How to be an Alpha Male

[belgareth]

Doc,

It depends on what you

call a leader. I do not consider a politician a leader in the sense of an alpha. Rather more in the description of a

con man or salesman than a true leader. Those true alphas that I have known tend to be leaders more because others

tend to follow them instead of the alpha trying to lead. Very often, those given power in government or business

fear a true alpha and tend to try to get rid of them. In a herd of horses or flock of sheep (appropriate simile?

) the vast majority are followers and if the leader runs off a cliff they will cheerfully follow it.



Just to be clear, I have been trying to make my statements gender neutral because I believe that an alpha can be

either male or female and as our society changes or evolves more and more alpha females are being allowed to emerge.

Not a bad thing at all.

Do you really see those traits in me? I was writing about my perception of others and do

not really regard myself an alpha, more as a lone wolf who tends to go his own way.

[koolking1]

"I do not consider a politician

a leader in the sense of an alpha. Rather more in the description of a con man or salesman than a true

leader."

Laughing here, Look at how Hillary has spun her Bosnia adventure, they have no shame at all,

certainly awful.

It's interesting that this thread started out with some assorted characters but ends up

with the usual folks.

[belgareth]

That's a very good example! My

sister is still mad at me because she supports Hillary and is even working in her campaign. We had a minor

disagreement about it several months ago and she isn't talking to me. I notice that is the attitude of a lot of her

supporters. No discussion! Hillary is the be all of the election and any difference of opinion is herasy. Does that

attitude frighten others as much as it does me?

Ayup, a lot of these do end up this way, just us ol' loudmouths

arguing away to our hearts content. This case is a little different in a way. I think we have done a pretty good job

of starting to define something important and would like to see it defined still more.

[Mtnjim]

Ayup, a lot

of these do end up this way, just us ol' loudmouths arguing away to our hearts content.

And I'm

just enjoying reading the thread.

[DrSmellThis]

Doc,



It depends on what you call a leader. I do not consider a politician a leader in the sense of an alpha. Rather

more in the description of a con man or salesman than a true leader. Those true alphas that I have known tend to be

leaders more because others tend to follow them instead of the alpha trying to lead. Very often, those given power

in government or business fear a true alpha and tend to try to get rid of them. In a herd of horses or flock of

sheep (appropriate simile? ) the vast majority are followers and if the leader runs off a cliff they will

cheerfully follow it.

Just to be clear, I have been trying to make my statements gender neutral because I

believe that an alpha can be either male or female and as our society changes or evolves more and more alpha females

are being allowed to emerge. Not a bad thing at all.

Do you really see those traits in me? I was writing about

my perception of others and do not really regard myself an alpha, more as a lone wolf who tends to go his own

way.

Bel, from what I know about you those are traits you value and have strived to embody with some success.

Similarly, my own vision of what an alpha is reflects my own values.

I know what you mean about lone wolf. I see

myself as having some of those traits as well, since my own gifts seem to take me outside the mainstream too often

-- almost by definition, it sometimes seems -- to actually lead any given herd of sheep, ducks, hippos, or whatever.

When people try to follow me, which they often have done over the years, they can get in a bit of trouble with

powers that be. Even when people in power follow me they get in trouble with still greater powers. Then they end up

being sort of lone wolves themselves. That is not always the case, however; and maybe I'm not seeing it clearly.

But even the music I write is decidedly outside the mainstream; just as my vision of psychology and philosophy is

radical, etc, etc.. There is no way for it to be different, because I'd want to be somewhat true to myself.

The

good part of that is that necessary changes sometimes get made in systems along the way; though you can be sure I'm

not getting the credit. I have lots of examples where I got in trouble for taking a stand, and then the system

changed to precisely reflect my own position. Yet the perception remains that I was causing trouble by taking the

original stand that they now have written into theiir policies. It ain't about being right, folks.

I have,

however, many times I'm afraid; been the guy who probably (unfortunately) intimidates his "superiors", and who has

gotten in trouble with my mouth, ideas, vision, and sense of ethics, which are not always identical to those who are

in charge. Eventually, I get tired of being at odds with a corrupt or nonsensical system, and go my own way. It's

either that or sacrifice myself to some cause, which I have also done, in no trivial way. Again, when I don't

intimidate my superiors, they often find themselves following me, bucking the system, and then eventually joining

the wolf pack.

I'm not saying I'm an alpha male (too many flaws), though I think I have some few traits, and

some traits that don't always fit too well in typical situations. But I agree with you that someone who rises to

the top in society is not necessarily what I would call alpha.

"Disintegrating integrity" is one of the biggest

reasons. You have to compromise yourself so much in becoming a political leader, corporate leader, or leader of

almost any other conventional system, eventually you have to ask what is left. I think the true successful alpha

leaders just almost sort of find themselves in that role by being true to who they are. Then they kind of get lucky

in that they fit into the situation and times. The world is ripe for them.

But perhaps there are other kinds of

alphas that are essentially misfits. That's not to say the women (or men, if you're balancing the discussion)

don't still find themselves attracted to them.

And perhaps there are alphas who are just masters of their

little domains and caves, and don't need to be anything "more". Lets hear it for all you good friends, dads, moms,

daughters, sons, brothers and sisters!

