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.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.
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?
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.