Notes on Alpha Males, NiceGuys(TM), and Jerks

Notes on Alpha Males, NiceGuys(TM), and Jerks

This document is composed of various postings to alt.support.shyness on
the subjects of Alpha Males, NiceGuys(TM), and Jerks. Shy guys tend to fit
the description of NiceGuy(TM), which is explained below, and they therefore
have little luck with women.


From: [e-mail] (Craig Bruce)
Subject: Alpha Males, NiceGuys(TM), and Jerks
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:50:19 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Waterloo, Canada (eh!)


Someone wrote the following to me in a private message in response to a
posting I made. I won't say who so as not to betray their anonymity, but I
have more to say on the subject of Alpha Males/Jerks/NiceGuys(TM).


>So what is it about these "shallow psychotic wasteoids" [Jerks] that attract
>women in the first place? I have seen in my years that they usually
>attract the younger, more minsunderstanding or "rebel-stage" women.


This is very true; I have seen it myself.


>But, ya have to admit, there's something that makes them darn attractive
>or they'd never have g/f's.


Yes, there is something that makes them attractive.

I am currently taking a Social Psychology course locally, and in the
lecture earlier today, the subject was styles of intimate relationships.
What way discussed was generalized theory, so there are no hard-and-fast
rules and many exceptions, but the following material just hit the nail
right on the head for me. It has to do with "Attachment Styles" in adult
relationships. To learn your attachment style, select the one of the
following paragraphs that best describes your feelings. Don't read the
descriptions of the types until you have picked one.


A. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable
depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry
about being abandoned or about someone getting close to me.

B. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult
to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them.
I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want
me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I
often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay
with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire
sometimes scares people away.


Which one did you pick? I am guessing that a lot of people in this
newsgroup will pick "C", including myself. The names for these attachment
styles are: A. "Secure", B. "Avoidant", and C. "Anxious/Ambivalent" (which
I'll just call "Anxious" below). The people of the Secure style report
more satisfying relationships than people of the Insecure types (either
Avoidant or Anxious). "Secure subjects describe highly positive
interactions, characterized by happiness, friendship, and trust. Avoidant
subjects indicate a fear of closeness. And Anxious subjects report a love
life full of emotional extremes, obsessive preoccupation, sexual
attraction, desire for union with the partner, and love at first sight.
Thus, there are striking parallels between the Secure attachment style and
companionate love [(having your mate be your lover and your best friend...
Rod Stewart stuff)], as well as between the Anxious style and passionate
love [(Romeo and Juliet type stuff)]."

"Looking back, adults with different attachment styles report different
childhood experiences. In research conducted in Australia and the United
States, secure subjects describe positive family relationships, while
avoidant subjects spoke of difficulties with their mother and anxious/
ambivalent subjects mentioned difficulties with their father. ... Among
U.S. undergraduate women, an insecure attachment style is correlated with
depression." I also think that these tendancies affect all relationships
that you have, to some degree.

If we correlate this Social Psychology theory to the NiceGuy(TM) stuff,
we get the following classification scheme for male socio-psychology Back to
the classification I posted earlier:


TERM STYLE DESCRIPTION
------------ -------- -----------
Alpha Males Secure Outgoing, friendly, intelligent, (socially) powerful,
confident, and fun social-group leaders, "have
their shit together"
Regular Guys Secure Much of the stuff above, but not necessarily leaders,
maybe slight NiceGuy(TM) or Jerk qualities
NiceGuys(TM) Anxious Shy, anxious, low social status, maybe many
friendships with women but few real relationships,
a push-over, walked upon by others, "needy",
"clingy", dependent, self-esteem problems,
desperate, tries to move relationships too quickly
Jerks Avoidant Exciting, arrogant, psychotic scum


I'm using a very specific, negative definition of "NiceGuy(TM)" here.
Any of the first three types can be "nice" people, in the dictionary sense
of the word. And, well, I would guess that there are parallel female
equivalents. It is my contention that most human social groups have a male
domination hierarchy of some sort, with the more self-confident males near
the top and the less self-confident nearer the bottom. Mind you, they don't
butt heads or beat each other up; the more dominant ones lead the group,
guide the conversation, are the ones that others look up to, etc. The less
dominant ones are followers, and in pathological situations, are ridiculed
and taken advantage of. There's probably a female domination hierarchy and
a "person" hierarchy. To the naysayers and non-believers, I say to take an
analytical look around you. It may be subtle and it may be more or less
important in different types of groups, but it's there.

Back to attachment style, here is how people with different styles tend
to see themselves and other people. Where one sees positively, when there
are problems one will think that they are situational and where there good
things one will think that they are more typical. Where one sees
negatively, one tends to think that bad things are typical and good things
are transient, caused by external forces.


