A few years ago, I was your typical office-worker: stressed out, uneven energy, overweight, and inconsistent complexion. Now I'm just your typical 28-year old urban hunter-gatherer on a quest to be healthy, and having a few adventures along the way. See my full bio.
If anyone doubts the power of an alpha response in the age of television, look no further than Newt Gingrich's opening salvo the other night. It single-handedly won him South Carolina and revitalized his presidential campaign.
Let's analyze Gingrich's moment in light of what I recently wrote about the beta response of Michael Dukakis as well as the alpha response of Ronald Reagan during the New Hampshire debate.
Step 1: Acknowledge the challenge. If you pretend that you haven't been challenged, but everyone else knows you have been, then not responding is a sign of submission and admission of defeat. Therefore, you must acknowledge the challenge: clenched jaw, red face, flared nostrils, hands clenched or gripping the podium, leaning forward, gaze locked directly on the questioner.
Newt's confrontational and succinct response to whether he wanted to address the issue: "No. But I will."
Create a moment of silence -- to allow fear to build and to give the challenger time to reconsider his challenge before the situation turns violent. Grow larger in stature, puff out your chest, stand taller.
Newt was silent as the crowd roared, letting the tension build since everyone knew he was about to lay into CNN anchor John King.
Step 2: Growl. Be loud, bellow, growl. In a presidential debate, this would mean raising your voice and saying something to the effect of "How dare you ask a question like that. Shame on you."
Newt chastised King: "...and I am appalled that you would begin a Presidential debate on a topic like that."
Use a deeper voice than you would normally use. Point directly at the questioner. Gesture forcefully. Given this context, the questioner would probably be apologizing by now. Physically, this would entail his voice getting softer and higher, and he would probably hold up his hands, palms open (both exposing his underbelly and unclenching his fists) in an instinctive attempt to indicate submission and that he didn't actually want to fight.
Take a look at 1:45, where John King tries to pass the question off on ABC. Gingrich will have none of it, and yes, John King holds up his hands, palms open, while Gingrich gestures forcefully.
Step 3: Assert dominance.
Gingrich denies the allegations and slams the media: "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."
Compare with Romney's worst answer of the night, as to whether he would release his tax returns: Maybe. Are you kidding me? Go strong "No" or strong "Yes", but the most beta possible answer is a weak "Maybe".
Republicans want a fighter. And whether voters are informed about the issues or not, they have millions of years of hard-wiring informing them which guy on stage is socially dominant. During this debate, it was Newt Gingrich.
Comments
Not to detract from the
Not to detract from the sweaty indignant spectacle of Congressman Gingrich, but this video is a great example of an alpha response to a heckler. Even if the heckler is electronic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uub0z8wJfhU&feature=player_embedded
The reason Newt gets such a
The reason Newt gets such a positive response here is because of a sense of moral certainty/justice on which the audience picks up. I understand that you have not specifically mentioned sexual attraction in this post. But, given the context of your previous few posts, which use the words "alpha, masculine, and testosterone" I have to wonder if you are implicitly attempting to say that these are male characteristics. I'm not sure. There are some rather complex factors at play in terms of what type of person will be seen as socially dominant, masculine, or sexually attractive. Those are not equivalent terms. Intelligence, articulation, and moral certainty are admirable regardless of sex. Take this video, for instance -- you have to watch the whole thing, and if you can't at least watch the last minute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD4jYovx__gIn this video, Ali has two out of the three characteristics you allude to -- picking up the challenge and asserting dominance -- but does *not* have the body posture cues, unless you can call hand gestures, direct eye contact, or maintaining conversation such cues -- and I would argue that's tenuous. She is leaning back in her seat, doesn't make angry facial expressions with furrowed brows, and certainly isn't growling. Yet no one can doubt her social dominance here above the other two male interviewees. Moral certainty, Intelligence, articulation, and direct eye contact -- regardless of the sex of the person -- are sexually and socially (even to the same sex) attractive. But these should not be equated with purely male physical secondary sex characteristics. Of course, there's no question that such characteristics, in combination with secondary sex characteristics of males, are a powerfully attractive combination (whether sexual or social, we are drawn to such people). But they are not masculine characteristics. Here is someone who is certainly masculine but very sexually and socially unattractive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-cpojkILO0Of course, that's an extreme. Still, the point remains: intelligence, certainty, articulation, and direct eye contact are *not* male secondary sex characteristics. They are powerful sexual attractors when combined with female secondary sex characteristics as well.
Very cool analysis John. Keep
Very cool analysis John. Keep up the good work brother. Very good example of what an alpha is. He does not back down, and he has proven so throughout his career. Awesome stuff.