I agree 100% that "alpha" is gender neutral. I want to make it clear

that I was deliberately focusing on the male version because that was the original topic of conversation; and also

because I do believe that masculine ideals are important to discuss, given their confusing and dysfunctional recent

history. Maybe we should start a thread over on the female side about it and get out of the way.

[belgareth]

Some of those are traits I try

to embody and am sometimes successful at. Nonetheless, I am not what I'd truly call an alpha because much of what I

am is the result of one form of teaching or another rather than an integral part of the basic me. I am also very

short on tolerance at times and find myself having quiet thoughts about the interesting colors some people would

turn if I were to strangle them.

The situations you describe above are pretty much why I left the

corporate world and struck out on my own. After my last promotion I worked for a VP that was a very small man in a

big job. Certain things he expected of me made me want to vomit, or at least to go take a very long shower to wash

the filth off myself. The small business world allows me to live by my standards and avoid those who expect me to

compromise them. Ok, arguably that is an alpha trait but only one of many potential traits.

Dealing with small

business people is fun and interesting because a large proportion are leaders and cannot be dominated. But they have

also learned that they have to treat other businesspeople as peers rather than subordinates. The successful ones are

a proud bunch and a surprising number of them are kind, good hearted people. It's very unlike the backbiting

opportunistic behavior so common in the world of big business.

While tangental, that really isn't a true

digression from the topic. I am postulating that if you were to do a sampling you would find far more, both

numerically and as a percentage of the whole, of the alpha types in small business environments than you will in the

corporate world. The reason is that the corproate world requires you to set aside some part of your ability to think

and act independently in order to get along. That results in a modification of the basic Darwinian rules. Instead of

the strongest, most productive surviving it allows the weaker but more vicous to not only survive but to thrive. But

the vicious generally recognize that the true leaders have no use for them and should be feared as competition. As a

result, the strong, well principled ones are forced out of the corporate hierarchy in many cases or at least are

limited to subservient positions. There are exceptions, of course but I am speaking in generalizations.

[idesign]

My own experience echos you

guys.

My stint in the corporate world followed a pattern. I was given fast promotions and rose meteorically

until reaching a position where ability was less important than politics.

Like Doc I bucked the system from

within, with some success, but soon realized that a huge effort was needed to make such small differences. To the

extent my ideas were accepted, there was a pack of hyenas figuring out ways to undermine those ideas to their

perceived benefit. So you end up with a strategy for advancement and one for protection. On the face of it that

could be a good place for an alpha, and some do succeed there of course. But not me brotha', I left for the green

grass of home, and self-employment.

As Bel said, those who rise above their abilities attack superior abilities,

and, as Doc said, ethics and integrity are the first casualties.

Its been interesting thinking about Doc's

earlier comments about masculinity post-industrial revolution set against Bel's ideas about small business

owners.

Pre-industrial culture encouraged and trained alpha-ness, by virtue of necessity. Men needed to be

alphas to "govern" their world. They had a farm or small industry, family, seasonal planning, commerce, critical

emergencies of every stripe to managed, complete lack of gov't subsidies etc etc. Because each man understood

the scope of his responsibility he understood and appreciated others who had similar responsibilities and ruled

their own "worlds". An alpha's respect for another alpha, or any man (or especially women) for that matter, was a

Gentleman's agreement to behave in such a way that you deserved their respect as well.

Fast forward through

industrialization and into the above mentioned corporatization of our great land. Keep in mind that gov't

employdom is worse, at least you can be fired from a corporation for something other than "failure to have a

pulse".

Its no small wonder that America, the country of alpha beginnings, is built primarily on small business.

The sense of "family" is pervasive among many of these businesses, and though the hours are long and hard at times,

there is an involvement of family and community. Its close to home.

Doing business with other business owners is

mostly a pleasure, with a few exceptions of course. People who understand the sacrifice, hard work, personal

vulnerability and accomplishment of building something.

In an attempt to tie this sloppy post together, there is

a way in which an alpha thrives on responsibility, challenge and accomplishment, which is difficult to achieve in

settings where individuals are a commodity. If you replace the family, individualism is lost.

Edit: Winding

down from a trip and washing out the road-rage, I re-read parts of this thread and it suddenly occurred to me that

the character Atticus Finch is an alpha worthy of emulation. He was Gregory Peck's role in "To Kill a

Mockingbird". He won't seem like an alpha to some, but I've watched that movie probably a dozen times since early

age, and have learned a lot from his unassuming way of taking an unpopular position, and standing in fire with grace

and uncompromised strength. He had the respect of his children, his peers and his community, and the wisdom to

treat those who were "beneath" him with the same respect. I'd love to hear from anyone who's seen this movie and

has any thoughts relative to the subject.

BTW, a great, great movie on its own, esp if you grew up in the

south. To this day, I still get warm chills when Atticus introduces "Boo" Radley to Scout. Also a great novel by

Harper Lee.

[DrSmellThis]

Great posts by all you guys.

I'm still too busy thinking to reply. I love the small business connection.

[belgareth]

Oh, I bucked the system from

the inside too. It was always a fight to think ahead rather than to act in a knee jerk fashion or to tell them the

truth rather than to say what they wanted to hear or to do the right thing instead of the convienent one. The VP I

worked for was perfectly capable of his job, in a technical sense. He was very bright and well educated. It was his

beliefs in right and wrong and his ego, or maybe fear, that got in his way. As you said, Greg, politics were more

important to him. He surrounded himself with supplicants that would never buck him or truly disagree.

I think

you are mixing independence and self reliance, both alpha traits, with a true alpha. I agree completely that those

traits made this country but I do not agree that they were mostly alpha types. Many were outcasts and loners and

others were just sick of being beaten down by the system. At the least, they had courage to do instead of waiting

for somebody to do for them. It's a shame that other than our small business world there is no real legal outlet in

this country for that type person any longer.

[DrSmellThis]

Yep, it sucks there aren't

more outlets for bright, creative, sensitive, and/or emotionally mature critical thinkers.

Integrity

tends to be more important for those types. Being hypocritical feels so painful. Being hypocritical, whoring oneself

out, however you want to think of it -- doesn't seem to feel painful for everyone.

Maybe that's a dark side

of natural selection. They rationalize that whoring oneself out in various ways is worth it if you can get somewhere

and do a lot more good than you could otherwise. They feel they have their priorities in the right place, and are

just being pragmatic. It could be a seductive thought. Could this rationalization be an alpha trait? Might we get to

heaven and find that God is the ultimate politician? If so, dare we prefer the other place?

[belgareth]

The biggest problem with that

idea is that once they've sold their soul, it's sold. By time they get to a place where they can do some good they

are already bought and paid for, they are beholden to their master's will instead of the greater good.

[DrSmellThis]

And the politician will reply,

"Nuh uh; no I didn't! Look at all the good we're doing, Why this week we've cut taxes, grew the economy, defeated

the axes of evil, fed the poor and educated our children!"

And you say, "no, you are stealing our money for

nothing. Nothing you do has worked."

"Nuh uh, everything has worked".

"Are not!" "Are too!"

And so the

debate rages on, over the centuries. The public, yawns and returns to their TV shows. The rapidly shrinking middle

and lower middle class pop open a beer. The increasing numbers of rich who get richer support the status quo, and

the swelling ranks of the newly poor lose their voice altogether in the chaos. The politicians at the top are set

for life, with their corporate buddies. By their fuzzy standards they are godlike alphas, thank you very much.



We can only hope the God of Genetic Mutation didn't notice, and isn't creating humanity anew in the

Politician's/Corporatist's image; by virtue of the selfish, cancerous, narcissstic "death gene" that threatens to

program humanity to defeat itself. (Feel free to ignore my cynicism and return the thread to a more constructive

place.)

[idesign]

I

think you are mixing independence and self reliance, both alpha traits, with a true alpha. I agree completely that

those traits made this country but I do not agree that they were mostly alpha types. Many were outcasts and loners

and others were just sick of being beaten down by the system. At the least, they had courage to do instead of

waiting for somebody to do for them. It's a shame that other than our small business world there is no real legal

outlet in this country for that type person any longer.

Yes, on re-reading my post I can see how that

came across, and you're mostly right.

This might be one of those non-black-and-white alpha-by-degrees things.

A man (in them there days) had to exhibit the strong capabilities and characteristics of an alpha just to do what he

was doing, and to survive.

Sure, many (perhaps most) were certainly not alphas, but I think there was a higher

probablility of being an alpha in the circumstances. Also, and this is mostly what I had in mind, but didn't

express at all well, I think our early nation attracted and produced a percentage far greater that we see now. Of

course that's completely non-objective.

I think the next generation has a lot of potential, despite cultural

waywardness. There should be a cycle which swings back toward rationality and critical thinking. That's another

subject though.

I think I'm just splitting hairs here.

I do agree with Doc that an alpha can be a loner,

misfit, etc. Same for an alpha finding his outlet in a creative area.

[Mtnjim]

Sadly, I think most "Alphas" of the

current and future generations have been wiped out by being raised by single moms, female teachers and Political

Correctness.

Such a shame, because now we'll see wannabes trying to emulate "Alpha" in all the wrong

ways.

[idesign]

We

can only hope the God of Genetic Mutation didn't notice, and isn't creating humanity anew in the

Politician's/Corporatist's image; by virtue of the selfish, cancerous, narcissstic "death gene" that threatens to

program humanity to defeat itself. (Feel free to ignore my cynicism and return the thread to a more constructive

place.)

I love it when you talk like that! Insightful, articulate and creatively threading

together a broad spectrum of our existential journey. Just to be sure about it, I'm very serious when I say that,

and you do it often.

I do disagree with you though. Not in the observed realities which we share (and often

agree upon), and their effects, rather in the reasons for the decline.

In my view, the decline began in Eden, and

the "selfish, cancerous, narcissstic "death gene"" is itself fallen man. Mankind is already programmed to defeat

itself, as can be observed through history, and with increased rapidity as history advances.

You'll recognize

this thinking as being distinctly Christian in its viewpoint. Not to worry, I can still think and speak rationally.



Good point, let's get back to the topic.

Your question about hypocrisy is interesting in that it begs the

question "can an alpha have a serious character flaw"? If so, what constitutes character?

I agree with Bel,

hypocrisy is fundamental dishonesty, and an alpha would not lie from within.

[DrSmellThis]

All cynicism aside, to me

integrity is the key to ethics, purpose, and living well.

People can argue morality all they want, but no

matter their view on morality, they can't sensibly argue that they shouldn't strive to be true to themselves, to

their more central intentions, given their grasp of reality. This is integrity.

