Rochsub2009
Posts: 2536
Status: offline
|
I thought about ignoring this thread, but I decided to add a few thoughts. Firstly, it's obvious that some of you were offended by the OP. Okay, fine. That has been voiced. But instead of moving on, some of you seem to be holding a grudge, and your comments are getting a bit petty. DIS understands that some of you disagree with her OP. We all understand this. Is it necessary to continue attacking her? I'm just sayin'..... Having said that, here are my thoughts on the question at hand. I think is isn't realistic to say that there are no such things as alpha males. Clearly they exist. However, there are many variations on the theme. There can be many sources of their "alpha-ness" (heeheee, I made up a word). Take Bill Gates for example. In our capitalist society, many would consider him (and other very wealthy men) to be alpha males. That is one possible definition. It is clear that they do have the ability to do things that other males cannot do, and that gives them an advantage, and makes them more desirable to some females. However, if you were to go back to the boys locker room in high school, I'd be willing to bet that Bill Gates was given more than his share of "wedgies". So from a physical dominance standpoint, he would definitely NOT be considered "alpha". In that regard, the big, strong, guy who can kick everyone else's arse might be considered to be alpha. Regardless of whether you think alpha status can be earned through brute strength, it is clear that even in highly evolved species, there are situations where the strongest do often rise to the top (and go unchallenged). In those situations, he would have to be considered alpha. In other situations, intellect my be the measure that qualifies one as being alpha. For example, in a research and development oriented organization, an individual with lots of patents who is clearly viewed as being smarter than his peers might be considered "alpha". I'm sure that there are certain programmers who are held in extremely high esteem by their peers at Microsoft. In that environment, their superior intellect probably grants them alpha status. When it comes to interacting with the opposite sex, the handsomest or most charming males might be viewed as "alpha", since they might be the ones who get the most desirable females. In an organization, the person with inherent leadership skills, and the ability to get people to follow him/her might be considered to be "alpha", even though they may not be the strongest, or handsomest, or smartest. The average CEO would probably fall into this category. I'm sure that there are many more measures by which one might be considered to be "alpha". But I think the ones that I have used make the point. IMO, being "alpha" is situational. In different situations, any of the variables that I mentioned might rise to the forefront. Depending on which qualities are needed, a different type of male (or female) might emerge as "alpha". The bottom line is that "alpha" is probably in the eye of the beholder. That's why you're not likely to get consensus on a single definition.
|