Nothing personal, but I don't entirely agree with this post. I think it is a little more complex then this. First, is there any consensus on what the exact definition of a human alpha male is? Is it a guy who gets chicks? Is it a guy who is a leader in some capacity? Or is it an extraordinary individual akin to Nietzsche's Ubermensch?
Was Winston Churchill an alpha male? Was he physically "fierce"?(actually he was short and fat) What about FDR? He was a paraplegic. Abraham Lincoln was just ugly, certainly no Brad Pitt in the looks department. So who is more alpha, Lincoln or Brad Pitt? How about Ghandi, who preached non-violent resistance, was he not an alpha male?
Last but not least, there were other great men in history, such as Einstein, DaVinci, Edison, Galileo, Darwin, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. None of these men were leaders, they were all "thinkers" something the OP just instructed is not alpha, yet they all profoundly changed the course of mankind and the history of the world. Centuries from now these men and others who are truly changing our world for the better will still be household names, wheras Brad Pitt and Van Diesel will probably be almost completely forgotten.
My point is that I think your definition of Alpha Male is too one dimensional, and there are many different types, or definitions, of a successful male and many ways to achieve that success. Your definition mostly seems to be successful in the sense of how to be the guy who gets the bimbo chicks in high school and college. Which, I guess, is the central goal of most men on this site lol, so your definition would make sense to them. I am not this kind of guy and never will be, nor do I want to be.
I look up more to a guy like Thomas Edison or Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Galen Rowell, or Galileo then I do to the the captain of the football team, Van Diesel and whatever other pretty boy, muscle bound movie stars are the current hearthrobs of chicks these days. If this makes me a beta geek, so be it.
