Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
-By Caleb Jones
When I was a teenager, most of the kids in my high school fell into the typical “Breakfast Club” categories of jock, nerd, popular girl, stoner, whatever. There were also the kids we used to call “new wavers,” the punkish kids that later became known as “emos”.
I’m generalizing of course, but the vast majority of the kids in my school fell into one or more of those categories. (If you were wondering, I split my time about equally between the nerds and the stoners / new wavers, though some of my friend were jocks since I lifted weights with them.)
I once conducted a social experiment while still in high school that I found interesting.
If I walked up to a jock, and said “You’re a jock”, the reaction would be something like a shrug and “yeah.”
If I walked up to a new waver, and said “You’re a new waver”, the reaction would always be, “You really shouldn’t label people. I can’t be categorized. Who are you to categorize me?”
Years later in my twenties when I became politically active (which made sense back in the 1990s, since we still had time to turn America around back then, unlike today), I repeated this same experiment with conservatives and liberals. (For you non-Americans, remember that the American definition of “liberal” means a leftist or progressive.)
If I walked up to a conservative and said “You’re a conservative”, the reaction would be something like a shrug and “yeah.”
If I walked up to a liberal, and said “You’re a liberal”, the reaction would always be, “You really shouldn’t label people. I have lots of different political opinions. Who are you to categorize me?”
Hmmmmmmm.
I use categories in my writing, and while it’s clearly helpful for people to understand otherwise confusing concepts, some people get upset when I do this. As just one example, recently a commenter (workgamer) made a comment over in my Thrill of the Hunt / Pleasure of Sex article:
The points in the above comment is typical of people who complain that I shouldn’t use labels, or that the labels I use are wildly incorrect. Let’s examine this.
Why I Use Labels
I use plenty of labels, most of which are explained in the glossary. When I talk about nonmonogamous relationships, I define three types:
FB MLTR (or WD) OLTR
When I discuss men, I talk about three types:
Beta Alpha Male 1.0 Alpha Male 2.0
When I discuss women, again, I talk about three types:
Dominant Submissive Independent
When I talk about players, I talk about just two types:
Thrill of the Hunt men Pleasure of Sex men
These labels are helpful. They help explain human behavior. They help you to anticipate and prevent problems with other human beings, as well as yourself. In the case of the relationship types, understanding the three types helps prevent all kinds of drama and pain that most normal relationships suffer.
Are all the above categories 100% accurate 100% of the time? Of course not. Clearly I’m not god, nor even a trained psychologist. I don’t have all of the answers and never will.
Are the above categories generally correct, most of the time? Yes. Just because they aren’t 100% accurate 100% of the time doesn’t mean they’re completely inaccurate or useless. They’re quite useful, as thousands of men (and many women!) have clearly demonstrated and indicated, if my incoming email is any indication.
Do These Categories Upset You?
Many times, a guy will read about Thrill of the Hunt / Pleasure of Sex categories, or a woman will read about the Dominant / Submissive / Independent categories, and actually get angry. I don’t mean they just disagree. I mean they actually get upset, to the point of hurling insults at me. Almost 100% of the time that I can verify it, they’re angry because they actually relate to one of the categories but don’t want to admit it for whatever reason.
Just like the new wavers and liberals when I was younger, instead of admitting that the category presented to them does indeed describe who they are most of the time, they want to get angry at the person using the label.
Exactly. Workgamer is bisexual, which is yet another label people use. Based on the tone of his comment and on the experience I’ve had with other people who hate labels, if I walked up to workgamer and simply said “You’re a bisexual,” he would both deny the label and probably get upset with me. This is despite the fact that A) the label is accurate by his own admission, and B) it’s not meant as an insult, since I think bisexuals are great.
This is some kind of defensive ego thing I don’t really understand, since I’ve never had this problem. Throughout my life, people have attached all kinds of labels to me. None of them have ever bothered me and have never made me upset or angry, even if inaccurate. These labels have included:
With the exception of anarchist and right-winger, every one of those above labels others attached to me were more or less accurate at the time they did it. When I was labeled a nerd, I was a nerd. When I was labeled weirdo, I was weird. When I was labeled and player or womanizer, I was those things. To this day, some of the above labels still apply, like INTJ, libertarian, workaholic and often, asshole.
Not once did I ever get upset at a person assigning the above labels to me. I mean it. Not once. Even when I was labeled an anarchist, which is completely incorrect, I still didn’t get mad, because the label didn’t apply and I knew it.
