Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Do I Think Alpha Male 1.0s Are Bad?
I'm writing this article as a preemptive measure, shortly before the Alpha Male 2.0 book comes out, to deal with one of the many criticisms I know I'm going to get when people start reading the book.
-By Caleb Jones
1. Blackdragon is disingenuously naming what he happens to like as Alpha Male 2.0 only to make them sound better than other types of Alpha Males. What a tool!
2. Blackdragon thinks what he calls "Alpha Male 1.0" is bad. They're not bad, they're awesome. What a tool!
While I understand it's easy to assume the above, both of these are incorrect. I will explain. 2.0 Means New, Not Better
Some may think that I'm naming the 2.0s because they are better or improved over the old 1.0 models. The numerical 2.0 designation implies software: the new 2.0 version comes out to replace the "shitty" or "broken" 1.0 version that you should stop using.
This is an completely inaccurate comparison when talking about Alpha Male 2.0 vs. 1.0. I will give you a much better one. Instead of software, think Dungeons and Dragons. What the hell? Dungeons and Dragons? Hang on. Stick with me for a minute.
If you're not a nerd or ex-nerd and have no idea what I'm talking about, the game Dungeons and Dragons first came out during the 1970s and hit it big in the early 80s. Millions of nerds back then loved it, including me when I was in 7th grade. Then something interesting happened. They came out with D&D Second Edition. A 2.0 version. Some guys loved the 2.0 version, bought all the books, and started playing it. Other guys thought the 2.0 version sucked, avoided the books, and kept playing the 1.0 version. Who was right? Who was wrong? Neither of course. It was simply a matter of opinion.
In later years, they came out with a 3.0 version, a 3.5 version, a 4.0 version, and just recently, a 5.0 version. Every time they came out with a new version, some guys thought the new version was great, while other guys thought it was horrible and kept on playing their favorite older version.
Today, if you go to a Barnes and Noble bookstore, you can purchase brand new, not used mind you, but brand new, freshly published copies of D&D 2.0, 3.5, and 5.0. Sometimes you'll even find 1.0 and 4.0 there too. Hm...interesting. Why would the publishers of D&D do such a crazy thing? Shouldn't 5.0 be the "best?" No. 5.0 is the newest, but there is no "best." Instead, tons of guys are still playing older versions that have been out for many years, and have no intention of ever switching. It's what they prefer.
Alpha Male 1.0 and 2.0 work the exact same way. Alpha Male 2.0 is new. It's something that has come to the fore only within the last 10-15 years or so. Alpha Male 1.0 is old; it's been around for thousands of years.
Does that mean 2.0 is "better" than 1.0? Not necessarily. It means it's newer and different. Many Alpha 1.0s are going to read my Alpha Male 2.0 stuff (or already have) and will reject it utterly in favor of their current Alpha Male 1.0 lifestyle. Other Alpha Male 1.0s will take bits and pieces of Alpha 2.0 but ignore the big stuff. In both cases, this is perfectly fine as long as they're happy being who they are. That's what "works" for them (hopefully). 1.0 or 2.0, Alpha is good. I respect both types. Hell, I would far rather you be an Alpha 1.0 than a beta, since in most cases being a beta is a no-win situation.
That explains the nomenclature. Now let's get to the big question. Do I think Alpha Male 1.0s are wrong? Do I think the Alpha Male 1.0 lifestyle is undesirable?
Well, Alpha Male 1.0 certainly isn't for me. My personality and passionate love of happiness, freedom, and near-zero drama are wholly incompatible with spending the rest of my life bossing people around, monitoring them to make sure they obey my orders, and then spending time lecturing them and correcting them whenever they don't. I'm outcome independent. I don't give a shit what other people do, and I have way more important things to concern myself with.
Consistent happiness or control over others. Pick one, because you can only have one.
The beta male is scared shitless, so he has neither.
The Alpha 1.0 chooses control, giving up some happiness sometimes. Being the more fiery, higher-drama type of Alpha, he may scream at me, saying that he's as happy just as often as I am, but if he's being really honest with himself he knows he isn't. (Read the book when it comes out; I explain that in detail.) More honest and evolved Alpha 1.0s do happily admit that their need for control does indeed cause them some regular drama and other problems in life, but they don't mind. It's what they prefer. More on this in a minute.