That is because those are the

minimum conditions for not being self defeating; or for not being full of nonsense; no matter your philosophy or

morality. No one wants to defeat themselves, at least as a central, fundamental desire. No one wants to live a live

where their thoughts and actions don't and can't make sense to themselves. That is a big reason why psychotic

people suffer so much.

No one can be alpha without integrity, in my view. If there was a central alpha trait,

that would be it.

This is why I tell young people to be themselves, etc.

[DrSmellThis]

I do

disagree with you though. Not in the observed realities which we share (and often agree upon), and their effects,

rather in the reasons for the decline.
In my view, the decline began in Eden, and the "selfish, cancerous,

narcissstic "death gene"" is itself fallen man. Mankind is already programmed to defeat itself, as can be observed

through history, and with increased rapidity as history advances.

You'll recognize this thinking as being

distinctly Christian in its viewpoint.

If man bit the apple, man already had the potential programmed into

him to desire things "'better' than the way they naturally are". This seems to be the most basic meaning of

"knowledge" of "good" and "evil," (which to me are human constructs, as are all religious thoughts; but that is

certainly not a traditional Christian or religious idea.) or the fall of man. But why wouldn't man destroy himself

at some time dictated by nature? Are we that arrogant to presume that our existence on the planet is somehow more

necessary in the cosmic scheme than is any other fleeting, transient life form, of which there are millions? Species

come and go. Who are we to say that is either "good" or "bad", whatever those words mean? I sure as heck don't have

the answers.

I'm not even sure the "fall" of man is a bad thing. Maybe we need to fall harder and farther.

Maybe that's the point of being human instead of something else. Who knows?

If one was a "strict Christian",

for lack of a better term, one would doubtless think of this in terms of the Apocalypse. Some strains of protestant

Christianity think of man as fundamentally flawed to the point of basic visciousness, such that only "Grace" saves

him from the otherwise well deserved unimaginable flames of everlasting Hell. Parents often have used to use this

belief to justify "beating some sense into" their "fundamentally evil" children. After all, "strong measures" are

required when you are dealing with fundamentally, fatally flawed humanity; trying to change it into something it is

not by "nature". This belief also fundamentally pits mankind against the forces of nature; and therefore against the

planet. Guess what all that leads to? Hell, some fundamentalist Christians just skip right to the "Bring on the

Rapture!" attitude. They are really embodying that good ol' death gene.

I personally would never want to base

my view of the cosmos on any religious dogma, because if many folks do this, then you are in fact left with a planet

of warring dogmas, all of which are -- goddammit -- based on the "will and word of God"; and all of which evoke

absolutist allegiance to the point of one kind of mutual destruction or another. Religious dogma, to the degree

taken seriously, is as it turns out, self defeating and destructive for humanity.

But hey, I'm choosing a

constructive point of view, just because I can't know to choose any other way with any kind of relative certainty.

I'm admitting what I don't and can never know, by virtue of my humanity. We can only know what we know in a

concrete sense of day to day living, and can only act on what we are capable of perceiving. I'm therefore holding

out hope that humanity can create itself according to its common values of everyday living, and not be fundamentally

destined for failure and oblivion.

For my taste, religions -- all of them -- claim to know too much of what they

cannot know; by virtue of their humanity; with a little too much certainty. That would be fine if these beliefs

werent employed with some kind of force or another (e.g., "moral authority", rules that people must folllow; to pick

some more benign but not harmless examples) in relations with other humans. Either way, religion itself is sin, and

a "deadly sin" at that ("pride" as applied to our own concepts). This renders it fundamentally nonsensical, at least

in the countless forms I have encountered.

This is not to say that everyone who goes to church or utilizes

religion as a tool in their practical living is necessarily guilty of the same sins that their Religions themselves

embody. I was raised Catholic, and can tell you a lot of people who go to church and call themselves Catholic for

whatever reasons don't believe half of what they are "supposed to". Maybe they use it just to keep out of trouble

on Sunday, or be with their communities, and don't take their dogma seriously. For me, integrity becomes an issue,

and a painful one, when I try to go back to church and do all that stuff.

Its funny that Jesus himself, at least

in the 4 "Canonical" (currently politically accepted by the religious power structures that be on earth) Gospels,

(Footnote: There are at least 40 known, very different, often contradictory gospels, held as sacred by the earliest

known Christians, such as the Gospels of Mary, Judas, and Thomas. The politicians that run our "Christian" religions

consider all but an arbitrary four of them to be blasphemy, even though they are the fundamental existing accounts

of the historic Jesus.) never even talked about many of the things people who call themselves Christians hold as

universally true by virtue of their "Christianity" being True. Really the stuff about Eden and even most of the

scriptures known as the "bible" has nothing to do with Christianity per se, since Islam and Judaism, among

other religions, also contain much or most of this. For example, most religions in the history of the planet have

some account of the fall of man, or some kind of "Eden" type of situation.

[belgareth]

Despite being raised in the

Mormon church, or maybe because of it, I am not religious in the classical sense. The hypocrisy of the christian

faiths tends to turn my stomach and I'll have no part in their beliefs.

