Thursday, April 12, 2012

Alpha Mail: potential isn't reality

RA is having trouble understanding how hierarchies work:
How do you determine those values? That is what makes it far from simple. The number of people you lead doesn't determine how many you could lead. I don't lead anyone now, but I often become a source for information where I am and tend to take charge of things (normally successfully) when work and such is getting done.

I don't want a people management role though, so what exactly am I? I can lead but feel no pull to lead. I just know I will tend to do so, all things being equal. My sex partner count is low, since I intentionally only focused on my wife. How are you going to judge that for someone who is not seeking another notch on his belt, now or in the past?
This isn't that hard. If you don't lead anyone now, if there is not a pattern of people looking to you for leadership throughout the course of your life, you are not a leader and you are not socially dominant. Dominance is actual, it is not potential. It comes out whether one wants it to or not, in everything from sex to sports.

Look at great athletes like Lebron James, KG, Chris Webber, and Karl Malone. None of them were athletically dominant players despite being incredible athletes and great players. Not only did they not demand the ball when the game was on the line, they actively avoided it. When crunch time came, unlike Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Kobe, they disappeared. And dominance isn't even about consciously demanding the ball; I once had a soccer coach complain that my style of striker play was too dominant for his liking because I tended to make slashing runs through the defense in such a manner that the obvious play for the midfielder was to pass me the ball for a high-percentage shot. This was anathema to his Barca-like philosophy of holding onto the ball for 10 minutes, then perhaps considering the possibility of taking a shot if the opportunity was deemed to be sufficiently beautiful. He correctly described me as a dominant player, not because I was the best striker, (I was not), but because the way I played forced my teammates to play my way.

Getting things done isn't leadership. Competence isn't leadership. In fact, if you're the take-charge, competent guy who gets things done, you're almost surely a delta; that behavior could be described as one of the primary delta markers.

If your partner count is low, then you are not sexually dominant. Period. By definition. It is totally irrelevant that you think you could have been someone, you could have been a contender, you could have had all those babes who crossed your path in the past. Sexual hierarchy has nothing to do with morality; maximized sexual rank is one of the things men naturally sacrifice when they make a commitment to a woman before God. And all the talk of "opportunities" is just that; any man of sufficient experience will know perfectly well the multitude of ways that seemingly sure things go awry. She starts crying for no reason, her boyfriend comes home, you pass out, the police pull you over when you're following her to her place, she gets into a car accident when driving to your place, her ugly sister shows up with her... there are a thousand and one things that can interrupt the process between that initial indicator of interest and the deal closing.

While it's to RA's credit that he's "not seeking another notch on his belt", the way you judge it is quite simple. If it doesn't exist, it isn't counted. Now, there is more to life than being socially dominant. There are more important things in life than being sexually dominant. But one's potential for dominance should never be confused for one's actual socio-sexual rank; recall that the entire point of Game is to allow men to improve their rank and obviously they could not do so if they did not possess some inherent potential for improvement. Not everyone has Alpha potential, but far more men have Alpha potential than ever reach Alpha rank in the hierarchy.

RA asks "what am I?" Given what he says about his introversion, his work competence, and his tendency towards overanalysis, I would guess that he's most likely a high gamma. IT and other technical people are usually gammas and seldom rise above delta.


Mr. Nightstick said...

You just revised this after posting. Very sneaky.

Mr. Nightstick said...

maximized sexual rank is one of the things men naturally sacrifice when they make a commitment to a woman before God.

So are you admitting to cheating on SB? Banging hundreds of chicks 15 years ago and 1 chick for the past 15 years can hardly be considered Alpha or Sigma? Lifetime sexual partners is crap. It should be time adjusted to note the degrees with which peoples rankings can change over time.

Aeoli Pera said...

Useful repost:

Maybe it'll be easier if, instead of identifying yourself as ALPHA/Sigma, you think of it as imitating the traits of an ALPHA. Here's an illustration:

All ALPHAs have inner game.
ALPHAs are defined by high-N.
Some men have inner game, but low N.
Not all men with inner game are ALPHAs.

You may want to have inner game without raising your N, so you would imitate the ALPHAs' attitude, without necessarily identifying as one.

