A guy I know is proud to be an "alpha"

[G_j]

Thoughts from our discussion,
He takes it as a positive personality trait that he can get his way.

It works great for wolves and other animals, but the alpha dominates, correct? For humans, I think "alpha" easily translates into a sort of fascism.

There is really no place for "alpha" mentality in a truly egalitarian Democracy, in a community where all voices are given equality. "Alpha" seems to be a major component in fascism and oppression. "Alpha" males perpetuated the patriarchy which has so often been married to empire building and domination. We don't need any more domination in our world today, thank you! Though some might say we need these people as leaders, I don't agree.

[Posteritatis]

1. Well, it depends

Alphas can dominate through force or intimidation or whatever, and I imagine a lot of self-conscious, boasting-about-it alphas would be that type. I suppose that's the default version of it or whatever. I don't think that's all the term is or could be, though.

The same sort of effect - Folks Listen To This Guy - can show up in rather more benign ways, though. I found that kinda jarring with some of the groups of friends I've flown with; in at least a few of them the de-facto alphas (myself included once or twice) were a pretty effective version of the Late Nineties Geek Stereotypes. Thinking back to it and talking about it with others from there well after the fact, wit in general was one of the things that it was based on there; the sharpest smartass tended to get enough respect to 'call the shots' so to speak, and the position wobbled back and forth as people learned from one another. (A few of us still call one another "whitstones;" the sharpening cycle continues to the present day even though we've scattered to the winds.)

It was also one of the most mutually-protective groups of people I've ever been around; anything even resembling intimidation or overt dominance got about the same level of tolerance that Richard Dawkins would get at Bob Jones University. I dunno if that "counts" as alpha-ish, but the end effect was the same and it seemed way way more benign than the stereotype of the concept. I've seen similar things elsewhere, particularly online where the physical signals which can allow dominance or coercion simply don't exist.

As with a lot of concepts, I don't think it's fundamentally broken or bad. Implementation matters as much as anything else.

[RagingInMiami]

2. I'm sure all Alphas are proud

[idgiehkt]

3. I agree

I think we should be looking to evolve out of that mindset of seeing that structure as desirable. Alpha people imo don't have the sense God gave them and just in general fuck everything up; look to the 'texas souffle' for an example.

Yep I don't think we need to encourage submission to authoritarian figures by praising the alpha male/ female thing too much.

[knight_of_the_star]

4. That's not how wolf alphas behave

While there is the struggle and show of dominance, this is the same kind of posturing that you find in other species like humans that is used for establishing a kind of social hierarchy. That and the way I've heard naturalists describe wolf pack dynamics the alpha is more along the lines of a democratic autocracy, specifically that while the pack will follow the alpha wolf without apparent dissent, it will only do this for so long as the leadership of the wolf alpha is good for the pack, the moment the alpha is too weak, too stupid to lead a younger, more capable wolf takes him down and takes charge.

That and my perception of both the alpha personality and your interpretation is widely different. How I see it is an alpha personality is a more forceful, aggressive, dominant though not dominating personality, the kind of things you have in a natural leader. An alpha is someone who is able to step up to the plate and take charge when it is needed. While this doesn't always mean they are the best for the job, they are the ones most willing to do the job because that's just how they tick. Also from how I see it alpha personalities are very direct, they don't come to positions of responsibility and power by playing office politics or through dirty, underhanded methods but in very open and direct methods. While this may range from rule by fear and intimidation all the way to inspiring people to do as they desire by example, the common thread is directness and a lack of secrecy. This does not say these are simple thuggish people, just that this personality type is the kind that gravitates more towards taking direct solutions to problems and usually do not use deception to achieve their ends as a centerpiece to their plans.

Looking at it this way, fascist leaders would not really be alpha personalities, while some like Hitler were almost demonically charismatic they would not be in my book alpha-types because all of them use deception, secrecy, and layers of under-the-table work and bait and switch to get their way as opposed to open, direct approaches. For a simple comparison, we could look at Blackbeard who was certainly an alpha-type, and Hitler. Blackbeard never really hid his intentions, methods, or motivations from his crew or others and often would get his way by means of intimidating his crew and foes. While he was a harsh man, he was open and direct and honest in his brutality. Hitler, on the other hand, had to lie to his people consistently to get them to follow him, be it the Enabling Act or the invasion of Poland and everything inbetween. A true alpha-type might use fear and force to get their way as much as action and example, but they do not lie about why they are doing it because they have the forceful nature, drive, and determination as well as understanding of how such things work for it to be effective.

