[RexImperator]

We've discussed this in various threads but I'm surprised there is no officially dedicated thread and poll.

Quote:

Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren't as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy's friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don't have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha's former girlfriends.

Lifetime sexual partners = 2-3x average.

Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can't attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.

Lifetime sexual partners = 1-1.5x average

Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

Lifetime voluntary sexual partners = .5x average

Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.

Lifetime sexual partners < 2

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.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/0...archy.html

[RedPillUK]

I've seen these before, but I don't take it that seriously. Most red pill aware people I speak to use them, and I can see why classifications of gamma, for aspie types, and sigma, for types who aren't really alpha but learned to be more social, can be useful.

However it would be impossible to try and categorise every sort of man in these categories, most people would probably say they don't really fit into any category, or they do but they don't have all the traits of that category and ultimately it's not that important anyway.

The only thing that matters is beta and alpha, and beta and alpha is relative and contextual, as the definition of who is an alpha male depends on the situation and behaviour and who is around. Maybe you are the alpha male in a group of nerds but maybe hanging out with your new rugby team you are not.

So to answer the poll, I don't know as it is impossible to be firmly in one group as it can change and shift all the time, and adding more categories other than alpha or beta just further complicates things.

[MMX2010]

Disagree with you, RedPillUK. The most useful classification is Gamma. When you see your own Gamma tendencies, you can get rid of them. And when you see Gamma tendencies in others, you can put walls between yourself and them.

The presumptive nature of Gamma, coupled with its arrogance and unwillingness to honorably battle you the end, unites SJWs, feminists, and cuckservatives.

[kaotic]

This is like horoscopes for bitches.

[DonnyGately]

No, horoscopes are fun, this is just worthless. At least I can game girls who are into what's your sign bs.

[RexImperator]

According to Vox, rejecting the hierarchy may be a sign of Gamma...

Quote:

people who are skeptical of the socio-sexual theory keep making the same mistake. They focus on the labels, rather than on the observed behavior to which the labels are applied.

There is no doubt that Alphas exist. There is no doubt that Gammas exist. We know this because we see them exhibiting the differentiating behavior in action on a daily basis. It doesn't matter what they are called; although the terms have become descriptors and predictive behavioral models, they are derived from actual behavior observed and recorded by others.

So, don't get caught up in the descriptors, their status implications notwithstanding. They are only there to label the various behaviors being observed.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.ca/2016/08...avior.html

Quote:

It's always easy to spot the spergs and gammas whenever the topic of the socio-sexual hierarchy comes up. They inevitably try to take a practical system that is dynamic, relative, and fractal, and turn it into something immutable and inflexible that they can understand.

But you can't do that. Circumstances change. People change. Any one individual can be a member of a dozen different hierarchies at the same time. My role is very different as Supreme Dark Lord with 525 VFM and tens of thousands of readers than it is as the old guy nobody knows who is an extra practice body for a 5th division soccer team, and both are different than my role as the Lead Editor of Castalia House.

The way that women are going to perceive me, and the way they are going to behave around me will entirely differ depending upon whether they encounter me as a) spectators at a soccer game at which I'm sitting on the bench until the last 15 minutes, b) attendees at a public event at which I am the featured speaker, or c) wannabe writers at the London Book Fair. My status, and my perceived attractiveness, will vary greatly, depending on the situation. And yet, I am precisely the same individual.

The socio-sexual ranks are not "crude waypoints". They are descriptors and conceptual models that are usefully predictive of human behavior, both male and female.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.ca/2016/08...-this.html

Of course, ignoring the hierarchy and saying, "I don't give a shit" (if you really mean it) would be Sigma.

[rhodey]

(08-17-2016 04:26 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

We've discussed this in various threads but I'm surprised there is no officially dedicated thread and poll.



Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren't as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy's friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don't have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha's former girlfriends.

Lifetime sexual partners = 2-3x average.

Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can't attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.

Lifetime sexual partners = 1-1.5x average

Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

Lifetime voluntary sexual partners = .5x average

Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.

Lifetime sexual partners < 2

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.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Overly categorizing this stuff sounds nerdy to me . Sure , IMO there are true Alphas but I believe they are exceedingly rare and mostly born not made. I know dudes that are not alpha, but they're good with women (but failures in other areas) and clean up. It sounds like the author knows he's not a true alpha (not really an issue if you are just a what I'd call a REAL man) , so he went and created a category he could fit in( "sigma") and still feel good about himself . It all sounds contrived to me... since when is a "Beta" a good thing? I say just try to be the best man you can be and that should be good enough.

[RexImperator]

I would guess that most of the guys here who have banged a lot of girls fit into the Sigma category. Heartiste calls the Sigma the "Renegade Alpha".

