Sunday, September 13, 2009

Black men out alpha white guys?

Whether or not blacks are more alpha than non-blacks are (with Asians as the most beta and whites and Hispanics in between) is a perennial topic that crops up across the game-oriented sections of the blogosphere. As previously written, I'm inclined to think they tend to be, based on higher levels of extramarital sexual activity, higher numbers of sexual partners, and consistently higher levels of reported self-confidence among blacks than among other non-black groups, as well as regular personal experience. Further, hip hop celebrates alpha traits more than other genres of music do. Of course, that's not the only take, as n/a has demonstrated here in previous comment threads (others have taken issue with my contention that hip-hop is King Alpha of the musical industry).

In 2004, the GSS asked a good proxy question for determining which side of the alpha/beta line respondents fall on. In the following table, those who agreed strongly with the statement that they would rather personally suffer than have a lover suffer are classified as betas, while those who responded otherwise are classified as alphas:

RaceAlphasBetas
White (n = 502) 28.0%72.0%
Black (n = 52)42.9%57.1%
Hispanic (n = 76)36.1%63.9%

Because the question has only been posed once, the non-white samples are small. That said, the results do not surprise me. Black men are fairly close to being evenly split, while there are nearly three white betas for each white alpha. Hispanics fall in between at two betas for each alpha.

Rather than grouping all other responses (from "agree somewhat" to "disagree strongly") together, the issue can also be approached by comparing the average response by race (1 = "agree strongly", 5 = "disagree strongly). The higher the mean, the more alpha the group is:

RaceAlpha index
White1.36
Black1.72
Hispanic1.46

One standard deviation is .70 points on the index scale, placing the middling black male half a SD higher in alphaness than the average white guy, or at about the 67th percentile among white men.

GSS variables used: AGAPE1, SEX(1), RACE, HISPANIC(2-99)

27 comments:

silly girl said...

That self confidence measure you linked was eye popping. If 34% of blacks consider themselves very good looking, I wonder how those same individuals would be rated by the opposite sex. Beauty, being in the eye of the beholder, may account for the higher "alphaness". I mean if you considered 34% of women to be 9s or 10s and if they considered you a 9 or 10, there could be a whole lotta shaking goin' on.

Jason Malloy said...

AE,

The problem is that 'alpha' and 'beta' are protean, unscientific Internet terms with normative baggage. Sociobiology has a much older, more developed, and more appropriate paradigm for understanding male reproductive trade-offs. Henry Harpending deserves props.

The male trade-off is whether to seek out sex with many partners and invest little in the offspring, or to maintain a stable pair-bond with one woman and invest highly in the offspring. Which behavior leads to more surviving offspring will depend on the environment. Within a population there exists variation in how many men can ‘succeed’ with either behavior pattern. In a monogamous environment, a smaller number of cads will be successful. In a polgynous environment, a smaller number of dads will be successful.

Cads are biologically primed to put more effort into seeking out sex partners than investing in pair-bonds and offspring, and this involves lower trust and agreeability, emotional callousness, higher self-concept, lower (verbally biased) IQ, physical aggressiveness, lower work ethic/conscientiousness, and higher time preference. A cad competes for mates with direct competition. The virtues of a good cad must be signaled to a women over a short period of evaluation, and these include physical robustness, attractiveness, athleticism, “flashiness” and creative expression (improvisational facility with words, music, humor etc), risk taking, dominance, and popularity with other women.

Cads have absent fathers, an earlier sexual debut, are more delinquent in childhood and criminal in adulthood, have higher unemployment, lower marriage rates, higher marital infidelity, and higher divorce rates.

Cads have higher testosterone, and testosterone levels are associated with most of the traits listed above. Testosterone makes men less interested in caring for children.

Dads are biologically primed to invest in a single partner and this involves higher trust and agreeability, emotional sensitivity, lower self-concept, higher (quantitatively biased) IQ, muted aggression, higher work ethic/conscientiousness, and lower time preference. A dad competes for mates with indirect competition. The virtues of a good dad are signaled to a woman over a long period of evaluation and these include patience, sensitivity, loyalty, dutifulness, stability, and cooperativeness. These traits signal to the woman a man who has the ability to accrue resources and who will share them with her and her offspring and not defect on her.

