Friday, January 29, 2010

The pecking order

Vox Day had a post today in which he commented on Roissy in DC's theories regarding male/female interactions. Vox quite correctly identified Roissy's world of Alpha men and Beta men as an invalid binary construct. He posited that there are a much larger number of categories into which men can be grouped. The categories, as laid out by Vox, are these (I'm paraphrasing his descriptions in the interest of space).

  • Alpha. Leaders of men. Women want them. Men want to be them.

  • Beta. The 'almost Alpha' men. Similar to Alphas in many ways, usually successful, attractive to women, etc. But Betas lack the character and confidence of Alphas.

  • Delta. The ordinary man. Most men are Deltas. They have no "game", hence women aren't particularly attracted to them if attracted to them at all. Yet Deltas CAN succeed in life if they recognize who they are and make appropriate behavioral changes.

  • Gamma. The obsequious ass-kisser. Mr. Nice Guy. Like Deltas, not attractive to the ladies. Distinct from Deltas in that they think they're doing things the right way.

  • Lamda. Gay men.

  • Sigma. The lone wolf. Very much an Alpha in every way except that they are not leaders and go to great lengths to avoid being thrust into leadership roles. The Sigma views interaction with other people as pure torture. Or, as Vox put it, "Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell."

  • Omega. Losers. With a capital 'L'. Even Gammas despise them. They are social rejects. Women are creeped out by them.
Now, far be it for me to dispute the opinion of an Internet Superintelligence and someone who's writings have had a major influence on my views in life. But my view of the male hierarchy goes something like this.
  • Alpha. These are the leaders, the achievers. Women want them. Men want to be them. On this one, Vox and I are in complete agreement.

  • Beta. Pain in the ass wannabe Alphas. Their lives are a constant cycle of aggression and butting heads with any Alpha they come in contact with. When they come up against a real Alpha, a humiliating beatdown is in store.

    They tend to be bullies. They tend to be extraordinarily bad leaders. Women are attracted to their faux-Alphaness...and end up eventually divorcing them.

    No one likes them, not even other Betas. They can only be described as tools.

    Betas tend to work as salesmen, lawyers, or politicians.

  • Gamma. Intellectual Alphas lacking the confidence and mojo to be a real Alpha. Gammas know who they are and behave accordingly. They are the true lieutenants - Vox's Betas - who work with, admire, and support Alphas in every way.

    Gammas have a natural enmity with Betas; they see through their phony BS right away. They will actively subvert Betas by any means necessary, including passive-aggressive subversion.

    A Gamma thrust into a position of leadership will either founder or do just well enough to get the job done. In either case, Gammas HATE being in leadership positions. It's just not in their personality to be a leader.

    Gammas won't score any 10's, but they'll do well with the ladies if they don't set their sights too high. They are great relationship material.

  • Epsilon. The faux Gamma. These men are either ass kissers extraordinaire or total Mr. Nice Guy types. Unlike the Gamma, they do NOT support the Alpha, but seek to subvert him with passive-aggressive tactics. They will support a Beta if it serves their purposes; otherwise, they are as repelled by the Beta as everyone else. Women are definitely NOT attracted to the Epsilon.

    Epsilon men tend to believe in Global Warming and to support collectivist politicians.

  • Omegas. The clueless losers. Not bright. Not talented. Not attractive to the ladies. God help them.
Now, I'll admit that my definitions are incomplete, and Vox has done a better job of filling in the missing types I've sort of glossed over. I particularly like the Lamda and Sigma definitions. They were not types I had considered before.

In my spectrum there are overlaps. Every Gamma will occasionally exhibit Epsilon-like behavior. It's a personality trait they have to actively watch for and nip in the bud. Every Alpha will occasionally exhibit Beta-like behavior. It's inevitable that their combination of intelligence, leadership, and confidence will sometimes give them the opportunity to be a jerk.

So, what do you think? Are you more in line with Vox's taxonomy, mine, or do have have one of your own that you like better? Comment on my friend!