Commenter Marellus ask me over at The Rational Male to explain the idea that women are able to discern a man’s status in the Alpha/Beta hierarchy in just a few moments. As I can’t take everyone out into the wild to demonstrate how a woman perceives a man simply by watching him I am going to present you with some pictures. Let’s start with some obvious ones:
The top picture obviously presents a Beta male. One of the biggest ways women identify a man’s standing is through body language. First, look at the way he is looking at the girl. Yes, there is some mirth in his eyes, but coupled with the angle of his back, the way he is holding his arms and his hands and also the turn of his head, he reads as too eager and hopeful. He reads as someone who is trying very hard to be nice and stepping back to give the woman her own space to decide if she might just give him a shot. There is no look of a man pursuing this woman. Only a man who is hoping that he might just be graced with her company. She rather looks like she is laughing at him. I don’t think she really is, in the sense that he is not good enough for her, but it is a possibility with this photo.
The bottom obviously represents the Alpha male. His body language is completely different. He’s laid back, literally. He is looking at the camera as if to say, look at me and look at what found me. The woman is on him and is putting herself in his arms while he simply lets her be there. He is enjoying her company, but his enjoyment is not dependent on this woman. He even looks slightly annoyed while she is completely wrapped up in him and isn’t aware of much else going on.
Now, I realize that those pictures were very easy so I present you with a couple of other pictures that are not as straightforward.
In the top picture, the man is tall and he is fairly broad shouldered, but I read this guy as being overly beta. It is in his eyes, which have no intensity and it is in the slight tilt of his head and body toward his girl. Most Alphas will let the girl lean into him and he will stand/sit up straight and look at the camera with some kind of humor, bravado, confidence or intensity in his eyes. This man seems a bit confident, but too much of it appears to come from the girl.
The man in the bottom picture really could be either Alpha or Beta. However, the way he is looking into the camera with a confident, full smile and the way she seems completely enamored with him and utterly happy to have him in her arms, is very Alpha to me.
The thing to remember is that these men really could be Alpha or Beta and in the moment the camera captured the image, they were not in their normal frame. It happens to everyone. Now, I realize I did not really answer Marellus’ question but I thought a demonstration might help. What a woman garners about a man in about a minute and a half to three minutes will be the impression that she is left with for quite some time. It is very possible to change this perception, in either direction (though it will be easier to alter your perception Beta rather thank Alpha), but it will take some fairly big event or quite a bit of time to alter it, especially in the Alpha direction.
Heartiste had a more in depth post about this (likely even more than one) some time ago but I was not able to find it. It would answer the question more aptly than I have here as I think the article may have even been based on some scientific evidence, but I could not find it. If anyone can remember this post and leave it in the comments I believe it may do a better job explaining what I attempted to demonstrate here.
YOHAMI said:
Yup.
Leap of a Beta said:
The body posture and space thing is fairly easy to imitate. I’ve got it down pat at this point. The hardest thing is eye contact and intensity. Both communicating when you don’t care about the woman because of your status, but also when you’re…. intrigued…. by her. When she has captured your attention and communicating that she has that attention and showing the nature of your intents through eye contact.
If it sounds complicated, it’s because it is. And from what I can tell its extremely difficult to get down and, unlike body posture, can’t be faked even half way. Even beta’s can occasionally capture great, exciting eye contact with women. It’s simply rarer for them because they’re scared, and can either get a few bonus points for being so unexpected or lose points because he’s “obviously just a friend and now she’s creeped out by his advances and disturbed at her being used like that by him.”
Anyways, I’m getting better at it, but I was never good with it in regards to random strangers. On solo interactions though, I’m very good at communicating my intents to both men and women through eye contact, body posture, and letting those communicate my status and social role in the interaction.
I think I simply get too self conscious about it in random interactions. And right now where I’m making a point not to be afraid to make eye contact with random strangers, I think it likely comes across as too try hard to make said eye contact about 1/3 of the time. Oh well, sellf improvement and all that.
Marellus said:
Stingray.