To tie the personality type, which really can go either way dependent on the person, to fascism I think is really painting with a broad brush, something we do not need in an egalitarian democracy. In my view, a properly egalitarian democracy is one where in the eyes of the law and society, the ONLY criteria with which people are judged by is their deeds and the consistency between their values, words, and actions. To treat all people as the same I think is shortsighted and stupid simply because people are not the same and should not be treated as such unless you wish to also sacrifice the rights of the individual. Simply put, there are people who are better at stepping up and leading by means of both hope and fear and there are people who are better at following said individuals and there are people who lie inbetween.

[sandnsea]

5. Yeah, what he said

Particularly the part about the alpha being good for the pack. The men that I know that I consider true alphas are not domineering egomaniacs at all. They're about the business of getting shit done, whatever that shit may be, and they know that considering all the personalities involved is the quickest way to accomplish their goal. Only someone with no alpha skills at all has to resort to domination, etc.

[knight_of_the_star]

7. Exactly

Alpha types don't need to use things like blackmail or threats, while they might intimidate people they aren't exactly secretive about it.

[kineneb]

8. this may sound weird

but it sounds like a lot of the Rotary folks I know. Identify a need, and then volunteer to do something about it. Most are successful business people and the true Rotarians actually have ...Ethics!

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Ditto your entire post but especially your last paragraph

"To tie the personality type, which really can go either way dependent on the person, to fascism I think is really painting with a broad brush, something we do not need in an egalitarian democracy."

Thank you. Alpha =/= "domineering arrogant asshole" and I'm tired of people saying that. I also don't share the fuzzy PC vision of the OP - I personally DON'T think "treating voices equally" is either feasible or desirable. As JFK put it, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That should be the essential goal of an "egalitarian" society, not some lukewarm "we're all the same" feel-good pap that minimizes individuality.

[G_j]

13. and I suppose you decide who is more worthy?

:eyes:

clever (lame) put downs:
"feel-good pap" etc.

got any substance to that?

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. I meant no personal offense to you

But yeah, I'm sorry, I thought your OP was a little melodramatic and maudlin. The Marxist utopic "we all have equal talents and voices" stuff does nothing for me, not least because it's not realistic.

It's absurd to pretend that all people have equal talents. That doesn't mean that every life isn't equally as WORTHWHILE, but it does mean that certain people are more equipped for certain responsibilities and endeavors than are others. Some people - these "alphas" - are natural leaders, able to shape a consensus from a variety of differing viewpoints. Do you seriously think there's no place in society for someone like that?

[Recursion]

6. Alphas bring in food

Doesn't really matter how forceful a big wolf's personality is, if the pack ain't eatin', he ain't alpha much longer.

There is really no place for "alpha" mentality in a truly egalitarian Democracy, in a community where all voices are given equality.

I'm not sure about "all voices {being} given equality". One would hope poorly-thought-out voices would not be considered equal with well-reasoned voices, nor ignorant voices with informed ones.

I guess I have an opposite aesthetic reaction to the question from you; I find it difficult to imagine that a person could convince tens of millions of voters that his or her candidacy is the best one to vote for without these "alpha" qualities, to say nothing of carrying on international negotiations, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a person could create a coherent and effective political narrative from a massive and inchoate government bureaucracy without "alpha" qualities.

[LWolf]

9. What do you think of this essay on "passive leadership?"

I posted a link, but not a <snip>, in one of those other threads.

It contrasts "alpha" with "passive." In horses, but there are obvious correlations to human behavior.

It makes me wonder if "alpha" means something different to different people. I've always thought of "alpha" as "leader," separate from "bully." Alpha status based on wisdom. Obviously, many others see it as status based on power and physical threat.

It also makes me rethink the term "passive," which has negative associations of non-engagement in life for me. In this case, it means non-engagement in conflict, not life.

Maybe much of human conflict can find a source in using different definitions and interpretations of common language.

Anyway, this is an interesting contrast:

<snip>

There are two types of leaders in a herd situation. The alpha, or lead horse, that rules by dominance, and passive leaders that lead by example. The passive leaders are usually chosen by other members of the herd and are followed willingly, while alphas use force to declare their place in the herd.

