsplat said
I’m implying that guys highly motivated to financial success GENERALLY contribute more economically to society than guys who are not. And it’s not only the 1%ers who are highly motivated to financial success.
I’m saying that men who are motivated to increase their attraction to women who are also motivated to financial self improvement are usually working to increase their sexual market place ranking in a way that is not economically parasitic.
It’s not that complicated. Why do you refuse to see it?
Because of an agenda to demonize those who are more sexually successful than you.
Highly sociosexual men compete in the economic marketplace for women, and it is the motivation of pussy that ultimately makes them contribute more. Lower sociosexual men can also compete – enough for a wife – also being spurred on make more money. But the businessman players are even more motivated than either the grass eater gammas or the lifetime monogamy sex once a month betas.
In a guys twenties he can compete in the sexual marketplace easier without an obvious money advantage – but money still helps. As a guy gets older money helps more and more. So a guy who wants to stay in the game has a motivation to earn. Motivation is a big part of what makes for financial success. Alphas – or guys with higher sociosexual orientations who choose to be successful with women – are driven to success in ways that most betas simply are not. Therefore they outproduce the fuck out of the x-box players.
bankster said
“I’m implying that guys highly motivated to financial success GENERALLY contribute more economically to society than guys who are not.”
I disagree. Being motivated for financial success becomes anti-social at a certain point.
Many of the best value creaters I know aren’t obsessed with money. Yes, they want more money. They put in time to make more money. However, they all draw the line at some point. They won’t lie to a client. Or sabotage a co-worker. Or join a fundamentally dirty industry/company/business model. People who are obsessed with money do those things.
To get rich, to have the kind of money that makes one alpha in and of itself, usually requires unethical behaivor. Not always, but often.
avd said
Again, amen. Bankster = bankster. Looking forward to next the chapter.
Daily Linkage – February 24, 2013 | The Second Estate said
[...] [...]
yousowould said
To add my own two penneth…
Simply “being a millionaire” is not an alpha trait. Especially if the way in which you got there involved swindling, lying and cheating – I couldn’t think of anything less alpha in actuality.
“Alpha” is not about your fiscal worth – it is about the type of individual you are. Hard-working, well-defined boundaries, self-motivational abilities, driven personality, strong frame, inspirational to others, sense of integrity, honourable. An alpha becoming rich is merely a manifestation of the application of these traits. A desire for financial success comes as part of this package, a desire to compete with and beat your fellow man in a fair fight – and after all, is money not the ultimate metric by which success is measured in modern society?
Hunger for riches, in the absence of any of the above traits of an alpha man, with no consideration to honour, is what leads to stealing, lying, conniving and cheating, and is simply indicative of a beta weasel. Projecting are we Bankster?
bankster said
And yet people with all of those characteristics are classic beta providers. Let’s think of the most classic beta provider, the engineer. He works hard, he’s self motivating, he’s driven, he has a sense of integrity. I went to an engineering magnet school and knew a lot of these people. They all went on to get upper middle class jobs at companies where they grinded hard.
And they were betas. They were nerds. They didn’t get chicks. They’re the kind of people that can’t get a woman till she is up against the wall and wants to suck of his income. In fact a large part of the reason they became engineers is because they knew as little nerdlings that an above average income was the only way to snag a girl.
By contrast I know lots of natural alphas that coasted. That could get chicks even if they had a shitty job and no stuff. They weren’t driven, hard working, or self motivating. However, they had good faces and put on muscle easily. So they didn’t bother. A few did, but plenty slacked.
yousowould said
Actually some betas display only some of those characteristics, specifically the subset you indicated. Well-defined boundaries, a strong frame and being an inspiration to others are not traits betas possess by definition.
You seem to be stuck on the term “alpha”, thinking it refers solely to be being good with women. That’s just a part of it, something that occurs naturally as a result of the possession of the above traits. It is of course possible to generate attraction by having other characteristics which give the impression of being an alpha, such as entitlement, arrogance, narcissism and selfishness, but people like these are not inspirational figures to anyone except basement-dwelling virgins.
Economic productivity is indeed a by-product of my definition of alpha, but not your “dark triad” version.
bankster said
In IB there are many alphas that are good at business and make a lot of money. They are charismatic and good looking. And plenty of people look up to them. Mr. Big on Sex in the City is a typical Wall Street alpha (I haven’t seen the show, but I’m going on what I’m told).
Mr. Bigs were usually employed in sales. They would sell the stuff us quant guys came up with, or often they would tell us what they wanted to sell and then ask us to invent it. Tell me, where is the episode in SITC where Mr. Big sells toxic CDOs to a pension fund? They never show that, but that is where the money to buy all of Carrie’s cocktails comes from.
