![]() Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don't have a lot of illusions about them either. At the party, they are the loud guy's friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.īeta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren't as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. ![]() At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. ![]() The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. Do you see these descriptions reflected in everyday dating or relationship dynamics? Do you see yourself more as dominant or submissive or a mix of the two? What would you see as the flaw in the theory if you someone adheres to this too rigidly? Which figures in society, pop culture, or media do think are good examples of each type?īelow are three descriptions I found which are similar but also a bit different, showing how the archetypes are being understood differently depending on the person and the reasoning used to rationalize the theory.Īlpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. Many seem to find the descriptions helpful, somewhat accurate, and use the descriptions to find compatible partners when dating and to manage dominant/submissive relationship dynamics. Various sites especially forums have people who have written their own versions of each archetype. ![]() What do you think of this theory of behavior (usually ascribed to males but could also fit women)? Do you think there's validity to the theory? If so or not, please explain why or why not. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |