4 ms·

I don't deny chess is the game with the higher status, but I don't think that's what the term alpha was trying to get at. Alpha here is used in a social contex

I don't deny chess is the game with the higher status, but I don't think that's what the term alpha was trying to get at. Alpha here is used in a social context, ie the leader of a pack. Some traits of an alpha, as opposed to a beta, include being aggressive, intimidating, capable of convincing others to join your agenda, and willing to lie for your benefit. It's hard to display alpha traits in a one on one game like chess.

mindgam3 8y ago
I’m with you up until you associate alpha with being intimidating and willing to lie. Alpha implies leadership 100%. It is possible to be a strong and convincing leader without these negative traits. In practice, most leaders are in fact more ruthless as you portray. But look at the #metoo movement for one data point of how the balance of power is shifting. All of that notwithstanding, it is very possible and in fact extremely common for alpha traits to be displayed in chess, both the Machiavellian style and the more “woke” for lack of a better term. In a one on one game, this is communicated in the non-game communication ie body language. In a club or team setting all of the usual social dominance tactics apply.
- derialstrazus 8y ago
  Apologies if I implied intimidation and lying are good traits. However, I do maintain that they are alpha traits. Lying, maybe not sure much, but intimidating, definitely. Being alpha isn't necessarily a good thing. Like all labels, and especially for a label as complicated as "alpha", there are good and bad parts to it. Honestly I dislike using the term alpha, because it's so inflammatory. Its hard to talk about what alpha means without bringing up beta, and the moment you use those two words then it sounds like redpill-speak. However, there are certain kinds of people who are confrontational and very much extroverted, the kinds who don't back away when challenged. I see alpha as a way to describe these traits as they are, with no moral conclusions attached. For sure Chess players can display alpha traits, but it's hard to see how Chess players are MORE alpha than Diplomacy players. An entire game of Chess can finish without a single word exchanged, and it's rare and unprofessional for violence to show up in Chess, though it does show up time to time. In diplomacy, violence, albeit only verbal, is the norm. A nonconfrontational person will never survive in diplomacy, but they can do well in Chess.
  - mindgam3 8y ago
    So I think the term "alpha" is leading to a lot of confusion here. It could mean "person in charge who maintains control through deception and fear, much like a psychopath", or it could mean "leader". True leadership involves dealing with conflicts and confrontations, but doing it with integrity and respect at all times. That's how good leaders inspire others to follow them. Only charlatans need to rely on brute force methods like intimidation. For that reason, I encourage you to stop conflating "alpha" with antisocial character traits. Words matter. The very idea that this is acceptable behavior for leaders, that sometimes violence is the answer, perpetuates the social norms that allow bullies to stay in power. Also, your conception of diplomacy needs work. Again, anybody who is actually any good at diplomacy understands how it is possible to convey a firm position with minimal violence. Diplomacy is more of a dance. You don't want to be the kind of lead dancer who's violently swinging your partner around the room. If you really believe that confrontation can't be resolved without violence, I recommend a meditation practice known as "metta" [compassion]. Reading the Art of War may also provide inspiration and guidance on this front.

mindgam3 8y ago

I’m with you up until you associate alpha with being intimidating and willing to lie. Alpha implies leadership 100%. It is possible to be a strong and convincing leader without these negative traits. In practice, most leaders are in fact more ruthless as you portray. But look at the #metoo movement for one data point of how the balance of power is shifting. All of that notwithstanding, it is very possible and in fact extremely common for alpha traits to be displayed in chess, both the Machiavellian style and the more “woke” for lack of a better term. In a one on one game, this is communicated in the non-game communication ie body language. In a club or team setting all of the usual social dominance tactics apply.

derialstrazus 8y ago
Apologies if I implied intimidation and lying are good traits. However, I do maintain that they are alpha traits. Lying, maybe not sure much, but intimidating, definitely. Being alpha isn't necessarily a good thing. Like all labels, and especially for a label as complicated as "alpha", there are good and bad parts to it. Honestly I dislike using the term alpha, because it's so inflammatory. Its hard to talk about what alpha means without bringing up beta, and the moment you use those two words then it sounds like redpill-speak. However, there are certain kinds of people who are confrontational and very much extroverted, the kinds who don't back away when challenged. I see alpha as a way to describe these traits as they are, with no moral conclusions attached. For sure Chess players can display alpha traits, but it's hard to see how Chess players are MORE alpha than Diplomacy players. An entire game of Chess can finish without a single word exchanged, and it's rare and unprofessional for violence to show up in Chess, though it does show up time to time. In diplomacy, violence, albeit only verbal, is the norm. A nonconfrontational person will never survive in diplomacy, but they can do well in Chess.
- mindgam3 8y ago
  So I think the term "alpha" is leading to a lot of confusion here. It could mean "person in charge who maintains control through deception and fear, much like a psychopath", or it could mean "leader". True leadership involves dealing with conflicts and confrontations, but doing it with integrity and respect at all times. That's how good leaders inspire others to follow them. Only charlatans need to rely on brute force methods like intimidation. For that reason, I encourage you to stop conflating "alpha" with antisocial character traits. Words matter. The very idea that this is acceptable behavior for leaders, that sometimes violence is the answer, perpetuates the social norms that allow bullies to stay in power. Also, your conception of diplomacy needs work. Again, anybody who is actually any good at diplomacy understands how it is possible to convey a firm position with minimal violence. Diplomacy is more of a dance. You don't want to be the kind of lead dancer who's violently swinging your partner around the room. If you really believe that confrontation can't be resolved without violence, I recommend a meditation practice known as "metta" [compassion]. Reading the Art of War may also provide inspiration and guidance on this front.