Alpha Male v Beta v Omega v Lone Wolf
- Thread starter bickelz
- Start date
SWAG SWAG SWAG
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDhMkERg3qo"]YouTube - OFWGKTA LIVE ON JIMMY FALLON[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDhMkERg3qo"]YouTube - OFWGKTA LIVE ON JIMMY FALLON[/ame]
Does anyone know if any studies have been conducted between alpha males and penis size? If so I'm pretty sure I'm an alpha. JK. Not! My penis is huge.
Samesies
I wholeheartedly agree with your definitions. You very accurately, succinctly, and appropriately defined these terms. *win*
I'm alpha or lone wolf. I'm good with a lot of groups of people, but I don't entangle myself enough to be a legitimate part of the group, at least until I really get to know and like the dynamic.
When I do, I don't like to be walked on. I like things to be efficient. I feel it's most beneficial for everyone if things go smoothly, and I often go out of the way to make that happen. If someone wants to act like they're in charge, I'll often let them, but I'll still be doing most of the actual administrative stuff -- I don't need to be a figurehead, I need to kick ass. That's how I roll.
When I do, I don't like to be walked on. I like things to be efficient. I feel it's most beneficial for everyone if things go smoothly, and I often go out of the way to make that happen. If someone wants to act like they're in charge, I'll often let them, but I'll still be doing most of the actual administrative stuff -- I don't need to be a figurehead, I need to kick ass. That's how I roll.
If people are mirroring other Betas, Omegas, Lonewolfs, then how does one be the Alpha? I'm not sure what you mean.
------
I think that there is a bias that people do not want fess up to being a beta because it is somehow seen as "less" so they are labeling themselves as lone wolves, because they seem special.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Mm, not exactly. A king will still be aiming to serve his people -- he will just be proactive about it through his larger plans and actions
But would an Alpha be content to let someone else believe they were in charge?
It seemed to me that Alphas need to appear to be in control.
If we're basing this on animal behavior, I can't think of an Alpha that lets a subordinate assume leadership.
But, then again I kind of think this whole Alpha/Beta/Omega thing in regards to humans isn't entirely realistic.
It seemed to me that Alphas need to appear to be in control.
If we're basing this on animal behavior, I can't think of an Alpha that lets a subordinate assume leadership.
But, then again I kind of think this whole Alpha/Beta/Omega thing in regards to humans isn't entirely realistic.
A Beta king yes. An Alpha is serving himself regardless of how it affects others.
That's if you go strictly by that definition. As far as a hierarchy goes, a totally self-serving leader would not be able to properly support the group that it is leading -- probably why fascism isn't very popular anymore
Here's my view point on it. We are sort of beyond the alpha, beta, male thing. It still holds some truth regardless, but the world is networked universally now. Language allows us to share ideas, and we aren't limited to a hundred or so calls like monkeys are. So basically it's more complex than here I'm going to dominate my group and whatever I do goes etc. We have laws to abide by. If a monkey gets out of line in a group he/she could be severely punished. While humans have some type of law backing them. And we aren't confined to one tribe, we have a lot of little tribes, and the whole human pop. is evolving to a network of one vast tribe. Anyway I'm just going to switch gears and call an "alpha male" a leader. There's different types of leadership imo. The one you are asking about sounds like a puppet master. They pull strings. It sounds bad, but it could also be good. So yeah, there are types of leaders like that. Shared leadership works best imo. Like if you have a good group of heads in an aristocracy they promote the best kinds of change imo.
I agree. I think that people are beyond the simplistic Alpha, Beta, Omega thing.Here's my view point on it. We are sort of beyond the alpha, beta, male thing. It still holds some truth regardless, but the world is networked universally now. Language allows us to share ideas, and we aren't limited to a hundred or so calls like monkeys are. So basically it's more complex than here I'm going to dominate my group and whatever I do goes etc. We have laws to abide by. If a monkey gets out of line in a group he/she could be severely punished. While humans have some type of law backing them. And we aren't confined to one tribe, we have a lot of little tribes, and the whole human pop. is evolving to a network of one vast tribe. Anyway I'm just going to switch gears and call an "alpha male" a leader. There's different types of leadership imo. The one you are asking about sounds like a puppet master. They pull strings. It sounds bad, but it could also be good. So yeah, there are types of leaders like that. Shared leadership works best imo. Like if you have a good group of heads in an aristocracy they promote the best kinds of change imo.
We're more socially complex than that. We're not wolves.
There are theories of different styles of leadership, though.. based on communication research...and a leader isn't always "Alpha" or super aggressive about their position.
It's probably more relevant to ask which style of leadership one identifies with.... or if one prefers to let others lead. I have no qualms about letting others lead if they have more knowledge and skill than I do about whatever it is we're working on. If I see that I have more knowledge or skill, then I lead.
Here's a link to different leadership styles.
A self-quiz to determine your leadership style.
I got "Info" with "Referent" power second.
Last edited:
I don't think "alphas" have to be domineering or self serving, or even use any means of force to exert their power. It can merely be a position of high regard and influence. Leaders can be loved and feared. They can genuinely care about and desire to protect and serve those "underneath" them.
I would choose "none of the above", though that option isn't given. I would hate to be in a dominance hierarchy, whether as a leader or as a follower, simply because both positions at best limit and at worst cripple all individuals involved.
How would you classify "wolves" that adhered to ruling by council? What if said "wolves" refused to nominate or accept leaders?
How would you classify "wolves" that adhered to ruling by council? What if said "wolves" refused to nominate or accept leaders?