Guys who reach Alpha (making a lot of money, hot wife, etc.) probably just leave the forum and "graduate".

Many Gammas probably end up getting banned here.

Vox's Beta is a Roissy "higher Beta". Actually not bad at all. That's something like a successful family man with an above average wife.

[MMX2010]

One of the strongest indicators of Gamma behavior is Equality. I've studied Vox's sociosexual hierarchy for about a year, and think it has strong predictive power. If you think it's crap, and only just heard of it now, AND think your opinion should be taken as equally serious as mine, you're behavior surrounding this issue is Gamma.

No one said you can't have an opinion, but why would you have a STRONG opinion, given your limited exposure to the subject?

[Blobert]

The Sigma is a too all-or-nothing category. I identify with the description to some extent, to the being an outsider, but will admit that I'm not as succesful as that makes it out to be. You can be a strange outsider who's neither at the top nor the bottom of the social hierarchy.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

If you think it's crap, and only just heard of it now, AND think your opinion should be taken as equally serious as mine, you're behavior surrounding this issue is Gamma.

As I think about it, I should have written the Gamma option as "This is stupid!" because it's rare that a Gamma will self-identify.

[Rhyme or Reason]

Where's my fellow omegas at, b?

Honestly I don't like Vox's hierarchy, it's over thought and needlessly complex.

There's a reason most game is written in terms of alpha and beta. It's the most applicable to real life.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Quote:

My personal take on the hierarchy is:

Alpha- Leaders and Rule Setters
Betas- Second in Command and getting people working on the details of the will of the top dog
Gamma- Your bureaucrats(intelligent, neurotic, and much less fun than the everyone else to be around which is why they're basement dwellers and generally everyone else ranks higher on the totem pole in that regard)
Delta- worker and average joe
Sigmas-Revolutionaries, rebels, artists, and musicians(aka functional outcasts with express vision note the use of the term "functional" as most "artists" as they label themselves produce trash)
Omega-Criminals, hermits, social outcasts, cultists, and other associated malcontents/failures of the system

How the Manosphere views it:

Alpha- Someone who gets laid and gets paid

Beta- Someone who is one or few steps away from getting laid and getting paid

Gamma- Neckbeard who won't be getting paid or getting laid ever.

Posted this before in a thread already, but that's just how I view the world. Personally the whole Alpha Beta thing is manosphere drivel. Reducing yourself to a few categories or a caste drains the fun out of everything.

Also horoscopes are great. Love getting chicks to freak out when I tell them I lied about my sign just to mess with them a bit. Superstition tends to be generally fun to mess around with.

Psuedo-science like this. Blah. Boring, but fun for jokes.


Also OP you need to get out and stop reading manosphere stuff so much. It seems all you've been doing is posting about that rather than your own progress when you first started up on the forum.

Approaches, what you're doing, how you act, etc. Are you still stuck in that slump you were stuck in a few months back? How many girls have you been on a date with?

Edit: Also OP it is stupid. Who the hell wants to constrain themselves to one or two labels? And I'm not Gamma because I've been out there actually doing things in the world(going out, approaching women, living life), sat down with forum members in person, and post my honest thoughts/observations. I also highly doubt the other members saying this stuff doesn't matter are no life losers as you insinuate, and their status as you put it is not of a "Gamma".

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I don't buy into this. Male standing isn't like female beauty which is fixed. It's largely situational.

The Alpha on campus becomes a Gamma on a Saturday night if he doesn't know how to handle himself in the city. The Beta becomes Alpha when the storm hits and he's the only one who knows what to do.

Since men choose jobs based on what I just described, jobs themselves alter (or make) a man's ranking. The political science nerd morphs into the smooth-talking Alpha politician. The loser high school kid who hung at the firehouse becomes the Alpha lifesaver. And we all know what becomes of a lot of computer geeks.

Conversely, I've seen high school football heroes end up as cucked, henpecked husbands, forever tethered to the ex-cheerleader they married, who now looks like the Goodyear Blimp.

And to throw in yet anther curve, how a man does with women often depends on the specific group of women. Brawniness often doesn't play with Jewish women, for example, who tend to prefer brains. Conversely. the same book collection that will lure a brainiac Jewish women into bed with you will cause a white (or black) woman to run screaming away. Who is Alpha in these situations and who is Beta or Gamma?

Time, jobs, situations...all of it matters. Vox Day is starting to bother me as much as Rollo Tomassi. There is no fixed formula for manhood. That's the way it was designed.

Men built the world. In order to do that, you need the burly construction guy, the nerdy planning guy, the intense law-and-order guy, etc. All are Alpha in their way and in their right time. Most have their day in the sun at some point. And most have a group of women who takes to their type.