Passive leaders are usually older horses somewhere in the middle of the herd's pecking order. They are quiet and consistent in their day-to-day behavior and don't appear to have much ambition to move up the "alpha" ladder. As a result, there appears to be no reason for them to use force to continually declare their position in the herd.

Alphas, on the other hand, are usually pretty far from being quiet and consistent in their behavior. They are often very pushy, sometimes going as far as using unprovoked attacks on subordinates for the simple reason of declaring their dominance. As a result of this behavior, the majority of the horses in the herd will actually avoid all contact with the alpha throughout the day.

The reason for this avoidance is that horses are designed to use the least amount of physical energy possible throughout their normal daily activities. A good example is a horse that spooks. A horse may jump at something that is unfamiliar, but he won't always run away from it. He will only run away if it is absolutely necessary. By doing this he is saving energy in case he really needs it. This is a "safety valve" that has helped the horse to survive for over 50 million years. By not using energy unnecessarily, they will be able to use the stored energy in case of a real emergency.

By following a passive leader who uses the least amount of energy throughout the day, (and that isn't constantly forcing the other horses to use theirs) the horses are not only able to stay quiet and content, but they are also helping to insure their own survival.

Passive leaders have "earned" that particular title with the other horses by showing them they can be dependable in their passive behavior from one day to the next. In other words, they lead by example, not by force.

http://www.markrashid.com/passive_leadership.htm

[G_j]

10. These horses sound like Taoists

:-)

This is a fascinating account!

Let's see,..language and the concepts of what is aphha..
My friend sees himself as sort of a "benevolent bully".
and I suppose I feel more like the "passive leader".
We have to work together in a professional situation.
In any case, I suppose as humans, this is about an evolution of some kind.
I personally hope we are moving toward a circle and away from the pyramids of hierarchy. (At least I'm moving that way)

[LWolf]

15. I've played with these concepts, regardless of what we call them,

quite a bit in my life. In the human world, it comes down to the way my personal philosophy plays out in my profession.

I would also consider myself the "passive leader." I have very strong opinions, which do evolve as I observe, learn, ponder, etc.. I don't often express them. Believe it or not, I'm generally the quietest person in the pack. When I do speak up, though, it tends to be with something powerful. Quietly powerful. I like to listen, to let people work on things from their own perspective, and in their own way, and to interject ideas when it seems called for.

I moved 1,000 miles away a couple of years ago. I heard from one of my good friends recently. She said, "I miss your quiet wisdom." I think that "passive leadership" is what she was referring to.

Personally, the "alpha" bully repels me, and I'm attracted to the "passive leader." The leader who will allow me to listen, observe, think, and apply independently in my own time.

Professionally, I sometimes run into trouble. I rarely speak at staff meetings. Why? Because when I do, it is always to skewer some mandate, program, or procedure that I think is inefficient or ineffective, but that may have popular favor. I'm a teacher. Guess how many mandates, programs, and procedures we get to hear about at staff meetings! Years ago, I had a principal who told me that I intimidated the staff when I participated in group discussions. So I stopped discussing, and sat silent. Soon, when political mandates became more frequent and more draconian, I'd see colleagues looking at me every time another one was announced. So I spoke up every once in a while. Since NCLB, it seems that I'm less "intimidating." Those that don't feel confident or comfortable speaking out wait for me to do it instead. Often, when I'm speaking, they'll look away, look at the floor...generally stay as invisible as possible, and then approach me later, privately, to thank me for speaking.

I've found that there is power in speaking up, and I have to use it sparingly, with care and respect for all.

In my classroom, I prefer intrinsic motivators to extrinsic. I don't like to threaten and bribe. I tend to be the "passive" leader that gives abundant opportunity and stands ready to assist, but allows, or insists that, the students actively engage the learning process themselves. I will allow them to fail, and then step in again with more opportunity, and more readiness to assist. As long as they are taking a step forward, I'm right there to support them.

Parents, and some students, get frustrated with this. Parents want me to threaten and punish students who won't take those first steps. They want me to be that "alpha" leader. Some students just want to obediently write down what I tell them to in the blank, without need for thought. That doesn't work for me, either. If I do that, they are not learning the most fundamental of lessons: how to be an active, independent learner.

I'm always trying to find a balance in leadership style in the classroom.

[MisterP]

11. many creatures do have a rotating Alpha

even chimps can sorta vote: Goodall's Mike became Alpha temporarily by banging kerosene cans to make himself look a lot tougher (like our American Chimp!)