I don’t get defensive or mad when a label or category is assigned to me that’s more or less accurate. If you call me an Italian, or even if you call me a “wop,” it won’t bother me, because it’s true. I won’t get angry, defensive, call you names, or say that you shouldn't categorize people. I won’t even call you a racist, because quoting facts isn’t racism.
I also don’t get defensive or angry when labels are assigned to me that clearly are not accurate. If you call me a turnip, I might say, “That’s incorrect, I’m not a turnip because of A, B, and C.” But it won’t bother me that you’re calling me a turnip, because I know it’s clearly not true and you’re just being a dumbass. Dumbasses are fine with me. They help make life more entertaining, especially online.
When someone reads one of my articles about certain categories of people or relationships and then gets angry as a response, I know I’ve hit a nerve. I know that the complainer has identified himself or herself as one of the categories and doesn’t like it. If a guy reads about Thrill of the Hunt vs. Pleasure of Sex and then flies into a tirade about how stupid I am, or a woman reads about Dominant / Submissive / Independent and starts calling me a bunch of names, I know what’s going on. That person isn’t pissed at me; they’re pissed that I’ve correctly identified them, and for whatever reason, they don't like what they are. Otherwise they wouldn’t care enough to get mad.
Absolute?
This is another common argument; if a label doesn't apply 100% of the time, it doesn't apply at all and should not be used.
Are the labels I use absolute? Of course not.
If I call you an “extrovert,” am I saying you’re extroverted 100% of the time, every day of your life? No. I’m saying that 51% of the time or more, your behaviors and desires are extroverted. I’m also saying that you naturally tend towards extroverted behaviors and desires more than introverted ones.
I’m true blue introvert, but there are many days you wouldn’t be able to tell. Seriously. If you happen to catch me at the right time, you could hang around me for two or three days straight and be convinced I’m an extrovert. Some have made this mistake.
Does this mean I’m “sometimes and extrovert and sometimes and introvert” and therefore you “can’t label me an introvert!?!” No. It means I’m an introvert that happens to engage in extroverted behaviors sometimes. I'm still an introvert. The label is accurate.
Does this mean I’m going to get upset and/or defensive if you label me an introvert? Again, no. Your label is accurate, even if I happen to be having an “extrovert day” or even an “extrovert week.” I’m still an introvert, since that’s my natural tendency, and for me to get defensive and say that “you can’t categorize me because I’m both an extrovert and introvert depending on the day!” would be childish and silly.
So if I label you a Thrill of the Hunt man, am I saying that you NEVER have times where you just want to relax and have sex without going out to hunt it? No.
If I label you a Dominant woman, am I saying that you NEVER have days where you prefer your husband set the agenda? No.
If I label you an Alpha Male 1.0, am I saying that you NEVER have days where you’re totally chill and relaxed even while your girlfriend is doing a bunch of things that would normally piss you off? No.
I’m an Alpha Male 2.0. A pretty hardcore one. Do you think I NEVER have days where I get a little dominant or bossy with my women? No.
I’m a libertarian. Do you think I have NO political opinions where I think the government should be in charge? No.
No, no, no!
Just because you aren’t one thing every day of your life doesn’t mean you don’t naturally tend to that one thing most of the time. It's absolutely stunning to me that I actually have to point this out.
If you attack any of the labels or categories I use under the basis that they aren’t 100% absolute at all times, that is ridiculous. Of course they’re not. They’re accurate most of the time. They’re what you naturally tend to, based on your personality. But of course you’re not like that every day.
Misunderstanding the Categories
Another common problem is people misunderstanding the categories I describe. This often makes people confused or even angry. Here are a few examples I’ve seen over the years:
1. People assuming that “FB” means a woman you treat a woman like shit, like nothing but a piece of meat that you fuck and then toss away.
Incorrect. As I’ve said many times, the “F” in “FB” stands for Friend. Men should treat FBs with utmost respect, friendship, and kindness, since that’s how you treat your friends, as I’ve described many times in detail, particularly here.
2. People assuming that the Alpha Male 2.0 is a loner recluse with no friends who sits in his basement all day.
Incorrect. I’ve never said or even implied anything of the kind. Thousands of Alpha 2.0s out there are extreme extroverts (uh oh! another label!) who are highly social, have tons of friends and hang out with people all day long. (Next week I have a blog post going up regarding that exact topic.)
