So I understand the sentiment, but, I truly wish we could move away from the outdated and widely disputed terminology of “Alpha,” “Beta,” etc. Even the person who originally coined these terms has since questioned their validity, as he quickly realized the "Science" was faulty, only to have the corrections ignored & further misused.
From a personality perspective, traits like leadership, assertiveness, charisma, and confidence are highly context-dependent—they can shift based on familiarity, comfort, or environment. Extraversion, introversion, self-control, and other sociological factors also influence how these traits manifest. Aggressiveness, for example, can (and often does) coexist with insecurity, passivity, or fear, showing that behavior alone is not a reliable measure of dominance.
Hormones and pheromones add further complexity. Men can have high levels of testosterone or androgens without fitting the stereotypical (modern 2020s) “manly” mold, and conversely, men who appear traditionally masculine—tall, hairy (not considered manly or attractive in some cultures), assertive—may actually have low or imbalanced hormones, which can affect emotional stability.
And I don't mean to crush anyone's fun or fantasies. Just wanted to point these labels are largely ever-changing social constructs, shaped by cultural notions of dominance and “manliness,” and are about as scientifically reliable as horoscopes, zodiac signs, or astrology. But contribute to way too much as a justification of toxic masculinity, all for the sake of being horny.
