Charts – Where You Fall on the Alpha / Beta Scale
Most of us understand the basic, black-and-white differences between an Alpha Male and a beta male. Problems with these definitions arise when we get into the issue of degree. Iâve talked before about men who are âcool betasâ or âconfident betasâ as well as âextreme betas.â Many commenters have pointed out that there are degrees of Alpha as well. I talk about Alpha 1.0 and 2.0 (described here), but some of you have self-identified as Alpha 1.5, i.e. a slightly more relaxed version of a 1.0, or a 1.0 who is on his way to 2.0 but hasnât quite arrived there yet.
Today I will visually show you where all these kinds of men lie on a scale between beta, Alpha 1.0, and Alpha 2.0.
As I describe in detail in my book, the three types of men are determined primarily by two traits, that of confidence (being self-assured in your own abilities) and outcome independence (not giving a shit, at all, regarding the outcome of any individualized scenario; read this for more detail). There are many other aspects and requirements of living an Alpha 2.0 life, but in terms of the type of man you are internally, confidence and OI are the primary factors.
The beta male is neither confident or outcome independent. Heâs timid, fearful, and really cares greatly about all of the details of his life.
The Alpha Male 1.0 is confident, but not outcome independent. Heâs strong, mentally (and perhaps physically) tough, but his ego is wedded to the outcome of what other people say or do. Unlike the beta, he lives a generally good life, but also experiences at least semi-regular conflict and problems.
The Alpha Male 2.0 is confident and outcome independent. Heâs strong, mentally (and perhaps physically) tough, and absolutely does not give a shit about what anyone does; heâs too busy getting laid, working on his Mission, and having a great time.
So far so good. The problem is that both confidence and outcome independence are not binary, on-or-off things. You can be unconfident, somewhat confident, or extremely confident. You can be very outcome dependent, somewhat outcome dependent, or totally outcome independent.
Therefore, both confidence and outcome independence can be viewed as a scale, from zero to extreme. With this in mind, the overall chart looks like this:
Betas are where both confidence and outcome independence are low. Alpha 1.0âs live where confidence is high, but outcome independence is low. Alpha 2.0âs exist in that much smaller area where both confidence and outcome independence are at extreme levels.
What if youâre outcome independent, but not confident? Thatâs impossible. Confidence does not require outcome independence, but outcome independence cannot exist without a degree of confidence. Therefore, thereâs a sort of no manâs land where OI is high, but confidence is low; there is no such human.
Now that you know how the three zones work, here are some examples of where certain types of men place on this chart.
The man with near-zero confidence or OI is a total and complete pussy, in the far lower left of the beta zone. However, a beta with more confidence than most other betas is on the high end of that zone, the âconfident beta.â Heâs still a beta, no question about it, but heâs a more charismatic version. The guy with off the chart confidence, but zero OI is usually a total asshole, and he lives in the far upper left corner, well into the Alpha 1.0 zone. This is the old school Alpha who is supremely confident, does and says all kinds of blunt shit, but has a big temper and gets extremely angry if anyone ever does or says anything he doesnât like. Men who are moving towards the Alpha 2.0 zone, but arenât quite there yet, are at various spots depending on where they started their journey.
Now letâs take a look at where various manosphere groups place on this chart.
Note that these are just generalities. Yes, yes, I know there are exceptions to every rule, and I will ignore comments that attempt to point out these unusual exceptions.
Pick-up artists, a group I know very well, tend to be moderate to low-end Alpha 1.0âs or high-end betas. Men like Ross Jefferies are Alpha 1.0âs. Men like David DeAngelo (Eben Pagan) are low-end Alpha 1.0âs. Guys like Mystery and Neil Strauss were very high-end betas. And so on.
Angry MGTOWâs who hate women tend to be mid-range betas. They have just enough confidence to not be total pussies, but thatâs about it. Sex-positive MGTOWâs (like myself) are often well into the Alpha 2.0 zone, but often live in the 1.0 zone as well.
MRA guys are the most outcome dependent group of all, and tend to hug the left side of the chart where outcome dependence is strongest. They seek to change society and are very angry that society is not the way they wish it to be. Like most politically-minded people, their OI is extremely low, if not completely non existent.
Speaking of politics, it might be helpful to show you where the big political ideologies fall on this chart.
As you can see, both left-wingers and right-wingers are highly outcome dependent, viewing politics and activism as a means to change society to their wishes. Very non-OI. Both hug the outcome dependent part of the scale, though left-wingers tend to hug it a little harder than the right. This is one of the reasons why the left won the culture war⌠they tend to be more collectivist than the right and want these changes a little more badly. The right tends to appeal to more masculine Alpha types (though yes, there are exceptions) and the left tends to appeal to more feminine, beta types (though yes, there are exceptions).
Moderates and centrists are a little more beta, but are much less outcome dependent than their hardcore right-wing or left-wing brothers.
Libertarians tend to be low Alphas (though yes, there are exceptions), and some even venture into the Alpha 2.0 zone, since much of Alpha 2.0 philosophy tends to be an outgrowth of libertarian concepts.
To finally give you a fuller picture of where men place on this chart, and possibly where you place, here are some examples of where some celebrities fall on this chart.
Many of these celebrities Iâve discussed in detail in my blogs already, as examples of beta, Alpha 1.0, or 2.0 behaviors. One Iâll point out here is Kevin Smith, who I think is the epitome of a âconfident beta.â The guy is a total beta, highly emotional, cries all the time, is very self conscious, has his wife rule his life, allows himself to be bullied by stronger personalities, and very clearly has some severe self-esteem issues. However, for a beta, heâs extremely confident, able to stand in front of a crowd and speak very naturally and fully at ease, and able to strongly control and dominate the crowd even when someone gets out of line or attacks him.
One last clarification⌠the Gene Simmons dot is the Gene Simmons before he pussied out and got monogamously married a few years ago. Today his dot would perhaps be an inch or two to the left, into the lower Alpha 1.0 zone (maybe).
Iâll end this with a blank chart for you to download and play with. It might be fun to place yourself on this chart, and perhaps your friends and family members as well.
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.
Brilliant! đ
MGTOW is not ultimate beta, blackdragon.
Some of them are still in PUA and can be alpha 2.0 at anytime.
I’m a purple pill guy since a year ago when i’m 24
now i’m working myself internally towards alpha 2.0
It’s just a mindset changing.