Myself, and other Alpha 2.0s, choose consistent happiness knowing we'll have to give up some control over others. Again, that's just our preference. We're not right or wrong, better or worse.
The real answer to the question "Do I think Alpha Male 1.0 is bad?" is this: if a man is truly and honestly prefers living that way, then no. He's not wrong at all, and doesn't need to change a thing.
However, if a man is unhappy being an Alpha 1.0 and doesn't like it, then yes, he is wrong, and needs to make some corrections in how he views the world and how he behaves. Just like a beta who is unhappy being a beta, an Alpha 1.0 unhappy being an Alpha 1.0 really, really needs to really check out Alpha Male 2.0 and give it a shot. In his particular case, he'll be much happier if he applies those concepts to his life.
As you might imagine, I know a lot of Alpha 1.0s. Some of these guys are quite "happy" in that they have consistent drama and conflict of some sort or another, but they like it that way. In relationships, they love the high that comes from a big argument with their girlfriend or wife. They love the angry "makeup sex" afterwards. In business, they love having employees, the more the better, and love being a leader and telling people what to do, even if this regularly causes conflict in their work life. As I describe in my description of them, they love to lecture people about what they want and how they should respect them. The love all this stuff in ways I do not.
One of my brothers is an extreme Alpha 1.0. "I like drama," he told me once, "I love strapping on my tool belt and yelling at my stupid tenants. It's fun. When my wife yells at me, so what? I just scream back at her. Eventually we calm down. What's the big deal?"
Now that's Alpha Male 1.0. He's "happy" living this way. Granted, it's a very different type of happiness from what I'm used to. Since I love happiness, I hate drama, since it's not possible to be in the middle of negative drama and be happy at the same time. So in my case, if a woman starts give me any drama whatsoever, she has 20 seconds to calm down before she gets soft nexted and booted out the door, then I go have sex with someone else who isn't giving me drama.
On the other hand, occasional drama "works" for my Alpha 1.0 brother. Does this mean he's "wrong?" Does he need to "change?" No. I still think he could benefit from some Alpha Male 2.0 concepts, because he will, but he doesn't need to transform into a 2.0 in order to be "correct."
Alpha 1.0s Who Don't Like It
There is another large group of Alpha 1.0s out there who are very different. They're Alpha 1.0s, but they're tired of it. They're tired of the work, tired of the drama, tired of the chaos, tired of the conflict, tired of the breakups, and tired of the constant concern over others' thoughts and actions. While they still have Alpha 1.0 personality tendencies, they're sick of all that and want to be more chill like a 2.0 is. I'm not saying they're miserable. They're just unsatisfied with the way certain things are going in their life.
I get many emails from these guys. "How do I give less of a shit?" is a common question. "How can I avoid all this drama?" is another. Here's a perfect example. I was talking to an Alpha Male 1.0 business-friend of mine a few weeks ago. We were talking about our businesses and our relationship lives. Suddenly he turned to me and said, "You know, I'm just as happy as you. But I have to work way harder at it. I have to bust my ass to be as happy as you. But you just seem to sit back and happiness comes to you."
Bingo. I could not have summarized it any better myself. As an Alpha Male 2.0, I have structured a life, from the ground up, where happiness comes to me with the minimum amount of work and pain to get there. I don't have nearly as much control over others as an Alpha 1.0 has, but I don't care. Alpha Male 1.0 is much more work. Again, if you like this kind of "work," and many of you do, then it's not a problem and you don't need to change a thing. But if you're tired of the work, if the work is starting to bother you, then you need to make some changes both in your mental perception of the world and structurally in your business and relationship life, both of which I discuss how to do in detail in the upcoming book.
So bottom line, I don't think Alpha Male 1.0s are bad or undesirable. Quite the contrary, I think they're awesome. Rather, I think that all men need to make changes in their life if they're unhappy with how things are going, regardless of what type of man they are.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Ski 2014-11-02 05:19:25
Great article! What's the news expected release date for the book!
Ski 2014-11-02 05:20:07
New* expected release.
Alvin Daniel 2014-11-02 07:05:24
Can't wait for that book!
maldek 2014-11-02 10:14:04
Great points made for both 1.0 and 2.0. For example you write: "since it’s not possible to be in the middle of negative drama and be happy at the same time." It is possible. Just like when you are in a real martial arts fight. The true fighter never feels better than when he bleeds and kicks ass; all at the same time. Never do we feel more alive. For others it might be their worst nightmare to receive a punch in the face or worse to hit somebody else. One mans hell is another mans heaven.
Blackdragon 2014-11-02 12:18:06
What’s the news expected release date for the book!We'll be announcing the release date within one week.
you write: “since it’s not possible to be in the middle of negative drama and be happy at the same time.” It is possible. Just like when you are in a real martial arts fight.Martial arts does not fall into my definition of drama. Martial arts is fun, not negative. Using my definition of drama, it is impossible to feel happy while experiencing it. We're debating this on the forums right now, right here.
James 2014-11-02 18:57:10
You know, I have had / have friends that are alpha 1.0 - who feel the need to lecture ME about things, holy shit... I've considered dropping all 1.0 from my life, they cause more drama to me then anyone else.
Joel 2014-11-03 01:59:25
I only come to this blog for the occasional D&D references.
superslaviswife 2014-11-03 04:19:32
Your concept of "happiness" is more a concept of peace. Something I can agree with as I'm made consistently happy by a peaceful environment also. But just because everyone enjoys peace doesn't mean that happiness is peace for everyone. I know a few people who seem to get depressed and grumpy when they can't let the rage out by starting a fight with someone. I know far too many people who can only experience happiness vicariously, where they're so empathic they need the people they're around to be happy so that they can be. Peacefulness makes more sense as happiness because it's zero-stress, effortless and constant. But not all happiness is in peacefulness; that's just redefining the words.
Blackdragon 2014-11-03 12:12:29
Your concept of “happiness” is more a concept of peace. Something I can agree with as I’m made consistently happy by a peaceful environment also. But just because everyone enjoys peace doesn’t mean that happiness is peace for everyone. I know a few people who seem to get depressed and grumpy when they can’t let the rage out by starting a fight with someone.But then as they're raging, they're not happy. I agree there are people who need to have sharp moments of unhappiness in order to be happy. I'm glad I'm not one of them.
I only come to this blog for the occasional D&D references.Me too.
superslaviswife 2014-11-04 00:05:11
"But then as they’re raging, they’re not happy." I see what you mean. And yes, besides the psychopath (bipolar as well, as most psychopaths are), that's true. It's odd to consider how happiness is impossible for them without conflict, though, because they can't be happy during conflict, but they certainly can't be happy without it.
Sundance 2014-11-04 13:08:30
IDK Blackdragon, defining any type of Alpha in terms of their relationships with women seems off. Alpha is just another name for status or social rank. Status is typically born of achievement, leadership or conquest. Money, women, respect, privilege, fame, fear... all typical derivatives of a man's status. Men who have attained elevated status experience an abundance of options. That is why they tend to be outcome independent - no one option is all that valuable, much like the relative value of a Benjamin is to a Billionaire. Outcome independence is an attractive quality to women likely because for eons it has been a marker of men who have in abundance. That abundance being a product of their status. I'd seriously question just how 'Alpha' a man can even be while still a middle class Joe. I'd further argue that it is the middle class man, with his inherently limited options must *learn* outcome independence along with other Alpha mimicking techniques in order to 'hack' female behavior to his benefit. At the end of the day though, can we really call him Alpha??
RevLifestyleDesign 2014-11-04 18:16:48
Nice post BD. I think what it comes down to is primitivity, the Alpha Male 1.0 and 2.0 both have the instinctual urge to dominate but 1.0 is too primitive to have full control of his emotions. From alcohol addictions, affairs to angry outburts, any area where self restraint is needed, Alpha 1.0 will always struggle. Also good points on avoiding employees, I hate managing people almost as much as I hate being managed, unfortunately until we get a cushy exit out of our tech startup it needs to be done. Compare that to working on my website, and I'll take a sole proprietorship every day of the week, even if I could only make a third of the money.
Blackdragon 2014-11-04 22:18:02
IDK Blackdragon, defining any type of Alpha in terms of their relationships with women seems off. Alpha is just another name for status or social rank. Status is typically born of achievement, leadership or conquest.Read this. I am not defining men by their relationships with women. I'm defining them by their levels of confidence and outcome independence and their operating goals. Beta Male - Neither confident nor outcome independent (usually anyway; there are some "somewhat" confident betas) Operating goal - to not risk. Alpha 1.0 - Confident, not outcome independent. Operating goal - to control and to be heard. Alpha 2.0 - Confident and outcome independent. Operating goal - freedom and long-term, consistent happiness
I’d seriously question just how ‘Alpha’ a man can even be while still a middle class Joe.I know several Alpha 1.0s who are poor.
I’d further argue that it is the middle class man, with his inherently limited options must *learn* outcome independence along with other Alpha mimicking techniques in order to ‘hack’ female behavior to his benefit.I agree, but it's not because of his income. I used to be a beta. I worked on myself, hard, including mimicking, and it worked, and now I'm a 2.0.
At the end of the day though, can we really call him Alpha??No, you can't call a beta an Alpha...until he becomes an Alpha, which any beta can do if he wants it bad enough.
Jan 2014-11-07 23:02:50
This might be a higher level, but with some women its OK to be possessive and mate guard, but the kicker is that you have to do from a position of power. I sometimes "punish" my women for flirting with other men and doing silly things that could be construed as drama. Its almost in a ritualized rather than needy way. I know it doesn't really make sense, but you can be non-needy and still give women alpha 1.0 things that many women actually like because of the emotional ups and downs. This isn't exactly something that would be good to tell to a even intermediate PUA's though.
David H. 2014-11-08 18:17:46
BD great post, as always my man. I definitely fall into a guy transitioning into AM 2.0 in terms of my sexuality especially. I could never be a 1.0, nor would I want to be. The idea of 2.0 is brilliant and makes so much sense to me, I think it's revolutionary. Given the logic you've laid out, I think absolutely a 2.0 is better than a 1.0. On this point alone: An 1.0 gets jealous easily and wants to control. A 2.0 does not. Still dominant and leading, but much more indifferent. That's an evolutionary upgrade, emotionally. More accepting, but not a weak pussy. Having more choice, and giving more choice to the woman, not playing into being a little boy emotionally. Same thing with a thug who knows how to fight and is easily upset and can kick people's ass, and does so readily. But the best fighters tend to be kind people, only using their skills when necessary. They too are higher on the evolutionary ladder. Natural selection in the end. End of the day we're all human men, but consciousness-wise, with the more 2.0's out there, the more the effect spreads as a group, and influences more men (and women) towards an upgraded level of thinking/consciousness for all men. Staying at 1.0 seems like a backtrack. 2.0 has the best traits of 1.0, and discarding the ones that I understand your reference here with D&D, but I really don't think it's the same thing. Seems like you are trying to please both parties, and that's not going to happen. To me it's pretty clear. The 1.0 is consciously/emotionally stunted with his jealousy alone, let alone other emotions running him. I mean aren't 1.0's more reactive, with 2.0s being way more indifferent, yet strong in their position. How could that not be better from an evolutionary standpoint? 2.0 is an upgrade. Yes some 1.0's will want to beat me up for saying that, but that's why I study martial arts. 🙂
Sundance 2014-11-09 15:24:08
BD: I am not defining men by their relationships with women. I’m defining them by their levels of confidence and outcome independence and their operating goals. By your definition ANY man can be an Alpha - the one held in highest regard - by simply changing the way he expresses and regards himself. Really?? So the guy who mows lawns for a living can be an "Alpha" if he just learns to exude more confidence and outcome independence? He can really sit in the same room as someone like, say... Mark Cuban and exert the same influence and be held in the same regard? Come on. What you are describing is the different ways men express their masculinity. They may be better men for it, but Alpha? Maybe over his 4 employees... Society selects the men it chooses to elevate and follow. While certain characteristics such as confidence and outcome independence are often helpful in certain settings, they in and of themselves will not result in any kind of special influence or reverence. In general, men are given disproportionate preference BY the group because they've added disproportionate value TO the group. Men do this achieving, leading, mastering or conquering. In return they enjoy exceedingly more options for women, wealth and fame. You define the “classic” Alpha Male (1.0) in terms of his attitude and his interactions with women (in both your glossary and the article you linked). Contrast this with some *actual* classic Alpha men. These are real examples of men who society has elevated. Society chose to grant them greater influence and honor. Is it because they displayed Alpha 1.0 (or 2.0) character traits better than anyone else?? Of course not. They've added great value. Benjamin Franklin Warren Buffett Walt Disney Elvis Presley Che Guevara George Washington Rockefeller Charles Lindbergh Larry Ellison Neal Armstrong JFK Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dale Carnegie Bill Gates Sean Combs Adolf Hitler Christopher Columbus Theodore Roosevelt Mark Twain Lewis and Clark Daniel Boone James Madison Vladimir Putin Larry Page Michael Bloomberg Benjamin Netanyahu
Blackdragon 2014-11-09 15:47:18
An 1.0 gets jealous easily and wants to control. A 2.0 does not. Still dominant and leading, but much more indifferent. That’s an evolutionary upgrade, emotionally. More accepting, but not a weak pussy. Having more choice, and giving more choice to the woman, not playing into being a little boy emotionally. Same thing with a thug who knows how to fight and is easily upset and can kick people’s ass, and does so readily. But the best fighters tend to be kind people, only using their skills when necessary. They too are higher on the evolutionary ladder.Hm. Great point. I don't think I can counter it.