This is arguably the wiser approach anyway, as it requires a reality-based self-assessment.

Aeoli Pera said...

A friend of mine asked,

Do you have normal numbers for this that I might test myself against? How many people is the average person comfortable leading?

Vox's informal poll is a good place to start for N. If you want hard data (deceptively so), maybe also try your hand with the GSS?

M is actually easier, because you can start collecting preliminary data very quickly. Just look around. Many men have zero subordinates at work, at home, at church or at their hot Yoga classes. Some lead a small group of 8. Some lead 16. A few lead small church congregations of 64.

The great thing is that you can use the chief-to-Indian ratio as an *estimate* of your spot. So if you lead a church of 64, you are probably in the top 1/64 of the social ladder. That's roughly the 98.4th percentile. This is because for every leader of 64, there are 64 followers who (probably) lead fewer men than he does.

I don't know that a Sigma would fall into the top 20% of social rank. Maybe they should be exempt from the second test?

I'll use Vox as an example. He doesn't actively seek leadership, but people follow him anyway. He has a huge readership. So the test is still useful to identify Sigmas.

*There are two complications to this estimate that offset each other. There are probably people in the congregation who have subordinates at home or at work. Similarly, an Alpha in one setting is an Alpha in other settings, so the pastor is probably in charge at home and at work too. Like I said, offset.

Anonymous said...

By your definition, Vox, somebody who quits operating as the Carousel would stop being Alpha - their partner account would be comparatively low if they go and get married and stay faithful, game or no game. I'm not sure an Alpha or Sigma necessarily has to be unfaithful to preserve SMV. So too with leadership roles & social dominance; that stuff ebbs & flows with life events. A married Alpha with a couple young kids and super intense job isn't going to be doing a whole lot of Pillar of the Community-type stuff.

JCclimber said...

Because we make so much fun of gammas, because of their secret contempt for women (even while putting them on a pedestal), I think people try to avoid labeling themselves as such almost as much as lambda.

Hell, I think I'd prefer to be labeled lambda than gamma.

Most men are deltas or gammas. Nothing wrong with that. Only one Person can be alpha AND omega, and He did that by submitting to His Father's will.

Anonymous said...

@JCclimber - He wouldn't rate rate as a leader since He rejected kingship of all material things; and He seems to have had a partner count of 0, at least from what his Beta & Delta followers wrote about Him.

Mr. Nightstick said...

Vox is not a leader. Leaders provide vision and direction, Vox does neither. He refuses to.

Aeoli Pera said...

No, if they get off the carousel early they would stop being ALPHA. Two variables in play, here.

Daniel said...

That's a misunderstanding: he does provide plenty. He just doesn't particularly want to.

If you don't think he provides vision and direction, you haven't been paying attention. He does even though he avoids such duties like the plague.

Some people think out loud. He thinks across the planet. I don't even mean that as some worshipful statement, either. In fact, I wouldn't want that set of traits in the least.

George Washington didn't want to be president, either. Unfortunately for him, he was the tallest guy in the room...

Vox is the son of a CEO, has been a CEO (hell, probably still is a CEO of some shadowy organization or two today) and has led projects, great and small, for decades. His musings on freaking Calvinism have quite unexpectedly changed lives.

Again, I wouldn't want any of that stuff. I kind of like Delta and Omega - I don't really want that sort of leadership (or conventional leadership, for that matter) complicating my...uh, complexities. This will probably come off as praise for him, but it isn't: it's just the provable truth.

You've seriously got to have a bad blind spot to fail to see him as some type of leader. Just because he doesn't want that responsibility doesn't mean he doesn't execute it naturally.

If you don't think he provides vision, what do you think that phrase below the title of this very blog is? That's just a tiny example.

Wowee. I haven't seen such a spectacular whiff outside of Drew Butera. Nicely done!

Mr. Nightstick said...

Please articulate the vision and direction that Vox provides via his Blogs. My comments were clearly not directed at any of his private activities.

Based upon your post you clearly misunderstand what leadership is and it's distinction from management or even from commentary.

Vox said...

So are you admitting to cheating on SB?

You really do enjoy being a purposeful moron sometimes, don't you....

Mr. Nightstick said...

I prefer the term jackass but it's mostly when I'm bored.

