Putting Alphaness In Context

In the previous post where a GSS question measuring how willing male respondents were to suffer in the stead of a lover was used as a proxy for alphaness, Jason Malloy exploded in the discussion thread (to reiterate, everything he writes is worth reading, so do so if you have not yet to). Both he and n/a of RHE Notes take issue with the characterization of black men skewing more alpha than white men do. Jason writes:

The "Alpha" label seems to be applied primarily (in Internet parlance) to men who have promiscuous sex with many attractive women, or simply to men with high mate value.

This is where you are running into trouble AE. Black men in America are not "Alphas". They do not have superior mate value, or have sex with the most attractive women. But they are cads compared with white, Asian or Hispanic guys.

They put the most effort into mating effort over paternal investment.

And n/a:

The key defining characteristic of the "alpha male" is either:

(1) high social status, or

(2) high attractiveness to women.

You are attempting to show black males possess certain mental traits supposedly associated with "alphaness", but we can directly observe:

(1) Black men have lower social status than white men.

(2) Black men are less attractive to white women (that is, the majority of women in the U.S.) than white men.

Therefore, black men obviously can't be more "alpha" than white men in any meaningful sense.

I am working under the assumption that possessing alphaness and possessing game are basically the same thing. Part of this is unmalleable for all practical purposes (facial symmetry and features, hair quality, height, voice inflection), part is malleable over the relatively long-term (upper body muscle mass, socioeconomic status, social prestige), and part is potentially alterable immediately (hygiene, dress, body language, word choice). While personality mostly falls in the first category, Roissy's intellectual work flourishes on the presumption that it's possible for men to train themselves to put forth a more attractive persona by saying, doing, and thinking in a manner similiar to what is suggested in his posts (to put a Big 5 spin on it, specific ways of lowering agreeableness and increasing extraversion and stability are offered).

I agree that all of the variables above enter into the attractiveness equation, and that the tactics Roissy describes to optimize the immediately alterable category positively effect the resulting value, at least for short-term hookups and probably in general. My skepticism is over the presumed degree of value added. Humans have experienced hundreds of thousands of years of sexual selection pressures for acute perception of genuine attractiveness. It's not easy to fake. Most betas won't be able to act like alphas, and to the extent they do, will experience cognitive dissonance and social discomfort. I find flummoxing the argument that game, pickup artistry, and the alpha/beta dichotomy serve the cause of more HBD realism--their effectiveness is much more credulous under blank slatism.

The alphaness I've attempted to gauge in the two previous posts, however, is really just a subset of overall male attractiveness--the subset of attributes that are immediately alterable. If black men are relatively stronger here than white men are--and I think that is the case--that they are less attractive in totality is not the point. To measure this alpha subset, we ideally need to control for everything else (intelligence, wealth, physical attractiveness, social prestige, etc).

Operating on the framework Jason utilizes, the question is over who has a relative advantage in the immediately alterable subset--who treats women the most like Roissy and other PUAs do?--not who has an absolute advantage in attractiveness to females. I am not aware of anyone arguing that being a standard deviation below the average height, being overweight, having emaciated arms, being impoverished, having an unskilled job, or having a contorted face is more attractive than each of these attribute's opposites are. It's the stuff that any guy is theoretically able to change--what he says, how he responds to what she says, the amount of confidence and decisiveness he exudes--that is at issue.

The problem here is that there are apparently not any useful ways of quantifiably measuring this alpha subset "ceteris paribus". We can look at things like sexual behaviors and changes in sexual behavior over time to empirically delegitimize the hysteria over putatively wildly changing sexual norms occuring at a societal level or to compare various groups of people, but it doesn't provide a window into perceived level of attractiveness, or how certain behaviors increase or decrease it. This allows Roissy to potentially oversell* his advice--it's all based on anecdote and is empirically unverifiable. This program really works! Jarid was out of work but now he makes 40,000 a month working two hours a day from the comfort of his own home!

* I'm aware of the irony in this word choice, since Roissy produces without compensation. My purpose is not to impugn him or his motives, which, strange though it may sound, seem to be altruistic (how that fits into being the ultimate alpha is another subject!)