There’s this thing called purple pill in manosphere.
Thanks for the charts. People underestimate beta-looking tech guys. Gates, Zuckerberg etc are wolves in sheep’s clothing and have stratospheric balls/confidence, e.g. guy in 20s turning down multimillion dollar acquisition offers because you’re confident you can expand the company even more, even when your management thinks you’re crazy. That is a better display of confidence than picking up girls, you’re making decisions that affect hundreds of employees. Unfortunately manosphere has a narrow relationships-based view in terms of alpha-beta, and many PUAs & other manosphere guys are unsuccessful.
PS I remember reading your online dating first message reply rate is around 5% correct? I wonder how different it would be for a handsome guy (as in 8+/10), e.g. like in this video WAW1.2: Do Looks Matter To Women? The TRUTH
I wonder if lack of sex in mono marriages may be due to wives not being physically attracted to husbands, which is the main driver behind sex. OKcupid and Tinder stats show only 20% of men are of above average looks to women, so that would explain why wives don’t want sex, esp if they married for practical reasons and not physical attraction. There are no studies to my knowledge looking at sex decline in mono-marriages where the man is handsome.
Overall I feel that society tries to downplay the importance of a man’s looks to women, a form of Societal Programming to make men more productive or a coping mechanism, yet evidence is clear that a man’s looks (esp face) is crucial for attraction. Most men aren’t even aware that they are unattractive (not necessarily ugly), or what constitutes male attractiveness in the first place (forward grown maxilla, no upper eyelid exposure and things like that)
I wonder where I fall in this chart. In some domains I’m more 2.0 than 1.0. If I’m honest in some I’m in the bottom left.
I’m wondering why there is not common to have a high level of confidence, but just a variant of OI scale. In preh
So the graphics would be many dots on top of confidence scale with many variety on OI scale.
Do you personally encourage people to go to full top confidence? And is there negative consequences from that?
What do you think the cause majority of people have low level of confidence, BD?
There’s one thing I don’t understand. Your “does not exist” zone has a weird shape. The 0% confident guy can be 50% OI, but no more, and so does the 60% confident guy. Yet, all of a sudden, the 61% confident guy, all of a sudden, can be 100% OI. Is this by design, and if so, why, or wouldn’t the “forbidden zone” be more accurately represented as an oblique line, meaning something like “you cannot be more OI than you are confident” ?
Nice one!
You could have used a better example for the confident beta(i.e Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau(?), Brad Pitt )that has good looks and moves confidently.
This is useful since most women consider these guys their dream man, the gentleman and “how a man should be” nowadays. Many men fall into the trap of trying to emulate such behaviors only to find later on during marriage/relationships, it doesn’t work. They get slavery and minimal attraction from their woman.
When people see Barack they see a gentleman who is the epitome of a man because of his “expressing love” videos but what they don’t see is that he most definitely gets near zero sex from his wife(because he is not attracted to him), constant drama and that he is fully compliant(without truly wanting to be). But the greatest example for this is Brad Pitt.
@Dom
I agree looks are more important than some PUA people give credit. But I also think they are still right. It’s not the most important in turning girls wet. I was married for 20 years and while I’m not ugly I’m not super good looking. I always had sex with my ex wife 3-4 times a week. I was very Alpha 1 during that time.
One of my best mates during that time was a successful actor. He just finished doing a show on Broadway with Cate Blanchett where she personally requested him in the cast. Extremely good looking guy. But a massive left wing beta pussy. Even though he’s very physical and was quite good at hard ass sports like Rugby League. He once told me he was flat out getting sex once a month from his mole of a wife (who he’s still with of course). Of course she knew he was too much of a pussy to cheat so she didn’t give a fuck. My wife knew if she didn’t give me sex I’d get is somewhere else.
Now I’m not married and way more Alpha 2. Still have sex every day with my 21 yo OLTR (I’m 49) and we swing a lot. Been going to quite a few swingers parties where I’ve been the oldest guy with quite a few younger, good looking, ripped guys with big dicks etc. Most of these parties I’ve done pretty well but haven’t got a lot of attention. I have to work it a bit and those younger guys have definitely got way more attention than me.
BUT the last two parties have been held at our place. Which is an amazing unit right on the river with amazing views of the city. Most of the guests are quite taken aback when they walk in. Its that sort of view. Exactly the same sort of crowd as the other parties. But boy have I been getting a different level of attention. All the girls are coming up to me asking if this is our unit and do I live here with my GF (she is extremely hot as well which I think is quite a bit of social proof as well in my favor. But I have that at the other parties too.) Both parties I have got to fuck the hottest youngest girls there and they are all over me and giving me so much more attention than the other parties. Sat night the hottest little 18 yo there that everyone was chasing was all over me all night. Got to fuck her like 3 separate times mainly because she kept coming back to find me. Her BF is one of the hot young ripped guys. Totally non-looks related attraction going on. There is just no other way of understanding the difference. Its exactly what the PUA guys talk about with social proof etc. Sends them crazy.
On Tinder though. We have been trying to get girls as a couple and not even an avg girl in sight. So definitely on Tinder etc the age looks make a big difference. But in real life its quite difference.
May i Know where Mike Cernovich lays in the graph ?
@Dom
Blackdragon already addressed the looks vs personality debate; it’s both. Think of looks as the quality of your bait and your game as your casting and reeling technique.
Definitely one of the better articles on this blog. I might’ve enjoyed it more if it were a bit longer with more real life examples, but very good article nonetheless. But I expect the comment section to end up full of examples discussion anyway – or I hope it will.
@Dom: Looks probably give you higher return if everything else is the same. But if you get 3% instead of 6%, is that important in the overall picture? You just have to work harder to get women. So instead of going after 100 women go after 200 and you’ll get the same amount of women as the good looking guy.
As I’ve found out OI(and what BD is keep on saying) is the most critical factor in getting women easily and keeping them. No other factor changed the numbers and their behavior that drastically.
Couple of years ago i was shredded, now I have a bit of belly. I have still women in my life from that time that are still extremely attracted(more so compared to when I was shredded). I definitely give that to OI. I don’t think looks is downplayed. I believe in many cases and in mainstream it is overplayed.
Very, very cool,…but you totally missed the point of ALPHA…beta interactions, love the charts and the math.
@Marty thanks for the comment, could you elaborate on how you got a hot 21 yo OLTR? Is there money involved (like SeekingArrangement)? I read Uncle Vasya’s guides on reddit, he’s in late 40s and dates younger women, maybe you’ll enjoy them too.
