Middle Class Alpha Interlude

This weekend was a little hectic and I didn’t get a chance to do part 4 of the Middle Class Alpha series. Which means I won’t be able to do it until next Monday, although I may do some smaller unrelated posts in the meantime. But rather than leave you with nothing, I thought I’d take this chance to respond to some feedback to the series so far.

Over at Roissy’s blog someone left this comment:

Tbone at the Rawness wrote a piece on the Myth of The Middle Class Alpha Male that pretty much tore your whole frame up. Roissy as an office worker you can never be anything BUT a Beta Male. At this point the amount of pussy you get by exploiting psychology, or the amount you don’t get because of bad genetics, poor conditioning and role models, etc, is irrelevant to the equation.

If you are a middle class, salary earning chump, you’re a Beta. Period.

This guy misses it. My point in this series wasn’t to say that everyone in the middle class is doomed to be nothing but beta. That buys into the idea that it’s a totally binary scale where everyone either must be a total alpha or a total beta, and that everyone who doesn’t squarely fall into the former category must automatically fall into the latter, a notion I disagree with. Just because I say a middle class person can’t survive and prosper in the long run trying to behave like a pure alpha, that doesn’t mean I think middle class men are therefore doomed to betadom as a result. I think of each individual person’s character as a recipe, with a mix of alpha ingredients and beta ingredients. Very few people are purely made up of alpha ingredients or purely made up of beta ingredients. A middle class man’s best option is to become as alpha as he can without becoming so alpha that he starts receiving the negative consequences that come in our society from being too alpha. On the flip side, if a man is super alpha and trying to work his way up the social ladder and navigate the politics of working for a living in the middle class or is trying to maintain a conventional long-term middle class marriage, he needs to learn to become more beta, but not so beta that he starts receiving the negative consequences that come with that state.

RooshV’s forum discussed the series, and poster Quasi said the following:

I think the article is mediocre..

I agree its context related and the word is really overly used to the degree of nonsense hip word, that is doesnt even constitute a meaning anymore. Its obvious that the original meaning of the word in the animal kingdom refers to the packleader and since human society is way more context related only gods like Brad Pitt etc, would be able to pull of alpha status everywhere. Alpha isnt about being in prison, thats wrong in my book, that just being stupid.

Its a hype word more than its really usefull for anything… alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon all depends on our contexts

its that kinda shit that hapends when you let happy, go lucky ignorant americans with alot of bullshit words and peacock bluff misuse words for personal gains. Evolution is also widely misunderstood and often seen in totally wrong context trying to validate BS humanistic crap teorries.

So get a pack of schoolkids and rule..be the alpha, shouldnt be too hard to get a few boosterboxes of pokemon cards and rule their world or even better get some dogs, your their alpha pretty easy.

This is where Quasi also misses the point. Yes on a micro level in any small group there will always be an alpha or a leader within that small group. But acknowledging that in no way debunks my theories about uberalphas, the men who are alphas on a macro level. These are the men who are major movers and shakers on a larger scale and on a more prominent stage. These men are humankinds closest equivalent to some of the animal kingdom’s usual definitions of alpha. Quasi inadvertently makes my point at the exact time he’s trying to claim it’s mediocre. The point about context-based alphadom is what I was getting at when discussing middle-class men. Context-based alphadom in their groups is the best they can and should aspire to if they want to survive and prosper in the long run, at least while still in middle class status. Hence this point I made in part 2 of the series:

most middle class men that are successful with women aren’t true alphas in the historical evolutionary sense. They’re alphas in a relative sense, when compared to other middle-class men in their social circles.

This is the same point he’s making in his example of the kids in the school yard with Pokemon cards, where on a micro level within that small group one kid is the most alpha. I already made that point.

When he says “human society is way more context related” he is making the mistake of taking what the norm is in industrialized, modern Western society and calling it the norm for society worldwide or throughout history. In more despotic places with a weak or nonexistent middle class, definitions of alpha are not really that nuanced at all.

My point in the series is the same point that the exact point that he claims I miss. That the comforts allowed by our modern, industrialized human societies with their strong middle-class and property rights and high standard of living allow us the comfort of being satisfied and content with being alpha in much more nuanced, subtle, context-based ways. And for these reasons, we no longer need to believe we only have worth if we achieve uberalpha status on a macrolevel, or that any failure to achieve uberalpha status on a macrolevel necessarily means we must be sniveling, worthless betas by default.

Later in the forum College Game says the following:

He had me with the first two, well written, and part of the conclusion, be in part three the guy just sounds like a fascist.

And in the comments to one of the original posts, Gil says the following:

What a lame article! Advocating monogamy here really means one thing: pussy socialism. “I can’t get a hawt women because I don’t have the qualifications therefore every guy should be restricted to one woman so the pussy can be evenly spread around.” Yeah right! There’s plenty of fuglies who are not part of any Alpha’s harem who’ll quite happily settle down with a Beta loser however he wants the beautiful Alpha women during their prime years.

Both these guys assume I’m prescribing things, saying how society should be, when I’m actually just describing things, saying how I think things have been and currently are. I don’t beleive I advocated either monogamy and democracy or on the opposite end advocated fascism and polygamy. I just described how we moved from one state of affairs to another while describing the pros and cons of both systems.

What I find especially amusing is Gil’s comment, and his assumption that because he presumably cleans up in the women department in this modern, industrialized era, he’d be one of the polygamous uberalpha overlords if he existed in the older eras I described. The social mobility we have today was virtually nonexistent then, especially for men, no matter how much personal ambition you may have personally had. You usually needed an accident of birth just to get your foot in the door, and then and only then did your personal attributes, self-discipline and determination matter. And the bigshots back then had way more power and control than bigshots do today. People in charge didn’t have term limits, an IRS taxing them or checks and balances keeping them honest, government agencies penalizing them for accumulating too much power and forming monopolies, nothing like that. Knocking off the top dog in that environment and getting a shot at reproduction with a quality woman was a much bigger challenge in that environment than in today’s. According to Matt Ridley’s book Red Queen, even men who have the qualities to be very successful with women in our modern society would likely die childless or be forced to mate with uglies and fatties in the older despotic environments.

17 Responses to “Middle Class Alpha Interlude”

  1. People presuming that your prescribing things is a common thread! I question if people truly read and comprehend what you write. People take one or two sentences outta context and try to discredit your whole article. Probably because those people have more of an interest in pick up than they do in human nature in general and so they read your article from a pua perspective instead of a completely objective perspective.

  2. Social mobility was highly limited. The two best ways to move up societal ladder if you are ambitious and driven enough is through the ARMY or the PRIESTHOOD.
    Or, if you are truly one talented son of a bitch, become an artist and hopefully, get a patron.

    Solid, solid work on these series, T-RAW. This is why i read your stuff.

  3. One more thing: You really dont have to be soo modest, T. You are simply smarter than all of them. I can imagine how this must really itch and get under the skin of some of those HBD bitches. hahaha.

    I hope none of your relatives/family members are affected by the earthquake.

    Peace out,

  4. Being a middle class Alpha is no diffult task. The qualities that would enable a caveman to be an alpha can be useful in our modern American city. However, they are not really necessary. Seeing pussies getting pussy is normal.

  5. While I find these articles insightful, there are two problems, I think:

    1) He is making what is really, a very simple point, in a very long, drawn out way. ‘Society has tamed us, we are no longer ‘true alpha males’ in the caveman sense.’

    2) Much more importantly, it doesn’t seem as though this is knowledge any of us can use in our daily lives to benefit from.

  6. T is putting our current definition of Alpha male in context. His posts are thorough (wordy, if you’re being cynical), but in order to make his point, he’s making the distinction between Alphas in a less pussified society to our present day “Alpha male.”

    I have a hard time with criticizing the work as a whole before all the posts are up.

  7. 1) He is making what is really, a very simple point, in a very long, drawn out way. ‘Society has tamed us, we are no longer ‘true alpha males’ in the caveman sense.’

    There are several reasons why the pieces are long. I like to put a lot of supporting scientific evidence, quotes from experts and historical examples when making a case. Because when I don’t do it in the post, a bunch of commenters will say in the comments “where’s the science?” and “what you say goes against what any self-respecting experts say” and “what you say doesn’t match up to history.” Therefore I try to address and disarm any predictable counterarguments in advance before they’re actually made. And I like to be repetitive because you’d be surprised how often people misinterpret what you mean if you’re not. Hell, even if you do repeat your point over and over again.

    2) Much more importantly, it doesn’t seem as though this is knowledge any of us can use in our daily lives to benefit from.

    If you believe this and this is the extent of your imagination, then you’re right, YOU can’t use this knowledge in your daily life or benefit from it. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. But speak only for yourself and don’t use “us.” Give the rest of the readers some credit.

  8. Mr. T,
    Wonderful observations. I always enjoy your writing. I agree that many people don’t understand your approach. We are flooded with opinions and ads, all of which tell us how things should be. Almost no one slows down to dispassionately investigate how things actually are–or “were,” historically. But keeping that open mind is the only way we can learn about the world. For more of this fresh air, read Machiavelli and Robert Greene.

    I’m tempted to point out that being an actual archaic alpha male [in the extremely unlikely event that you had the chance] was no picnic. However, that’s irrelevant, because it’s not the world we live in. You rightly point out that our options are safer and generally more pleasant.

    I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that we can’t use these observations to live more effectively [as Anonymous did], but I do want to encourage you to focus on that specifically. I’m sure you’ll have something valuable to say on the subject.

  9. Conqueror, thanks for the feedback. I have no problem with Anonymous saying he specifically can’t get anything out of it. To each his own. I was more annoyed by him using the word “us.” He shouldn’t presume to speak for everyone.

