[Rhyme or Reason]

(08-22-2016 10:51 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

I don't think omegas can be converted to a healthy mindset. That's the difference between the other groups above them and real life omegas. If you're here, I don't think it's possible that you're an omega

Are you questioning my Omega Cred, brah?

[RexImperator]

There are different kinds of Omegas. For instance, Vox Day says MGTOWs are Omega even if it is self-imposed.

[Rhyme or Reason]

(08-23-2016 12:30 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

There are different kinds of Omegas. For instance, Vox Day says MGTOWs are Omega even if it is self-imposed.

I'd agree that those who self select out of the mating game because they're ego's are too fragile are indeed omegas.

[Rhyme or Reason]

MMX, pull Vox's dick out your mouth.

MMX is using what I call "the cuck argument" Can't back up your hypothesis? Just call them a cuck!

Disagreeing with the hierarchy makes you a gamma, because I said so.

How about instead of wasting your time (and ours) worrying about this overly neurotic, pseudo-scientific nonsense, you do something useful? Maybe even something productive.

(08-19-2016 06:27 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

No, I won't let this go.

Sounds pretty gammy to me.

Oh and before you ask, yes I've heard of it before this thread. I thought it was lame then too. Vox sure knows how to give his audience what they want though.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Sounds pretty gammy to me.

Gammy?

[MMX2010]

Red_pillage,

"Pull Vox's sick out of your mouth" insults a senior member and breaks the forum rules.

Also, you said, "I thought it was lame then, too." Usually when people call something "lame", they take a cursory view of the information, dismiss it, and never think about it again.

Meanwhile, everyone knows that if you want to deeply understand anything, you can't just take a cursory view of the information, dismiss it, and never think of it again. (That's the recipe for shallow, bigoted thinking.) You have to study it deeply, perhaps daily for months or years, before you can claim deep understanding.

Given your immediate propensity to break forum rules by hurling insults, and your self-indictment as someone who never deeply studied this list, why should anyone take your opinion seriously? Furthermore, what kind of person has a strong opinion on something he doesn't deeply understand?

[Rhyme or Reason]

Quote:

You have to study it deeply, perhaps daily for months or years, before you can claim deep understanding.

I got a hearty chuckle when I read this.

Quote:

you said, "I thought it was lame then, too." Usually when people call something "lame", they take a cursory view of the information, dismiss it, and never think about it again.

That's correct. I read it awhile back, acknowledged it for what it was, and went on with my life. So gamma!

Quote:

Meanwhile, everyone knows that if you want to deeply understand anything, you can't just take a cursory view of the information, dismiss it, and never think of it again. (That's the recipe for shallow, bigoted thinking.) You have to study it deeply, perhaps daily for months or years, before you can claim deep understanding.

Let me bring you back down to earth. Vox Day's Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is not Astro Physics, Classical Philosophy, Brain Surgery, Rocket Science, or Quantum Mechanics. It's not Cicero's On Duties. It's not a fucking field of discipline.It's blog post written by a science fiction author.


The fact that you've felt it necessary to tell the community you've spent a lot of time, "months and years" ruminating about the finer points of this half-baked ranking system without a smidge of irony says more about you than it does anyone else. So far you've failed to illustrate the extent of your 'vast knowledge' on the subject and instead opted to attack other members for daring to have a differing opinion.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back some more for your self-proclaimed deep understanding of this shit, nobody cares. As for the rest of us, we have real life things to do and girls to bang.

[MMX2010]

Red_Pillage,

If you were to say, "I don't care about this topic!", that would be a mixture of honest and dishonest. Honest, because you're reporting on your own feelings. But dishonest, because the simplest way of showing that you don't care is Not Commenting. So the end result would be Mostly Dishonest, because your actions speak louder than your words.

But what you said was, "Go ahead and pat yourself on the back some more for your self-proclaimed deep understanding of this shit, nobody cares." This is entirely dishonest, because (1) You're ignoring the many people who commented on this thread, including the ones who commented positively, (2) You're attempting to determine, for other people, whether they care (which you don't have the power to do), and (3) You only have the power to speak for yourself, which would say, "I don't care."

I asked you earlier, what kind of person has a strong opinion regarding something he hasn't seriously studied? Now I'll ask you, what kind of person makes obviously wrong (and lying!) statements about other people's emotional states to support a strong opinion about something he hasn't deeply studied?

[Akwesi]

(08-23-2016 04:20 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Red_Pillage,

If you were to say, "I don't care about this topic!", that would be a mixture of honest and dishonest. Honest, because you're reporting on your own feelings. But dishonest, because the simplest way of showing that you don't care is Not Commenting. So the end result would be Mostly Dishonest, because your actions speak louder than your words.

But what you said was, "Go ahead and pat yourself on the back some more for your self-proclaimed deep understanding of this shit, nobody cares." This is entirely dishonest, because (1) You're ignoring the many people who commented on this thread, including the ones who commented positively, (2) You're attempting to determine, for other people, whether they care (which you don't have the power to do), and (3) You only have the power to speak for yourself, which would say, "I don't care."

I asked you earlier, what kind of person has a strong opinion regarding something he hasn't seriously studied? Now I'll ask you, what kind of person makes obviously wrong (and lying!) statements about other people's emotional states to support a strong opinion about something he hasn't deeply studied?

MMX, which socio-sexual rank do you think your behavior in this thread corresponds to? How do you think it is perceived by other people - what judgments do you think they are making about you?

[MMX2010]

Aksewi,

I reject all of your questions because I never broke any forum rules, nor have I made dishonest and lying statements about other people's emotional states.

If you were to call out Red_Pillage for doing both of those, I'd take your questions much more seriously. But without calling out Red_Pillage for his misbehavior and lies, I see your questions as attempting to "equalize" him and me, which I refuse to do.

It is always wrong to equalize rule-breaking with rule-following, and it's always wrong to equalize lying and not-lying.

[RexImperator]

http://www.quiztron.com/tests/socio-sexu...193262.htm

I took that quiz, answered honestly, and it said "Sigma".

[Plutoman]

I did not read all the middle two pages, but to be clear, these metrics are often quite fine to use. You use optimal snap decisions. You see a guy; you can generally tell whether he's alpha or beta. If not, you'll know in the first 30 seconds of talking to him.

If you know him for longer, say, 3-5 minutes, you start isolating the various features. You might be able to profile his personality. These things can tell you a lot and let you guide an interaction very successfully, especially if you start doing it intuitively. You can isolate his position on the SMV food-chain, his personality profile, estimated IQ, socioeconomic status, and you know about 80% of his life right there.

You do it consciously so you learn to do it subconsciously; you don't always do that process, because it becomes second nature.

Edit: As far as actual hierarchy goes, about 35% beta, 65% sigma. Always been a loner overall.

[lowside]

All this time I'm aspiring to be an alpha, only to find out I'm a sigma through and through.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Quote:

Sigma: The outsider who doesn't play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don't accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. In a social situation, the sigma is the man who stops in briefly to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a Tier 1 girl that no one has ever seen before. Sigmas like women, but tend to be contemptuous of them. They are usually considered to be strange. Gammas often like to think they are sigmas, failing to understand that sigmas are not social rejects, they are at the top of the social hierarchy despite their refusal to play by its rules.

Maybe Sigmas exist. There might even be as many a five to ten of them in the world.

I would humbly suggest that the vast majority of guys who identify as sigmas are in fact gammas who've crowned themselves after a bit of mental gymnastics.

Having said that it seems like the whole list was written by a gamma saving his own special imaginary caste, the sigma, for last.

Just my gut reaction.

quickedit: I just checked the poll results and it doesn't look like my opinion will be popular.

[Plutoman]

(09-09-2016 06:30 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Maybe Sigmas exist. There might even be as many a five to ten of them in the world.

I would humbly suggest that the vast majority of guys who identify as sigmas are in fact gammas who've crowned themselves after a bit of mental gymnastics.

Having said that it seems like the whole list was written by a gamma saving his own special imaginary caste, the sigma, for last.