Very interested in reading experiences/advice from older men with non-mono relationships with younger women.
Like FD commented above, I think this chart can be presented in a slightly different way. If we measure confidence by the amount of things one has under control, and OI by the amount of things one doesn’t care about, then these two numbers can’t add up to more than 100%. Thus the chart would have a triangular shape:
http://tinyurl.com/a1a2bchart
This also addresses the problem that there’s seemingly no direct path from beta to Alpha 2.0 on the original chart.
Strauss, I agree. But if you read Strauss’ book, it is revealed that Mystery was very Alpha 1. He was a control freak.
I’d put him in the upper left, only because he’s trying to save the world to make it more suitable for him. If he wasn’t trying to save the world, he’d be a little closer to Alpha 2, which is unfortunate because for every 1 good thing he says, he says about 20 tradcon SVW (Social Vengeance Warrior) things.
If you want to follow a figure that is a little less tradcon SVW than Cernovich, follow Victor Pride. Yeah sometimes he gets on his tradcon soapbox, but he’s clearly not trying to save the world.
As for that “no man’s land,” not only is it not possible, it isn’t healthy. Having no confidence and outcome independence means you have a very nihilistic, bordering on fatalistic, outlook on things where although you just let things happen to you, you don’t care.
One thing I think BD should do is have like an Alpha 2 “test” or something. lol
Agree. Something a bit like Heartiste’s DMV tests, the Alpha 2.0 edition. Perhaps a test for women too, not really how “2.0” they are but on how conducive to happiness their overall dating approach/behavior is.
Met and interviewed Gene a long time ago. He sure as hell don’t belong in the top right.
That’s exactly what I said in the article and the charts. Did you even read them?
Excellent, and exactly right.
Yes, and I’ve said many times before that “purple pill” is bullshit. You either follow Societal Programming-based systems in your life or you don’t. There is no halfway there. (You can’t be “half monogamous.”)
It would be higher. Duh. Read this.
To get to as high as they can. “Top” would mean 10 on a 1 to 10 scale. That may not be required for a lot of men seeking long-term happiness, but at least an 8 would be.
There are always negative consequences to everything. My confidence is a 10 and my OI is 10, which is great, but sometimes I say things very bluntly that piss people off or hurt people’s feelings. It’s something I have to be careful of, but more importantly, it’s a worthwhile price to pay for high confidence / OI.
Societal Programming. The elites don’t want want a society full of independently-minded Alpha Males. As Carlin said, they want a society full of beta idiots who are just smart enough to run the machinery and process the paperwork, but no smarter or more independent than that.
Yes, you’re correct. I considered that when deigning these charts. But then I realized I would get criticized by nitpickers and math nerds no matter how I shaped no man’s land, even if I had used an oblique edge. Why does the curve start there, BD? What did you use that particular angle, BD? Wouldn’t X angle be more accurate? So on. So I decided to just go with something very simple to visualize.
If I get enough valid input on changes, perhaps I’ll come up with a slightly more accurate 2.0 charts version (pun intended).
Yes, all very good examples.
Alpha 1.0 of course. Politically active, wants to save the world, gets pissed about politics, into control, monogamous with kids, etc. I like Mike even if don’t agree with some of his views. As to exactly where he places, I’d have to watch some more of his videos. I haven’t lately.
This is not a chart about interactions between Alphas and betas, only about personalty types of men.
That is not what confidence means, at least in the context of how I use the term, and confidence is not an inverse of OI.
What you’re talking about is Zone of Control, which I already addressed here, which is another very helpful chart and concept, but it’s quite different than what I’m talking about today. Today is about what you want to control, not what you can or can’t.
I had a multiple choice Alpha / beta test on here for many years. Tons of guys took it. It was fun. A lot of Alpha 1.0’s hated it though.
I addressed that in the article. I have a feeling you just glanced at the charts without reading the text.
Some other examples I can think of for famous people
Lemmy Kilmister – Alpha 2.0, maybe extreme corner, for sure-always did his own thing and never seemed to care what people thought, got tons of women
Prince – Confident Alpha 1.0, he was known to be a total control freak and very arrogant
George Clooney – Confident Beta-always did serial monogamy then finally caved to traditional marriage
Leo Dicaprio – seems to be a lower end Alpha 2.0 but does seem to want to save the world too; although most of that stuff is for show with Hollywood types since I feel they have to assuage their guilt for being rich for doing very little
Alright, I’ll get the dreaded math nerd stuff out of my system quickly: All you have to do to make the chart make more sense is flip the axes – OI is largely dependent on confidence, so it should be on the vertical axis. If the chart is oriented this way, the low-C, low-OI betas will naturally fall on the bottom left, and high-OI, high-C A2.0s will fall on the extreme upper right. The curve would be the maximum OI possible for a given level of C. Everybody will fall somewhere on or below the curve, and the no-man’s land is simply everywhere above the curve, which will look natural.
Also, I’ve always understood MGTOW to involve a complete swearing-off of women, with the possible exception of purely transactional sex (ie, pros). Now that you mention it, I can see how your use of the term in the context of the A2.0 framework makes sense, but it was weird to see you refer to yourself that way.
@Dom
I picked her up in a bar from cold approach about 2 years ago when she was 19 and I was 47. I spent a lot of time working on PUA. Did RSD boot camps and a lot of other stuff. Was going out and doing cold approach and day game etc with a bunch of other guys multiple times every week for about a year. So I worked my way up to where I was getting quite good at picking up younger girls.
There’s no money involved. We have been living together for just over a year. She works, pays board and pays for all her own stuff. I’ve never bought her anything much the whole time we’ve been together apart from some gifts for Birthday or Christmas. She has bought quite a bit of stuff for the house that we have needed. I do pay for a lot of our social outings though. Like if we go to dinner or go out I’ll buy most of the drinks etc. She might buy one round. She’s also signed a financial agreement (prenup) as per BD’s advice. If we go overseas on holidays I make her pay her own airfare and I will usually pay for the rest.
Awesome article BD ??
Most MGTOW is indeed the swearing off of women in the way you describe, yes, but look at the second comment in this thread. Every time I even imply that MGTOW is some sort of swearing off of women, I get defensive MGTOW guys who get upset and scream that “not all MGTOW’s are like that.”