Its interesting that you
Its interesting that you think Newt, who doesn't come across as very alpha in physical appearance compared to Romney, is clearly much more alpha in attitude, gestures, and speech. This really goes to show the importance verbal communication for our species, wherein a chubby round baby faced candidate can appear more dominant than a taller more square jawed man with a deeper voice. Julius Caesar was anemic and had a withered arm, Napoleon and Hitler where not exactly imposing figures either, though few men in history can claim their level of alpha control and devotion from followers. No other species that I am aware of (With the possible exception of some primates) have been shown to put such a premium on alpha communication, without the beef to back it up. In animal behavior courses, for instance, physical symbols of dominance (Antlers, size, color) are usually a fairly accurate measures of true physical dominance and alpha status.
True. Remember that Gingrich
True. Remember that Gingrich is still six feet tall and fat, so he's still a pretty big dude relative to most people. But yes, completely agreed on the importance of verbal communication.
Physical betas such as
Physical betas such as Gingrich, Hitler and Caeser (interesting that brutal dictators are coming up in this conversation, isn't it?) undoubtedly must project a sense of superiority in order to make up for the inferiority they undoubtedly feel. Others around them must be subjugated to this narcissism in order to feed the inferior person's sense of self-worth. This is all armchair psychology, of course, but in my frame of mind, a true badass doesn't have to scream and squawk and carry on like the tool they are: a true badass, in the presence of others, has a quiet, steely confidence, and possesses utter control of themselves. A proverb I once heard states that he who controls others is strong, he who controls himself is mighty. To me, all of these politicians, ALL of them, are weak betas that need money, power and control over others to overcome the shame they feel for existing. All this political theater reminds me of playground dynamics: the damaged, abused child, neglected child has to make everyone else on the playground feel miserable. In a Paleo sense, control over others was not necessary: one had to control themselves to survive in an environment where there was plenty to be taken, if you could take it from nature. Politicians are neolithic humans, squawking and chattering to get all of the resources for themselves.
So if alphas are actually
So if alphas are actually betas deep down, are betas really alphas deep down? Doesn't make a lot of sense. // I agree that an alpha has "steely confidence" in the presence of others, but in some situations, must respond. And when alphas respond, they respond.
So an alpha is someone that
So an alpha is someone that knows how to pull the strings of people like puppets to manipulate them into getting what he wants. Good to know that. Explains the GOP brown-nosing on this site. And no, I don't like Democrats either. The entire system is rigged, but at least it works: a fat, disgusting monstrosity like Gingrich can be seen as alpha because he is, at best, a good actor. Finding anything remotely alpha in weak-wristed, phony millionaires squawking at each other with political grand-standing is, honestly, a bit sad.
I echo this criticism. I'd
I echo this criticism. I'd also question the relevance to our personal lives of this purported example of "alpha-male" behavior. Few of us will be in a situation where we are publicly questioned about allegations of marital infidelity.Also find it troubling that you have now provided several examples of (white, mostly conservative, old, physically lame) men engaging in purported "alpha" behavior, but none of women.
I've got a few of women
I've got a few of women coming up. Even so, given what you already know from these posts, you should be able to come up with a few.
I could not have said it
I could not have said it better. Glad to see people responding with the same appropriate sentiment I had as I read this. Unfortunate to see that a leading advocate of "embracing the primal in us" has decided to point to...Newt Gingrich...as an example of alpha make power. Not only is it a very poor stretch at best, but it fails to adds the question of whether blindly following the loudest, angriest man in the room is really what w should be doing today. I can be strong, fast, and forceful, and also recognize that intellect and yes, even morality and understanding play a role in leadership. If Newt takes a shit outside and buries it, instead of finding a toilet with modern plumbing accessories, should we emulate that behavior, too? And finally, Newt's response was rehearsed. He knew that question was coming, and he had been advised as to what response would gain him the most favor. Yeah, alpha male, all right.
I'm analyzing the situation.
I'm analyzing the situation. Please send me quotes of where I made value judgments.
John, it's true that you
John, it's true that you explicitly make value statements. But the inference is a logical one. You wri.te a blog about primal living. You give advice about paleo eating. You point to ancestral habits regarding sleeping, stress, etc. So when you post about "alpha" behavior, it isn't a stretch to infer that you support it. Again, I don't care if it's dems our or pubs, but pointing to a manipulative, calculating, soft politician as a great example of alpha behavior is disagreeable to me.
Sorry, my first sentence
Sorry, my first sentence should say that you DON'T explicitly make value statements.....