Vox said...

By your definition, Vox, somebody who quits operating as the Carousel would stop being Alpha - their partner account would be comparatively low if they go and get married and stay faithful, game or no game.

No, that is not correct. While an Alpha who marries and stays faithful is certainly liable to sliding down the hierarchy a little, he doesn't do so simply because he isn't adding to N any longer.

Furthermore, his choice of a woman is likely to add to his perceived socio-sexual dominance. Like it or not, men are judged by the women they marry, by men and women alike.

Stickwick said...

Please articulate the vision and direction that Vox provides via his Blogs.

Seriously? I, for one, have significantly revised my views on many topics because of Vox's influence, particularly my ideological association (from war-supporting Republican to isolationist libertarian) and my views on women and marriage. There is ample evidence on both blogs that Vox has likewise influenced many other people.

Mr. Nightstick said...

Influencing people is not leadership. Your doctor and lawyer influence what you do.

From the man himself:Leadership is, first and foremost, about providing direction to those who follow. This does not mean constantly giving orders or watching for every minor misstep, indeed, a tendency to micromanage is the hallmark of the incompetent middle manager and in any high-functioning corporation this is usually enough to disqualify a contender from reaching executive status. Anyone who has ever served in the military will know that the best officers are those who know how to delegate, who make sure that everyone knows the plan, knows their role in it, and then leaves them alone to perform that role to the best of their ability. It is the leader's trust in the follower that inspires the follower's faith in the leader.

Like I asked earlier, What is the plan (vision) and what is the role (direction)?

Stickwick said...

Not all influence is leadership, but all leadership is influence.

Mr. Nightstick said...

All leadership is influence, but leadership is not all influence.

R. Bradley Andrews said...

I would certainly plead guilty to over analyzing things, as that is the core of who I am. I see implications for many area, though I always seek to expand that. I do not feel the opening comment about understanding heirarchies is completely accurate though. I am certainly not operating as an alpha or even sigma now as I noted in one reply.

What I am trying to figure out is what the point of all this is beyond finding a better sex partner, as most of the game sites focus on. I would say the principles are far more applicable, but just applying them to "up your sex rank" is not a worthwhile pursuit, especially if you have strong convictions against sex outside marriage.

I am the only one who can truly answer what I should aim at, but the area should give more direction beyond "increase your N count" that is frequently common in these comments. That is what I was trying to draw out in the reply that got copied. The reason to do things and what the ultimate point should be is as important as the steps to reach that goal.

I would be glad to be a gamma in the hierarchy if that is what I am and ultimately the best use of myself. I remain to be convinced that I still put women on a pedestal or despise them. (Though how is e latter different than an alpha using women for brief flings and discarding them?)

I have no way to win in this reply likely' since I am likely to be accused of not thing enough, but then accused of over analyzing if I think about it more.

How do you optimize who you can and should be?

R. Bradley Andrews said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stickwick said...

Yes, actually, it pretty much is. Unless you're using coercion, the only way people will follow you is through influence.

Aeoli Pera said...

While I'm glad that you're clarifying definitions, I have two suggestions:

1) It's easier to build abstractions from the facts on the ground than to make an abstraction and adjust it to fit the facts. I.e. Define leaders and influencers, then define leadership and influence.

2) Start with the dictionary definition, and modify it for your philosophical needs.

Daniel said...

The fact that you fail to understand good direction when large numbers of others do not fail says less about the leader and more about the led.

Simply look at his organization of anything ranging from the debates of this age to fantasy football. Look at the fact that his daily musings regularly inspire 300 responses, easily 30 to 60 times more than the average medium - blog, column or otherwise.

You want evidence from the blogs? You're reading it every day. How much evidence do you really need? Read your own quote again - if you are using it to define Vox as something other than a natural leader, you are using it wrong.

R. Bradley Andrews said...

Also note that I do not question how heirarchies work, I question what someone is inherently. I am not seeking to gain status in any heirarchies now beyond a current job and that only to a point. So knowing who I am inherently, which requires an understanding of potential, requires knowing what I could and should be.

Aeoli Pera said...

Accept Jesus as your lord and savior, if you haven't already. It's in your rational self-interest to be on his side. Self-improvement is great, but it's ultimately subordinate to happiness.

Mr. Nightstick said...

@ Stickwick

That makes no sense. Influence is a means of leadership but leadership requires a vision and direction or as Vox says a plan and roles.

Carlotta said...

I disagree a bit. I have seen men of great power who were commited to their wives and had ample opportunity to cheat. The second they did, they would lose some of their appeal. Half, at least, of their draw was that they could not be seduced. Not that they didn't want to, that they held strong.
I am not sure it even had so much to do with the wife as some kind of inner command of themselves. They decided they were not going to and it didn't matter the amount of t and a thrown their way. In fact, some become legends for the quantity and quality thrown their way.

I guess a public figure would be like Tebow. Sort of.

I don't think a man loses Alpha if he is faithful.

Interesting how you don't lose Sigma.....

I would just add that most men who are Alpha, Sigma especially, could care less about blogs like this. It is only those who have questions that need answering. If you are looking for something here, you are not Alpha or Sigma.

artie said...

These rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. They are called socio-sexual for a reason. People can be Alpha in the socio section and Beta in the sexual (the other way around is probably less likely, but who knows).

I have (and still) lead 8-15 people through various stages in my life. I don't like it much, but I still do. Does this make me a Sigma? A beta? Or the ever trustful Delta? I'm certainly not dominant, so this excludes sigma. Alphas usually are suspect towards me and seem to fear me (in working environments, that is), I'm very silent and very introvert. Sigma, after all? I conclude that I have some traits of different ranks in the socio part.

In the sexual part, I'm almost sure to be a introvert Beta. I don't put women on pedestals, pretty much ignore what they say and just like their appearance. I couldn't care less if I could bag one or not (I'm very low sex drive). But who knows, maybe that's just an ignorant delta or a full fledged gamma.

I think the important part of these ranks is to know their traits, learn from them and improve your happiness, in whatever direction you want to have it improved.

As Vox said in the previous post: it's absolutely ok to be delta when you're happy with that.

artie said...

I would just add that most men who are Alpha, Sigma especially, could care less about blogs like this. It is only those who have questions that need answering. If you are looking for something here, you are not Alpha or Sigma.

Not necessarily true. Science can be interesting for Alpha's and Sigma's too.

Aeoli Pera said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aeoli Pera said...

The link I supplied above goes to the wrong poll. Here's the right one:

Mr. Nightstick said...


If organizing fantasy football leagues and internet debates makes one a leader in the sense that Winston Churchill or Steve Jobs or Charlemagne or even Tim Tebow was a leader, then who am I to make disputations?

Vox may be a natural born leader but as a self described Sigma he rejects it. Now I may be wrong about this but since He hasn't really clarified, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

realmatt said...

Vox doesn't offer vision or direction? I'd like to be a total fag right now and say that 1 week of reading his blog and articles offered more vision and direction as well as clarity than the first 19 years of my life.

I love you, Vox. Does that make me Sigma?

Mr. Nightstick said...

Hey it looks like I was wrong. Vox does give direction just as when he told the ilk to remove their links to National Review.

Daniel said...

Yup. That's a ridiculous assertion. Alphas are a minority of the population, and aware alphas an even smaller subset of that. The fact that there are few alphas reading this blog or any other is a statistical likelihood.

But to suggest that an alpha somehow can't be interested in Game theory is preposterous. Who do you think is writing this blog?

Wondering Goy said...


Aeoli Pera said...

I need to pay better attention to what I'm saying. I should have said that he would not be ALPHA if his N isn't already at 15+. You can't have N > 15 and then magically lower it.

Mr. Nightstick said...

If only he would articulate the vision.

(Look at me, I'm replying to my own post. Must stop hanging out with so many INTJs.)

R. Bradley Andrews said...

That was taken care of a long time ago!

It is one of the reasons I never strove for an N count above 1 as well.

Anonymous said...

A good read is a good read. As someone relatively new to all this game theory and the terminology. I find it interesting, if not somewhat fascinating. And the narcissist in me enjoys all the parallels in reading several of the life experiences written here. The oh I did or do that factor just adds to the imagery of the text.

realmatt said...

I want to be Sigma tell me I am.

