Print Shortlink

Interlude: Donalgraeme’s Charts of Attraction

A picture tells a thousand words.

Well, in a prior post, commenter donalgreame mentioned that he had discerned his own attraction matrix, to wit:

I have been using my own version of List A and List B ever since I took the Red Pill. However, I think it fits better as a matrix (see what I did there?) , or maybe a table, with two columns and two lines. Instead of A I have Alpha traits, which are the attractive traits in List A. B turns into Beta traits, which encompasses the other features women like in men (stable provider, good father, etc.) With Alpha traits as a Yes/No on the left and Beta traits on top, you get four categories that men fall into.

Alpha Yes/Beta Yes: The “ideal” man. Husband material. The man women want.

Alpha Yes/Beta No: The usual definition of alpha in the ‘sphere. “Bad Boy.” The man that women will have ONS with, have as boyfriends or STRs with.

Alpha No/Beta Yes: Lets Just Be Friends. Think Beta Orbiters, or Friendzone territory. The kind of guys that women ignore until they hit the Wall, and whom they marry out of desperation. And then divorce a few years later.

Alpha No/ Beta No: Creeps. Invisible to women most of the time, and when they do show up on a woman’s radar its usually followed by a Sexual Harassment claim or a 911 call.

The problem of course is that feminism and the cult of nice has been pushing men more and more towards the Beta traits and away from the Alpha traits. The end result is that most men fall into the Alpha No/Beta Yes category. Those who resist this become bad boys, and fall into the Alpha Yes/ Beta No category.

End result naturally is that women claim that “there are no good men left” all the while they throw themselves at the Bad Boys.

I asked donalgraeme to place this scheme in a chart, and he was graceful enough to provide this to me.

Alpha-Beta Table

I think this provides a very useful and handy guide for men trying to understand female attraction vectors, and which box they may themselves fall into.

Donalgraeme offered another one as well, this time displaying

Male relationship table

the differential attraction vectors, as between men and women.

These are great charts, and behind them are great ideas.

Read and learn!

——–

Note: Charts here are provided by donalgraeme, and any further rights to use them are reserved in their totality by donalgraeme. 

 

16 Responses

  1. Morticia

    -Like-

  2. Cail Corishev

    I like it, but from the perspective of “men trying to understand female attraction vectors,” the vertical separation doesn’t really matter. Either he’s on the left side and women will have sex with him, or he’s on the right and they won’t. If he’s on the right, it doesn’t matter whether he’s on the top or bottom; he needs to adopt the same alpha traits to shift to the other side. If he’s in the ‘creep’ box, the last thing he wants to do is move up into the LJBF box. He wants to move to the left side, and then whether he’s on the top or bottom is mostly a matter of choice — does he go for one-night stands or marriage?

  3. donalgraeme

    Very true Cail. I think it might actually be better described as a graph, with the X axis representing Alpha status and the Y axis representing Beta status. This would be superior because its not really a yes/no binary point. Rather, everyone has a certain degree of alpha or beta behavior or characteristics. And one of the main goals of the ‘sphere is to shift yourself more towards the Alpha side of the chart.

  4. Elspeth

    This is interesting, Nova. I try very, very hard to follow all of this alpha/beta stuff, and I really do *get* it. Here’s what I don’t get about the effort required to shift oneself more to the alpha side.

    Well before I get to that, I’ll acknowledge that my father, before he came to faith when I was 13, had something of a track record with women. A very good dad he was, but he never really had the gene required to pedestalize women. He was very aware of the fact that left unattended, his daughters could become sluts. In other words, I was bred to be drawn to dominant men. I admit my blind spot.

    Still, I’ve talked to my husband about this and he offered his wisdom to me on the matter way back when the first manospherian stumbled onto my (now defunct) blog. He says it really doesn’t take that much for a man to develop dominance, and the attractiveness that comes with it.

    He refused to apologize for who he was, what he liked, or how you spend his time and/or money. If I wanted to be in his life, it was going to be on his terms. For the Christian man, this is already tempered by his commitment to his faith. That is enough.

    He refused to apologize simply because I felt like he did something wrong. If it wasn’t objectively wrong, my feelings were my problem to manage.

    He refused to allow me to mold him into my image. Once he became a Christian, if there was not a clear and morally unambiguous reason why he should do or not do something, he ignored my attempts to change him.

    Oh yeah, and he looks good, but anyone can improve to some degree upon what nature has provided.

    He says it’s “just that easy”, so I tend to believe that it must be “just that easy”. However, what I get from you guys is that it isn’t. Why?

    1. Escoffier

      This is what you might call an “intra-game” debate.

      In one camp are men who believe what you quote your husband saying. Basically that “anti-game” is more important than game. That is, for most men, simply ceasing to engage in counterproductive behavior (“anti-game”) is good enough to land them a woman they would want to have. So, no supplicating, no orbiting, no apologies when you know you aren’t wrong, no begging and so on.

      In the other camp are those who say all of the above is necessary but insufficient. A man in addition needs a raft of positive traits, above all confidence–whether rationally derived or not doesn’t matter, so long as he exudes it to women.

      For my part, I think both are true–it depends on the character of the woman in question. The “anti-game” argument is true when dealing with women of good or high character. As long as you are a decent guy and meet her minimum threshold of attractiveness, then the key is not to turn her off by coming off like a wuss.

      However, for the younger generation of more entitled and narcissistic lasses, you better bring a lot more to the table than that. The prettier she is, the more she’ll expect. These girls demand a big helping of alpha, not merely the absence of supplicating beta.

    2. Höllenhund

      Elspeth, you fell for the apex fallacy again, plain and simple. It’s like when you discussed on Dalrock’s how husbands ought to have ‘inpenetrable frame’. Well, guess what, most men will never have ‘inpenetrable frame’, that’s just the way it is.

      1. Lena

        That adesresds several of my concerns actually.

    3. Retrenched

      @ Elspeth

      “He says it really doesn’t take that much for a man to develop dominance, and the attractiveness that comes with it”.

      Also, Joe DiMaggio once told a rookie: “There’s no skill involved. Just go up there and swing at the ball!”

      A lot of it depends on what kind of man the guy is, his personality, his beliefs etc. I don’t doubt that it “doesn’t take that much” for men like your husband to be dominant, since he most likely has the personality type well suited for it. Not all men do, though.

      Moreover, your husband was apparently not influenced by (or perhaps was not greatly exposed to) social programming that tells young men, from boyhood on, that male dominance is evil, sexist, misogynist, abusive, domestic emotional violence and they should never ever be dominant with women, ever ever ever. (But still, always be ready to “man up” whenever women need it!)

      So a lot of it depends on a man’s personality, his upbringing, and how much of an influence (if any) that feminist social programming had on shaping his perspectives on male-female relations. For men like your husband, developing dominance may be easy, but for other men it may well be very difficult, though perhaps not impossible.

      And a woman’s personality and preferences are very important to this equation as well, as Escoffier mentioned above.

    4. Cail Corishev

      All changes in habit seem easy for the person who has already made them (or who never needed to make them in the first place). Take the ex-smoker who says, “You can do it; just [insert trick that worked for him here] and you’ll be fine.” Or the naturally thin person who tells the fat person to just eat smaller portions and go for a walk.

      You had an alpha father and went out and got an alpha husband. Presumably they were born with fairly alpha traits and those managed to survive their upbringing. Most guys aren’t so lucky — maybe a guy is born a little shy, or more of a natural follower than a leader, and then he’s raised by a society that teaches him to be obsequious around women. He’s been developing that habit for 20, 30, maybe 40 years, and suddenly he gets a taste of the red pill and wants to change. He’s trying to change habits that are deeply ingrained, and that are continually reinforced by the people and media that he meets all day long. It’s an uphill battle all the way. It can be won, certainly. But easy? Not a chance.

  5. anonymous

    Excellent classification. It closely matches the Righteous/Wicked… Alpha/Beta quadrichotomy described in this post:
    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html?showComment=1347297571523#c7725256496343608248

  6. donalgraeme

    “There are generational differences at play as well — among the young, it’s a hugely different environment than it was when I was in my 20s, or even when you were. It’s gotten rougher, and the degree of raw masculinity that is expected and required of the successful market participants on the male side is reaching quite extraordinary levels. Having said that, younger guys can still do well if they aren’t capable of that, provided that they pick their pond carefully.”

    Easier said than done, given the last few posts on SSMs site. There seem to be very few good ponds left, if any. Part of the problem is how do you tell if the pond is good or not? Or even if a woman is good or not? With the later, its possible, but it takes time and possibly other resources. Time is the critical issue, however. The more time you spend on a woman who turns out to not be worth it, the less time you have to find the good ones.

    As for the “Game” versus “Anti-Game” debate, I tend to think that “Anti-Game” is the more important of the two. Using Game doesn’t guarantee success, but failure to use Anti-Game guarantees failure.

    @ anon

    You are correct, and its not entirely a coincidence. I had seen that before, but hadn’t thought of it to create these visuals. However, the basic foundational logic is the same. Because a good Christian is supposed to demonstrate what are typically considered “Beta traits.” The problem, of course, is that the Alpha traits are demolished in the training process.

  7. chris

    The problem with the modern sexual marketplace though is the effort needed to be expended to move from the bottom left quadrant to the top left quadrant doesn’t give the man anything worth it in return. Indeed for the higher effort expended you get lower quality.

    Why expend all that effort to improve your mate quality, when those guys who expend minimum effort to get sex are getting the sex at the same price that you do despite all the effort you took to improve yourself beyond the Alpha Yes/Beta No quadrant. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the times in order to make yourself the ideal man/husband you need to spend years in education and building a career, meanwhile the man who didn’t do that and instead just spent his time in the gym and at bars and clubs just banged your future girl (the one your expending all your effort now to be ideal for in the future) in a nightclub bathroom when she was younger, hotter, tighter. It’s a losing game from my perspective.

  8. donalgraeme

    Chris, the point you raise was related to my earlier comment re: ponds. The only advantage to being in the AY/BY category is so that you can marry a good woman. That’s it. But what if you can’t find such a woman? What then? Hence my concern about civilizational collapse. Its my opinion that the AY/BY men are the ones who keep things going in a society, backed up by the AN/BY men. But if society punished, rather than rewards, men who are BY, then men won’t bother with it. The result is that men either go MGTOW or become players/cads. Civilization cannot survive if this is the case.

    I will quibble in the difficulty in becoming/staying AY/BY. It is not actually as hard as one would think, at least, if ones bases that chart on behaviors. A man doesn’t need to make 6 figures to qualify as a Beta Yes man. He just needs to be a stable provider. Most of the rest are just behaviors, which can be adopted with enough discipline.

  9. Alpha versus Beta- Part 1 | Donal Graeme

    […] Charts of Attraction […]

Leave a Reply