Thanks, I see what you mean,
Thanks, I see what you mean, I'll clarify in a future post
I feel that line about
I feel that line about following the loudest, angriest man in the room. Politicians play people. They know wat they're doing. They are not alpha, they are manipulators. And truly, what is so alpha about allowing others to lead us? Isn't that what politics is, really? Vote for me and everything will get better? GOPers go on and on about personal responsibility, but then they vote for egomaniacs that want to force THEIR ideals on others, as if that will make society better.
Relax, guys. Tell me,
Relax, guys. Tell me, exactly where do I say that we should emulate Newt Gingrich? Where do I say that it's good to act alpha? Alpha doesn't equal good and beta doesn't equal bad. You guys are tilting at windmills. The point of these posts is to show how our evolutionary history can help us understand our world better.
John- There is a difference
John- There is a difference in Alpha and Psychopath. Newt's reaction is not natural Alpha dominance bubbling up... it is a manufatured and intentional response calculated to gather sympathy from a crowd. It is the manipulative behavior of a classic pyschopath. A psychopath has a lot of traits that seem to describe Newt, like "Agressive Narcissism", "Socially deviant lifestyle", "poor behavior control", "Impulsivity", "failure to accept responsibility for own actions", "cunning and manipulative", and "grandiose sense of self-worth".Watch it again. He doesn't get red. He isn't physically dominant. He looks down for extended periods. He wags his finger like a scold. He is calculated and deliberate. And of course, his argument is that he is the victim.A psychopath.... not Alpha.
I don't care whether you want
I don't care whether you want to call him a psychopath or not. His motivations are irrelevant in this case. Please explain the phenomenon. The phenomenon is his response, and the huge surge of support he garnered as a result. If he's not actually being socially dominant, then why did he get such an overwhelmingly favorable response from his audience?
Because his audience is full
Because his audience is full of idiots.
Review your post about
Review your post about Dukakis. It's a how-to guide on how to avoid a similarly "weak" and "beta" answer. In other words, you drew a sharp distinction between his "bad" response and an "ideal" response. Lots of value judgments in there about his response. You apparently "lost sleep" over it. And you said this: "After verbally putting the questioner in his place -- just to be clear, that place being lower on the hierarchy -- I would have said that I expect to receive my wife expects to receive a hand-written apology from the head of CNN by the end of the following day. (The reporter asking the question isn't actually all that high status...much more effective to use the situation to assert dominance over his boss.) Said forcefully enough with enough emotion to indicate that I wasn't bluffing, and my wife would have received a hand-written apology before the debate was over. At that point, I could have either continued the debate, or simply stated "This debate is over" and just walked off the stage (possibly a bit much)." I think it's pretty clear that you were equating an alpha response with "better" and a beta response with "worse."
I too think the alpha/beta
I too think the alpha/beta debate gets muddy because it is politics. Indeed I think a good answer from Dukakis would have been, "I, like every other husband out there, would want to take revenge on those that raped my wife. However, I am running for President, and as President I cannot rule by emotion, I cannot take the law into my own hands, and I must stand on principle. Of course I would be mad as hell, and I would curse the very law I have helped support my entire career, but as your commander-in-chief I must choose a different path."<p> He should have set a direct distinction between himself as husband and himself as President (with the added benefit of getting everyone in the room to imagine him as President gritting his teeth and following the law when he would rather be killing those that harmed his wife).
Yes, you're right, I did
Yes, you're right, I did convey my personal value judgment in that post in the hypothetical context of my wife getting raped. But the critical commenters are trying to explain away the phenomenon simply because they don't hold the same political views at Newt Gingrich.
Why does the response of the
Why does the response of the audience make Gingrich socially dominant? Especially if all he's doing is mimicking the thinking of his audience (visit a few message boards: the sentiments that 'the liberal media' is trying to destroy Gingrich by focusing on his marriage thing instead of Obama is old news)? If a rapist, at a rapist convention, says that rape is good and gets applause, this does not make rape good, nor does it make the rapist dominant. It does, however, make for a bunch of lesser animals screaming and behaving like lesser animals.
Great analysis. This series
Great analysis. This series of posts you're doing are fascinating and very timely.
Totally agree. Anybody who
Totally agree. Anybody who claims John is doing any more than preseting analysis and information is merely letting their own bias show. Nice job.
John these are great posts
John these are great posts and I think your analysis of the Newt Gingrich effect is spot on. No one wants to be led by a weak person - and showing social dominance is a way of showing leadership and I think Newt's performance in the debates was THE reason why he won in SC. Those who think John is advocating for Newt are misinterpreting the more general point - that the style of his delivery was incredibly effective in garnering votes for himself. You can label it whatever you like (the acts of a psychopath, smart politician, demagogue, really great candidate) but the end result was EFFECTIVENESS.
thanks, appreciated
thanks, appreciated