STYLE SEES SELF SEES OTHERS
-------- ---------- -----------
Secure Positively Positively
Anxious Negatively Positively
Avoidant Positively Negatively


Self-esteem theory says that we always want to maximize our self-esteem
and that we derive self-esteem from two sources: achievement and
affiliations (friends, groups, lovers). Of course, it takes self-esteem in
the first place to get these things, so it is circular feedback loop, which
can spiral both upwards and downwards. Secure types have this whole system
working in a healthy fashion. Anxious types tend to have a lack of
affiliations (or at least close affiliations) and so they draw more of their
self-esteem from achievement (things like 4.22 CGPAs). When both sources
are cut off, self-esteem plummets. Avoidant types either don't like to be
close to other people or they tend to see affiliations as being
achievements... in a pathological way. The way for them to achieve in this
area is being able to dominate and control people. Avoidants don't care
about other people's feelings and are always looking out for #1. They see
people as things to conquer.

The types of intimate relationships that people with different attachment
styles tend to have is summarized here:


PERSON1 PERSON2 RELATIONSHIP
-------- -------- ------------
Secure Secure Smooth, harmonious
Secure Anxious Smooth -- the Secure person is nurturing to the Anxious
Secure Avoidant Conflict -- Secure loses patience, Avoidant is bad
Anxious Anxious Roller Coaster -- highs and lows, intense emotions
Avoidant Anxious Power -- the Avoidant dominates or abuses the Anxious
Avoidant Avoidant No intimate relationship possible


Women tend to look for security in relationships with men and men tend
to look for youth and beauty in a female partner. Consequently, women tend
to marry socially upwards and men tend to marry socially downwards. Women
tend to marry older men and men, younger women. So, women tend to be
naturally drawn toward Secure qualities in men, and tend to be turned off
by NiceGuy(TM) qualities. Expressed simply, if a woman can walk all over
you, she is not going to respect you. If she doesn't respect you, then
she's not likely to want a relationship with you.

Now, about Jerks. Jerks tend to see themselves positively and other
people negatively, so they tend to have high levels of self-confidence and
little respect for other people. It is the high self-confidence that
attracts women to them, as it causes them to be rambunctions, energetic
risk takers. They think they're God's gift to women. They tend to be
spontaneous without really thinking about consequences. They tend to be
impulsive, and so give off an air of danger and adventure. If we look at
the chart above, we see that Avoidant types (jerks) don't tend to have
relationships with each other and relationships with Secure people tend to
be filled with conflict since a Secure person is not going to take the
Avoidant's "shit". And so, it tends to be the Insecure, Anxious type of
women who falls for the Jerk. These are the women who may be called
NiceGirls(TM), parallel to NiceGuys(TM), except that instead of being
turned off by the type as women tend to be, the Jerks see these women as
easy marks, easy to dominate and thereby increase their self-esteem, and,
whatever else a man might want to do with a woman.

Think about it... there's this woman who has a low social status, is
anxious and insecure, and there is this exciting guy who wants her. How
can she resist? And so she falls in love with him, while he is relatively
unmoved emotionally (since his self-esteem is derived from social
conquest). The relationship is guided by the Principle of Least Interst:
the person who is the least interested in the relationship gets to dictate
the terms of the relationship. Result: he treats her like shit. He takes
advantage of her, dominates and controls her. He sees problems in the
relationship as being her fault, and she is inclined to agree since she
sees herself negatively, and if she's very lucky, she even gets to be
physically abused.

Another thing: A number of people have either said that Alpha Males are
defined as the most physically attractive males or that Alpha Males and
Jerks are the same thing. I don't think that that is the way things are at
all. Alpha Males are the benevolent socially dominant males of a group that
tend to be leaders, care about people, and that everyone in the group tends
to look up to, including the females, and Jerks are abusive headcases who
socialize in order to conquer people. Physical attractiveness is a
different issue, although people who are attractive have an extra card in
their hand when it comes to self-esteem and how other people perceive them,
but this is only a benefit and not a determinant.

Anyway, this is the stuff that I have to say on the subject. But one
more thing: human socializing and mating is a very complicated subject, and
the stuff I've said is only a component of it; there are many other factors
at work, too.

Comments?


-Craig

"If you tied buttered toast to the back of a cat and dropped it from a
height, what would happen?" --unknown



From: Marc Meunier
Subject: Re: Alpha Males, NiceGuys(TM), and Jerks
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:08:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Waterloo



[snip]
> TERM STYLE DESCRIPTION
> ------------ -------- -----------
> Alpha Males Secure Outgoing, friendly, intelligent, (socially) powerful,
> confident, and fun social-group leaders, "have
> their shit together"
>[...]