Therefore, I always break MGTOW into two distinct groups, sex/female negative MGTOW’s, which are the majority, and sex/female positive MGTOW’s, of which I am one, who love women and date / have sex with them all they want, but do so outside of Societal Programming structures like traditional marriage, expensive dinner dates, monogamy, etc.
(Although you will note, even when I do that, the MGTOW’s still get upset/defensive, like the guy posting the second comment in that thread.)
Being a Libertarian def pays off helping your overall happiness. Problem is we have to vote wth the Republicans to keep our taxes low at least here in California.
I’m reluctant to call Donald Trump an Alpha at all, he does a lot of bitch shit and can get emotional. While I’d say James Mattis is very Alpha 2.0 which you wouldn’t expect from a career Marine. Goes to demonstrate being the loudest doesn’t make you an Alpha.
I’d say Dave Rubin is a excellent example of an Alpha 2.0, he is cool as hell and very tolerant and accepting of others points of view him being gay really has no bearing on this although I have no idea if he is Poly or not. He also decided to leave SJWÂ laden Young Turks, while I’d say Cenk actually is an odd ball Alpha 1.0 SJW in a way.
I’m reading Harry Browne’s book How I found Freedom in an Unfree World and I’d say it’s required reading for aspiring Alpha 2.0’s who are currently Alpha 1.0’s. Very good Alpha 2.0 role model.
Zuckerberg got kinda beta advocating basic income and all, but I wouldn’t say the same for Bill Gates while advocating higher taxes isn’t a bitch about it. Al Franken is Liberal as well, but I don’t find him beta or if he is it’s def not by much.
The tricky area is the BDSM community! I know you’re thinking .. Male Dom = Alpha and Male Sub = Beta, but it is not just that simple. Many variables at play! We need a serious discussion on that BD.
I can identify guys and gals pretty quickly because of BD.  I’m trying hard at being more 2.0, but 38 years of controlling tendencies tend to pop up, along with caring about opinions and outcomes.
It’s getting better however!
This is pure Alpha 1.0 behavior, though I don’t understand why the same system used for women isn’t simply used for men for even more simplicity.
(Independent, Dominant, Submissive, rather than 2-1-beta)
This was awesome !
I liked the charts.
My observation: give a little more credit to PUAs. PUAs have evolved, continuously doing so. One of their central message now is “Don’t give a fuck.” Therefore they are a little bit eschewed to the right touching on 2.0 territory.
Even “high end beta” Neil Strauss and his “Society” are trying harder these days: their e-mails emphasize self-improvement, masculinity (driving a tank is part of one of their immersion/high end paid event). They’re also changing.
Politics: you got to realize that anybody who is strong opinionated either left or right, is a jerk and a beta. The real alphas don’t give a fuck about politics (unless they make money of it), don’t get excited every time Trump says something, etc. Politics in general is a game of deception. Everyone is lying. Whoever you’ve sided with has grabbed you by the balls.
I personally disagree with this assessment. Dave Rubin is a tool for the right’s agenda. Since he’s gay and an atheist that parrots the right’s views for them, he ends up getting a lot of money and fame, which is why he left the left. He didn’t leave the left because of philosophical reasons, he left for a bigger paycheck.
He may be tolerant of other people’s positions but he is a total pushover when he interviews people. He hardly ever corrects his guests, even if they say something that is clearly untrue. One last thing, he’s definitely not non-monogamous, at least openly. He wouldn’t be able to get that alt-right money if he was non-monogamous.
I think MRAs are lower than what is indicated here.
Putting aside the difficulty of external solutions vs. internal ones, they aren’t even doing an external solution. Â
Where are their organized protests? Petitions? Lawsuits filed on behalf of mistreated men? Flyer campaigns? WHERE???
If they were doing even these very basic things associated with any sort of grassroots activism, then they would at least qualify as pursuing an external solution. But they don’t even do that. They do no real activism, and I challenge them to prove that they do any real activism.
Angry Harry was a total phony. He did nothing, even if he was considered the premier MRA. His existence and his title exposed the do-nothing ethos of MRA whiners.
Paul Elam is worse, in that he swindles men for donations, while doing nothing. Anything he does to actually combat feminism is accidental, and quickly reversed.
Many of you are confusing your personal opinions regarding certain people with whether or not they are Alpha 1.0, 2.0, or beta.
Whether or not you like someone has nothing to do with alpha or beta.
Whether or not someone is a liar or does what they say they will do has very little to do with alpha or beta.
A man’s political opinions, regardless of how extreme, have nothing to do with alpha or beta. (Only his reliance on external solutions is an issue, and even then there are other factors.)
With that being said, Cenk is not a “weird sort of Alpha 1.0”, he is a *classic* and *typical* Alpha 1.0, highly confident and highly outcome dependent. Whether or not he’s a SLW is completely irrelevant.
Along those same lines, Dave Rubin is not an “excellent example of Alpha 2.0.” I’ve watched him quite a bit over many years, and he is clearly a confident beta. It is very unlikely he wears the pants in his relationship and he is clearly reliant upon external solutions at least to some degree. His libertarian politics, his quitting The Young Turks, nor his status as a gay man have anything to do with it.
Just keep in mind that whether or not you like or respect a man, or dislike and hate a man has nothing to do with where he falls on these charts.
The tricky area is the BDSM community! I know youâre thinking .. Male Dom = Alpha and Male Sub = Beta, but it is not just that simple. Many variables at play! We need a serious discussion on that BD.
Summary: it’s just like every other community. I don’t think there’s anything there that makes it special unless you have zero experience with it and are just imagining what it’s like. You’ll find beta doms, alpha doms (both 1.0 and 2.0), same with subs. For women you find all the same sorts as you’d find normally.
Most men in the scene tend towards beta, a small % are alpha 1.0, and an even smaller % are 2.0’s.
Of course Alpha 1s would hate it, Alpha 1s pretty much hate everything that doesn’t exactly fit in with what they represent. Is it still on this blog? I’d like to take it. Or at least you should do a new Alpha/Beta/2.0 test and see what happens.
Most dudes in BDSM are beta. I’ve known a couple of Doms, but of course they were married and their wives made all of their decisions for them. Nearly all male subs in BDSM are beta, the vast majority of them being gay too. Their inability to make decisions should speak for themselves.
BDSM in general is pretty much a creation by women’s groups to become the patriarchy they despise. Yes they are nice individuals and many of them are not violent, but that doesn’t excuse them from their quest for power.
The reason why they don’t do all of those things is because in most areas of the west and the US, most MRAs aren’t even allowed to protest and they get attacked physically just like women’s groups in the 70s. Only difference is that most MRAs can’t hire security like the women’s groups do because many security guards are white knights in nature. I’m not really defending them as I pretty much look down on all collectivists, but that’s what I’ve been observing. Society has laughed at MRAs for a very long time and will continue to do so. Also, like BD says, these “mistreated men” are responsible for their own actions in the end.
That being said, I do agree. MRAs are very much outcome dependent and when taken outside of their edgy circles, are not confident at all.
There are tons of ways around that. One guy even came up with the helpful suggestion of an anonymous flyer campaign well-tailored for the smartphone age and to trigger feminists endlessly via social media.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2011/01/the-time-has-arrived.html
But the MRAs just could not be bothered to discreetly post a few flyers. This really exposed them for the armchair whiners that they are.
They are not even external-solution grunts.
They are not even outcome-dependent, as they are not doing any activism to begin with.
They are just whiny victimologists.
Understood BD, thanks for clearing it up with some of the stuff I was saying.
That’s…an interesting take. So guys who like, say, inflicting pain on someone are a creation by women’s groups? Or maybe you’re talking about rope? Enjoying the act of tying someone up is somehow manufactured by women’s groups?
For the third time, I’m not posting about the BDSM community unless someone gives me a very specific and globally agreed-upon definition for this community, since this is not my world.
No, it’s long gone.
I’ll consider it.
This will never happen. It’s like asking for a post on “what the dance community is like”. There are way too many different styles / options / etc. You’d have to pick a specific sub-community, but even then geographic location matters a TON. The BDSM scene in NYC is very different from the scene in SF, and they’re both very different from the scene in Florida (just as an example).
BD, I think you are wrong about the bottom-right corner being null set. There are thousands of guys there, namely: apathetic depressives.
There are forms of depression that cause your Confidence to plummet to near zero, while your Outcome Independence is as high as possible. People there are like mirror opposite of Alpha 2.0. They have zero confidence in their own success and never attempt to do anything except barely surviving via lowest possible effort. The only reason why they do not commit suicide is because they are independent from their existential outcome, they literally do not care what happens with them, and killing themselves would require caring at least somewhat about the outcome of living.
It is disingenuous to lump such men with the Betas since Betas are strongly motivated by fear, anxiety and Social Programming, while the “Nulls” are not motivated by anything, ever, save for basic biology and sometimes effort-free entertainment/distraction. Nulls ironically even appear confident and “cool” on the surface, since they have a perfectly stoic and unshakable Frame (perks of being dead inside).
BD, If you have watched Scarface, temme where do you think Tony Montana will fall on this chart?
The guy was highly confident and outcome independent as well (didn’t give a fuck when girl left him, never cared about what he was saying in front of his boss etc.) yet he spent most of his time being angry and yelling. What is your opinion?
Great article…. would be interesting to read an article strictly on the strategies and know-hows of being Confidence and (OI) Outcome Independent. I’m sure it begins with working on our SP… but having a defined framework and set of strategies would be great.
Arnold Schwarzenegger = Recovering Alpha 1.0
(at least for most of his life, don’t know about him recently. Darn, he was so close!)
Great article.
You should write more about the relation between Confidence and Outcome Independence, also more post on OI itself is very welcome. Despite already read your book several times, I still feel OI is the hardest part to practice and to master.
For example, how do we distinguish between the big picture (that we care and push hard for and will be disappointed if it fails) versus the minor stuff (that we still want to accomplish but be independent of the outcome, thus don’t try as hard)? ”Big” is kinda a relative word here, is your daily goal big enough? Obviously, if you screw it up there’s always tomorrow, so it should be considered a minor? Then how about the monthly, yearly goals?
Two dimensions are better than one dimension, like saying “left wing vs right wing” so this seems to add something. But something else is lost in the process because there are at least 3 or 4 or multidimensional aspects to this, and depending on what dimensions you choose, you get very different results.
I’m sure you are familiar with OKC’s politics test and Political Compass’s test: the former are math nerds taken over by corporate interests, and the latter are left-leaning journalists (largely black, for what that is worth), and you get somewhat different results from those tests if you take their claim of “objectivity” at face value.
I will have to pick through this post to to look at the niggling details of your limited experience (*en gross*,  statistically not a dis) compared to mind.
I think this is a marvelous framework but either you get access to OCK’s database or else we can team up and hire some hungry PhDs to see if you are right or wrong, or this is mere idolotry (of you) or mere farts in the wind.
Then I won’t ever post about BDSM.
You bring up a good point or two and I understand what kind of man you’re talking about, but here are the three problems with your argument:
1. I don’t know for a fact these men aren’t OI about everything. I’m sure these men are OI about a few other things in their lives outside of basic survival. I’m reasonably confident that if you disrupted their life, like re-arranging their home, they’d be upset. I’m also reasonably confident that if they got into a relationship with a woman, even a casual one, they would demonstrate some outcome dependent behavior regarding what she would do or not do, particularly regarding her with other men. (The man you describe is the classic guy that stalks his woman’s Facebook or Instagram page and seethes with anger, sadness, or jealousy when she sees her spending time with other dudes. He’s a beta so he doesn’t do anything about it, but it really pisses him off.)
2. Inaction through laziness (rather than fear) also qualifiers a man as beta. Read this.
3. Most importantly, confidence and fear work on an inverse scale. If these men have zero confidence as you say, the reason for much of their inaction is indeed fear, so it’s valid to call them betas.
Extreme Alpha 1.0, up there in the upper left with Trump.
And he did give a fuck when the girl left him, and when his sister fucked his friend, etc.
I cover that in great detail in my books.
I think I agree with you. Not giving a shit is hard. I will address OI more in future articles, but I will consider those add-ons to the techniques I teach in my books which I consider “core.”
Ah, you fucked it up there. You shouldn’t want to accomplish “minor” stuff. Minor stuff, particularly the the stuff that can be screwed up by other humans, should be utterly irrelevant to you.
If it’s an activity goal, yes. If it’s a result goal, no. And even if you screw up on your daily activity goal every once in a while, that’s fine. I mess up on my daily activity goals all the time, but I still hit my big goals.
Correct, at least in most cases.
You can screw up on both of those as long as their is clear momentum towards them. Many times in my life, I’ve been “late” on my yearly goals, but at the end of the year it was very clear I made a lot of progress towards that goal. So instead of beating myself up about it (which would be outcome dependent), I gave myself a pat on the back, reset a new goal for the next year, and got back to work.
Agree. Subjectivity is in almost everything.
If you’re saying these charts are tainted at least somewhat by my own subjectivity, of course you’re correct. I pride myself on being much more objective that most people in the hyper-emotional era in which we live (particularly in areas such as politics), but I’m still not 100% objective, and can’t be, since I’m human.
You’re pretty much described nearly any collective, not just MRAs. Their efforts usually do one of two things: Either they get what they want and become the power structure (we’re seeing this with progressive groups), or the efforts just blow up in their faces.
Yes they are. In both cases, the dude has to get specific permission from the chick to do these things in all circumstances. Don’t ask for permission, and now you’re a rapist. Which is fine if it is in BDSM and BDSM only, but leads to lots of misunderstandings and increased sex anxiety when spread outside of BDSM circles.
Women’s groups desperately want to become the patriarchy they despise, and BDSM is one of their vehicles to achieve this. The other is western college campuses.
Interesting post, BD. I have some things to say (I want to e-mail you, but you don’t usually follow up e-mails very often).
1. How can you say that Centrists (like me, even though someone on your site labeled me a Bernie Sanders supporter a year ago) are Beta? I know the truth (that the left and right are used to divide the country). Truth is Alpha, not Beta.
2. I agree that Mystery is Beta. I heard that he has had some nervous breakdowns or something (which means you care too much about women. In my experience, that is poison).
Also, I purchased your book, and read through it about 1.5 times. Some things that stand out:
1. On page 28, you said that the universe is self-correcting. Then, on Page 30, you said that it was an ingenious system. Now, knowing that you may be agnostic or atheist (you said that you don’t believe in an afterlife), I just have something to share: Something ingenious has to come from a mind. I don’t believe that the universe popped up by chance.
2. I read your chapter on business. Some good points. However, where you you find appropriate products to sell?
3. You said that you get women to take care of 90% of the child raising (while you take care of all the financials). It’s amazing that women go along with it (but you are taking care of the money, so that’s a plus for them. And, you are right about not marrying or living with them).
Also, BTW, someone on this entry (Sag is his name) made some interesting points on this entry:
https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2016/07/22/the-childification-of-men/
Most Centrists lack strong opinions and tend to be beta like most of the male population. Though yes, there are many exceptions to this, as I clearly said in the article multiple times.
Correct.
Incorrect. As I just said a few comments above, the truth, nor lying, is neither Alpha nor beta, and has literally nothing to do with these personality types. As just one example, Washington DC is full of extreme Alpha Males who do nothing but lie to people all day long.
TO A LOT OF YOU IN THIS THREAD – YOU GUYS NEED TO GET OFF THIS THING, “I LIKE IT, THEREFORE IT’S ALPHA, OR I HATE IT, THEREFORE IT’S BETA.” NOT IT’S NOT. YOU GUYS REALLY, REALLY NEED TO WORK ON YOUR OBJECTIVITY.
Correct, he did.
Wonderful! I hope it helped you.
Correct.
I am agnostic, not atheist.
We’re getting off topic here, but quickly, I agree that the odds are it didn’t pop up by chance, but I can’t say that for 100% surety, and neither can you. Read this for my view on the origin of the universe.
Yeah, that’s enough.
https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/off-topic/
Thanks, BD, that’s really easy to understand.
Gerard Butler could be a great Alpha 2.0!!! But his on and off affair with his (ugly) GF just tells the whole story.
Also love Joe Rogan…but fuck me if his views on relationships aren’t extreme Alpha 1.0 (yeah, we’re gonna be together forever until I cheat on you with the next hottie because, you know, I’m a man and that’s what a man do).
Also I’m in shock to see these recurrent behavior on great seducers. Guys who write the most amazing stuff regarding the seduction phase but cannot sustain a lifestyle with healthy open-relationships. It’s like they go from geniuses to dumbasses in a split second when you change the subject from seduction to relationships.
Donât ask for permission, and now youâre a rapist. Which is fine if it is in BDSM and BDSM only
Sort of. You’re not a rapist in BDSM, you’re a consent violater. But it’s not hard to avoid most of that. Women are still women, men are still men. If you want to play without getting specific permission, you make it clear up front that you won’t get specific permission for things, and if that’s a problem you and her shouldn’t play. Most women will go along with that if you’re not a stranger and they’re attracted to you. And then you’re not a consent violater anymore because you got permission to not get permission. I secure blanket permission with a few things as off limits from everyone I regularly play with.
The real problem is that, like everywhere else, most men are beta and won’t do the above out of fear.
Oh, just wait until what I have going up on this blog tomorrow…
Now I understand why BD had to take down his Alpha 2.0 test. Cuz of the observation of “Stuff I like = Alpha, Stuff I do not like = Beta.”
Again, no. He was an Alpha 1. He was able to systematically get with tons of chicks whenever he wanted (betas cannot do this) only he caught feelings in a few cases. He was a control freak, betas are not control freaks. The MO of Betas is to not risk anything and to follow. The MO of Alpha 1s is to be in control and to lead, forcefully if necessary. Because he was a quasi cult leader who wanted everything his way, Mystery was alpha 1.
If he was good at getting chicks but let them run his life and wasn’t a control freak, then he would be beta.
Strauss was what BD would call a “cool beta,” meaning he had the skills to get with lots of chicks but 1) learned it late in his life, and 2) Never really obsessed about being in control as much as Mystery.
Interested to know where would you place Coach Corey Wayne on your chart.