Rather than take part in the guilt and

fault ridden beliefs of every church I have looked into, I choose to believe the average human being is good at

their core and would rather be left to live their life in peace. There always will be bad people, whether a product

of a sick mind or a lousy upbringing is academic and not really a concern for this discussion. The main thrust is

that people do not need guilt and the threat of burning sulfer pits to live well. Instead, they need encouragement

and opportunity. Penal controls of any sort fail eventually and you can demonstrate that by looking at the abundant

law and order in this country or at all the once a week christians who will cheerfully cut your throat the other six

days of the week.

Basically, while believing that humans are good, or at least not evil, I also recognize the

basic lazyness of all creatures. The preditor would much rather lay in the sun than chase prey. The grazer would

much rather find a field of tall green grass than to search out the rare blade of grass in hardscrabble. Call it a

form of conservation of energy. The basic human would rather pick up fruit off the ground than climb the tree to

find better fruit. Even better if somebody will take it away from one animal and give it to you. The aspiring to

better things, a full belly, an easier way to carry your haul back to the cave or a safer way to kill that big

striped thing grazing in the field has always been the core of invention. Why? Because it gives you more time to sit

in the sun or sleep. Only the rare one, the very few, have ever dreamed of bigger and better ways to do things and

it was always intended to make life easier in one way or another.

Therein lies the downfall of this society.

There are no longer guidelines or responsibility, no consequences and no good examples. Today's heroes are sports

stars and drug dealers. Consequences can actually be preferable to the labor of getting off your butt and

accomplishing something. You'll always be able to have food, your car and TV and get laid because our society will

make sure of it.

Personally, I do not believe in welfare per se. I while back I wrote a long desertation

describing what I view as an alternative to welfare. It may be viewed as unfair and a violation of a person's civil

rights but I feel that forcing others to pay huge percentages of their hard earned money to support those that

refuse to be productive is a far greater violation of civil rights. Bottom line is that while we have a

responsibility to help those in need, we do not have an obligation to support them forever or provide anything

beyond basic needs, which could be done in a barracks far more cheaply and with better accountability than how we do

it now.

I do not believe there is any such thing as cruel and unusual punishments either. If you know the laws

and the consequences of breaking the laws but choose of your own free will to break those laws, you are agreeing to

suffer any and all consequences outlined in the laws. If that means you are to be publicly beheaded for dealing

drugs to children, it was your choice to put yourself in that position and that's all there is too it. Sounds

cruel, right? Not to me it doesn't. What sounds cruel is allowing criminals to walk free, repeating time and again

these heinious crimes against others.

I do not believe in the dumbing down of the average citizen, it is a crime

to lower the bar and accept mediocrity from the school systems instead of teaching the value of education starting

in preschool.

In short, I believe in education, opportunity and consequences for the choices you make in life.

And I believe the lack of those things, the ability to freely lay in the sun while others collect fruit to be given

to you are the basics of the degradation of our society. The alphas are still there but very often suppressed by a

society that fears them. But the average person is mostly interested in getting what they can as easily as possible

and we not only allow it, we encourage it.

[Rbt]

A) "Religion" is that set of rules

and guidelines one choses to use to base the way they run their life. My definition. "Organized" religions have a

"set" of pre-made rules to follow. You have the option, if you are "alpha" enough, to pick and chose those rules you

wish to use or use/create your own. [Sing it Frank... "I did it Myyyyy Wayyyyy.....]


B) Except for the

above reference to "apha" males and freedom of choice and freedom from religion ("organized" religion usually) (said

freedoms being something the Republicans seem to be against with their meddling with the First Ammendment- there,

now I've managed to work in BOTH religion And politics into this post...)


We are getting a bit off

original topic...

[idesign]

No one can be alpha without integrity, in my view. If there was a central alpha trait, that would be it.

This

is why I tell young people to be themselves, etc.

You can't disagree with this, and I think integrity

has many dimensions.

Integrity demands that you "be yourself", and also have within yourself an adherence to a

code of character and behavior.

I think also that the word carries a connotation that one has the interests of

others in mind as you act.

In a behavioral aspect, I think integrity and responsibility can have a cause and

effect relationship.

That's to say, if a man (alpha) has real integrity, then his personal and professional

relationships will not be self-centered, but have a view, and care for the "whole".

I think that to the extent

that a man (alpha) is secure in himself (with integrity), he will see and act beyond himself.

Mirriam-Webster

defines it as:
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values :

incorruptibility
2 :

an unimpaired condition : soundness

3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided :

completeness synonyms see

honesty

[idesign]

A) "Religion"

is that set of rules and guidelines one choses to use to base the way they run their life. My definition.

"Organized" religions have a "set" of pre-made rules to follow. You have the option, if you are "alpha" enough, to

pick and chose those rules you wish to use or use/create your own. [Sing it Frank... "I did it Myyyyy

Wayyyyy.....]


B) Except for the above reference to "apha" males and freedom of choice and freedom from

religion ("organized" religion usually) (said freedoms being something the Republicans seem to be against with their

meddling with the First Ammendment- there, now I've managed to work in BOTH religion And politics into this

post...)


We are getting a bit off original topic...

You talked about religion and

politics in one post! You'll be banned! Emily Post once posted that any given post should not post such

potentially offensive subjects.

.... like any of us follow the rules...

Screw Emily, what

does she know anyway?? Though its a good idea to follow Rbt's advice and stick to the thread.

I'll have to do

some thinking about what you guys have posted vis religion, which is a word I'm not particularly fond of in certain

respects.