Just my gut reaction.

quickedit: I just checked the poll results and it doesn't look like my opinion will be popular.

I was really sitting here second guessing myself, and I was most DEFINITELY a gamma when I was younger.

I would venture to say that many of us here were gamma, and after years of work have turned ourselves into the sigma (or at least, significantly closer). I have many people wanting me to go out to events / etc, but I don't go half the time because I simply just don't care or have other options. I don't lead groups, though. Contrast that with 3-4 years ago in which I was a complete sexual reject in many ways. I don't want to give the impression of bragging, rather to give the impression of we're here because we wanted to find a better way and to work towards a better way, and I would hope many here have accomplished that.

I have had too much success with women to be considered a gamma; but I also don't necessarily have enough success to consider myself "that" definition of a sigma. Yet, I don't fit the beta definition, either, and I most definitely do not fit the rest.

I'd say we need one that's somewhere halfway between Gamma and Sigma, and that many of the people here would actually relate to that one much more. The "beta" version of the sigma, rather than the omega version.

[RexImperator]

Gamma is going to be the least likely to self-identify since a hallmark of that type is a certain amount of self-delusion.

I suspect I have some gamma aspects. Might be gamma instead of omega. Sorting it out probably requires someone else to decide.

[debeguiled]

This whole classification system seems like a massive mindfuck designed to make every man fear he is a gamma.

[WeekendCasanova]

(09-09-2016 02:42 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

This whole classification system seems like a massive mindfuck designed to make every man fear he is a gamma.

I agree. This whole 'alpha v. beta v. xyz' thing is ridiculous. Every man who works out calls himself an alpha. Are you really alpha if you need to go around proclaiming you're alpha?

[TonySandos]

The idea that you can move up the ladder in classification is pretty funny. It doesn't work that way.

If someone is really a sigma, they wouldn't care for external validation anyway.

If you believe "alpha:beta" dichotomy only, you're probably a gamma.

It's interesting how so few have self identified as betas and deltas.

[SamuelBRoberts]

I liked Vox's original post when I read it. I think it's an amazing accomplishment to be able to write 2000 words on a random subject and have people still be talking about it years later. I wish my writing had that kind of longevity.

Here's my problem with it, though: I can't apply this test to any of the men I know. I don't know any people who fall neatly into any of these categories. (Except gamma, about which more later.) And if I can't actually use it to categorize anybody, then it's not really that useful.

I'll use Red_Pillage as an example since he posted in the thread already. I know Red_Pillage pretty well, we've hung out a bunch of times. But if you asked me to say where he ranked on the "Socio-Sexual Heirarchy", I wouldn't have a clue. Is he a hard-charging boardroom-director style alpha? Probably not. He has a solid job and they seem to like him there, but he ain't Donald Trump. But he doesn't seem to match the beta archetype either. A beta seems to be defined as "The alpha's buddy, who picks up the alpha's ex-girlfriends when the alpha is done with them". I've never gotten that vibe from him either. Deltas are "inveterate white knights." I don't think anyone has ever accused Red_Pillage of being a white knight in his life. That would be ridiculous.
He's not a gamma. Gammas are insufferable loser spergs, that's not him. Last I checked his girlfriend was like 7 years younger than he was, so he's very clearly not an omega. And the aforementioned GF means that he's not a "lambda". He's not a "sigma-going-his-own-way" or whatever the heck that is, either.

The same goes for any of the other RVF people I've met through the meetups I've done. I can't classify any of them based on this hierarchy. I don't think Kaotic really fits into any of these categories, or AO, or Papaya_Tapper, or anyone I've met. I have some friends who are pretty basic "deltas", but honestly, what's the real difference between a "delta" and the old manosphere term "beta"? It's the exact same thing with a different label on it.

That said, there's one really good idea in Vox's post, and that's the idea of the gamma. I know a lot of gammas. They exist. They're real. And by god are they annoying. I have to deal with some at work and you really have to tread carefully around them. Vox deserves a lot of credit for identifying that personality archetype and talking about ways to deal with them. I've used what he says in my professional career to good success.

