Thinking that admirable behavior is “alpha” is one of the defining characteristics of betas and white knights.
Alpha = the quantity and quality of pussy. If being “admirable” got you lots of high quality lays the the entire Game culture would never have come into existence.
I’m not sure that only betas want to conflate admirable with alpha. It’s a habit of mind to think unclearly and emotionally in this fashion, and to want to lump together good things. If alpha is good and if admirable is good, then accordingly alpha and admirable would seem to belong to the same set.
Not all people learn to think in more nuanced ways, and of those that do not all usually bother.
Alpha is not within the same set of “good” as is admirable because alpha traits are not good in the same way that to be admirable is good. Alpha is a strategy to power for individuals. Power is good in the same way that a handgun is good. Alpha traits are good for the individuals attempt at personal power, admirable is good from the view of the collective.
Good is therefore an emotional and misleading category, used in facile quick thinking to make facile quick emotional judgments.
My favorite method to clarify thinking is to think in terms of sets. Remember in kindergarten when the teacher drew overlapping circles on the board, and drew in labels and objects into the circles and where the circles intercepted? Red, blue, round, triangular. We learned to think of domains of attributes, and see how in some cases they overlap. You can have red shapes, you can have red triangles, blue shapes, blue triangles, and you can have blue balls.
I’ve noticed that the unclear thinkers tend to not think mathematically like this. They don’t notice what are the labels for the domains, and don’t notice where the domains intersect and where they do not.
One such arrangement of domains has these labels:
One big circle labeled attractive traits
Inside this circle many smaller circles labeled as every other trait that is attractive to women, ,such as height, social power, financial power, leadership, style, handsome face, good physique, athletic ability, wit, charm, and confidence. All the smaller domains can intersect with any of the other domains.
Some people are not actually capable of visualizing such domains of attraction, and in their mind can only legitimize one or a few of them as being real, or else they conflate many domains to being aspects of other domains, for instance saying that height is actually a circle inside the circle of confidence, because height makes you confident and if you are confident you don’t need height.
Some people never learned their kindergarten math lessons, and don’t care to. Emotional thinking has sufficed up through to their adult years.
So called adult years.
Suggest other labels in the comments or better yet email me your diagrams. Go ahead and make a comprehensive list of all variables. We need to include criminal propensity in there somewhere. And it would be more fun to have labels for some of the intersecting traits, such as mastermind drug dealer, lawyer, Roosh, etc.