I understand your reference here with D&D, but I really don’t think it’s the same thing. Seems like you are trying to please both parties, and that’s not going to happen.Good god, you really think I'm trying to please both parties? I wouldn't even be talking about this if that were the case. And you're right, as guys like Sundance demonstrate, there are plenty of Alpha 1.0s who are going to strongly disagree about this no matter what.
By your definition ANY man can be an Alpha – the one held in highest regard – by simply changing the way he expresses and regards himself. Really??No. That's not what I said. I didn't say goals, I said operating goals, meaning the goals a man takes action on. A beta simply sitting around doing nothing but thinking about Alpha is not Alpha. He must take action in a particular direction.
Society selects the men it chooses to elevate and follow. While certain characteristics such as confidence and outcome independence are often helpful in certain settings, they in and of themselves will not result in any kind of special influence or reverence.As I describe in great detail in the book, society's opinions aren't very relevant to the Alpha 2.0, only to the Alpha 1.0, who cares a great deal about such things. And if/when you read the book, you will find that I honor, by name, many of the Alpha 1.0s in your list for the contributions they made to society. But the core topic here is not about societal contribution or societal power, since that's Alpha 1.0s are all about. We're talking about personal freedom and long-term consistent happiness. That's Alpha 2.0 stuff. Hundreds of Alpha Male 1.0 books have already been written. Alpha Male 2.0s need at least one.
Sundance 2014-11-09 17:03:28
Great, I look forward to the read.
Jack Outside the Box 2014-11-12 19:10:25
I disagree with you, BD, about alpha 1.0s not being bad. They are bad, as they are the primary male source of slut shaming. They have raging Madonna/whore complexes, wish that all women could be pure and virginal, want to go back to the 1950s where sex before marriage was frowned upon, and basically wish this society were more like the Taliban. They HATE female sexuality and want it subordinated to them, since they are territorial motherfuckers. In a truly sexually liberated society, alpha 1.0s would have to be harshly dealt with, controlled, imprisoned, or killed.
It-Began-In-Africa 2014-11-19 11:43:28
Hello BD, I didn't know where to post my question, but here goes: Julien Blanc has just been denied entry into the UK because of his 'sexist' 'vile' 'anti -women' 'predatory' etc message. He was thrown out of Australia a few days ago. Last week, a local bloke called Dapper Laughs was pulled off UK tv. The message to PUAs going mainstream is that back off. What do you think BD? I know that you are not an average PUA, and you have your own concerns with their methods, but what's your view on these developments? many thanks for a great website.
Blackdragon 2014-11-19 13:51:34
I've already said everything I have to say about that a few months ago when the Kickstarter thing happened, right here. I don't know anything about Dapper Laughs but Julien Blanc was advocating assault. Hey, if you advocate assault against women in a hyper-left-wing world, even if you're kidding or doing it as a marketing ploy or whatever, you're going to pay a very big price. That's just the way this works. At the same time, I think it's dumb that the UK has barred him entry, the same way I think it was dumb when they barred Michael Savage (who I also don't agree with), because I'm a free speech absolutist. Governments should allow people to say whatever they want even if you feel it's "hateful" or "dangerous" or "sexist" or whatever. That's what free speech means. So I disagree strongly with both sides; no one is in the right here. Which is usually my opinion on these kinds of things.
It-Began-In-Africa 2014-11-20 09:00:32
Thanks so much for your views, BD. I somehow agree that this is how the world works today, and as you said elsewhere, better to ride the wave than to cuss it out. Respect.