While men do slot into categories, they're far more slippery than people seem to realize. Leave the categorizing of humans to Jezebel. It's not that simple because the people who brought you the computer, the car, and the use of backwards tapes on records aren't that simple.

[Truth Teller]

I've discussed Vox's categories before, but essentially, I think the categories are overly reductionist and highly situational. Yes, there's really no doubting that alphas/gammas/sigmas exist, though trying to reduce everything to socio-sexual rank is, in my opinion, foolish. Success with women certainly can be attributed to socio-sexual position, but I'm unsure whether or not employment/intelligence/etc. can plausibly be discussed as factors.

As I suggested above, a lot of it is fluid. An alpha on Friday can easily be a gamma on the following Monday. I tend to think that these categories aren't really "hard and fast," but really a continuum. For example, you can have the so-called "alpha husband," which I guess would be an alpha with some beta characteristics.

Then again, I think that trying to categorize a lot of this stuff is mental masturbation due to how ridiculously subjective it is...

[MMX2010]

There's a difference between accurately describing behaviors (which is what Vox's categories do so elegantly), and using those descriptors to permanently classify people, (which is what the detractors of Vox's clarification system inevitably do).

Even DOBA's objection, though elegantly written, assumes that Vox uses his system to permanently brand people. Meanwhile, Vox himself wrote a wonderful article explanaing that these labels are contextual, not permanent.

The second "loudest" and "most radioactive" Gamma behavior is making an assumption, injecting that assumption into someone else, and never acknowledging that you did this. Whether DOBA assuming that Vox's system is meant to permanently classify people, or St. Germain's assumption that two-category classifications are infinitely better than multi-category ones (because two categories are more understandable than six), those assumptions aren't part of Vox's system, (and they're wrong).

-----

Once you realize that these descriptions discuss behaviors, you'll notice your Gamma behaviors and stop doing them. (1) Never assume that you're smarter than, or equally smart as, an expert in a field - especially fields that you think are illegitimate. (2) Never assume that you can argue someone out of what they're feeling. (3) Never assume that your initial impression of anything is as well-informed as an impression derived from months or years of intense study.

With Game, (4) Never assume that you're entitled to a girl's company, affection, or love because you followed certain societal rules. (5) Never assume that you, at age 21, are equally smart as (or smarter) then, another man at age 40.

The majority of Game can be reduced to, "Whatever happens, don't be Gamma."

[RexImperator]

Quote:

How many girls have you been on a date with?

I haven't been on a date in years. Twelve to be exact. Hence, I honestly put myself down as Omega, because that's where I am currently. Trying to move up to Delta.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(08-18-2016 04:24 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

or St. Germain's assumption that two-category classifications are infinitely better than multi-category ones (because two categories are more understandable than six), those assumptions aren't part of Vox's system, (and they're wrong).

You completely misread and misrepresented what I was saying, and I made no assumptions at all. The only thing I talked about was why self-limitation is bad, and asking why OP is suddenly starting so many threads so suddenly when a while back he said he was struggling with women.

So to explain further. It's idiotic to self label yourself within any category period. Limiting the range of thoughts, actions, and beliefs to one or two castes is an inherently stupid thing.

It's not that I think two is better than multi but that categorization of the self period is a counter productive thing to do.

It's one thing to view the world in a caste format and try to work your way up, but it's another to relegate yourself as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc., which is what the OP is suggesting. Invoking labels is a cop out, and the reason why discussion of politics is so factionalized and annoying in this day and age. It's less about individual issues and all about giant platforms that make you pick between at most 4 or 5 choices.

On your advice on avoiding certain behaviors that's more tangible, but still self limiting. Gamma behavior should instinctively be cringeworthy and should not warrant a second thought.

All behavior other than Gamma, even game, should take into account other factors rather than simple(Alpha, Beta, Gamma) options. It's all subject to the context of the situation, and all your explanation simplified it down too is that socially unacceptable behavior should be taken out of a person's psyche, which in all honesty should be a given.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(08-18-2016 06:16 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Quote:

How many girls have you been on a date with?

I haven't been on a date in years. Twelve to be exact. Hence, I honestly put myself down as Omega, because that's where I am currently. Trying to move up to Delta.

I think that's the more pressing issue man. Discussion and theory is all good, but getting out there and fixing a conundrum affecting your life is much more important. "Red pill" should generally be 10% theory and 90% action.

Also 12 dates isn't bad, but getting them places should be the important part. Get out there.

[MMX2010]

Labeling yourself isn't the same thing as labeling your behaviors. I didn't misread you. You misread me.

