Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
They do but I think we glorify them too much. You sometimes want a leader who prioritizes himself first but not so many of them, like the one who is genuinely irreplaceable.
Visionaries are one type. I once wanted under James Cameron I was just a VFX dev on that film but almost everyone who worked under him hated it so much since he's such an alpha. His vision is never wrong in his view (the ultimate trait of a narcissist to my understanding is their unwillingness to admit that they're ever wrong about anything unless there's a massive personal gain in doing so).
He's the ultimate of uncompromising auteur directors; everything is his way or the highway. I actually liked working under him even though he worked us to the brink of exhaustion and beyond since I have a soft spot for talented and visionary narcissists, provided they're actually extremely competent to justify their uncompromising and narcissistic nature.
It's because the only way a visionary is ever wrong from the context of being a visionary is if they allow the opinions of others to compromise and deviate from their vision. So the truest of visionaries has to be someone so alpha that they are narcissistic and controlling and deeply prioritize staying to their vision above the well-being and concerns of their followers.
Steve Jobs was another visionary alpha in this respect to my knowledge (I never worked under him but he had that reputation for being so uncompromising and controlling). They can be very important and useful people to have in limited numbers in society, provided they're extremely competent. It's too counter-productive to have two visionaries at the top of the steepest hierarchies, like having two or more directors for a film, no matter how competent and collaborative, will tend to make the film worse because of incompatibilities in personal vision. Same with two or more presidents of a country, two or more head chefs, two or more generals of an army, etc.
The people at the top of the largest hierarchies often have to be the most uncompromising and often at least somewhat ruthless people. Yet as useful as these people are in their limited contexts where they are organizing such large-scale projects that demand the strictest conformity to a vision, they are not pleasant people to follow. They will drop people mercilessly if they fail to conform to their vision and sacrifice them like pawns for their vision. They can create the figurative Wonders of the World but under a metaphorical pile of dead bodies of people who worked to death on behalf of their vision. They are the polar opposite of the Servant Leader Model in business who prioritizes the needs of their followers above their personal objectives.
Such people are also generally ill-suited for leading small teams like households, small communities, small teams/squads, and in contexts where the well-being of the followers is the ultimately goal to pursue. That usually makes them ill-suited to be such great husbands or fathers.
So I don't think women who want a man who prioritizes their well-being should go after alpha males. They shouldn't go after betas for sure (that's probably even worse), but the ideal husband and father is probably neither alpha nor beta in the modern vernacular: it's the type of small-scale leader who leads not to prioritize his own objectives but to take maximum responsibility over the well-being of his followers: the empathetic leader, the one that listens carefully to other people and their needs and desires, the compromiser who is willing to sacrifice what's best for him to suit what's best for his people, the mediator, peacekeeper, the one who is just and wise.
That's the type I'm striving to become. I'm not there yet, admittedly, but I definitely don't want to be the alpha male as they popularly call it these days.
That's a trick question. I'm really bad at following directions. I'm better at giving them
Opinion
7Opinion
Even if they do exist, we don’t want them. And no more Alpha contents please. I have casted my ‘YES’ answer.
Alpha and beta, unlike gender and like Autism, is a spectrum where you have dudes like Andrew Tate, Jocko Wilnick, and Donald Trump on the alpha end, pathetic liberal soyboys and cuckolds on the beta end, and most other men somewhere in between these two extremes.
We can't follow directions because the question is misleading as posed.
Yes, they do. There are men who are hardened natural born decisive leaders who carry confidence. These are alphas. There are docile indecisive men who avoid confrontation at all costs, and lack confidence. These are betas. It’s quite simple.
No, they don't exist, and no, I don't want more 'alpha-male content'. Give it a rest!
Of course they do. It's just a term some people use to describe guys with certain personality traits. There's no question there are guys with this traits. For some reason some people just get jbutt hurt about the term "Alpha". Fine, call it something esle of you want, but don't pretend they don't exist.
You're wrong coach. Lol, no they do not, and feel free to post whatever you want. Lol
Do alpha males exist? No. Do conventionally attractive, wealthy men exist? Yes.
Tricky poll to test our comprehension
Nope not a chance
Smh 🤦♂️
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions