I've seen so many definitions of "betas" and "alphas" in /r9k/, I want to know which one is the true one. In my understanding:
Alpha:
>a typical Chad who doesn't commit to a relationship but instead goes around fucking Stacies.
Beta:
>a guy who commits to one woman (usually someone an Alpha has already fucked) and attempts to build a working and long lasting relationship with her
Omega:
>Your basic neckbeard autist who couldn't get a 1/10 woman if he tried to.
How off am I? What about the men who only date virgin women and try to make wives out of them? Or what about men who go around fucking but eventually settle down?
>>38247990
it's all bullshit. nothing alpha about being an std collector and fucking skanks
So basically, some research was done on wolves that suggested that there are dominance relationships between them. Then it turned out that the research was methodologically flawed and has largely been repudiated. But people really wish the world worked according to their own prejudices, which include a deranged obsession with categories, so the popular distillation of the wolf dominance stuff got foisted onto people's interpretations of their lives and their interactions with others. The end result is a bunch of words that could mean literally anything.
Confidence or a lack thereof.
That's all it boils down to.
They don't exist. Beta is just colloquial for someone with no spine or self-worth. Alpha is colloquial for someone successful in any way.