Dads come from intact families, have a later sexual debut, are less likely to be delinquent as children or criminal as adults, have lower unemployment, higher marriage rates, lower marital infidelity, and lower divorce rates.

Dads have lower testosterone. Both being in a stable relationship, having children, and aging lower testosterone, and all men become more dad-like over time (except maybe psychopaths, who are an extreme cad morph).

This all fits under life history theory (r/K) as well. The bottom line is that, yes, black men are more genetically adapted towards mating effort over paternal investment than white and Asian men. Yes, they have higher testosterone because of this. And, yes, this means they have masculine personality traits that are considered antisocial (e.g. criminality), as well as traits that are socially valued (e.g. dancing, music, and others creative and athletic facilities with biological connections to courtship/mating behavior).

Jason Malloy said...

OK, I went through your link with the commentor N/A. He was almost entirely correct: "Alpha/beta" are dubious constructs. Blacks probably aren't more "Alpha" (however that's decided on the Internet), but they are comparatively more oriented towards low investment reproduction. You were almost entirely correct too, AE. Most of the differences you cite between blacks and whites are real.

N/A is wrong about black testosterone levels though, for the same reason. Blacks are exposed to more androgens in utero and throughout adulthood. The evidence for this is both theoretical and empirical. Testosterone plays a key role in sociobiological theory and research for humans and across most animal species. Thousands of papers a year are devoted to the paradigm that testosterone is tied to mating effort in tension with paternal behavior. Perhaps a plurality of papers published every year in Evolution and Human Behavior or Hormones and Behavior reflect this.

These effects are common across sex differences, age differences, individual differences, and race differences. So understanding how testosterone relates to differences in one of these categories, is understanding how it relates to differences across all of them.

It's certainly not the whole picture, but it's a major part of it. You can dismiss it, but at the cost of losing out on the bigger picture. The beauty of scientific paradigms is that facts are more firmly ensconced in a network of interrelated facts.

Jason Malloy said...

Also, thinking about "Alpha/beta" a little bit, I can name a few reasons why these aren't just Internet folk synonyms for "Cad/Dad".

The Cad/Dad distinction is a scientific heuristic based on how males behave and how they are allotting their reproductive energy, while Alpha/Beta is a male sub-culture ranking heuristic decided by an unstable (and sometimes contradictory) mix of male mate value, male sexual behavior, and female choice.

A man can be cad and a virgin if no women select him. He can certainly be a cad if he has sex with nothing but prostitutes and/or unattractive women.

But the "Alpha" label seems to be applied primarily (in Internet parlance) to men who have promiscuous sex with many attractive women, or simply to men with high mate value.

This is where you are running into trouble AE. Black men in America are not "Alphas". They do not have superior mate value, or have sex with the most attractive women. But they are cads compared with white, Asian or Hispanic guys. They put the most effort into mating effort over paternal investment.

n/a said...

AE,

I agree with Jason Malloy's last comment.

I think the "alpha/beta" dichotomy has no place in serious discussions of human mating dynamics; but if you're going to use terms like "alpha", at least try to use them consistently.

The key defining characteristic of the "alpha male" is either:
(1) high social status, or
(2) high attractiveness to women.

You are attempting to show black males possess certain mental traits supposedly associated with "alphaness", but we can directly observe:

(1) Black men have lower social status than white men.
(2) Black men are less attractive to white women (that is, the majority of women in the U.S.) than white men.

Therefore, black men obviously can't be more "alpha" than white men in any meaningful sense.

Of course, social status and attractiveness to women are highly dependent on context. Ghetto black status markers (gold caps, jewelry, spinning rims) don't signal (high) status to upper-middle-class whites. Nor does bragging about killing people (rappers, incidentally, tend to be nerds -- too runty or obese to be successful at sports, too cowardly to make a serious run at the "gangster" lifestyle they glorify, and not-infrequently socially-retarded).

n/a said...

Jason,

While I agree that dads vs. cads is on firmer theoretical ground than alphas vs. betas, I think you need to reexamine some of your premises.

I see no reason to assume men from a low-paternal-investment population should exceed men from a high-paternal-investment population in "musical ability", for example. The ancestors of the LPI men competed for mates with other men from their own population; they should be (according to your model) more "musical" than men from the same population at some earlier generation, but we can say little about their absolute level of "musicality" or how it should relate to that of men from a completely different population from a different part of the world. They should have relatively stronger musical ability, but this could simply mean that while they have much lower IQs on average than some other population, they only have moderately weaker musical ability.

