"Alpha male" discourse thread. ๐งต
Something I have written about in the past is how we have a pop-cultural idea of the "alpha male" that is basically linked entirely to physical appearance and vibes.
I'll leave this article here as a reference:
datepsychology.com
I'll leave this article here as a reference:
datepsychology.com
Here is a comment in the thread above that kind of overlaps with this I want to use as an example:
Professions associated with a highly masculine image are "alpha" in this case - even when they represent men who would be, or are, among the lowest status in society (blue collar, security, miners).
Note I'm not dunking on these important jobs - just describing where they fall in the social class structure.
This is important, because "alpha" when used to describe primate behavior usually refers to the dominant male of the group.
This is important, because "alpha" when used to describe primate behavior usually refers to the dominant male of the group.
In any "alpha" thread per above, there will be a bunch of people talking about wolves:
"The wolf study wasn't real bro alphas totally don't exist."
This may or may not be true, but primatologists do use "alpha" to describe the male and female leaders of primate groups.
"The wolf study wasn't real bro alphas totally don't exist."
This may or may not be true, but primatologists do use "alpha" to describe the male and female leaders of primate groups.
Interestingly, primatologist Franz de Waal observed that alpha chimpanzees often are not the most physically robust nor the most aggressive. But they do tend to show prosocial behavior.
Meanwhile, antisocial alphas get basically overthrown.
Meanwhile, antisocial alphas get basically overthrown.
That is another feature of the primate alpha, at least in chimps: it is "alphaness" by consensus.
They only rule as long as the group allows it.
And they walk a line between being dominant and cooperative.
They only rule as long as the group allows it.
And they walk a line between being dominant and cooperative.
I suspect one of the reasons we might link certain careers with "alphaness" is because they highlight a mix of toughness and prosocial behavior.
Although, people regularly call highly antisocial tough guys "alphas" too. Again, pure vibes.
Although, people regularly call highly antisocial tough guys "alphas" too. Again, pure vibes.
If I were to rewrite my article now, I might include more on evolutionary mismatch.
The idea that our evolved traits and behaviors don't entirely line up with the modern environment in an adaptive fashion.
The idea that our evolved traits and behaviors don't entirely line up with the modern environment in an adaptive fashion.
The men who are "alphas" today in a primatology sense often don't overlap with men commonly cited as "alpha" based on vibes.
For example, politicians and billionaires are rarely called alpha - despite being the biggest leaders and most socially dominant men on the planet.
For example, politicians and billionaires are rarely called alpha - despite being the biggest leaders and most socially dominant men on the planet.
At scale, men in small leadership positions probably don't consistently fit the image of alpha either.
For example, is the middle manager more alpha than the office worker?
Is the foreman more alpha than the men doing physical labor under him?
For example, is the middle manager more alpha than the office worker?
Is the foreman more alpha than the men doing physical labor under him?
Perhaps in an ancestral environment, we would see more overlap between physical traits and dominance or leadership than we do today.
Not a bad hypothesis, but I think support for it is mixed.
Not a bad hypothesis, but I think support for it is mixed.
In some primates it seems to be the case (gorillas), in many others, including those most closely related to us, the relationship between physical strength and leadership is less pronounced.
The degree to which the biggest brute dominantes a social group seems to vary a lot within and between hunter-gatherer society as well.
Sometimes these are used as an indication of what ancestral social structures might have been like.
Sometimes these are used as an indication of what ancestral social structures might have been like.
Selection for intelligence and cooperative behavior over sexual dimorphism, aggression and male robustness might also indicate where these traits might fall in order of importance.
I watched a documentary on the Hadza hunter-gatherers at some point and although kind of anecdotal to that specific group, I didn't notice a lot of difference in physical dimorphism between the man. They looked pretty similar to one another.
Going back to chimpanzees, family lines and ties also seem to play a large role in who would be within a dominant position. Dominant males and dominant females tend to be related to one another.
This is probably also the case for men in leadership positions of traditional patriarchal societies in European history. Basically the sociopolitical dominance of a family, rather than an individual.
A lot about the organization of modern society doesn't seem to lend itself well to these early human or primate models.
The individual man in Western society is often very isolated. Perhaps not as subject to a single overarching social dominance hierarchy.
The individual man in Western society is often very isolated. Perhaps not as subject to a single overarching social dominance hierarchy.
Instead, people are usually subject to multiple hierarchies that are distributed. They may be overlapping or entirely independent from one another.
The rigidity of these hierarchies also varies a lot.
The rigidity of these hierarchies also varies a lot.
Increasingly, women outrank men in these hierarchies. This is not very far from primate models either. High-ranking female chimpanzees also hold more status than low ranking males in groups. At the top levels we tend to see more male dominance.
So "alphas don't exist" probably isn't the correct take if we're discussing it this way. Across human society, we still see hierarchy and a struggle for status. This occurs at the macro level, as well as within the smallest social groups.
But the "alpha" caricature, the archetype people hold in their minds, also seems fairly divorced from this. Rather than describing actual status or leadership, it is wrapped up in cultivating a desired image or vibe.
The image is packaged, marketed and sold btw. For $500, you too can become an alpha male:
I think who this appeals to is largely not men who are seeking status, but who are having some kind of crisis with their own masculinity. Perhaps, men who feel physically weak or intimidated by others. Men who realize they don't fit the image, but want to.
It certainly will not increase your social status to attend one of these alpha male boot camps.
Lifting weights, similarly, is promoted as "alpha-enhancing."
It also won't increase your status, but it can bring you in line with a more conventionally masculine image perhaps.
Lifting weights, similarly, is promoted as "alpha-enhancing."
It also won't increase your status, but it can bring you in line with a more conventionally masculine image perhaps.
Loading suggestions...