The supposed 'Alpha' and 'Beta' male distinction

Doesn't work.

As in this set there are only two types.

When I was in an interview for a job which I got a while ago, one of the psychometric tests, was a personality test, I can't remember what it was called; but in the test there are like 30 different types.

I came up as "The Visionary" which is a lawyer type.

Agreed with the above posts.

I'm a woman who is a big fan of men and masculinity in all positive expressions and forms.

Alpha and beta are, of course, ludicrously over simplified and a display of excessive binary thinking. It's pitching one against the other, denoting superiority/inferiority, and is based on a totally inadequate set of criteria. It's similar to saying 'if you don't support American foreign policy, then you must be a Taliban groupie' 'you're either with us or against us' 'you're either gay or straight' Well no, actually. Reality is far more complex and multicoloured.

I kinda feel sorry for many young boys growing up in such a dumbed down system, who are conditioned to fit an overly restrictive cookie-cutter shape of what a man is. That must feel so restrictive for them, and it negatively impacts upon us all.

My life is filled with all types of men who are confident in themselves, loving, smart, caring, powerful badasses, and quite frankly they're all flippin' magic. Not one of them would be prepared to be limited by inane 'alpha' or 'beta' labels.

The alpha-beta male distinction is a term used in zoology applied to animals which generally have some form of social structure like pack mentality, often patriarchal dominance which influences mate selection. In primates it's found in various species, but not all primates, and certainly not all species, exhibit some form of alpha-beta social stratification in regards to sexual selection.

In fact, primate social structures show great diversification -- some are matriarchal, some are egalitarian, and of course some are patriarchal. The alpha-beta theory in humans is based off an inherent idea that human society is and must be patriarchal; it is the idea that dominant males rule over both inferior males and over any females in their social circles, but his simply doesn't have to be, nor I would argue is it, the case in contemporary Western human culture.

The perpetuation of the idea that there are alpha and beta males in Western informational mediums probably influences women and men alike to believe that there are such social stratification in humans, thus having the effect that men exhibit competitive behaviors and are taught to be assertive and dominant and competitive while women are taught to be submissive and to sexually aspire most to mate with what is socially considered a ''dominant male''. But actually, studies show girls can be as dominant and aggressive as boys, and boys as placid and gentle as girls. Naturally, girls and boys are fairly equal in temperament, and what we have as adults is a result of social conditioning.

Of course, there are grounds found in the study of human societies both past and present to indicate not only that the definitions of what is a ''dominant male'' change dramatically -- sometimes incorporating diametrically opposite personality characteristics (in many Eastern cultures self-contentment and humility are more desirable than insatiable drive and exuberant confidence, and even between American society and British society there is a discernible difference in the level of brashness in men) -- but that in fact many societies in human history did not exist upon ideals of patriarchy, rather egalitarianism or even matriarchy.

Modern Western society does hold a general idea of what makes a desirable mate but this idea is by absolutely no means consistent across all human cultures, therefore it should not be considered as the standard sexual selection process in all humans.

Alpha-beta value attribution may very well be the natural selection process of humans, but we don't have any way to know for sure.

First of all, you're probably going to need some kind of surgery after swallowing that thesaurus. I'm surprised you're actually alive still.

Secondly, I think them categories are way too oversimplified. Just like women, men have a massive emotional range. Some are confident straight away, some are over-confident, some are confident only in certain situations, and some just aren't as confident as the aforementioned.
Besides, I think alpha and beta are terrible terms to use, as it suggests that one is inferior to the other. If somebody isn't as confident as another person, does that make them inferior?

First of all, you're probably going to need some kind of surgery after swallowing that thesaurus. I'm surprised you're actually alive still.

Secondly, I think them categories are way too oversimplified. Just like women, men have a massive emotional range. Some are confident straight away, some are over-confident, some are confident only in certain situations, and some just aren't as confident as the aforementioned.
Besides, I think alpha and beta are terrible terms to use, as it suggests that one is inferior to the other. If somebody isn't as confident as another person, does that make them inferior?

lol you are definitely a beta

Alpha and beta are natural states of being brah - it comes from the animal kingdom. Do you want to be the alpha male that has the harem of female gorillas or do you want to be the beta the females throw their crap at?

I'd rather be the guy with a nice wife and a nice family who wears a Savile Row suit. The apes can keep their bananas and feces

ah yeh, but you're more likely to have those things if you're alpha than if your beta...any way that has nothing to do this discussion