I am just been lazy here. I am going to copy from a reply I made on a Roissy thread. The subject was one that sometimes is a topic of discussion over there: the alpha male.
I am not sure that many people read my comments. Both were held in moderation and so first appeared in the middle of older comments not at the end as normal. Of course, it could be because the comments were not that interesting. The important thing is that it allows me add a new post with little work.
Below is a barely edited version of my comments on the thread. I provide links to the thread as well as my and other comments.
I believe that the alpha male is one that can dominate other males. In the animal kingdom such domination automatically leads to access to females. The confusion is the human world is the relative level of wooing needed towards the female by the male. Because of the relative level of wooing needed by the female, men that can dominate other men can fail to attract females (they lack wooing skills). Men that cannot dominate other men, can practice those wooing skills and have success. Chivalrous and romantic or idealized notions probably have harmed many an alpha male in that endeavor.
Roissy poster Thursday has proposed separating the two types (high status versus high mate value). I still believe that a true alpha male is on that can dominate other men, regardless of his romantic success. Many of those alphas just need to learn game or unlearn unhealthy beliefs.
Some claim that my definition confuses but I think the PUA definition is what confuses. Their advice goes: to be successful with women act like an alpha male. They then define an alpha male as one who is successful with women.
I think more people (who have not been introduced to the PUAsphere definition) would go with my definition. More men would have an instinctive understanding of the type of man who can dominate others than type of man who is good with women. That lack of understanding is precisely why they read books, attend seminars, and come to sites like Roissy’s).
The dominates-other-men definition probably makes it clearer why a man who is wealthy and has social status is not necessarily alpha. Many managment and professional types with fit this category. Their power over other men comes from a position gained by
More men will have a chance to watch a leader-of-men alpha at work than a successful seducer. Most men probably have a good sense of where they fit on the dominance hierarchy but much less (we tend to trumpet or achievements and downplay our failures) on the seduction hierarchy.
If you want to fake the markers of an alpha man you need to have some understanding of those markers. I think the dominates-other-men version gives a better start to that.
Seduction is a skill, it is not in itself, a mark of a man. Just as learning to draw, paint, or sing well does not in itself make a man alpha, neither does learning seduction.
What I like about the leader-of-men description is that it lays bare the uncomfortable fact that been alpha (or a good seducer) is not just a skill, it is a talent. Some people will have it and others will never be terribly good no matter how hard they work. The PUAsphere definition focuses on the skill but, in a blank slate manner, leaves out the talent. I suppose that is good if it prevents a young man becoming too discouraged but it may lead to frustration when his results do not match his work.
I will grant that the PUAsphere usage is a useful shorthand. In most cases, the context will make what version is intended clear. Perhaps you could look at it as my version is inner game, the PUA version is outer game.