I think I will say though that a man's faith, intelligence and alpha-ness can be integral, but

fundamentally unrelated.

[belgareth]

I think I

will say though that a man's faith, intelligence and alpha-ness can be integral, but fundamentally

unrelated.

Probably true. It doesn't really change the face of religion but any religion has true

practitioners who behave as they should. Intelligence does not really figure into religious beliefs. The two are

seperate things.

[belgareth]

A) "Religion"

is that set of rules and guidelines one choses to use to base the way they run their life. My definition.

"Organized" religions have a "set" of pre-made rules to follow. You have the option, if you are "alpha" enough, to

pick and chose those rules you wish to use or use/create your own. [Sing it Frank... "I did it Myyyyy

Wayyyyy.....]


B) Except for the above reference to "apha" males and freedom of choice and freedom from

religion ("organized" religion usually) (said freedoms being something the Republicans seem to be against with their

meddling with the First Ammendment- there, now I've managed to work in BOTH religion And politics into this

post...)


We are getting a bit off original topic...

As I said, not in a classical sense.



Not really all that far off topic. Amazing the variables and side issues that this has brought up though.

[DrSmellThis]

You

can't disagree with this, and I think integrity has many dimensions.

Integrity demands that you "be yourself",

and also have within yourself an adherence to a code of character and behavior.

I think also that the word

carries a connotation that one has the interests of others in mind as you act.

In a behavioral aspect, I think

integrity and responsibility can have a cause and effect relationship.

That's to say, if a man (alpha) has real

integrity, then his personal and professional relationships will not be self-centered, but have a view, and care for

the "whole".

I think that to the extent that a man (alpha) is secure in himself (with integrity), he will see

and act beyond himself.

Mirriam-Webster defines it as:
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral

or artistic values : incorruptibility


2 : an unimpaired condition :

soundness 3 : the quality or state of being

complete or undivided : completeness

synonyms see honesty

Here I disagree

with Webster, and believe the first definition is really slang, or a corrupted original definition. The

"incorruptability" part is OK, however.

I agree that as it turns out, people with integrity often possess those

other traits you mentioned, such as responsibility and caring for the whole; but not because those other things are

what integrity is at base, or essentially, necessarily. You could argue that integrity implies

responsibility. But I could have great integrity without adhering to any codes, in particular . It is even

misleading for Webster to talk about integrity as having to do with external principles or codes (here you get into

a debate about the function of a dictionary: To give the correct definition versus catalog usage). That is false

integrity, because it begs the question of why one must or should adhere to the codes. Only integrity itself can

answer that "why should I?" question.

In a large sense, my doctoral dissertation was about integrity, a study of

ethics from a psychological and philosophical point of view which took many years. My thesis was reviewed and

supported by one of the three or so prominent moral philosophers in the world (every ethicist has read Alasdair

MacIntyre), and was constructed with some of his guidance; so you'd have to get up pretty early in the morning to

demonstrate me to be full of crap on this topic; which I say only so people know I'm not shooting from the hip, not

to claim authority.

Historically or etymologically, integrity refers more to wholeness, or similar ways of

saying it, like "true to your central self". Modern political/religious culture tacked on the rest.

The problem

with external codes and rules is that there is no firm grounds for them, ultimately. You can always stubbornly and

quite reasonably ask "why should I?" with those.

The same cannot be said for true integrity. Integrity,

when understood in a holistic way, is really the only firm ground on which any morality can stand (even religious

morality, as it turns out. Of course, it would take a while to explain.). It is the grounding for living by any

rules and standards, not the rules and standards themselves. It is based in humanity; indeed, in common humanity.



We are moral, we try to live the best way, because of who we are, not because "morality itself" commands

adherance. (BTW, you could argue the conceptual part of morality itself, the idea of morality, is itself part of the

"fall of man"; trying to do what we have in mind as "good", as opposed to just living like the rest of nature, but

this would take us far afield.)

So a man with integrity might have rules, but those rules are merely in the

service of his integrity, and get their meaning from that integrity. Similarly, if he participates in a religion or

a philosophical movement, even if he tries to "obey God", it is also in service of his integrity, ultimately.



This firm grounding is part of what renders it the ultimate alpha trait. Other virtues, like courage, honesty,

etc, are based in integrity too.

An alpha is extremely strong in his grounding, from thoughts down to actions.

That doesn't mean he's always right or thinks he is, as it is just a way of living life. In every day life,

however, our research suggested that human integrity is a huge, deep and involved process; involving self discovery,

interacting with the world, openness, and self honesty. Research suggests that when people try to do the right thing

or do the best thing, what they are basically doing is living their process of integrity.

Being true to oneself

isn't really a matter of proclaiming "this is what I believe," and stubbornly clinging to that. That is not

integrity but is often arrogance.
Integrity is rather a holistic way of life, a path.

[idesign]

An alpha is extremely strong in his grounding, from thoughts down to actions. That doesn't mean he's always

right or thinks he is, as it is just a way of living life. In every day life, however, our research suggested that

human integrity is a huge, deep and involved process; involving self discovery, interacting with the world,

openness, and self honesty. Research suggests that when people try to do the right thing or do the best thing, what

they are basically doing is living their process of integrity.

I sometimes wish that I could sit in a

bar with you guys with a decent budget and a free weekend.