My lovely daring darling, there is just one problem though :
I had to get rid of a lot of a voodoo paraphernalia now. (I kept the Whiskey though)
And since that is case, and since I can no longer voodoo you …
… you’ll just have to stare at this, and ponder the frustration I’m in …
It’s a terrible thing to do to you, I know, but you really left me no other choice.
Marellus said:
It also looks like one of the characters in Strauss’ Book is getting married.
I wonder how his body language will be interpreted.
Anyway, is there anybody here that tried the Alexander Technique ?
Stingray said:
Leap,
Keeping working on that look. It can do far more than all of the body language. That’s probably why it is far more difficult to master. The look in a man’s eye, when done right, is very enticing.
Stingray said:
Marellus,
I’m just glad I don’t have to wear the Micky Mouse suit. 😉
Stingray said:
As far as the body language of the man in the picture, it’s pretty neutral. He looks like he could go either way.
Marellus said:
Stingray.
Look at the woman in the picture then. However neutral Papa’s pose might be, the woman is giving all the signals ,,, and to be honest … she’s in for the ride of her life … God help her … I mean it …
Stingray said:
Marellus,
Yeah, she’s smitten. Completely. I don’t know anything about Papa, but I believe you when you say God help her. That would be a . . . difficult position to be in.
Leap of a Beta said:
@stingray
Yup. The hard part about getting eye contact down is that there’s no real way to measure it or get feedback. The interaction is between two people, it isnt something you can really see watching others, and no one else really sees yours either. You can gauge approximately based on womens reactions, but when you factor in various reason she wouldn’t be open to you and reasons she’d be into you that have nothing to do with eye contact, you get very murky waters.
Marellus said:
@Leap
It comes down to the Apocalypse Opener doesn’t it ?
How many men can do it ?
Not many really.
But many will try.
And there will be unanticipated feedback then.
And the question is : How to counter her response then ?
Humor … the best response has been … and always will be …
Humor …
My darling, you look just like the kind of girl that can wash my dishes for me … and I’ve got a tub of ice-cream in the fridge … to spoon-feed you … once you’re finished … Were you thinking of something else ? … Really my darling … my mother warned me against girls like you …
But even then, there wil be bugger-ups.
From there on, you’re on your own.
Ultimately the SMP measures you, and rewards you accordingly …
And the greatest rewards, comes to those that are willing to stomach the greatest failures …
Food for thought dontcha think ?
Marellus said:
Stingray.
It comes down to the Apocalypse Opener doesn’t it ?
Now after Apocalypse Opener will you kindly put the following, in the following order after that comment of mine :
“”
I was too drunk to notice. But that does not deter me from thinking that you are a most wonderful human being … and yes … I am flirting outrageously with you … Why you may ask ? … Ha …because you’re a darling …, I mean it … and please delete this comment of mine, will ya … I am sure as hell am gonnna deny writing this, once I’m sober again …
… but I’m still gonna think you’re a darling … believe me …
Luv ya.
Marellus.
YOHAMI said:
Why do you worry about papa’s future wife?
She’s going to divorce in a few years and take a piece of the multi million dollar business that is RSD.
And she’s beyond ugly
And if this was the other way around, with an ex porn star marrying some dude… the story would be framed as love and redemption
Gimme a break 😉
Marellus said:
… bloody hell … after that commebt,
I’m still on square one … shit … the beer is waiiting … waaaaaaaaaa .,.,. so naftwer Apocalypse Opener … pleeeeeheeeeseeee do this for mwe ….
You put the bloody sign when you push “shift and comma”
You put the bloody sign when you push “shift and front shlash”
You put the bloody sign when you push “shift and full stiop”
Ha … take thaty Microsoft and WordPress !!!!!@
I beat yeaaaaaaaaaq !!!
And I luv yas Stingraye
Bye !!!!
Stingray said:
Marellus,
Have one for me! Fixed it for ya.
Stingray said:
Yohami,
It’s complete and utter projection on my part. I imagine myself marrying a man of his . . . status and it scares the hell out of me. I can’t imagine trying to keep a man like him happy. The stress would be overwhelming.
YOHAMI said:
haha. When you look at Papa, do you have the urge to make him happy?
Stingray said:
Heh, no. I don’t.
YOHAMI said:
She doesnt either.
Stingray said:
That, Yohami, is a sad, sad point. And a good one.
Stingray said:
Marellus,
Do you really want me to delete that comment? Hard to be sure. 😉
Leap of a Beta said:
Don’t do it Stingray. Let him see that all the Manosphere talks about on actions on consequences cuts both ways! Plus its HILARIOUS!
I’m sad the link to this Apocalypse opener doesn’t work.
Oh, wait. A simple search found it on the blog. Big surprise that he must’ve typed something in it wrong. Haha
Leap of a Beta said:
…..Marellus, You might have just ruined me. Or given me a howitzer for rabbit hunting. Only time will tell.
Marellus said:
All right, here is the Apocalypse Opener :
Even Heartiste tried it
And this comment from that thread was intriguing :
I apologize for my antics last night … but I was having so much fun … oh well …
Stingray said:
Marellus,
No need to apologize. Comment drunk, sober, or anything else. I’m just happy that you shared your fun. They were great comments!
Leap of a Beta said:
Marellus,
I think you’re right in where and why he lost it with that one. Roissy HATES direct game, as you can tell from any of his actual game related posts. You can’t hate direct game and use the AO, and his hesitation and wavering confidence in holding the line lost it for him. I think a silent shrug is the only response you could have if a woman asked you how many women it has worked on. Keep the nonchalance, don’t give your voice a chance to betray you, and keep the eye contact. She’s looking for a way to rationalize not having those tingles flowing through her body at rushing speeds at that moment, to lock down the gates before either the flood or the bulls get through. Make her do it herself, don’t help her push it closed.
Marellus said:
Stingray.
Now Now my darling, you’ve gotta put on your George Patton Helmet … You’ve gotta put on your flaming red lipstick … You’ve gotta put on your thick black spider clobber shoes … You’ve gotta get your hands on that bottle of mace … And you’ve gotta light up that Havana Cigar …
And then my darling … you’ve gotta read me The Riot Act … yep … The Riot Act …
And I want that sub-section that’s full of screaming sirens, howling banshees, roaring dragons, a tap-dancing gorilla, a break-dancing vampire, and a Chinaman dressed up as ballerina … playing Bach on a harmonica.
You must smite with so much invective, that I’d rather wish I was George W Bush writing an IQ Test … that I’d rather be Barney Frank at a Colonoscopy Convention … that I’d rather be Rush Limbaugh at a Spike Lee Movie premiere …
And when you’re done, I must solemnly promise to only to touch the stuff again … when George W Bush passes his IQ Test …
Marellus said:
@Leap.
Astute observation that.
Marellus said:
@Leap.
But that woman’s comment where she first checks whether the guy is sober, his manner of dress, where his friends are, and what his body language is saying, I never thought that would go through a woman’s mind.
Really.
So we’re back to body language again … ai yai yai …
Leap of a Beta said:
So put your body language up against her body language. See who comes up on top.
But yeah. We’re not ‘back’ to body language. We never left it.
Stingray said:
Marellus,
Nope, sorry. No smackdown required. That’s reserved for extenuating circumstances only. 😉
Marellus said:
@Leap.
Read this post from Neecy :
http://neecysnest.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/flirting-good-bad-and-the-ugly/
GeishaKate said:
The third picture doesn’t mean he isn’t an alpha. It just means he isn’t in love.
Leap of a Beta said:
@ Geisha
I would say that with the lack of passion in his eyes, coupled with the lack of passion in her eyes….. definitely beta. Any alpha wouldn’t have that look and wouldn’t put up with a girl with that display in that combination.
GeishaKate said:
Is a guy alpha because a woman is properly in love with him or is a woman properly in love with him because he’s alpha. I’ve seen men I knew in pictures with that dead eye look before: its not the look they gave me. For a woman to be and stay in love, she needs to be inferior to the man she’s with. For a man to be and stay alpha, he needs to be superior to the woman he’s with. This picture is what equality looks like. It could be worse. She could be superior to him, which is more what the first picture is about.