Dmd said...

Quick question:

What is more characteristic of an alpha? Being a leader or being socially dominant.

An example: At the office the team leader is a mild mannered man who is very competent. He does an excellent job coordinating responsibilities and tasks. People naturally look to him for his knowledge and direction, though he is not socially dominant. Another man who works under man #1 is far more socially dominant, but is not nearly as competent getting things done well at the office. In that context, which man is the alpha, or "more" alpha.

artie said...

When the shit hits the fan, to whom are people going to?

HD said...

Have you ever wondered that its simply testosterone that sorta determines your rank? I grew up very obese as a kid and into my early 20's. It turns out morbid obesity really cuts your testosterone severely as well as increases cortisol and other stress hormones (anxiety/not feeling good). So i was naturally withdrawn, not confident and tired most of the time. Been doing a ketogenic Paleo diet for 2yrs now and I'm down to the last 10-15lbs...I'm exponentially more ambitious and confident than before. I used to super-pedestalize women, now I often ask girls to come over so that I can tap that. I'm still getting used to my newfound mentality but it seems health (and its relation to T levels) is certainly a huge factor for "having game".

HD said...

Also, I'm Asian American and tbh when I read your "hierarchy" I seriously don't know any (maybe 2-3 ever) ALPHAs. In fact, the "alpha" asian male imo is usually fitting your BETA description, the guys matching DELTA usually do relatively well so are kinda our "beta", and so forth. It's like a notch downwards. I'm not belittling our group since it's all relative, and asians are known as less promiscuous including the women.

I also know Asians as a race have lower T levels than caucasian or black, hence I feel that T levels are a dominant factor for "hierarchy".

Anonymous said...

Charles Manson has been in the news lately. Where would Manson fall here? He was a leader and looks to have had a high N count. Do cult leaders get their own special label?

R. Bradley Andrews said...

I suspect a lot of the ranking is due to modern society rather than inherent characteristics. Some similarities may certainly be consistent, but we are fairly whacked out in many standard ways today!

NC Dad said...

OK, I finally understand where I am in the rankings according to the standards here.

Became Christian early in life and meant it, so I've had one sexual partner, my wife.

I was enlisted infantry, went to OCS at Ft. Benning, graduated 4th in the class, had my first command within 2 years, built up a detachment of 70 soldiers that managed to kick ass at JRTC in spite of the fact that I had just ripped my right shoulder on the Darby Queen, ran a statewide marksmanship program including sniper schools, and as a 1LT was able to back my brigade command down when they overstepped themselves (needless to say it cost me any shot I had at a career).

I'm a delta, and a sexually non-dominant one at that. Given the standards being set, I'll take the ranking for what it's worth.

modernguy said...

That's a misunderstanding: he does provide plenty. He just doesn't particularly want to.

Why do you feel the need to speak on his behalf? Get your nose out of his ass crack.

modernguy said...

Look at the fact that his daily musings regularly inspire 300 responses

Yeah, 100 "you're such a genius!" comments from the shameless nut huggers huffing his hot air and 200 comments by two or three of them having a bitch fight with each other until he shuts them up. Oh, and ten or fifteen deleted comments from the haters. About as constructive a comment section as I imagine the ones at gawker are, but less interesting.

dga said...

Since potential for high N doesn't matter, is Tim Tebow a sexual omega at this point then?

modernguy said...

Bellyaching over your hot sex internet score is pointless. All of the sigmas and alphas on the internet have been outdone a hundred or a thousand times by the most base and despicable humans in real life who have achieved any sort of fame. Look at that jew from Kiss. He's banged thousands of girls while heading the shittiest rock band of the last fifty years. He's an alpha sigma super overlord on a galactic scale. If you want to raise your rank all you have to do is follow in his footsteps. Be a shameless self promoter and never doubt.

If you want to be a man with self respect and integrity, measuring your self worth on the Vox Day masturbatory scale of pseudo-intellectual social analysis is going to get you into trouble because seeking a high "N" count is counterproductive to that. People who value themselves look to be with other people who do the same. Blowing your load in vapid airheads is entertainment at best and (as many puas demonstrate) will probably end up eroding your faith in (wo)mankind and ensnaring you in a quagmire of cynicism and self-loathing.