I suppose though that having to write causes

an economy of words and honing of thought which is unique and good these days. I say that because your posts

inspire thinking, examination and re-consideration.

I wish others would interject their ideas. Its not an

exclusive club, and those of us who talk the most may not have the best perspective. Feel free to join in,

anyone.

After all that, I disagree with a couple of things you said above Doc, but the quoted paragraph is just

about perfect in describing the development of an alpha. Even if there is some inherit quality that an alpha has

from birth, the process you described is critical, and ongoing.

I'm still thinking about the rest. Dude, when

you give me those creds, I'd better be on the mark!

[DrSmellThis]

I

sometimes wish that I could sit in a bar with you guys with a decent budget and a free weekend. ... Even if

there is some inherit quality that an alpha has from birth, the process you described is critical, and

ongoing.

Now I'm driving you to drink. Don't ever say I didn't do anything for you. We could discuss

topics like, "Could God mix a drink so strong he could drink himself or herself stupid?"

So if this were a bar,

what would you call it?

I agree, of course, (this is love-scent, after all), that certain aspects of alphaness

are genetic and biological. Everything has biological correlates. Consciousness is bodily. But I'm speaking in

terms of the experience of daily living; as we live out the cinema of our lives.

So yeah, some of the momentary

things in life are givens, they are with us by luck, as Aristotle would put it. For him you had to both live well

and fare well to live a "good" life.

With integrity I'm referring to our direct experience; the reflected upon

phenomena of that experience; and a way of living out that experience: I mean integrity as a theme of a life story,

as lived by somebody; all of what it is for somebody.

It's always better the more people join in. But I

probably drive some folks away with abstract generality. If it weren't for you guys, I'd kill every thread off

[belgareth]

I guess that integrity and

morality would have to be a matter of one's definition. Have you ever wondered what a thief feels about stealing?

Is it wrong to steal or just wrong to get caught or is society way off in their point of view? Perhaps thieves are

true communists and believe everything belongs to everybody? "Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try" A bit

tongue in cheek, sorry, but do you see the point I am trying to make?

Are we each moral by our own moral

standards? From the statements above it seems clear that morality is not based on society's demands but on one's

internal beliefs. If you do not believe something is wrong, are you acting with integrity when you do that thing?

This is not a question about laws as I believe legal definitions, or even Websters, are unrelated to core morality

in the individual.

[idesign]

Now

I'm driving you to drink. Don't ever say I didn't do anything for you. We could discuss topics like, "Could God

mix a drink so strong he could drink himself or herself stupid?"

Drive me to drink? Someone with larger

breasts and more challenging demands on my brain than even you guys did that long ago. Though, needless to say,

the intellectual demands are qualitatively different, only different.

God's drinks are beyond us, but

there's no harm in trying. What would you call it? Sex on the Beach is already taken.

So if this were a bar, what would you call it?

Hmmm... Molecular Structure

seems like a good fit. Mose Allison has the theme song ready-made.

"Your molecular structure
is really

something swell,
a high frequency modulated, Jezebel,
thermodynamically gettin' through to me,
Your molecular

structure, oo oo wee"

I agree, of course, (this is love-scent, after all), that

certain aspects of alphaness are genetic and biological. Everything has biological correlates. Consciousness is

bodily. But I'm speaking in terms of the experience of daily living; as we live out the cinema of our lives.



So yeah, some of the momentary things in life are givens, they are with us by luck, as Aristotle would put it. For

him you had to both live well and fare well to live a "good" life.

With integrity I'm referring to our direct

experience; the reflected upon phenomena of that experience; and a way of living out that experience: I mean

integrity as a theme of a life story, as lived by somebody; all of what it is for somebody.

That last

phrase, after the colon, is Gertrude Stein-ish is its simple and elegant way which, to me, is the way an alpha will

live. There is more man than anybody sees, until he's made his mark, then everybody sees. Meanwhile, the man has

just lived.

It's always better the more people join in. But I probably drive some

folks away with abstract generality. If it weren't for you guys, I'd kill every thread off

Not

really, there are too many of your posts that prove otherwise. Its only in these open discussion threads where you

can sometimes be difficult to respond to, simply because it would take a major position paper to do it justice. The

same is true for Bel. You guys just put out more than can be handled in a couple of paragraphs.

Its a good thing

of course, and truly educational and thought provoking. I've no complaints whatsoever.

It would, however, be

good to hear from more of the folks out there. I know there are good opinions and thoughts running through the

membership.

[DrSmellThis]

"I guess that integrity and

morality would have to be a matter of one's definition. Have you ever wondered what a thief feels about stealing?

Is it wrong to steal or just wrong to get caught or is society way off in their point of view? Perhaps thieves are

true communists and believe everything belongs to everybody? "Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try" A bit

tongue in cheek, sorry, but do you see the point I am trying to make?

Are we each moral by our own moral

standards? From the statements above it seems clear that morality is not based on society's demands but on one's

internal beliefs. If you do not believe something is wrong, are you acting with integrity when you do that thing?

This is not a question about laws as I believe legal definitions, or even Websters, are unrelated to core morality

in the individual."

-- Belgareth

All cynicism aside, to me integrity

is the key to ethics, purpose, and living well.

People can argue morality all they want, but no matter their

view on morality, they can't sensibly argue that they shouldn't strive to be true to themselves, to their more

central intentions, given their grasp of reality. This is integrity.