Comparing their oeuvres, I find it highly unlikely that blacks have greater musical ability than whites; nor does the scientific evidence I'm aware of support the idea.

"Athletic ability" is not a single dimension. West African blacks probably have an advantage in running over short distances, while Europeans are better at throwing things and have greater endurance. I'm not aware of any serious study of racial differences in dancing ability, but I'm given to understand Asians regularly beat blacks in "hip-hop" dance competitions, and ballroom dance competitions are dominated by Europeans.

On testosterone:

I don't have access to the paper you linked, so I can't immediately comment on it. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that every other large, representative U.S. study failed to show higher levels of testosterone in black than white men, or that markedly lower testosterone levels have been demonstrated in native sub-Saharan Africans.

Even if blacks were to be shown to have elevated testosterone levels, it would remain to be demonstrated that:
(1) The difference causes black-white differences in criminality, etc.
(2) The difference is genetic and deeply-rooted in evolutionary history.

On point (2), one would need to control for diet, physical activity, sun exposure, and so on. In the abstract you link, Mazur attributes the alleged black elevation in T in part to differences in marriage rates, for example. On point (1), there are many reasons to doubt that testosterone plays a significant role in racial differences in criminality, including:

- The relationship between testosterone and aggression/criminality is far from clear. T undoubtedly plays a role (as reflected in male-female differences), but among men with testosterone levels in the normal range, variation in circulating T seems to explain little or nothing in terms of criminality or aggression.

- Black testosterone levels are elevated slightly if at all, but black-white differences in criminality are large.

- Sub-Saharan Africa: high crime; high STDs; yet the natives have demonstrably lower testosterone levels than Europeans and Americans.

TGGP said...

I forget if you already had a post on it, but the scientist who introduced the term "alpha" to describe a dominant wolf said it was based on unrepresentative observation (on zoo animals rather than wild packs).

Jason Malloy said...

N/A,

Thanks for the reply. I was not aware of your blog; it's interesting.

I see no reason to assume men from a low-paternal-investment population should exceed men from a high-paternal-investment population in "musical ability", for example.


To clarify, I wasn’t stating this exactly. Just that creative expression has a theoretical connection to mating effort (See, e.g. a number of papers by Geoffrey Miller in this paradigm. Related is that creative achievement follows the same age-related curve as criminal behavior and male testosterone levels). Certainly creativity and athleticism are a comparative advantage for Af-Ams, even if they aren’t superior in an absolute sense.

RE: black musical ability, I discussed this some in my 2006 review of Lynn:

”For the first time I've seen, Lynn also reviews tests of "MQ" or musical intelligence for black and white Americans. While blacks score lower on almost all the items, commensurate with the fact that IQ correlates with musical ability, they also do much better, on average, than whites on rhythm items - Lynn calculates a rhythm IQ for Af-Ams of 106, though no cross-cultural results are presented, this has been recognized in a number of societies through time. Since Sub-Saharan Africans have been musical innovators across a number of different countries, this topic should have more attention.

I still think more quantitative evidence could be collected here. In at least one particular, rhythm ability, Af-Ams show absolute superiority, and rhythm seems to play an out-sized role in pop music styles that are attractive to people at their sexual prime across the globe. Using similar methods to Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment I think we could put together some sort of index of how much influence blacks had over 20th century dance and music. It would certainly be disproportionate.

All in all, I think there is a strong form of the hypothesis and a weak form of the hypothesis. The strong form would be that blacks are the best in the world at, e.g. extemporaneous creativity, oratory, singing, dance, athleticism, and other "cad adaptations". A weak form would be that they simply have comparative advantages in these departments (i.e. this is “what they do best”). I think the truth is somewhere in between. In some specialized ways it seems to me that blacks are the best of the best, but I understand that many such presumed advantages would be highly open to debate. Much less debatable is that these are areas where blacks have a comparative advantage (e.g. there are more black James Browns in America than black Thomas Edisons).

Jason Malloy said...

[Continued due to comment limits]


IQ and conscientiousness are also, perhaps, the Great Leveler in a lot of this. It seems that whites and Asians are able to master a lot of talents that they may not be genetically specialized for simply because they are smart enough to master complex systems and are disciplined (and/or autistic) enough to train constantly. Still, creative innovation may be hard to replicate with IQ and discipline. An Asian may be able to, e.g., master hip-hop dance (especially after blacks become disinterested in it; see also jazz or baseball), but it was blacks who were responsible for creating an original dance form with global appeal.