Leap of a Beta said:
Eh. It looks like a picture where they’re in a relationship simply because they feel they have to be for one reason or another. There’s no emotional connection between them in the photo. Maybe they’re just horribly unphotogenic, or had a bad day, or something else – but if we’re going by what’s in the picture as part of this exercise, then he’s definitely not alpha and has very strong leanings of beta. Minimum.
Marellus said:
So let’s return to body language then. After all, what is the quick fix … the prime enabler … the most assured short-cut to Alpha Body Language ?
An Idea.
A Bumbling Opponent.
An appreciative audience.
A Hollywood approval.
A Hugo Chavez …
Marellus said:
But wait, there’s more …
YOHAMI said:
wtf, chavez doesnt deserve an Oliver Stone movie (Im from Venezuela)
Marellus said:
And here is Mr Chavez in the flesh …
… with neither the eloquence of a Churchill, nor the charm of a Kennedy, nor the vision of a Roosevelt, nor the dignity of a Lincoln …
… but he can make people angry … and then he gives them an enemy … and then he gathers fame … and then he makes people even more angry … and gives them the same enemy … on and on …
In the end his Alpha-ism, his body language, has more to do with the emotions of his supporters, than any “Inner-Game” he might possibly have.
In fact “Inner-Game” is a pipe dream. “Inner-Game” is nothing else but the knowledge that your “profits” are much greater than your “losses.”
It’s that simple.
It’s that stark.
It’s that uncompromising.
It’s that unrewarding.
And your body language will reflect this.
So the question is whether to ponder that insensibility that is yourself … or the sensibilities of Mr Chavez … and with all due respect, I’ll heed Mr Chavez.
I’d rather have an inspiring idea, than inspire myself.
We’re all fools.
But some fools give advice on the type of apparel to wear.
Ha.
King A (Matthew King) said:
Marellus wrote
Great link. It puts paid to several PUA myths. First is that all female attractiveness depends on the physical — that short Vietnamese player’s fiancée simply cannot be the cream of the crop among hundreds or thousands of options. She looks used, older than her 32 years. And if she is the best candidate, then that demonstrates the limit of PUA technique: there is a ceiling to trickery alone, because at first blush nothing appears “alpha” about that grinning younger version of Mr. Miyagi. A marriageable woman requires more than easy compliance.
If technique alone works on “the hottest women,” then it doesn’t work on the hottest women publicly committing to you as a worthy man. Maybe that means game works by temporary disorientation, like stunning a pigeon with your briefcase. Same with another soi-disant PUA, David DeAngelo, who married some appallingly skinny, high-mileage woman who looks like she grew up on the road.
To that end, I don’t know how this alpha posturing can be faked for much longer than a first-night impression. Even the best grifters who live lives of lies cannot imitate the integral wholeness of the truth. There is a relaxation that attends the confidence that one has nothing to hide. Whatever a con-man’s training, there must always exist an anxiety that lives in perpetual fear of the exposure of his con. And we have very refined bullshit detectors that alert us to the disunity of the liar, even when we can’t always pinpoint exactly what’s off about a person.
Body language can lie, but only briefly and only about limited things. Thereafter the con is revealed. Now how much the reveal affects a relationship depends on how much the woman has invested in perpetuating the fantasy, an investment which, at least to me, is shockingly high and easily procured. Then it becomes easy to ignore the tells; otherwise a girl must have the courage to admit how willingly she allowed herself to be duped, and badly.
Matt
Leap of a Beta said:
Matt,
I would say that most PUA’s acknowledge that any lifestyle choices who’s foundation is built upon a lifestyle of seduction will suffer for long term relationships. Most know and acknowledge that in order to attract long term mates in addition to the short term mates, you have to have something worth sticking around for that you don’t give away to the short term mates.
Its like with women – you can be a hot, attractive woman and get lots of sex. But if you want to get commitment, you have to bring more to the table. You have to not give everything away to the short term men and not have anything left for the long term ones. In addition to sex, this includes femininity, ability to cook, maintain a household, raise children, etc. For men this means resources, intelligence, dominance, loyalty, etc.
Neither sex can simply rely on short term mating strategies for long term success. The strategies for each of the sexes are different in both of these areas.
Leap of a Beta said:
Oh – I forgot to say that it seems like the ones that suffer the most from having a huge identity based on PUA’s seem to be the old school, well known ‘gurus’. I haven’t seen anything on any of them getting out of the seduction community with anything I would call a ‘catch’
GeishaKate said:
Matt wrote: “To that end, I don’t know how this alpha posturing can be faked for much longer than a first-night impression. Even the best grifters who live lives of lies cannot imitate the integral wholeness of the truth. There is a relaxation that attends the confidence that one has nothing to hide. Whatever a con-man’s training, there must always exist an anxiety that lives in perpetual fear of the exposure of his con. And we have very refined bullshit detectors that alert us to the disunity of the liar, even when we can’t always pinpoint exactly what’s off about a person.”
In the online world, with distance, it can be faked for quite some time. Three months is the watershed mark for most men in “relationships” since that is generally how long infatuation lasts, but I know of men who could “long fuse” it for a year or more. It takes years knowing someone in real life day in and day out to truly know them. That is why office romances are so common. The relaxation you mention is a good thing to look for. I once did some research on pathological liars and it is VERY scary stuff.
“Body language can lie, but only briefly and only about limited things. Thereafter the con is revealed. Now how much the reveal affects a relationship depends on how much the woman has invested in perpetuating the fantasy, an investment which, at least to me, is shockingly high and easily procured. Then it becomes easy to ignore the tells; otherwise a girl must have the courage to admit how willingly she allowed herself to be duped, and badly.”
Its like Sophie’s Choice without the Holocaust. Sometimes people who need to lie converge with people who need to believe them. I believe we fall in love with people’s essences. In some ways the rest matters and in other ways it doesn’t. I remember writing about an incident regarding someone I could never be sure what he had lied about something to the effect of “I am perfectly willing to admit I was totally taken in. I just want to know the truth.” My belief in the goodness of man has burnt me more than once. I’m not sure what lesson I am supposed to be taking from this, but I’m sure it will become clear in time.
King A (Matthew King) said:
GeishaKate wrote:
It only works when a woman is singing it. Roissy’s Maya could have written it:
Fool me fool me
Go on and fool me
Love me love me
Pretend that you love me
Leave me leave me
Just say that you need me …
I don’t care if you really care
As long as you don’t go.
Marellus said:
KingA.
Re my Chavez Posts : Is there some wise cantankerous old fogey that expounded more emphatically on these ideas of mine ?
There must be one.
For no matter what you say, you’ll invariably find someone that said it long ago, and a whole lot better.
So who might this old fogey be ?
William John Cavendish-Bentinck-Scott ?
or mayhap Thomas Riley Marshall ?
Marellus said:
… and if you should EVEN HINT that it’s GBFM … I do most solemnly swear that I’m gonna read him … really … and good luck to you once I’m done … lozlozlozl …
GeishaKate said:
It wasn’t exactly like that, but I do enjoy that song. I have a strange ability to bring out the best in people when I believe in them and often people lie to impress or to protect. Which would be worse: to leave me with my illusions in tact or to destroy them. Most people don’t want to destroy innocence and will yes, even lie, to preserve it.
Leap of a Beta said:
Oh god, GBFM. Sometimes I can’t tell if he’s intelligent, or stark raving mad. Possibly both. I just can’t read his comments without inducing a headache half the time.
David Collard said:
What is Maya’s problem?
GBFM is very clever, although he tends to repeat himself.
Pingback: Stares at the World » Romney’s Going to Lose, and I Don’t Care
Eastside School said:
This is the Roissy post:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/alpha-male-vs-beta-male/
Stingray said:
Eastside School,
Thank you for that link. It’s not the one I was specifically thinking of, but it is, in fact, better!
thebigpappy said:
A woman at my workplace had a picture of her and her bf. She was in the front taking 75% of the pic, and he was in the back barely visible. I can bet she puts on a dildo and do him doggy style.
Stingray said:
thebigpappy,
One must wonder how much happier they would be with him being in the 75%. It’s sad, really.
Pingback: One Year Ago | On the Rock
Pingback: Discerning well. | Sunshine Mary