That is because those are the minimum

conditions for not being self defeating; or for not being full of nonsense; no matter your philosophy or morality.

No one wants to defeat themselves, at least as a central, fundamental desire. No one wants to live a live where

their thoughts and actions don't and can't make sense to themselves. That is a big reason why psychotic people

suffer so much.

No one can be alpha without integrity, in my view. If there was a central alpha trait, that

would be it.

This is why I tell young people to be themselves, etc.

Idesign, I agree that

Belgareth asks and says things that make you write a thesis in order to reply to them fairly, and wait until you

have the time to do so. Speaking of which:

Bel, I guess what I'm suggesting in this thread is,

basically, that alphas are "ethically inclined" people, in my humble opinion; which is to say their lives are about

something one could call "integrity".

Second, the quoted section gives a short summary of what I mean by

"integrity", in terms of the firm grounding that makes it a possible central, essential theme structuring moral

life. This has to do with their most direct, basic and immediate experience of being alive, of living, of life; and

practically speaking, the extent we can access that through our life stories.

As you point out so well, one

might conclude that we are left with an abstract and naked moral truth that everybody should do only what their

beliefs tell them to; perhaps as a result of "thinking whatever their beliefs tell them to think"; or some such

assumption.

One wouldn't have to conclude exactly that, however. And far fewer assumptions would have to be

made if we didnt.

The conscious experience of daily living doesn't necessarily depend on "believing" anything,

since it is preconceptual on the most basic levels. First there is the relatively "unprejudged" (conceptually)

portion of living. In philosophy and psychology, this is called a "phenomenological" point of view, for what its

worth. You get that directly from your own life story in total, not just from one or more "beliefs" (whatever those

are). So that leaves it more open, and the only way anybody can know more is to know more about somebody's life

story, and/or a lot of people's life stories, and for people to understand their own stories better, and tell more

cohesive stories to themselves.

This would be a global, introspective, interactive, and evolving historical

process; in the big picture.

So how do people actually experience making a choice about what to do, when

they try to do the best thing?

To me that's the question, because then we find out how morality happens to work

in every day lives. Then we can compare stories and see if we share anything, and see whether those things are

valid.

I'm not going to assume people in fact do experience choosing "because" of some "belief" or "set of

beliefs", like, say, "stealing is wrong". That would be imposing my own label on something in such a way as to risk

crushing it. Whatever happens for people when they choose is an empirical issue, by definition. Only by listening to

each others' stories can we find that data, or at least the original, most crucial data.

That was the question

asked in our series of studies, and the stories suggested a huge, deep, multifaceted historic theme; involving

something like a circular process from self disovery, to interaction with the world, and back; and trying to be

whole or consistent within that. This type of theme enjoyed consistently strong validity for people. That was just

an initial finding. But when you related that finding to the world of ethics, the original concept of "integrity"

seemed best to fit. There is also a strong philosophical basis for it, going back to the Greeks, and up through

Neitzsche and modernity.

So I'm suggesting that, since that may be how morality actually works for people, or

something consistent with that; that no morality, religion, politics, or idea of alphaness can make sense if it

doesn't dialog with that theme, throughout; inasmuch as that might hold true with replication of such findings in

different settings. There is some evidence that people are going to try to do what the whole of their lives and

their understanding of them suggests would make sense. But trying to do the right thing necessarily involves certain

processes for people, as the evidence suggests; and is more than a static snapshot or lifeless abstraction. If

that's what we're dealing with, we have to accept it and learn more about it.

If we want people to come

together around a morality, a set of standards, or a set of common actions, we would have to find some concrete

commonalities among some people, in their relevant experiences of living. Rather than assume, we'd have to get to

know each other, and ourselves, better and better. Looking back, this was a big reason I liked Idesign's dialogue

with our Russian friend Alex.

Inasmuch as we succeed at that mutual self-understanding, we can hope for

increased success in doing things together which would ultimately seem best across people, rather than just proclaim

as powerfully as possible, "This is what I believe people need!" (or "this is what God thinks people need," or what

people really, really want; etc.) I don't prejudge this kind of project, because everything depends on how it turns

out.

People have to ultimately buy into each others' understandings of each other, practically speaking, in

the same way that our marriages depend on saying things, like, "Honey, am I hearing you say 'X'?". That involves

humans having actual, holistic, substantive relations with each other.

If we're going to do all that, we need

each other in some basic ways. Hell, a sustainable earth population and community might even depend on acknowledging

such fundamental interdependency, beyond what we typically acknowledge about needing each other.



Notwithstanding, there is preliminary evidence supporting the rationality of that kind of humanistic project; and

a shrinking world makes it increasingly practical in terms of access to each others' stories.

Of course, I am

not talking about the biological portion of it all, but there would be no reason we couldn't. Evidence suggests

biology is a factor, though not necessarily the most important one.

Nonetheless, if you get to atypical choice

processes, like stealing, you want to make sure to consider the biology anew, because you might also have atypical

biology, and/or an atypical importance of biology. Biology and the study of life stories go together, because the

more biology we know, the more our stories make sense to us; the deeper, and more valid they will seem to be.



And obviously, we share our basic biologies. So biological discoveries are almost by definition discoveries of

human commonality, even in the case of biological disease, since we share the potential for malaise.

[DrSmellThis]

nm............................