It's also textbook Gamma to make large, moralistic statements in place of humble personal opinions. The example in your post is, "Gamma behavior should instinctively be cringeworthy and should not warrant a second thought."

The first flaw with your statement is that Gamma behavior is not at all inherently cringeworthy, (because lots of people do it). And the second flaw is that your statement is Game-denialism, because learning that Gamma behavior is cringeworthy is indeed a core mechanic to learning Game.

Am I wrong to assume that you're encountering Vox's sociosexual hierarchy for the first time?

[JacksonRev]

Everyone wants to out alpha the socio-sexual hierarchy and comes off like a gamma.

It's not all or nothing. It's a useful heuristic for many men to understand behavior, especially for young men, as they move through a wide variety of ranks depending on their changing social situations.

It's not F = MA, it's just something to be used to improve your life. Are Venkat's sociopaths, clueless, and losers the be all and end all of work? No, but they're still quite useful in understanding organizations.

If the socio-sexual hierarchy doesn't help you, that's great. You have a much greater intuitive understanding of human behavior than I do, and I'm sure you're well prepared in every social situation.

I'm not, and understanding where I'm at in each situation is incredibly useful to me. Many times I'm a beta or delta, especially in new situations where technical skill is the basis of status, and I don't have any, yet. I'm not going to try to puff my chest out when other men are teaching me what to do.

However, gamma behavior is rarely useful in any situation, so recognizing it in myself, or in other men that I'm responsible for, is important. It's the recognition that then allows me to limit the behavior.

And that's the thing, if something helps me in life, random internet guy is not going to change my mind. And turnabout is fair play. When I'm random internet guy to someone else, I'm not going to convince them out of a belief that is useful to them, regardless of the basis of that belief.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(08-18-2016 06:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

It's also textbook Gamma to make large, moralistic statements in place of humble personal opinions. The example in your post is, "Gamma behavior should instinctively be cringeworthy and should not warrant a second thought."

This quote write here is a clear example of what I mean by self limitation. Exaggeration and statements of grandeur aren't inherently "gamma" as you put it because some of the greatest orators of all time have used such hyperbole.

See: Mussolini's 8 Million Bayonets speech, Socrates' speech in The Apology to the electors at his trial, MLK's I Have A Dream Speech, etc. Large moralistic statements simplify messages and get them across. Humble personal opinions are not the only way to get a message across.

Quote:

The first flaw with your statement is that Gamma behavior is not at all inherently cringeworthy, (because lots of people do it). And the second flaw is that your statement is Game-denialism, because learning that Gamma behavior is cringeworthy is indeed a core mechanic to learning Game.

Gamma behavior is inherently cringeworthy as there are social taboos that should completely be avoided. Say for example trying to talk with a stereotypical ditsy girl about how much money you have as a way to flirt. It generally is in bad form even though certain sheltered people do it anyways.

It's not game denialism as Game, in my humble opinion, is simply increasing your charisma and making yourself perceived as better and more charismatic. Which generally involves cutting out excess fluff behavior(which isn't necessarily gamma or weak, but useless), and adding on more attractive traits. Game for me is a building not a rock to carve a sculpture out of.

Cutting out "gamma behavior" as you put it should already be part of the norm as it not only looks badly towards women, but also towards other men. Weak men are a fairly easy thing to identify.

Quote:

Am I wrong to assume that you're encountering Vox's sociosexual hierarchy for the first time?

Completely wrong actually. I've read through this before, and I thought of it as an interesting lens to see the world in. But like all lenses. Inherently limited by the information and context as well as too broad.

[RedPillUK]

Accusing other people of being Gamma, not just once, but three times and more by other posters (!), is gamma.

Saying you disagree with my post, without saying what part is gamma. I don't believe you disagree with all of it. You just don't like that I don't like this system much, which is pretty much all I said although I mentioned some other categories can be useful. That is also gamma.

My main point was described better by other posters here: As the categories are fluid and highly situational, you may as well just simplify and work with two: Alpha and Beta

Despite that, I understand your point that this system helps you to learn what 'Gamma' behaviour is so you can avoid it. I haven't thought about that before, I will try that.

[Blobert]

It's not any real than any other sociology BS. If it gets you to think about something important and improve your life, great, but don't pretend there's anything objective about these rankings.

[MMX2010]

Two things, Saint.

(1) Without citing any examples, can you comment on my argument, "Because Gamma behaviors are do prevalent, they're not inherently cringeworthy."

(2) I've diligently studied and discussed Vox's hierarchy for about eighteen months. Since this is so much longer than you've studied it, do you accept that my understanding and summary of it are much more likely to be better than your's?