Most PUA type “advice” is terrible and tells guys to be an a-hole/jerk to women and to actually create DRAMA, and many guys take that terrible advice and go out and intentionally CREATE drama. In real life listening to the drama from these guys is so pathetic and annoying. It’s obvious that it’s just them trying to cover-up their Low Confidence, and their fake drama shows they are Outcome Dependent. Also they don’t realize they are decreasing their own happiness by instigating that drama. They say women like drama, but they don’t explain that it’s better to NOT have negative emotions (hurtful negs, putting down women, complaining, yelling, abuse, anger, hate, sadness) caused by the guy (so those negative emotions are not from you attacking her), so she doesn’t associate those negative emotions with you. Instead of her negative feelings being caused by the guy and thereby associated with the guy, it should be that she feels better being around you and associates positive/sensual feelings with you. Even for those who try to increase an emotional connection by alternating (sad/happy, pain/pleasure, similar to soap operas or the news) the details are not explained that the pain/sad should not be caused by the guy directly attacking her, as it should be about a neutral topic or about other people causing her sadness/pain, and then it is you who she feels good/happy/pleasure/excitement/fun/sexual/enjoyment with. Some women go out with a guy, or stay with a guy at least temporarily, in spite of (hurtful negs, put downs, his pretending to be a fake insecure a-hole/jerk that causes them both stress and unhappiness), not because of that weak behavior. A guy causing DRAMA is Low Confidence and is Outcome Dependent. An Alpha 2.0 man does not cause drama because he is High Confidence and is Outcome Independent.
Being Outcome Independent makes it easier to meet women because you don’t care if she’s going to like your opener or not so you feel more at ease to confidently approach and say any opener you want to, and you don’t care if she “rejects” or accepts your invitation, etc.
There could be another line for DRAMA (creates drama and tolerates drama) that especially would go to the upper left corner of the Alpha 1.0 box. In the real world the Alpha 2.0 box is probably a lot smaller than it is here.
I’m the only one in my family who is Alpha 2.0, and there is only one other male who could have been close but he had a kid and just got married. I’m the only person in my family who is openly sex-positive, my mother could have been (and would have lived a much happier life) but was totally messed up from sex-negative slut shaming and was repressed by religious beta boyfriends and she didn’t have the mental power and specific information that I have to deal with it so I’ve seen the harm caused by sex-negative attacks. Only four out of many other relatives (that one younger guy and three younger girls) could have been secretly slightly/semi sex-positive (mostly in perspective, not in lifestyle though in a small town) but then following Social Programming they all got traditionally married.
The man from the tv show Counting Cars, Danny Koker, might be Alpha 2.0.
I have a strong opinion: I believe that both sides are messed up, and not worth being a part of.
Thanks for sharing that, because I found a link to another interesting website (alisina.org). As far as your view is concerned, though, I am not sure about that, but I agree with you about your last paragraph (that our lives have meaning no matter what).
Also, I think that Vic Mackey from the 2002-08 FX Show The Shield was an example of an Alpha 2.0. And, Dutch Wagenbach was a Beta. He just never really understood women.
I know virtually nothing about that person.
I have the same opinion, and I’m not a centrist. I don’t vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever, but centrists do all the time.
Thank you, BD, for the reply, I start to see where I fucked up.
Is there any quick technique to help us revert back to OI frame from small setbacks when just reminding ourselves about the big picture is not enough?
For example, sometimes I accidentally make a mistake that screws up my plan for the day (or few days). I KNOW that it doesn’t affect my long-term goal much and should be irrelevant, but somehow my subconscious still feels annoyed and it’s hard to quickly recompose to my previous happy state. What can I do in those situations?
Ask yourself the standard OI-destroyer question, “Why do I care?” Then get an answer. Then ask “Why do I care?” again. Keep going until you uncover something very stupid, which you will.
The bottom-right of the beta area is where I am at the moment.
On point at Joelsuf, its a cycle of nihilism and self-destruction. A race to the bottom of the barell so to say.
BD, you are right, its plain inaction. Recklesness as to the principle of cause and effect plus negligence. I did not know what I wanted, was never honest with myself or take REALISTIC action.
Pure beta male, I knew what to do(the simple but not easy) and refused to do it.
I found the bottom of the barell this year, failed all my exams. That’s when everything I read in your book made sense.
Hope this clarifies that corner for you guys,
Yeah, being outcome independent but not confident/bold means you literally don’t care about any outcome. Its what happens when bad things that are truly beyond your control (like someone you care about dies) happens to you, you get dragged to that bottom right corner.
I wouldn’t say it is outright inaction as much as it is overwhelm. If you have so many things in your life areas that you want to improve on (or just several things in one life area that you want to improve) its possible to get overwhelmed and give up. I oscillate between that upper right and lower right part of the chart quite a bit.
“Yeah, being outcome independent but not confident/bold means you literally donât care about any outcome. Its what happens when bad things that are truly beyond your control (like someone you care about dies) happens to you, you get dragged to that bottom right corner.”
For me it was discovering my childhood sweetheart was cheating on me with a classmate/friend in college for over a year and all my friends knew but refused to tell me. Soon after I had a run-in with a problem at college and couldn’t go to law school.
I just stopped caring these last few years and put on weight(100+lbs) and isolated myself
“I wouldn’t say it is outright inaction as much as it is overwhelm. If you have so many things in your life areas that you want to improve on (or just several things in one life area that you want to improve) its possible to get overwhelmed and give up. I oscillate between that upper right and lower right part of the chart quite a bit.”
Had that very same problem these since reading Caleb’s main book last year, tried to fix too much at once. Here’s how I’m dealing with that:
Laying a foundation for improvement first(Scott Young has a good article on that)
Organising my life by priorities/goals(see Will Freemen at Revolutionarylifestyledesign.com – and the companion article bout about quantifying your life)
Accept it will take 3-5 years of work to get to where I want(BD’s article about starting later as an older man helped here)
Where’s the fire?! 3-5 years is 29-31(Turned 26 this Wednesday), I felt silly realising the angst I’ve put myself through recently. Having a simple plan got me excited really @Joelsuf
I was in the upper-right area of the beta region too. Things just slid off me like Teflon, now they’re like concrete at my ankles.
Funny thing though, my OI demeanour attracts allot of women, I either screw things up or push them away.
Thanks for clarifying that for me and hope this helps!!!
Similar thing happened to a buddy of mine. Had a gf who was getting tapped by nearly everyone around him. She even tried to seduce me at one point (but I didn’t take the bait cuz I’m not an asshole). This was nearly 15 years ago. He has been completely dateless ever since and he’s one of the most outcome dependent individuals I know. He legitimately needs to see a shrink about it. I think anyone who gets cheated on like that should seek some kind of professional help. You need to be on a certain level to even come close to Alpha 2.0 in terms of the opposite sex, it will NOT happen overnight.
I’m where I need to be at in every area except business/profession. I absolutely refuse to get a 9-5 job even if it is part time, so I’m just really overwhelmed at how to even begin building my own thing even if I know what I’m doing. The overwhelm turns into nihilism, and then all of a sudden I’m back in that lower right dead zone.
