The longer I write and participate in this space, the more I’ve come to appreciate the definition that Roissy came up with for Alpha years ago, a simple, quantitative, outcome oriented definition . The reason why I’ve come to appreciate this more and more is that it strips away all the unnecessary veneers that men like to add and leaves us with a single question “How attractive is he to women?” because, quite frankly that is all most of us are trying to do, define what women find attractive in men, then help men cultivate those traits in themselves in order to improve their standing in the sexual market place.
This is also the source for most of my irritation with what I tend to deem “trad-cons”, “moralists” or other groups, that unfortunately made their way into this space due to a few manosphere staple authors deciding to launch side-hustles as political pundits. Namely, their muddying of the waters when it comes to alpha.
Let me clear it up, the term “Alpha” as used in discussion in the Red Pill space tends to mean “Man who is in the top 10 – 20% of mating success” and is manifested by behaviors and traits that build attraction. A man can easily be an anti-social man, who is a horrible father, horrible citizen, burns religious texts every weekend and piss on the flag. The conflation of “Pro-social” with “Successful mating” had muddied the waters of alpha for the past year or so.
Conversely, the term “Beta” is not a personal attack, a value statement or a slur, it refers simply to those men who are in the bottom 0 – 80% of mating success, and is often associated with behaviors and traits that build comfort. A man can easily be pro-social, a solid tax payer, a great father, a deeply religious man who hoists and salutes the flag on every weekend, yet not be alpha.
Either extreme end on the spectrum has it’s own problem, a man who manifests pure alpha behavior is likely to never be able to have a decent long-term relationship because he lacks the comfort behaviors that are necessary for one. While a man who manifests pure beta behavior is likely to never be able to have any romantic relationships because he lacks the attraction qualities to obtain one.
I*m writing this long and rather self-indulgent definition because I think it’s very important to be outcome oriented, and to keep in mind:
A) Simply what these terms mean.
B) What type of men we often deal with in the manosphere.
The terms are quite clear by now, but I decided to bring up the B point because most of the men who find themselves in this space are not lacking in “Beta” qualities (comfort) they are sorely lacking in “Alpha” qualities (attraction). This is important to keep in mind, because what their target outcome consists of, is them becoming a more attractive man.
Not to society, not to their peer group of men, not to their fellow citizens, their religious affiliation, or the tax man, but to women. Add to it, that these men are often not very well-versed in what women find to be attractive, thus they may fall for the encouragement to double-down on their ego-invested, “Good Boy” qualities, it’s less uncomfortable for them.
Also, by advising them to do so, you are sending a man who is desperately thirsty, and who asks you for water, and sending him to a spring with only salt-water. When some of us tell men “Get into the top 10 – 20% of men in terms of attractiveness to women” we can give them concrete advice such as grooming, lifting, self-improvement, good financial habits, sorting out their logistics and so on. This helps them more from anywhere in the top 0 – 80% towards the top 20% with a clear, objective, outcome oriented program.
You can even add KPIs for it:
[Number of Gym sessions in the last 30 days]
[Progress on lift A, B, and C]
[Visited the barbershop]
I’m sorry I’m great with KPIs but even I can’t come up with a solid set of KPIs for a man’s spiritual journey, his metaphysical growth or his progress towards self-actualization.
The Top 10 – 20%
This is a continuation of a discussion I started with Rian on our last Red Mornings, on how I think a lot of guys are conflating the Top 10 – 20% with the Top 1%. If you can get into the top 1%, Donovan has a great point that being A+ at one thing gets you laid more than being B+ at everything, however the A+ is a very difficult brass ring to reach. People who are able to grasp it are often people who view grasping that ring as an end in itself, rather than what it is for most of us, namely a means to an end.
To give you an example, I enjoy lifting, my weeks aren’t the same if I can’t get to the gym at least 2 – 3 times, but I have no aspirations for being a competitive powerlifter, strongman or bodybuilder. I lift purely for esthetics and I do so to get laid more. This means that unlike someone who is trying to be an IFBB bro, a fitness model, I’m not willing to go past those diminishing returns. I do the 20% of the work to get 80% of the results, then I leave the rest on the table.
This is what I mean by getting into the top 10 – 20%, Get the 80% of the results that you can get without a huge effort, then focus on building value in other others. To illustrate this I’m going to refer to Martin Bekhan of Leangains and his Maximum Muscular Potential of drug-free athletes 
Martin’s formula is simple, understandable and a great example for this:
(Height in centimeters – 100) = Body weight in kilo (“shredded”, i.e. 5-6% body fat)
So a guy who is 180 cm (5 ft 10) has a maximum muscular potential shredded of about 80 kg (176 lbs)
Add a bit of body fat and he’ll be sitting at maybe 185 lbs normally (10% BF), with a lean mass around 175 lbs. This is the peak lean mass for his height, combined with low, but maintainable body fat. This puts him in the top 1% of drug-free physiques, and most likely within the top 2 – 3% of total physiques.
So what does say top 5 – 10% look like, 175 lbs lean mass, 190ish lbs total weight, that’s about 15% body fat, still high lean mass, but a bit more body fat. Perhaps, 185 with slightly less lean mass, lets say 170 lbs of lean mass, 14 – 15% body fat, or variations that are within that range.
The above can be maintained by a fairly dedicated, but not particularly obsessive or focused lifter, and combined with other pleasures in life such as dating, enjoying good food, good drinks or missing a lifting session or 3 once in a while.
I’m writing this because I’m becoming somewhat concerned that there is a perception among some content consumers within this space, that unless you’re Lee Priest in contest shape, you’ll never get laid. Unless you got Dan Bilzarian money you’ll never get laid, unless you have Peak-Mystery level game or a beard as glorious as George Bruno’s, you’re never getting laid, and this is setting yourself up to fail.
I’m not saying “Sell yourself short and slack off”, I’m saying find a happy medium between the guy who’s 450 lbs, sitting in a 1 room apartment, collects disability and plays COD all night and the outlier within a given field. Plus, do not become so narcissistic that you think you’ll be able to outdo people who are very focused and experts in their area.
Whether you are in the bottom 1% or the top 10%, you should always aspire to be better, and to achieve your target outcomes, but if you are only focused on how everything in your life will be perfect once you reach that top 20%, top 10%, top 5% or top 1%, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment, A great physique is built 1 rep and 1 spoonful at a time, keep working on anything with dedication, commitment, knowledge and direction and you will move forwards and get better every day. If you fuck up, it can be fixed, it’s not the end of the world, but do not expect a 19 year old playboy model to drop into your lap the second you get that six-pack.
Focus on becoming better, and dating hotter girls, one step at a time.