You have to decide which you want to be. Are you a materialistic jew (figuratively speaking) looking for the most expedient way to blow your load in as many "women" as possible, or do you have a purpose in life? Raising your sex rank as measured by your "n" count is a priority of one of those categories, and a waste of time and energy in the other.

The highest of course, is doing one, then prostrating yourself before God and renouncing it for the other before starting a blog where you wink, wink, let it be known that you used to be "sigma" and don't you know, I married a hot bitch too!

SouthTX said...

Good Lord. the wife and kid's talked me into letting them buy the pick of the litter (wasn't cheap), largest male Bullmastatiff puppy. He's a nice dog. My side of it was if anyone broke in. I would want to be woke up by the their screams. Bred as a gameskeeper's dog, they rarely bark before taking anyone down. But he is a pain in the ass as far wanting my attention. Working a lot, I am glad we have him. He is the silent sentry. Uncut, he only will submit to me, and the oldest son who wrestles him for fun. I think we need to find him a female so he can get layed. Puppies are worth a lot. Never mark's indoors though.

SouthTX said...

I vowed before GOD to stay true to my wife. She pisses me off sometimes. When she's PMS'ing. I have GODs grace to forgive her. Trust me, there are options. I know it and she does too. It is why she apologizes whe she knows she was been a bitch.

Jimmy said...

Am I the only one who thinks it's time to explicitly describe the hierarchy in terms of the two axes (social and sexual), for example Alpha/Alpha or Alpha/Delta and so on?

Otherwise it's impossible to classify a man who is dominant socially but is saving himself for marriage, or been faithful to his wife. Or Vox is claiming such a man has never existed?

Daniel said...

Don't do that. Remember that the whole thing started with only two types: alpha and beta (now ALPHA and BETA), then Vox got in and started jacking around.

Do not split that atom.

As a practical matter, there is room for a virgin Sigma - the monastic, seriously religious (from youth) fellow who leads people (against his own desires) and would have his pick of bride, should he go that route. It is the only (exceedingly rare) category where N isn't a factor.

Keep this in mind: this is about the socio-sexual heirarchy: both sides, combined. A socially dominant virgin is simply going to rank lower than a socially dominant high N. Not because they are unequally socially dominant, but because they are unequally sexually. That's not a judgment on religious people: by definition - non-fornicators are also non-dominant in the bedroom, and, therefore, non-dominant in the social-sexual arena. [Again, this doesn't mean they can't be socially dominant.]

So - Your Alpha/Alpha is just a complicated way of saying Alpha. Your Alpha/Delta is just a complicated way of saying Delta.

Daniel said...

And actually, the example above shouldn't say that N isn't a factor: it is. It HAS to be zero. Otherwise, the guy is just another gamma loner with no self-control. Even if the N is one.

Daniel said...

I think it is possible that he falls into the supersnowflake sigma case that Vox has mentioned before (see my comments below), because, although he seems the straight-up alpha, the fact that he seems to constantly scramble people's brains by doing such controversial things as smiling and twitching his elbow when he throws a ball.

But that's only because his N is exactly zero, and not 1 or 2 passionate errors in judgment in his past that he "regrets."

Daniel said...

Finally, someone who gets it. Nothing wrong with being a member of the delta force.

Daniel said...

Don't feel so bad, modernguy. I'm giving you one "pity" reply, so you are already 1/300th of the way there!

physphilmusic said...

How does the fact that a religious alpha/sigma having an N of 1 make him instantly a gamma? Just because you failed to control your desires once or twice in the past doesn't mean that you have absolutely "no self control". Of course, if his N was 6-10 then you would have good reason to call him a self-deluded gamma. There is a clear difference between being a serial murderer and a person who simply lost control in a very particular situation.

Nate said...

it is possible to have N - 0 or N - 1, while deeply religious and be an Alpha or Sigma.

The trouble with this however... is it gives the omegas, gammas, and deltas, the excuse they need to rationalize giving themselves a much higher rank and basically sabotages their attempts at improving their status because they are not honest with themselves.

Amir Larijani said...

This potential versus reality talk reminds me of a story my boss told me...

One day, a young kid asked his dad, "What's the difference between potential and reality?"

