**TL;DR** — **Certain environments lead people to want to be the Alphas** Whether or not someone is innately alpha or beta is debatable. How alpha and beta is defined will change for each person. What can be said is that certain environments bring out behaviour which can be construed as alpha or beta. The arena I wish to bring up is that of club sport, most notably club cricket. In this environment, the sense of hierarchy is extreme and is dictated by who positions themselves as the alpha of the group. Social credit is built upon who dominates the group, whether that is through social scenarios and achievements. To that end, there arises a competitive environment where the stronger characters seek to dominate their meeker counterparts, thus creating alphas and betas. The precise dynamics of this environment is best articulated through the Twitter stream and podcast [The Grade Cricketer] (https://gradecricketer.club). Albeit in slightly ‘tongue-in-cheek’ terms, the podcast brings to light the bizarre behaviour that occurs in the Australian club cricket arena in order to establish themselves as the alpha. Without going into explicit details, the activities involve excessive drinking, scoring runs, taking wickets and ‘off-field’ success. All of these build up social credit which thereby allows individuals to establish themselves as the alphas. Those who fail are by default beta. This is all said with some intentional humour. The notion of alpha and beta do not have to be put solely in serious terms. It is entirely possible for the political and corporate worlds to be analysed for alphas and betas. However, the ways in which people seek to establish themselves as alpha are potentially more relatable to many.

**TL;DR: There are undoubtedly social 'types' in the world, but the Alpha vs Beta labels imply there's a hierarchy of value.** Society evolved to require all social types - introverts/extroverts, progressives/conservatives, leader/followers, warriors/carers... Grading people in a hierarchy - as alpha/beta suggests - does terrible things to the way we understand society.

I could make the case that some people do better in leadership positions than others. But I could also argue that some people are better innovators. Others are better organizers. Others are better "worker bees". Chimps often have alphas, yes. But the concept of being a leader through dominance isn't the most stable one for chimps. Pro-social "alphas" are often more stable and generally sought after. The behavior of a "pro-social" alpha is often in conflict with what is often referred to as "being alpha" by the likes of PUA books and so-called "red pill" narratives. And we are equally-related to bonobos, though they may actually be closer in behavior. Their social hierarchy isn't determined by dominance. The males are associated with their mothers, and the social ranking of the females is determined primarily by age. Next onto humans. For 95% of our time as anatomically modern humans, we lived as hunter-gatherers, who pretty much universally practice "fierce egalitarianism". Which is a fancy way of saying "nobody tells me what to do". Any displays of social dominance are treated as especially rude immediately. Attempts to "take control" are met with strong retribution up to and including death. When men go to hunt, some tribes throw their weapons into a pile and pull from that pile, so if one gets a kill, it could have been another guy's bow, and another guy's arrow. The point is nobody knows, so nobody can take credit. They often split the kill as they come back, so no individual gets credit when they get back. Not to mention, they are not dependent on big-game hunting. Most food is actually acquired by gatherers both male and female. There really is no way to assert dominance through gathering. The only reason we may have the so-called alphas we do now is simply because of social distance. Any self-proclaimed "alpha" is someone who hasn't been put in their place by social interaction. The rich and powerful may be rich and powerful, but among their immediate friends and family, the general rules of egalitarianism apply. It's just that their friend group doesn't include the poor or the powerless, so nobody is holding them to account.