I have said that I am an introvert and that I don't consider my social life (outside of work, family, and women) very important. But just because I have a particular trait doesn’t mean that all Alpha 2.0s share the same trait. Even using me as an example of this misnomer is a bad idea, since I’m usually around people literally all day long (clients, customers, vendors, women, family members, etc.).
3. People assuming that Thrill of the Hunt men don’t like sex.
Incorrect. Again, I’ve never said or even implied anything like this. Just because the other type of player is called “Pleasure of Sex” doesn’t mean that TH men don’t like sex. Often TH men like sex more than PS men. The difference is that TH men enjoy the thrill of the process and achievement of pickup, especially when it’s difficult, whereas PS men don’t like the process of pickup at all and just want the sex. But they both like sex. To suggest that TH men like sex any less than any other type of man is just...dumb.
4. People assuming that Alpha Male 1.0s are assholes.
Incorrect. There are some Alpha 1.0s who are assholes, and there are some Alpha 1.0s who have big tempers, but there are tons of Alpha 1.0s who are the nicest, sweetest, kindest guys in the world. I know several of these guys. Just because I identify someone as Alpha 1.0 doesn’t mean I’m saying that person is a jerk. One has nothing to do with the other. As a matter of fact, the nicest guy I know is an Alpha 1.0.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. A lot of this anger or disagreement over the labels and categories I and others use is simply a result of people not understanding what they’re reading (a very common problem on the internet).
You’re Oversimplifying!
The last complaint is that people will accuse my categories as being inaccurate because they’re too simple or too broad.
This is half right. My terms are simple, by design. You know why? Because I’m talking to literally millions of people here. I’m also conveying complicated, often societally inappropriate topics. This means I’ve got to be as straightforward as I can. Hell, to this day, guys still screw up the FB, MLTR and OLTR categories, despite me talking about these categories for eight friggin' years. And that’s only three categories! Imagine if I had 13 different relationship categories! Holy shit! Talk about confusion.
Let’s talk about Thrill of the Hunt vs. Pleasure of Sex men again. “Blackdragon, that’s bullshit! It’s not that simple.” Correct, it’s not that simple, but it’s still generally accurate. A while back, one of the posters at the NextASF forum wrote an article here that split my TH and PS categories into four categories instead of two, which could then be combined to form eight separate subcategories. It’s a very interesting article. The categories he came up with were indeed accurate, and I agreed with his article wholeheartedly.
Does that mean I’m going to talk about eight different subcategories of player types on this blog or in my books? Hell no. For a pickup forum full of PUA insiders it’s great, but for blogs and books pushing these concepts out to the mainstream, it’s way too complicated. Like I said, people have trouble enough understanding and remembering two or three categories, let alone eight.
Yet, simple doesn’t mean inaccurate. The TH and PS categories are indeed accurate to the vast majority of players or Alpha Males out there.
Speaking of Alpha Males, you’ll notice I have just two types: 1.0 and 2.0. Many guys have asked why I don’t use the nomenclature used by others in the manosphere like Vox Day regarding Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Omega, Sigma, and Lambda males.
I’m very familiar with these categories and see no problem with them. But again, if I’m trying to communicate these concepts to millions of men on the internet, the majority of whom are reading at or below the ninth grade level. If I’m talking about Sigma Males, Lambda Males and six more confusing terms all the time, I’m going to confuse the hell out of a lot of people and not get my word out as well as I could.
There’s a reason Donald Trump has been so successful; he speaks very simply. While I don’t speak as simply as he does, you have to admit the method is effective. An opposite example in recent politics is Rand Paul, a guy I agreed with a lot, who constantly spoke like an intelligent, nuanced, articulate college professor, and who got absolutely slaughtered in the Republican primaries.
Nerdy complicated is fun, but in terms of communication, nerdy complicated doesn’t work.
And again, simple does not mean inaccurate. My Alpha 1.0 / 2.0 nomenclature is every bit as accurate as Gamma, Delta, Lambda, whatever, even if it’s not quite as detailed. 1.0s are Alphas who value control over consistent happiness, 2.0s are Alphas value consistent happiness over control. Simple and accurate.
I’ve hope I’ve cleared all this up. Next time you see someone lose their shit because they read about certain categories of people or relationships, show them this article.
I’m generalizing of course, but the vast majority of the kids in my school fell into one or more of those categories. (If you were wondering, I split my time about equally between the nerds and the stoners / new wavers, though some of my friend were jocks since I lifted weights with them.)
I once conducted a social experiment while still in high school that I found interesting.
If I walked up to a jock, and said “You’re a jock”, the reaction would be something like a shrug and “yeah.”
If I walked up to a new waver, and said “You’re a new waver”, the reaction would always be, “You really shouldn’t label people. I can’t be categorized. Who are you to categorize me?”
Years later in my twenties when I became politically active (which made sense back in the 1990s, since we still had time to turn America around back then, unlike today), I repeated this same experiment with conservatives and liberals. (For you non-Americans, remember that the American definition of “liberal” means a leftist or progressive.)
If I walked up to a conservative and said “You’re a conservative”, the reaction would be something like a shrug and “yeah.”
If I walked up to a liberal, and said “You’re a liberal”, the reaction would always be, “You really shouldn’t label people. I have lots of different political opinions. Who are you to categorize me?”
Hmmmmmmm.
I use categories in my writing, and while it’s clearly helpful for people to understand otherwise confusing concepts, some people get upset when I do this. As just one example, recently a commenter (workgamer) made a comment over in my Thrill of the Hunt / Pleasure of Sex article:
as i do appreciate your blog very much i think this discussion is silly, theres something about american culture that’s so into labels all those people declaring “i’m an introverted/extroverted” that’s driving me insane. i can confidently say i fit into the extremes of both categories on different day’s. use to have great long lasting FB and was happy with that, made me calm. than again today i haven’t answered a chic cause i was feeling like going hunting in the streets. and sometimes i just prefer to watch tv than do any sex. i’m also undefined bisexual so have a personal issue with labeling lol
The points in the above comment is typical of people who complain that I shouldn’t use labels, or that the labels I use are wildly incorrect. Let’s examine this.
Why I Use Labels
I use plenty of labels, most of which are explained in the glossary. When I talk about nonmonogamous relationships, I define three types:
FB MLTR (or WD) OLTR
When I discuss men, I talk about three types:
Beta Alpha Male 1.0 Alpha Male 2.0
When I discuss women, again, I talk about three types:
Dominant Submissive Independent
When I talk about players, I talk about just two types:
Thrill of the Hunt men Pleasure of Sex men
These labels are helpful. They help explain human behavior. They help you to anticipate and prevent problems with other human beings, as well as yourself. In the case of the relationship types, understanding the three types helps prevent all kinds of drama and pain that most normal relationships suffer.
Are all the above categories 100% accurate 100% of the time? Of course not. Clearly I’m not god, nor even a trained psychologist. I don’t have all of the answers and never will.
Are the above categories generally correct, most of the time? Yes. Just because they aren’t 100% accurate 100% of the time doesn’t mean they’re completely inaccurate or useless. They’re quite useful, as thousands of men (and many women!) have clearly demonstrated and indicated, if my incoming email is any indication.
Do These Categories Upset You?
all those people declaring “i’m an introverted/extroverted” that’s driving me insane.
Many times, a guy will read about Thrill of the Hunt / Pleasure of Sex categories, or a woman will read about the Dominant / Submissive / Independent categories, and actually get angry. I don’t mean they just disagree. I mean they actually get upset, to the point of hurling insults at me. Almost 100% of the time that I can verify it, they’re angry because they actually relate to one of the categories but don’t want to admit it for whatever reason.
Just like the new wavers and liberals when I was younger, instead of admitting that the category presented to them does indeed describe who they are most of the time, they want to get angry at the person using the label.
i’m also undefined bisexual so have a personal issue with labeling lol
Exactly. Workgamer is bisexual, which is yet another label people use. Based on the tone of his comment and on the experience I’ve had with other people who hate labels, if I walked up to workgamer and simply said “You’re a bisexual,” he would both deny the label and probably get upset with me. This is despite the fact that A) the label is accurate by his own admission, and B) it’s not meant as an insult, since I think bisexuals are great.
This is some kind of defensive ego thing I don’t really understand, since I’ve never had this problem. Throughout my life, people have attached all kinds of labels to me. None of them have ever bothered me and have never made me upset or angry, even if inaccurate. These labels have included:
- nerd
- arrogant
- libertarian
- anarchist
- weirdo
- player
- womanizer
- PUA
- right-winger
- asshole
- INTJ
- Italian
- white
- workaholic
With the exception of anarchist and right-winger, every one of those above labels others attached to me were more or less accurate at the time they did it. When I was labeled a nerd, I was a nerd. When I was labeled weirdo, I was weird. When I was labeled and player or womanizer, I was those things. To this day, some of the above labels still apply, like INTJ, libertarian, workaholic and often, asshole.