His dad said, "Go to your mom, sister, and brother, and ask them, 'Would you have sex with Brad Pitt for a million dollars?"

He asked this of his mom, and she said, "Well...I wouldn't ever think I'd cheat on your dad, but I guess I could sleep with Brad Pitt if I'd get a million bucks out of it."

He then asked this of his sister. She was ecstatic. "I would DEFINITELY have sex with Brad Pitt!"

Then he went to his brother. "Well...I prefer pussy, but I guess I could have sex with Brad Pitt for a million bucks."

After researching the matter, he went back to his dad. "Dad, I think I figured it out."

"We're potentially sitting on 3 million bucks."

"In reality, we have two whores and a queer living under our roof!"

Daniel said...

Because I'm talking about the rare, religious sigma who has had hot women trying to get him in bed for years, and he, sigma-like, is focused on his deep mission - it is, by definition, way bigger and more alluring than any woman, to him. If he's distractible enough to fool around and then get back on track, his mission really wasn't that deep and he wasn't sigma.

There's no such thing as an alpha/sigma in the socio-sexual hierachy as having an N of 1! [Except, again, for the proverbial monk-sigma who could potentially be married for religious purposes - Even a Hosea-Gomer sort of thing.] That guy flips the script because he operates outside the bounds of normal socio-sexual interrelations.

But this is such a distraction. The basic formula is:

If N = 1, social/sexual rank can't be alpha (sigma). The left half of the equation could be maxed out, but the right is not sufficient to qualify.

Aeoli Pera said...

Would a purple saguaro be ALPHA?

There's a lesson here, if you're willing to look for it.

Aeoli Pera said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aeoli Pera said...

The answer is that there is no prisca sapientia, and there never was. There never will be.

And what would you do if you found it? Cease to sin?

Mr. Scott said...

Who CARES what you think your "rank" is, or how you want to measure it? You guys remind me of playing with a dog -- point at something, the dog stares at your finger.
Your earthly goal should be "Good men respect me, evil men fear me, and women want to bear my children", not some arbitrary Greek letter that doesn't even come with a certificate and an autographed copy of Vox's latest book.
LEARN from Vox and other Gamers, but don't seek validation for your existence from them.

Nate said...

knowing the rank isn't as important as recognizing the behaviors categorized in your own life so you can then work on the mistakes and improve your lot in life.

The point is to improve.

Sensei said...

"Sexual hierarchy has nothing to do with morality; maximized sexual rank is one of the things men naturally sacrifice when they make a commitment to a woman before God." -Vox

That is the salient point that many here are missing. Being "deeply religious" as it's been described here since early childhood, my N = 0, and will remain so until I find someone I plan to keep around permanently and marry them. That's how it goes. You give up socio-sexual rank because you fear God more than men. Your M can certainly improve, and unless you're already the elusive natural alpha with low N due to convictions that Nate mentioned, game theory will likely help with that as well. But that's as far as it goes.

I have begun to adopt some aspects of inner game and already get spoken to by women much more than before. I even get better service in restaurants these days. Could I use it to boost my N? Potentially yes, but as Vox pointed out, potential means nothing.

For the committed believers on here, and I know there are quite a few, game theory can be very helpful since it mainly describes reality and how to most effectively work in that reality, but once you learn how the world's rules work, you then have a choice whether you want to play its game or not. You might have more temptation since you didn't even know how the rules worked before and now you do, but Scripture is quite clear, you cannot serve two masters.

Anonymous said...

"unless you're already the elusive natural alpha with low N"

Not possible. Which is pretty amazing considering you quoted the portion sandwiched directly in the middle of why this is not possible. Here ya go.

"If your partner count is low, then you are not sexually dominant. Period. By definition. It is totally irrelevant that you think you could have been someone, you could have been a contender, you could have had all those babes who crossed your path in the past.

And all the talk of "opportunities" is just that; any man of sufficient experience will know perfectly well the multitude of ways that seemingly sure things go awry. She starts crying for no reason, her boyfriend comes home, you pass out, the police pull you over when you're following her to her place, she gets into a car accident when driving to your place, her ugly sister shows up with her... there are a thousand and one things that can interrupt the process between that initial indicator of interest and the deal closing."

