Interesting thread, people.

In psychology, the closest thing to

alpha male comes from humanistic psychology, such as with "self actualized" people.

In Greek philosophy, the

equivalent would probably be someone who fills their purpose, lives well, does well, and fares well.

In

Anthropology or sociology, the alpha equivalent would be the factual leader of the pack, so to speak.

Biology

and related sciences would be similar. You could define it as the best fighter, or the one that gets the most women.



All these are legitimate angles. Since all the discplines have their differing versions, you have to get

philosophical to attempt to resolve them.

For me it's a legitimate label in that in every situation, there are

opportunities for a person, in this case a man, to give, lead, nurture, protect, teach, or what have you.



Archetypically, the roles of men as stewards of the earth, including fathers and protectors; nurturers and

supporters; cannot be imagined out of the equation. They are irreduceable, essential aspects of all the definitions,

of men in particular. So an alpha man would have to include superlative versions of these.

So in every

situation, group, and occasion, there could be a different alpha male. Something like this actually happens, in

other words.

So perhaps "stewardship of a situation" could describe the phenomenon.

When you fulfill your

purpose, know your central self, and give it to the rest of the world, you find that activated, plugged in place

that makes you a potential alpha male in some groups, situations, or times.

Jesus was an alpha male, I think;

not to get religious. His stewardship was pervasive, deep and all-encompassing.

I like the original post in that

a common archetype for men is someone married, with a family, who feels comfy with who they are. That might be a

"common alpha" in many situations.

What isn't alpha?

"Confidence" to me is a bit narrow of a trait to take

you all the way to something like "alpha", which is a superlative term.

"Alpha" seems to be more and different

than "attractive". But maybe people here need to define it that way, for practical purposes. That would be OK if

made clear. We might find it pragmatice to define it as the dude who gets any woman he wants, for example. But I'd

hate to submit that idea to the whims of women's attraction, having seen some of the men some women find

attractive.

It is possible to be in a formal position of power or leadership and not be at all alpha, IMO. You

could be dragging down the whole human race and planet, be a narcissistic "cancer of nature", and be a so-called

"leader".

Any alpha definition that implies being "better" than other men immediately has problems. A lot of

confusing baggage comes with that way of looking at it. Looking at it as situational and relative avoids that

problem.

It also seems possible to be an "alpha" in some situations, and have women, children, or other men not

recognize it all that well. There would have to be a reality about it that ran deeper than others' perceptions.