Its not even the things I want to do, but its how to set it up and all the technicalities around them. For example, I don’t even know how to set up an affiliate link on my blog and whenever I go to a tutorial it just overwhelms me and I think I’m doing it wrong. Then I get nervous about it and stop.
Now add pretty much everything else there is to making a profitable blog/selling books and you have my problem. I’ve read and watched the tutorials. Its just extremely overwhelming to me.
This is way different than chicks, where being OI is pretty much second nature.
It would be nice if BD did an article about resisting/combating overwhelm, but I’m sure he would say it is an excuse. Which it more or less is, but there’s gotta be a way to address it somehow.
I’m guessing there’s a linear correlation between confidence and dating mastery?
Of course. And OI too.
Just in case we haven’t seen this
littlemassive chart. Quite an interesting take on types of nonmono relationships: check it out.I see this “outcome independance” thing as a light form of learned psychopathy. All this not caring stuff, that is not a normal human behavior, normal humans care and have emotions. A part of a recent trend of teaching normal psychopathy as a way of achieving high efficiency efficiency psychopaths are famous for. Like this book – “The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success”. And all that research showing psychopaths are 4 times overrepresented among top positions.
@TomR
Imo it is more about setting priorities and caring about the ‘right’ stuff. It is a mechanism of psycho-hygiene if you will. In this age with sensationalist mass media, social media, globalisation etc. If you would actually care about all the stuff that affects you emotionally in a natural way, then you’d end up classified as mentally ill. Hence, the high rates of depression, personality disorders etc. in today’s societies. Not all people can block out negative stuff and have high mental focus.
With regards to the article, I do neither really respect Alpha 1.0 nor Betas. Both are ruled by fear. For Betas it is more obvious. Alpha 1.0s are guys who deal with their fear by making others afraid. They are respected because people fear them. The huge difference between Alpha 1.0s and Betas is that the latter is afraid of confrontation and fighting people. Alpha 1.0s are ususally not afraid of fights and they actually enjoy fighting people.
@BD
Where would you put the fictional character of Charlie Harper in 2 and 1/2 men?
And for that matter Charlie Sheen irl?
Where does Mike Tyson belong in your opinion?
BD, what is your take on the concept of Sigma males?
Where would they fit in on your graph here?
@Mike – ” If you would actually care about all the stuff that affects you emotionally in a natural way, then youâd end up classified as mentally ill.”
Careing about everything or careing about nothing are not the only choices. Those books that teach psychopathy to normal people are more or less about promoting selective psychopathy. Which has been common thing, always. For example soldiers can be psychopatic to one group called enemy, while being good friends of another group called their team. Businessmen can be psychopatic to competition, while being good guy to their company, or to paying customers. Nepotist may not care of anything outside their family and relatives. Surgeons are expected not to have feelings to their patients when they cut their legs or organs.
What is new and uncommon here is an adaptation of a lighter version of such selective psychopathy to long term sexual relationships. This is an area which in all traditional ideologies assumed the presence of strong feelings driving a person.
Selective psychopathy is outside of alpha/beta classifications. Eg. there were entire armies of drafted betas, able to turn off their empathy for the provided enemies. Many surgeons are betas. I guess it may be easier for people to switch emotions selectively and turn to a fully algorithmic optimizer in any single area, than to rebuild their character to become someone completly else. So beta -> selective psychopathy is easier than beta -> alpha.
@TomR
It is a specific form of conditioned behavior. A certain behavior is learned as a response to a certain emotional reaction in order to achieve preferable outcomes in certain situations. Linking it to ‘psychopathy’ – an often vague term with negative moral connotations – makes it sound as if you that would be inherently a bad thing.
Think about buddhist or Christian monks who learn to detach themselves or suppress their sexuality. You could also argue that this is a light version of psychopathy. Or athletes who condition themselves to perform 100% despite being watched by millions of people.
[quote]Interested to know where would you place Coach Corey Wayne on your chart.[/quote]Wow!?! That guy is beyond terrible, haha. I can’t believe he gets the views he does. I wish I had never stumbled across his Youtube vids on accident… an hour or two I will never get back. I applaud him for trying, but he is clearly Neil Strauss – except with a much less appealing personality and overall delivery due to more extroversion and more outcome DEpendence. To his credit, the SERIOUS thing to learn from Corey is business and product: he is obviously doing something right with his YouTube keywords and titles to have that many views for such poor content. It is amazing to me, but people are clearly having those videos suggested to them by YouTube and clicking on them due to teaser titles.
On BD charts, Corey is near the top of beta… far left though. You can tell by his inflection and stories that he would spazz about things not going his way (romantic or daily life events). I would imagine he is just the typical beta who has had a few girls leave him for alphas (or other betas), he got salty and read a few PUA blogs, and he decided to do YouTube. Even if he were capable of a decent delivery of his info, it is just textbook “internet alpha” PUA technique that has been repackaged and sold for years (same as ‘The Scrambler,’ etc etc). If you came to BD from Coach Corey Wayne, I would strongly advise you to proceed to enjoy this site and never look back (assuming you enjoy women and sex đ lol)
…In my opinion, there is a spectrum on this ‘Manosphere’ male self improvement stuff: from high alpha to more beta: Roosh > BD > RLD > Rollo > Athol > John Gray (Men are from Mars, etc). The first three and a half will tell you they are advising to alphas, and the last two and a half are speaking mainly to beta types. Those 5 are really the only ones you need IMO. I like this BD blog set so far, but I think Athol has the smoothest delivery and RLD the best overall content (for MY own life philosophy). Personally, I like balance… I can’t read Bodybuilding or Hustler or GQ or Car and Driver for very long since they’re too narrow. I read MensHealth and listen/read RLD due to the balance. JMO
I have agreements and disagreements with all of my info sources in the manosphere, and they all have overlap (and read and reference one another commonly), but all MUCH different main audience and overall strategy. They market to different age groups, different pickup vs relationship goals, and different sex versus overall society and life goals.
@Stefano
Corey Wayne is most def not our speed on this blog, but judging him off his stories in the past for self improvement makes no sense.. a lot of thatâs isjust the learning process when youâre younger so you can develop your knowledge base/experience.
Most Guys here have a shitty past when they were more beta, less Confident and OI but now most of us are recovering and doing better.