    Anyway, I don’t want to specifically spell out what can be derived from these observations right away, one of the things with this blog I want to train people to do is learn how to think, not just follow whatever I tell them, so I don’t always lead off with the practical advice. But I will move more in the direction of practical advice as the series starts to wrap up.

  10. Not that T is doing this, but stretching a metaphor too far breaks it. A classical Alpha Male was the leader of the pack; an idea that makes no sense without a pack or a hierarchy. The characteristics of dominance aren’t limited to the Alpha, but the Alpha had the most. And virtually all men are submissive; to more dominant men. That doesn’t make them women.

    The Seduction artists picked it up since it ties into displays of superior value. Eventually the whole Greek alphabet has become shorthand for a whole lot of stuff having nothing to do with male hierarchies, and now it’s little more then compliments and insults. Real progress.

  11. The Seduction artists picked it up since it ties into displays of superior value. Eventually the whole Greek alphabet has become shorthand for a whole lot of stuff having nothing to do with male hierarchies, and now it’s little more then compliments and insults. Real progress.

    I totally agree with this. It’s a big problem I see, which is why I wanted to do this series. This belief that anything positive must be categorized as “alpha” and anything negative must be “beta” has led to a lot of inconsistent and downright contradictory commentary that I thought needed addressing. Sometimes the alpha response to a situation is the downright wrong or stupid option, sometimes the beta response is the better, smarter option. We live in a society that requires us to be a judicious blend of the two.

  12. T, you’re reframing A/B according to strategy, rather then base nature. That’s helpful; one can act Alpha or Beta, as need dictates.

    I see you like having words mean things. That’s why you’ll never be rich! 🙂

    To get back to nature, so to speak, how about this: Alphas are men who, despite having to occasionally display submissiveness to get along in modern society, chafe under it. They detest it and seek a way to mitigate or reduce it. But a Beta has no trouble with submissiveness and would probably be horrified to be in charge of other men.

  13. To get back to nature, so to speak, how about this: Alphas are men who, despite having to occasionally display submissiveness to get along in modern society, chafe under it. They detest it and seek a way to mitigate or reduce it. But a Beta has no trouble with submissiveness and would probably be horrified to be in charge of other men

    This is definitely a step in the right direction, but I don’t think true alphas are very good at displaying submissiveness. They’re almost self-destructive and shortsighted in their inability to humble themselves. That’s why I think in modern times so many of them end up on the jail track early on in life, or society can only tolerate their strong-willed ways because they are part of the social elite and can get away with it better.

    The person who is for the most part alpha but can navigate modern society expertly and strategically by displaying betaness when called for is what I refer to as a Renaissance or Evolved man. This is what I’m going into more with Part 4, which I think may count as that practical advice some people say is missing from this series.

  14. Also, in reference to Anonymous’s point below:

    1) He is making what is really, a very simple point, in a very long, drawn out way. ‘Society has tamed us, we are no longer ‘true alpha males’ in the caveman sense.’

    That’s not the point. The point is that modern society as we know it is a tradeoff. We give up the chance to become the biggest alphas we were capable of being in past societies in exchange for a safety net that keeps us from becoming the sexless, womanless, utterly powerless betas we were also capable of becoming in those past societies. Modern society is the collective decision to give up the potential heights of accomplishment in exchange for guaranteeing none of us will ever have to experience the ultimate in shitty existence either.

    Therefore the men’s groups who complain over and over about how modern society has tamed alphadom and feminism ruined things for men are being shortsighted because they’re losing sight of the ways modern society, despite being emasculating on the surface, actually has improved the living conditions of men on average across the board.

  15. Great series, T! Looking forward to the rest of it.

    A point to ponder regarding this:

    We give up the chance to become the biggest alphas we were capable of being in past societies in exchange for a safety net that keeps us from becoming the sexless, womanless, utterly powerless betas we were also capable of becoming in those past societies. Modern society is the collective decision to give up the potential heights of accomplishment in exchange for guaranteeing none of us will ever have to experience the ultimate in shitty existence either.

    Would it be equally valid to say that we buy into this due to the ‘bigger pie’ idea? By that I mean that while no one gets the whole pie, the pie as a whole is increased enough that every single piece is larger than the entire pie was before we bought into modern society.

  16. I think that’s a totally fair, alternative way of expressing it Kenny. Like in the old ways, if the size of the pie increased, the big men just gobbled up more slices. In modern society, as you said, when the whole pie is increased, things are set up so that everyone’s slice of pie gets bigger.

    I can buy that.

  17. Agree with most of what you’ve written except this

    “And the bigshots back then had way more power and control than bigshots do today. People in charge didn’t have term limits, an IRS taxing them or checks and balances keeping them honest, government agencies penalizing them for accumulating too much power and forming monopolies, nothing like that.”

    The biggest bigshots today actually own the IRS, governments etc. They do this in secret however and we don’t really know who these people are.

    As for sexual access, they might not have an official harem rather a secret continually changing one.