I'm curious as to your take on this: which comes first, your socio-sexual archetype, or temperament? And, can your socio-sexual archetype change your temperament as you move up the hierarchy?The temperament always comes first. One can witness personality on display even in the womb; one child will endure uncomfortable positions with complete equanimity while another will immediately communicate its displeasure to his mother with feet and fists.
I tend to suspect the Alphas are overrepresented among those demanding their way even as unborn children. And it is perhaps interesting to note that my Sigma status may have been foreshadowed as an infant, as my mother once commented that I was the only baby she'd ever seen who was inclined to sit back and observe the world with an attitude of narrow-eyed contempt. Plus ça change.... That sounds ludicrous, of course, but I have seen a picture or two that would appear to back up her story.
However, there can be no question that our socio-sexual rank is capable of subsequently modifying our temperament. Even the most taciturn will tend to become more garrulous with success and popularity, and even the most bubbly will tend to become more morose and withdrawn with each successive social failure. So, I think temperament is most important when it comes to the extremes of the socio-sexual rankings; temperament probably plays a major role in separating Alpha from Sigma, or Gamma from Omega, and a much smaller role in distinguishing Beta from Alpha or Gamma from Delta.
I also think the effect of temperament is almost entirely social, which is to say that I doubt it plays any role at all in the ALPHA-BETA divide. There are no shortage of morose and gloomy men who attract women desperate to cheer them up, and there is no dearth of cheerful, upbeat guys who strike women as alarmingly, even creepily, chirpy. Consider, for example, the relative sexiness of Heathcliff versus Pee Wee Herman.