Similarly, Asians are hypothesized to have a ‘creativity deficit’ vis a vis whites, despite higher IQ. I think this is because creativity stems from IQ as well as sexually selected cognitive abilities unrelated to IQ. Various kinds of ‘creativity tests’ tend to put Asians behind whites, and (when a difference is found) whites behind blacks. Race differences in schizophrenia prevalence may also be related to this. Schizophrenia is, hypothetically, an extreme phenotype related to natural genetic variation in sexually selected creative ability. Schizophrenia may often come from inheriting an unfortunate abundance of "creativity alleles", which increase in the population because spontaneous creative displays are honest fitness signals which help men obtain low investment sex.

Jason Malloy said...

[Continued due to comment limits]


"I don't have access to the paper you linked, so I can't immediately comment on it. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that every other large, representative U.S. study failed to show higher levels of testosterone in black than white men"

I’ll email it to you. This is a reanalysis of Rohrmann et al 2007. A number of other representative studies with large samples have found higher androgen levels for Af-Ams: Biro et al 1995, Wu et al 1995, Tsai et al 2006. And I would say the large veteran samples are representative enough as well: Ellis 1995, Mazur 1995. As noted above this begins with in utero exposure (as determined by umbilical cord blood, and comfirmed by digit ratio differences). I could go into polymorphic differences in androgen receptors as well. But really, as noted above, the hypothesis begins with evolutionary theory and phenotype. The null hypothesis is that a population biased towards mating effort will exhibit the primary hormonal differences associated with that behavioral pattern. The full evidence does not allow us to reject that hypothesis, and, IMO, it is largely (though not entirely) consistent with it.

I think you have made a valiant effort on your blog to challenge that hypothesis, but I would be much more inclined to bias my opinion away from the data suggesting it is correct if you had a more explanatory alternative hypothesis that encapsulates sub-Saharan African behavior and why androgens should not be related to these phenotypes (Here I don’t mean simply a description of alternative biological paths to the same behavior, since I realize a number of other pathways, e.g. dopamine, are related to “male-like” behavior, but why the primary pathway to mating effort in sociobiological paradigms shouldn’t be related to mating effort differences across populations). Without an alternative framework I have no guiding principles for making useful novel predictions. So the androgen assumption is simply more useful, IMO, if or until it becomes completely untenable. Which it has yet to become.

Of course I certainly could be wrong, and I find your critical perspective valuable, and potentially capable of shifting standard HBD paradigms about race. But until that happens...

Jason Malloy said...

Also, Audacious, sorry if I came in a little too negative. Your post here, and your posts in general, are top notch, enlightening stuff.

It's just that the Internet pick-up sub-culture -- whatever insights it may provide otherwise -- doesn't have very good frames for interpreting social science through (as you yourself have helped demonstrate).


N/A:

On creativity: I think we can envision it as creative specialization vs creative generalism. I think white and Asian creativity stems more from generalist abilities like IQ (and perhaps personality traits), while black creativity stems more from specialized cognitive abilities. This could be tested by, e.g., giving blacks, whites, and Asians IQ, personality, and creativity tests, and applying statistical models to see if white and Asian scores are mediated more through IQ and personality.

Also brain scans during creative exercises might determine if different parts of the brain are at work in people with separate ancestry.

Audacious Epigone said...

Silly girl,

We could call it the Shallow Hal Effect!

Jason,

I've tried to elucidate how the alpha/beta spectrum is conceptualized (as I understand it) in a new posting.

Sociobiology has a much older, more developed, and more appropriate paradigm for understanding male reproductive trade-offs. Henry Harpending deserves props.

So the greater the r skew, the more antagonism and less respect between the sexes? That is conceptually transferable to the contemporary dating scene.

n/a,

rappers, incidentally, tend to be nerds -- too runty or obese to be successful at sports, too cowardly to make a serious run at the "gangster" lifestyle they glorify, and not-infrequently socially-retarded.

Like 50, right?

I know, I know, exceptions (to the extent that someone like him or Young Jeezy are exceptions) often prove rule.

TGGP said...