It's always easy to take a quiz and classify yourself. But if you want to see if this thing has any real viability the test is to try ranking other people. Take three of your friends and see if you can clearly describe their "socio-sexual rank". Unless they're gammas, or completely average white-knight deltas, I bet you'll find it's a harder task thank you think it is.

[Leonard D Neubache]

By the same token a ruthless dictator who went from farm boy to warlord conqueror of several nations would be a gamma if he had issues with women?

How about the dedicated Christian spec-ops soldier who married his plain-Jane childhood sweeetheart ten years ago and mostly keeps to himself. Let go and call him, what, Beta verging on Delta?

Pfft.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

what's the real difference between a "delta" and the old manosphere term "beta"? It's the exact same thing with a different label on it.

Yes, this is exactly right.

Vox Delta = Heartiste Beta
Vox Beta = Heartiste "Higher Beta"
Vox Sigma = Heartiste "Renegade Alpha"

I don't think I'm gamma because I don't pedestalize women anymore and I don't use snarky humor all the time. Omega doesn't fit because I get along fine with other people socially. Sigma doesn't fit because I don't bang lots of women. Perhaps lower delta.

[MMX2010]

The hardest part about classifying other people is that these hierarchies are situational. Though it's probably impossible to find someone who is Alpha in one situation and Omega in another, it's relatively easy to find someone who is Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Sigma depending on the situation. (A lot of libertarians and drug promoters are Gamma about certain political issues, because they formulated their conclusions while being strongly isolated from society. So they try to impose their socially disconnected (and often anti-social) viewpoints onto others, without realizing that they're doing that. But if you change the conversation to a more objective topic, and they've a lot if relevant personal experience about that topic, they'll speak much more confidently - Delta at minimum.)

It is also possible for a Gamma with women to get an exceptionally hot wife, provided he's extremely wealthy and she knows how to manipulate him.

-----

Someone, I forget who, suggested that childhood bullying and/or isolation plays a significant role in your hierarchical placement. Extremely repetitive abuse produces an omega. Consistent isolation (but not necessarily bullying) produces Gamma. Little bullying produces either Alpha, Beta, or Delta depending on the child's natural leadership qualities and assertiveness.

--------

There's also a wonderful article on Gamma to Sigma that I'll post later, which supports the conclusion that most of us were Gammas who self-improved into Sigmas.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Sure, but if it's "situational" then what's this poll for? If you can be either beta, gamma, delta, or sigma depending on the situation, then what sense does it make to say "What is your sociosexual rank?"

[MMX2010]

Like you suggested, the most useful thing is the 'For fuck's sake, don't be Gamma!" motto. Vox's system plus The Last Psychiatrist's description of narcissism made me finally feel what Gamma is - which helped me stop being that.

A friend of mine who went through something similar said, "I suddenly felt just how much energy I was devoting to controlling other people's impressions of me. And I realized that I could do pretty much anything if I channeled this energy into anything useful."

-----

Second in the usefulness scale is being able to smell Gamma in others. To me, Gamma is mostly "overreach". Saying a rare personal opinion as if it were 90+% believed in, or having strong conclusions regarding a subject you haven't studied, are Gamma behaviors. If you recognize Gamma as Gamma, you'll challenge the competency of the speaker, rather than the truth of their conclusion, and make them quickly quit on frustration. Once the Gammas flee, you'll get a much more intelligent conversation.

-----

This last one I haven't extensively tried, but it may be the most useful of all: Weaponize Gamma thinking against other Gammas.

Dusty's thread on Albert Ellis's "A Guide to Rational Living" is under-rated gold. People who love that thread apply its ideas to make themselves and their loved ones more healthy and happy. True shitlords use its ideas to magnify the insecurities of those who disagree with you politically.

Weaponized Gamma knows what a Gamma would think in any situation, and injects those Gamma thoughts into someone else, to utterly demoralize them. Frightening, but I've no qualms doing this to SJWs.

-----

Sorry I didn't answer your question directly, but you can average your own behavior over many situations to say, "I'm a Delta."