You've heard about "alpha males", "beta males", and "sigma males". This is probably because decades ago, there was a study done showing that wolves in prison had an "alpha/beta/omega" pack dynamic among prison wolves. The alpha was the domineering, powerful, confident leader, the beta was the submissive, weaker follower, and the omegas were the resentful outcasts at the very bottom of the hierarchy.
In the '90s, pick-up artists decided to take that dynamic and use it to describe, in their view, two different types of men (the mostly ignored the omega), referring only to "alphas" and "betas".
The point was to describe different levels of dominance that women are attracted to. They like dominant men, they reasoned, so we're going to call the men dominant enough for women to get aroused by "alphas" and the rest of men "betas".
This is the dynamic that caught on with normies. "Omega" never caught on.
Vox Day, an alt-right figure, came up with a "socio-sexual hierarchy" theory around 2010, long before "sigma" became common parlance.
The point of the socio-sexual hierarchy was to describe roles in a hierarchy or pack.
In Vox Day's new, expanded hierarchy, there were seven roles. In his dynamic, he introduced "sigma" among other new letters like gamma, delta, and lambda, plus using the "omega" from the original study.
Some have even added zeta and kappa, making nine ranks.
The problem with Vox Day's rankings are too numerous for me to summarize here. He had too many ranks for the average normie to understand, "sigma" was basically an "I'm extra-special" rank, it sounded too "nerdy" and autistic due to all the new Greek letters introduced, "betas" were now a "second-in-command" rank despite their image having been permanently tainted to mean a certain kind of weak men, etc.
However, we can all agree that the pick-up artists' model of "there are only alpha and beta males" is too simplistic and causes active harm with its reductive framework.
I have devised a complete yet simple framework of six ranks that includes all men who are mentally able enough to be reasonably sentient. Three of the ranks will probably be familiar, three will probably not. Nonetheless, I think my framework is actually much more accurate when describing men in modern society.
I'd like to see this forum analyze each of the different ranks and their opinions on them, whether they are real, examples, how to deal with them, and any other related analysis.
Cheers, boyos
In the '90s, pick-up artists decided to take that dynamic and use it to describe, in their view, two different types of men (the mostly ignored the omega), referring only to "alphas" and "betas".
The point was to describe different levels of dominance that women are attracted to. They like dominant men, they reasoned, so we're going to call the men dominant enough for women to get aroused by "alphas" and the rest of men "betas".
This is the dynamic that caught on with normies. "Omega" never caught on.
Vox Day, an alt-right figure, came up with a "socio-sexual hierarchy" theory around 2010, long before "sigma" became common parlance.
The point of the socio-sexual hierarchy was to describe roles in a hierarchy or pack.
In Vox Day's new, expanded hierarchy, there were seven roles. In his dynamic, he introduced "sigma" among other new letters like gamma, delta, and lambda, plus using the "omega" from the original study.
Some have even added zeta and kappa, making nine ranks.
The problem with Vox Day's rankings are too numerous for me to summarize here. He had too many ranks for the average normie to understand, "sigma" was basically an "I'm extra-special" rank, it sounded too "nerdy" and autistic due to all the new Greek letters introduced, "betas" were now a "second-in-command" rank despite their image having been permanently tainted to mean a certain kind of weak men, etc.
However, we can all agree that the pick-up artists' model of "there are only alpha and beta males" is too simplistic and causes active harm with its reductive framework.
I have devised a complete yet simple framework of six ranks that includes all men who are mentally able enough to be reasonably sentient. Three of the ranks will probably be familiar, three will probably not. Nonetheless, I think my framework is actually much more accurate when describing men in modern society.
I'd like to see this forum analyze each of the different ranks and their opinions on them, whether they are real, examples, how to deal with them, and any other related analysis.
Cheers, boyos