Not once did I ever get upset at a person assigning the above labels to me. I mean it. Not once. Even when I was labeled an anarchist, which is completely incorrect, I still didn’t get mad, because the label didn’t apply and I knew it.
I don’t get defensive or mad when a label or category is assigned to me that’s more or less accurate. If you call me an Italian, or even if you call me a “wop,” it won’t bother me, because it’s true. I won’t get angry, defensive, call you names, or say that you shouldn't categorize people. I won’t even call you a racist, because quoting facts isn’t racism.
I also don’t get defensive or angry when labels are assigned to me that clearly are not accurate. If you call me a turnip, I might say, “That’s incorrect, I’m not a turnip because of A, B, and C.” But it won’t bother me that you’re calling me a turnip, because I know it’s clearly not true and you’re just being a dumbass. Dumbasses are fine with me. They help make life more entertaining, especially online.
When someone reads one of my articles about certain categories of people or relationships and then gets angry as a response, I know I’ve hit a nerve. I know that the complainer has identified himself or herself as one of the categories and doesn’t like it. If a guy reads about Thrill of the Hunt vs. Pleasure of Sex and then flies into a tirade about how stupid I am, or a woman reads about Dominant / Submissive / Independent and starts calling me a bunch of names, I know what’s going on. That person isn’t pissed at me; they’re pissed that I’ve correctly identified them, and for whatever reason, they don't like what they are. Otherwise they wouldn’t care enough to get mad.
Absolute?
i can confidently say i fit into the extremes of both categories on different day’s.
This is another common argument; if a label doesn't apply 100% of the time, it doesn't apply at all and should not be used.
Are the labels I use absolute? Of course not.
If I call you an “extrovert,” am I saying you’re extroverted 100% of the time, every day of your life? No. I’m saying that 51% of the time or more, your behaviors and desires are extroverted. I’m also saying that you naturally tend towards extroverted behaviors and desires more than introverted ones.
I’m true blue introvert, but there are many days you wouldn’t be able to tell. Seriously. If you happen to catch me at the right time, you could hang around me for two or three days straight and be convinced I’m an extrovert. Some have made this mistake.
Does this mean I’m “sometimes and extrovert and sometimes and introvert” and therefore you “can’t label me an introvert!?!” No. It means I’m an introvert that happens to engage in extroverted behaviors sometimes. I'm still an introvert. The label is accurate.
Does this mean I’m going to get upset and/or defensive if you label me an introvert? Again, no. Your label is accurate, even if I happen to be having an “extrovert day” or even an “extrovert week.” I’m still an introvert, since that’s my natural tendency, and for me to get defensive and say that “you can’t categorize me because I’m both an extrovert and introvert depending on the day!” would be childish and silly.
So if I label you a Thrill of the Hunt man, am I saying that you NEVER have times where you just want to relax and have sex without going out to hunt it? No.
If I label you a Dominant woman, am I saying that you NEVER have days where you prefer your husband set the agenda? No.
If I label you an Alpha Male 1.0, am I saying that you NEVER have days where you’re totally chill and relaxed even while your girlfriend is doing a bunch of things that would normally piss you off? No.
I’m an Alpha Male 2.0. A pretty hardcore one. Do you think I NEVER have days where I get a little dominant or bossy with my women? No.
I’m a libertarian. Do you think I have NO political opinions where I think the government should be in charge? No.
No, no, no!
Just because you aren’t one thing every day of your life doesn’t mean you don’t naturally tend to that one thing most of the time. It's absolutely stunning to me that I actually have to point this out.
If you attack any of the labels or categories I use under the basis that they aren’t 100% absolute at all times, that is ridiculous. Of course they’re not. They’re accurate most of the time. They’re what you naturally tend to, based on your personality. But of course you’re not like that every day.
Misunderstanding the Categories
Another common problem is people misunderstanding the categories I describe. This often makes people confused or even angry. Here are a few examples I’ve seen over the years:
1. People assuming that “FB” means a woman you treat a woman like shit, like nothing but a piece of meat that you fuck and then toss away.
Incorrect. As I’ve said many times, the “F” in “FB” stands for Friend. Men should treat FBs with utmost respect, friendship, and kindness, since that’s how you treat your friends, as I’ve described many times in detail, particularly here.