Jason's mention of in utero effects reminded me of Cosma Shalizi's argument from shared uterine environment to lowered estimations for the heritability/genetic basis of IQ. Do you think those are significant?

Jason Malloy said...

Shalazi, like Richard Nisbett, can't be trusted to get anything correct about behavior genetics, because that involves actually knowing and reading the extant scientific literature instead of a handful of like-minded (and equally ignorant) sources.

The (large) research literature shows that, if anything, maternal environment acts to differentiate, not homogenize, monozygotic twins.

Anonymous said...

Blacks got tha big dicks. True or not, this is what we're led to believe. You can't address racial sexual disparities without considering this factor.

n/a said...

Jason,

Absolutely, the evidence indicates sports and music are at least relative strengths of blacks.

But as for greater black rhythmic ability, I'm skeptical. Last time I looked at the question, the only relevant study I managed to locate showed blacks and whites about equal in rhythm. Black males did slightly worse than white males, and black females did slightly better than white females. Blacks scored significantly below whites in every other musical aptitude tested. Subjects were several hundred black and several hundred white high school seniors.

"Various kinds of ‘creativity tests’ tend to put Asians behind whites, and (when a difference is found) whites behind blacks."

But the abstract you link suggests the black and American Indian kindergartners outscored the white kindergartners on the test in question by the same margin. Anyway, it seems to me comparisons of creativity in sexually mature individuals are more relevant to the discussion at hand. The aptitude battery administered to high school seniors in the study I referenced above includes two measures of creativity. Whites outscore blacks in both.


Thank you for sending the Mazur paper, and thank you for drawing my attention to some other studies I'd overlooked. Overall, my opinion remains largely the same:

I'm not sure the data as a whole support a statistically-significant elevation in T in American black men. If such elevation exists, it's not clear the difference is due to genetics. What does seem clear is that any black-white differences in circulating testosterone levels which may exist can explain little or nothing of the black-white differences in behavior.

Mazur (2009) finds the black-white difference increasing with age. Based on his analysis, there seems to be little black-white difference in T before 30, and little black-white difference in BioT before 40. How then can black-white differences in T explain differences in criminality between black and white youths? Of course, Mazur himself previously found an opposite result in a different data set: larger differences in young men. But this just goes to show how insignificant or transient the differences he detects actually are.

I'm out of time. I'll finish replying later.

n/a said...

"Blacks got tha big dicks. True or not, this is what we're led to believe. You can't address racial sexual disparities without considering this factor."

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/07/rushton-and-genital-size-one-more-time.html

Soul Searcher said...

Lotta running a black guy's gotta do just to stay in place. Sigh...

n/a said...

(continuing my reply to Jason)

Prenatal androgen exposure:

The cord blood study is not dispositive, for reasons acknowledged by the authors (most fundamentally, blood samples collected after birth can say little about androgen levels during the windows when androgens exert the strongest organizing effects, much earlier in development). Nor are comparisons of digit ratio between populations necessarily informative. For example: within populations, 2D:4D is inversely related to grip strength; "Oriental Mizos men from northeast India" have lower digit ratios than German men; but Germans men are stronger. The Chinese average lower 2D:4D than Europeans, as well. Similarly, low 2D:4D is associated with high visuospatial ability within populations, but I haven't seen anyone argue blacks make better engineers than whites. Differences in body size/shape likely contribute to between population differences in digit ratio.


AR gene polymoprhism:

As with 2D:4D, within population correlations don't necessarily hold between populations.


Theory:

Theory must ultimately yield to facts. Even if the simple "high mating effort = high testosterone" equation is correct, there are many other factors that may contribute to between population differences: different starting points, environmental constraints, noise/randomness, etc. For example, if high testosterone compromises the immune system, this might present a stronger downward selection pressure for populations in tropical (vs. temperate) climates.


Creativity:

"I think white and Asian creativity stems more from generalist abilities like IQ (and perhaps personality traits), while black creativity stems more from specialized cognitive abilities."

That sounds plausible.

Mark said...

Replace alpha with sociopathy and it's a much more meaningful discussion.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mark,

They obviously aren't synonyms, but there is non-negligible overlap between the two terms.

Anonymous said...

" Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that every other large, representative U.S. study failed to show higher levels of testosterone in black than white men, ..
I beg to differ:
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/307

Anonymous said...

oh jesus, blacks more alphas than whites, that's fucking bullshit. They are savage, lazy primitives.
We on the other hand did 90% of
the cool shit in history and we enslaved them easily.