Low N count means no alpha, no sigma and no to the other one - the moustache free weight guy.

Anonymous said...

Seriously boys. If you have a low N count it means you are either a beta, delta, gamma or omega. It's really a simple principle. Little to no experience is little to no experience.

This so much reminds me of the guys who come in to a martial arts class thinking they can learn to fight if they don't work hard to optimize their bodies...and most importantly, there MUST be fighting. You can't be a good fighter unless you fight. Everyone has a plan until they get hit. Same principle.

Markku said...

From Vox's own words (from before this thread), yes, you can be an extremely religious alpha with N=0. But it is counter-productive to mention this most outlying of all outliers. That guy is not going to be here. He's going to be in Africa shooting warlords or something.

Sure, one's theory would be a tiny fraction of a percent more exhaustive if you did include it. But it would he an immense disservice to the hordes of religious gammas out there. We all know what they'd do...

NC Dad said...

"Given the standards being set, I'll take the ranking for what it's worth"

What is it worth? Nothing at all, really. Some guys will rank themselves by how many times they were able to put tab A into slot B. Others will try to establish their bona fides by proving they are at the top of the local pecking order and then grouping others around them according to their view of the world.

As I was growing up I knew the guys who did the best they could to bang all the pretty girls, and until I met Jesus I was planning on being one of them. Things changed after that encounter and never were the same. The girls that would have been willing became beneath me and not worth my time. The girls who placed a value on themselves and were more interesting, but I disqualified them one by one until I met the girl who became my wife. She is 7 years younger than me, because by the time I was willing to settle down, I felt the women my age were too old. I wanted someone younger.

When you make a serious choice to be a Christian, it has to be a man's choice that you will stick with regardless of what is thrown in your way. The main thing for me was having to decide the course of my life and sticking with what I knew to be right come hell or high water, from non Christians and Christians alike. That defined sense of direction comes from time in His presence and in His word, and in the worst of times will be what sustains a man.

Am I a delta, according to the standards? As if I am going to let someone ( even Vox )tell me what kind of man I am. What i do read Vox for is to learn better ways to communicate to my son about Game theory. I can't just tell him that most women are batshit crazy, he wants someone else to say it. Fine, Vox is an excellent communicator, and my son enjoys what he reads.

The sum of all this is I realize I am something of an odd duck having not tapped every 8 and above that I encountered in my travels. For me it was all about priorities. His blood was more important to me than the smoking hot Chi Omega (and ZTA and the KD and the Tri Delta in their times) sitting next to me and I chose to keep Him paramount in my affections. No amount of snatch would be worth it.

a.good.ROI said...

Sort of sounds like this guy, that VD is talking about, here

a.good.ROI said...

Well said.

I liken it to Jesus having a zero N count (yet there was potential, but per VD that does not count - I tend to disagree) and yet he was Alpha / Sigma (socially).

Anonymous said...

Must have missed that one. Still, I cannot agree with it. An alpha 0 could easily turn into the American Pie guy upon his first experience with a woman. Never underestimate the power of the P... In thinking back to my HS days, I've seen many a pretty cool weirdgin turn into silly puddy after their first taste of a woman.

OK said...

I was wondering if God sees a high N count as a positive or a negative when judging our life's work. I suspect negative.

Working to understand female psychology is fine, but using that to get in their pants is not something God would smile upon, in my view.

If game theory shows that women are weak and easily manipulated for sex, then it is the responsibility of the evolved spiritual male to encourage women to behave on a higher level rather than using his knowledge and abilities to get their panties off.

I am 65 years old and partied hard in the 1960's, so I know something about all of this, having also spent many years as a spiritual seeker. God does not want us to be serial fornicators, period. It is painful to see bloggers glorifying and encouraging that.

Anonymous said...

Sweet blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News.
Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thank you

Here is my homepage - in gallery

Anonymous said...

It is not my first time to go to see this site, i am visiting
this web site dailly and take pleasant information from
here every day.

Feel free to visit my weblog ...

Pussy-ManiaGirls: said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight


Collection Part 2:

Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car










Hardcore Porn Celebrity





100% MAKE you satisfy......

Reply Delete

Post a Comment