2. People assuming that the Alpha Male 2.0 is a loner recluse with no friends who sits in his basement all day.
Incorrect. I’ve never said or even implied anything of the kind. Thousands of Alpha 2.0s out there are extreme extroverts (uh oh! another label!) who are highly social, have tons of friends and hang out with people all day long. (Next week I have a blog post going up regarding that exact topic.)
I have said that I am an introvert and that I don't consider my social life (outside of work, family, and women) very important. But just because I have a particular trait doesn’t mean that all Alpha 2.0s share the same trait. Even using me as an example of this misnomer is a bad idea, since I’m usually around people literally all day long (clients, customers, vendors, women, family members, etc.).
3. People assuming that Thrill of the Hunt men don’t like sex.
Incorrect. Again, I’ve never said or even implied anything like this. Just because the other type of player is called “Pleasure of Sex” doesn’t mean that TH men don’t like sex. Often TH men like sex more than PS men. The difference is that TH men enjoy the thrill of the process and achievement of pickup, especially when it’s difficult, whereas PS men don’t like the process of pickup at all and just want the sex. But they both like sex. To suggest that TH men like sex any less than any other type of man is just...dumb.
4. People assuming that Alpha Male 1.0s are assholes.
Incorrect. There are some Alpha 1.0s who are assholes, and there are some Alpha 1.0s who have big tempers, but there are tons of Alpha 1.0s who are the nicest, sweetest, kindest guys in the world. I know several of these guys. Just because I identify someone as Alpha 1.0 doesn’t mean I’m saying that person is a jerk. One has nothing to do with the other. As a matter of fact, the nicest guy I know is an Alpha 1.0.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. A lot of this anger or disagreement over the labels and categories I and others use is simply a result of people not understanding what they’re reading (a very common problem on the internet).
You’re Oversimplifying!
The last complaint is that people will accuse my categories as being inaccurate because they’re too simple or too broad.
This is half right. My terms are simple, by design. You know why? Because I’m talking to literally millions of people here. I’m also conveying complicated, often societally inappropriate topics. This means I’ve got to be as straightforward as I can. Hell, to this day, guys still screw up the FB, MLTR and OLTR categories, despite me talking about these categories for eight friggin' years. And that’s only three categories! Imagine if I had 13 different relationship categories! Holy shit! Talk about confusion.
Let’s talk about Thrill of the Hunt vs. Pleasure of Sex men again. “Blackdragon, that’s bullshit! It’s not that simple.” Correct, it’s not that simple, but it’s still generally accurate. A while back, one of the posters at the NextASF forum wrote an article here that split my TH and PS categories into four categories instead of two, which could then be combined to form eight separate subcategories. It’s a very interesting article. The categories he came up with were indeed accurate, and I agreed with his article wholeheartedly.
Does that mean I’m going to talk about eight different subcategories of player types on this blog or in my books? Hell no. For a pickup forum full of PUA insiders it’s great, but for blogs and books pushing these concepts out to the mainstream, it’s way too complicated. Like I said, people have trouble enough understanding and remembering two or three categories, let alone eight.
Yet, simple doesn’t mean inaccurate. The TH and PS categories are indeed accurate to the vast majority of players or Alpha Males out there.
Speaking of Alpha Males, you’ll notice I have just two types: 1.0 and 2.0. Many guys have asked why I don’t use the nomenclature used by others in the manosphere like Vox Day regarding Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Omega, Sigma, and Lambda males.
I’m very familiar with these categories and see no problem with them. But again, if I’m trying to communicate these concepts to millions of men on the internet, the majority of whom are reading at or below the ninth grade level. If I’m talking about Sigma Males, Lambda Males and six more confusing terms all the time, I’m going to confuse the hell out of a lot of people and not get my word out as well as I could.
There’s a reason Donald Trump has been so successful; he speaks very simply. While I don’t speak as simply as he does, you have to admit the method is effective. An opposite example in recent politics is Rand Paul, a guy I agreed with a lot, who constantly spoke like an intelligent, nuanced, articulate college professor, and who got absolutely slaughtered in the Republican primaries.
Nerdy complicated is fun, but in terms of communication, nerdy complicated doesn’t work.
And again, simple does not mean inaccurate. My Alpha 1.0 / 2.0 nomenclature is every bit as accurate as Gamma, Delta, Lambda, whatever, even if it’s not quite as detailed. 1.0s are Alphas who value control over consistent happiness, 2.0s are Alphas value consistent happiness over control. Simple and accurate.
I’ve hope I’ve cleared all this up. Next time you see someone lose their shit because they read about certain categories of people or relationships, show them this article.
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.