Craig, this is some really important material you've brought to light
here... One thing I've often noticed about shy people is that we seem to
believe, "talking to that cute blonde over there = proposing
marriage" and we forget about all the intermediate steps, and that
fits in EXACTLY with your Anxious concept. If we attach so much importance
to minor things, then of course we'll also worry intensely about those
things!


> Anyway, this is the stuff that I have to say on the subject. But one more
> thing: human socializing and mating is a very complicated subject, and the
> stuff I've said is only a component of it; there are many other factors at
> work, too.
>
> Comments?


All in all, excellent stuff. You should save that in case a shyness FAQ
ever gets off the ground :)

One thing - I tend to be wary about slapping labels on things, it's
often very destructive. Once you give a name to something, that tends to
solidify it in your thinking. People are already all worked up about being
"shy", "introverted", "non-Alpha", and now they'll be upset about being
"Anxious" and a "NiceGuy (TM)". I think it's important that we define this
whole thing as a dynamic - that an Anxious type can, over time, become
Secure through learning and experience.


From: [e-mail] (arandia)
Subject: Re: Alpha females
Date: 31 Oct 1996 02:49:36 GMT
Message-ID: <559440$[e-mail]>
Organization: bway.net, part of Outernet, Inc. in New York City


Rogerio Yick Kwong Fung ([e-mail]) wrote:


: Why is it that we only see posts about alpha males? I guess alpha females
: are also out there, but I hear so little about them? Or..does this have
: anything to do with the fact that we are more guys in here than gals? :)
: Obviously, it seems that shyness affects women less than men, since there
: are so few of them (but those who are in here are the best ;) ) in here.
: And if we also consider that women are more emotional(its a fact) I guess
: shy women get caught by all the non shy guys of the world. Am I right?


Well, the reason that there are no alpha females is because female modes
of social contact are egalitarian instead of hierarchical like men prefer.
In a society of "equals", there is no clear leader.

In male groups, it's very easy to spot the alpha male. He's the guy
giving orders. Everybody follows him.

In female groups, the dynamic is one of suggestion and validation. While
one person might propose an action, ideally one would want the group to
reach a consensus before acting.

Good books to read on the subject are:


"You Just Don't Understand!" by Deborah Tannen.
"Brain Sex" by Anne Moir.


--
joel
watch me on tv! Tell Yianni that you're my fan!
"Diary" Sundays at 6:30pm on Time Warner Cable of Manhattan's Ch. 35.
email Yianni: [e-mail] URL: http://www.yiannimovie.com



From: [e-mail] (arandia)
Subject: Re: show of hands
Date: 31 Oct 1996 02:44:13 GMT
Message-ID: <5593pt$[e-mail]>
Organization: bway.net, part of Outernet, Inc. in New York City


Scott Ramnarine ([e-mail]) wrote:

: How many people out there are dependant on the opposite sex for
: validation? I am currently struggling with this. Any theories as to
: why this exists? Please reply to me personally as I do not have
: newsgroup access very often.


I used to think that I needed a girlfriend to validate me. That once
somebody actually said to me how great my life is then my life would be
great.

It wasn't until I decided that *I* make my life great that I attracted my
girlfriend. And well, my life validates itself.


--
joel
watch me on tv! Tell Yianni that you're my fan!
"Diary" Sundays at 6:30pm on Time Warner Cable of Manhattan's Ch. 35.
email Yianni: [e-mail] URL: http://www.yiannimovie.com



From: Daeron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alpha females
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 16:53:55 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom


Rogerio Yick Kwong Fung wrote:


> Why is it that we only see posts about alpha males? I guess alpha females
> are also out there, but I hear so little about them? Or..does this have
> anything to do with the fact that we are more guys in here than gals?


There is no such thing as an "alpha" male or female. These are imaginary
constructs invented by half-baked sociologists - who probably flunked
physics in college! (Which is why they ended up peddling 'theories'
about "alpha males" or whatever.)


From: [e-mail] (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: I like you shy people!
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:13:10 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them



> jlee ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : Hey, I don't even believe in alpha females, much less want to be one--
> : in my mind I'd have to be a she-wolf to do that. Ok, so maybe you're just
> : implying that I'm a bitch! (another joke! or perhaps just a bad pun;
> : at any rate not meant to be inflammatory, ok?)


Actually, I was quite serious. The major purpose of postings like the
original here and the "Hi" and "Hello" postings is to divide
alt.support.shyness into two groups: a "liked" group and a "disliked"
group. This is pure dominance game-playing, and it's a classic splitting
maneuver, commonly used by alpha wannabees to start a takeover.

It's one thing to say "I don't think you're right." It's quite another
to say "What you are saying puts you in a special category, that of disliked
or unaccepted people." The former is a disagreement; the latter is a
dominance game.


--
Eric Pepke
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University
[e-mail]