I think that even our bodies are superior to them. Sure, I'll grant that they absolutely destroy us in a few sports. But overall, the white body is triumphant over a significantly larger amount of activities. And we make better soldiers

Anonymous said...

Racist nonsense

Dwayne said...

"It seems that whites and Asians are able to master a lot of talents that they may not be genetically specialized for simply because they are smart enough to master complex systems and are disciplined (and/or autistic) enough to train constantly. "

Of course. Black have invented almost every genre of American music. But it was not because they are inherently creative anymore than any other race, it is simply because they were forced to involve themselves in a counter culture, where a good way to make money was producing "race music". The creativity grew from there. The whites appreciated the negro music, putting it in the context that blacks were natural entertainers; musicians, dancers, not natural intellectuals; philosophers etc. And so ultimately what we have with this is a drive for blacks to be as creative as they can do both prove to themselves and to whites that they lived a worthy existence. Finding an old double bass or rusty trumpet you could play could give your life transcendental meaning as a black teenager living in the ghetto. Any black could still just as easy master talents they are not genetically inclined to be better at (if such an inclination exists), obviously just look at all the first generations sub Saharan African scholars in colonial america such as Benjamin Bennecker, or classical musicians who were first generation African musicians.
Le Chevalier de Saint-Georges is an example, but he is also half french. In conclusion, even if blacks were genetically inclined to have a certain cognitive paradigm they are more likely to lean to, social/environmental factors as well as whatever antecedental accounts they have as pertaining to the individual, can cause them to make a complete change if the choose, and the brain will follow. Nureo-plasticity, big boy.

I just graduated from high school, and the particular school I went to had allot of east Asians. If there is one thing that asians are doing in, its mimicking black culture in an ungodly accurate way. Break dancing, the slang, clothing, etc. Now because i went to a magnet school in an asian neighborhood with a small black population, they could get away with this. But ultimately they act the way they do as a direct response to the nerdy socially awkward Asian obsessed with grades and sat math scores stereotype. I knew allot of asians who did mediocre in school on purpose to beat the stereotype. Like wise we also the opposite on the black community in a sense during the Harlem Renascence as ONE small example.
also, the whole Cad Dad thing...I dont know how often you get out but men usually switch between the two due to many reasons ranging from religious or perhaps a simple midlife crisis.

Sophie said...

The writer is totally right, and there is no skepticism.

Anonymous said...

The idea that blacks are physically superior to whites is retarded. Who are the strongest men on the planet in every strength discipline? Who are the highest jumpers? The last white male sprinter to fail a drugs test was an Olympic Champion. What does that say? How many black sprinters have been exposed as long term drug cheats? A group of 3 west african countries (Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone) have a combined total of 26 failed drugs tests on track and field but have 0 gold medals or world record setters. Great Britain (4 countries) has about 15 failed drugs tests. We can take from this that west africa has funded and supported athletic programs but can not produce elite sprinters despite the supposed genetic predisposition for speed. While west indians are dominating sprints, british west indians are no where to be seen despite being of identical genetic stock. From these facts it is impossible to say that blacks are physically superior - the reality is that sporting success has always and still goes to people who can cover up or avoid drug testing.

As far as music is concerned, you can hear old english folk music that was almost identical to 12 bar blues. You can hear old scottish music that has rhythms identical to Raga and Socca music. Lets not forget that before african slaves where taken to america and the colonies, white slave where taken there and brung musical cultures that where both influencing to african slaves and influenced by african slaves - the legacy is the pop music you hear today with the addition of middle eastern/islamic music and all manner of other influences. But we are stupid (or is it guilty?) enough to label some forms of music 'of black origin'. Yes, in the way that we are all of black origin! The idea that black men are more alpha is also stupid. The stereotypical behaviors associated with being alpha are false. David Haye certainly APPEARED more alpha than Vitali Klitchco, but got his arse whooped. The REALITY was that Vitali IS more Alpha as opposed to APEARING more alpha. Many young black men appear more alpha because people allow them to get away with it because they actually believe the stereotypes about them. Many women genuinely think black men are more masculin and are better in the sack, have bigger dicks, better rythm etc... so fall for them more readilly than they do white men.