ALPHABET SOUP:

I found a peculiar chart online. This details the distinction between the alpha-male and beta-male paradigm in such a manner that exposes most clearly the dark underpinnings of this otherwise popular class structure.

What stood out to me at first was this: most of the qualities associated with the beta are actually relatively positive and favourable qualities. Some of them are so intrinsic to the common sense of human life that one feels strange defending them: on one hand, I feel like I’m stating the obvious; on the other, I wonder what believing it to be obvious says about me.

Some of these are intrinsic to a healthy psyche, whereas the alternatives are red flags for narcissism and other personality disorders, including one that literally defines an alpha as narcissistic. Additionally, most of the beta traits are often listed as social skills conducive to healthy relationships, such as the ability to negotiate, the ability to appease, and the willingness to agree. Tolerance of offense, listed as “disrespect”, is ostensibly a beta trait, though it is essential to a healthy ego. 

Most of these are rationally self-evident; for instance, most men who are not self-entitled infants understand that you can’t make everyone like and respect you, since people are far too diverse and complex to accommodate that sort of egocentric fantasy. Even “neuroticism” looks good by contrast with narcissism, and we know from history that the former produces far more interesting works of art and literature. 

In summary, the “beta” traits seem to be those which any rational, willful woman would desire in a mate, and it follows logically that the amateur psychologists who profess the alpha traits are operating under the presumption that women are neither rational nor naturally willful. This implies that these men have not only projected their own feminine tendencies outward, upon women, but as a result their relationships have suffered so tremendously that they seldom meet a REAL woman who forces them to confront their delusions. You know these sorts of people; within minutes of meeting them, you can tell what they are about to say, and when you learn that they have trouble sleeping at night, haunted by dreams of women who had been raped, you know why, smirking inwardly, for they must learn the meaning of that dream for themselves.

Finally, there is the question of accountability. The writer listed as “Rollo” seems to corroborate this recent tendency for corporate executives to treat work and love by analogy to some sort of a “performance”. (Quite apparently, Shakespeare’s Hamlet is not classified as a performance, since most of Prince Hamlet’s finest monologues and soliloquys are expressions of “beta” tendencies and attitudes, i.e. the Romantic Ideal.) There is a tendency for narcissistic men to forget that in any system their ability to make decisions depends directly upon decisions made by others. It follows logically that the best way to manage a team is to hold every constituent equally responsible for the common welfare, for this alone can motivate every member to see projects through to completion. While a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, this does not permit team players to simply lead a witch-hunt against members whom THEY perceive to be weak, for comparison with others is indicative of the team member’s losing sight of the goal. That being said, it’s obvious that when one points the finger one has three more pointing back, in most cases, and if one wishes to find the TRUE enemies of social welfare, one has only to wait; they have a way of revealing their weaknesses.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]