Let’s take a steryotypical TV alpha male: Don Draper.
Draper is an ad exec. What are his three biggest money makers on the show:
1) He sells cigerates for most of the series, and mentions that in the past he had ads that lied about the health effects until that was made illegal.
2) He won an account to sell a car he knew was a piece of crap and had massive mechanical problems.
3) His last big pitch at the end of the last season was to sell napalm and agent orange in Vietnam on behalf of Dow Chemical. A lot of people are going to get burned to death and come back with cancer from that stuff. You think Draper cares?
Does he treat his co-workers well? Not when something important is on the line. When the cigerate executive tried to sexually harass his co-worker Sal he insisted he follow through with it to keep the business. He’s only nice when it doesn’t threaten his position as an alpha. When he’s threatened he’ll throw anyone under the bus.
Don Draper was made 2009s most influential man in the world by AskMen (the site was getting 12 million visitors a month back in 2009).
They call my investment banking buddies Masters of the Universe. Young women move to NYC every year hoping to land their Mr. Big.
The whole world is looking up with asshole alphas that lie, cheat, steal, and sell poison for a living. Don’t give me some crap about honor as being something that is “alpha”. Winning is alpha. Any way you can. By any means. That’s why I get more chicks as an IB quant then my engineer friends get in their beta jobs. They may do more for the world, but nobody gives a fuck about that. In the end its all about the benjamins.
yousowould said
So it appears were are quibbling over the definition of “alpha”. How novel for a manosphere debate
If we’re talking about the definition of alpha as being something purely akin to the animal world (ie become top dog and win at any cost, no matter who gets shit on) then I agree what you are saying is correct.
My own opinion, I would not consider a man who behaved in such a manner to be a true alpha. Some sort of “dark” alpha maybe. Behaving in an honourable fashion and having integrity are important, masculine traits. I’d like to think we’ve moved on at least a little since we were apes.
What you’re essentially saying is that economic prosperity does not necessarily arise out of the behaviour of selfishly motivated people. Which is clear.
What I’m saying is that economic productivity IS in fact something that would arise out of the behaviour of honourable alphas with integrity.
Anyway, this is all a bit theoretical for a Sunday afternoon. I’m all debated out, adios!
bankster said
Honor, ethnics, morality. These may be important parts of humanity, but they are often in conflict with getting personal results. In fact that’s kind of the whole point of a moral dilemma. That you give up getting things you want because its the right thing to do.
Alpha is a results based. And anyone who isn’t held up by moral hangups, all other things being equal, is going to have more success.
So I’d say being alpha, which is results based, is often in conflict with those things. So the OPs original claim, that alphas are more societally productive then betas, seems uncertain at best.
E.J. said
This is a great comment thread. xsplat and bankster are both correct.
The desire to increase ones’ sexual options can and does lead to increased productivity in men, and often times creates more value for society as a whole. There is a very whiny, sour-grapes meme that perpetuates in the Manosphere, that basically says “we betas are the good guys. All those guys having free sex will be sorry one day. Society will collapse and everyone will be sorry they didn’t give us virgin wives! Productive betas build society, we deserve more sex!” It’s mostly loser logic. So-called “alphas” actually employee virtually everyone in the country, one way or another.
However, the pursuit of money and social status can also involve screwing people over and capitalizing on the misery of others. We can see countless examples of this. America is full of parasitical industries, immoral wars, dishonest politics, etc. I don’t think Bankster is speaking out of jealousy when he points this out. This is a reality.
Snoeperd said
Damn…..the discussion between xsplat and bankster read like a marital dispute. Xsplat is way too heavily invested in convincing bankster and bankster sounds like an old man who longs for the “old days” in which the manufacturing sector still contributed most of the value in society.
Well… it doesn’t anymore. It doesn’t matter if people don’t consider capital allocation to be a “valuable” contribution to society, it’s there to stay and in Economics 101 you have learned that any voluntary transaction creates wealth. Individuals with huge amounts of capital are willing to pay hedgefundmanagers huge bonusses for a 0.4% increase in their capital returns? Working as intended.
“Society” doesn’t exist as an individual, therefore society doesn’t “value” anything. You can merely change society, for example setting incentives, increasing contract stability (or trust as some would like to call it) etc etc.
Also, why are you guys so invested in the idea that being and alpha should by definition be civilization-enhancing? Its just a tool, a means to an end so we can get laid, that’s it. I create value because i want to fuck hot chicks, have social status, have creature comforts, eat good food, use drugs etc etc.
Final point: Im totally with xsplat on this one. If you compare the average income (maybe you would like to use “real value added” bankster) of men above and men below the average number of sexual partners I’m willing to bet my house that the former group beats the latter decisively.