Monday, December 21, 2015

Alpha Mail: Sociosexuality and the candidates

A reader sends in his analysis. It's pretty much how I read them myself.

Donald Trump: Alpha. His mug is featured on the dictionary definition of the term. And whenever the media (or Jeb) try to make him out as whiny or petulant, video footage of the events in question invariably show him remaining calm and cool, every single time.

Ted Cruz: Beta, with a bit of Sigma. Seems to be instinctively serving as a lieutenant to Trump in some aspects, by cornering certain voters who won't warm up to Trump, such as the evangelicals. Has a Sigma streak with his willingness to offend the Democrats and cuckservatives running the Senate, and which seems to have inoculated him against being an Establishment sellout, or at least less than Rubio or Rand Paul. Indeed, he seems to be rising above the less-"offensive" Rubio and Paul, despite Rubio's backers having spent far more money than Cruz's.

Marco Rubio: Beta. Confident, a smooth talker, and has an ex-cheerleader wife. But, he seems to be falling into being a lieutenant to the Establishment, and is weak on immigration. During a prior debate, there was an interesting incident when Jeb tried to attack him, and Rubio dispatched him effortlessly, but also took great pains to be diplomatic about it.

Ben Carson: Delta. If it wasn't for magic-negro-itis among certain Republicans, he would be nowhere.

Jeb Bush: Gamma. He simply can't understand why that "jerk" Trump is leading the polls, when he should be King by rights because tens of millions of dollars, being "serious", or whatever. Also, note how he keeps going at Trump in a classic Alpha-Gamma conflict, whereas all the others (Graham excepted) seem to learn their lesson after trying once.

Chris Christie: Delta. Pretty much what you'd get when you take a Delta politician with extra Joisey attitude and somewhat more Establishment money and support.

John Kasich: Delta. Essentially Christie with less aggression and more Establishment support, or a Delta version of Jeb.

Rand Paul: Beta. He is ranked fairly high, with quite a lot of self-confidence and poise and an attractive wife, but is doing more poorly than one with his rank would be expected to. However, I think Trump, Cruz, ISIS, and the Islamic invasion of Europe have starved him of all his oxygen, since he seems to be in denial that Islam is at all a malign force, blaming all the foreign problems we're having on neoconnery. Also, he has a bit of a reputation as being too willing to play the Beta to the Establishment, a la Rubio.

Lindsey Graham: Gamma/Lambda. If he isn't in fact gay, he's a classic Gamma. The video of him smashing his cell phone after Trump gave his number out is a great example of a Gamma reaction to a slight. In addition, he seems to dislike Trump more than any of the other candidates, except maybe Jeb. Even his claiming credit for beating back "isolationism" upon ending his campaign showed Gamma delusion, as voters are still gravitating toward candidates who don't want to take out Assad and do want to keep out Muslims: Trump, and Cruz to a lesser extent.

Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki, Gilmore, Jindal, Perry, Walker: Deltas. Very much average Joes with no distinguishing features.

And on the Democrat side:

Bernie Sanders: Gamma. The fact he can't quite make any traction against Hillary despite his popular attitudes regarding trade and Wall Street, along with his weak reaction to the Black Lives Matter supporters, makes it crystal-clear where he really stands.

Martin O'Malley: Delta. His wife is cute, but he can't make any headway against Hillary or Sanders. Democrats don't like Deltas, as a rule.

Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee: Low Deltas, or high Gammas. But honestly, what psychologically healthy white male would be a Democrat politician these days, anyway?

Joe Biden: Beta. In fact, his relatively high sociosexual rank for a Democrat may provide one reason for his being an important Democrat politician, despite his lack of any distinguishing characteristics otherwise. Also see: John Edwards.

But in summary, at least on the Republican side, it's uncanny how much of a factor sociosexual rank is when considering how well each candidate is doing, barring a couple of easily-explainable exceptions (Paul and Carson).  Money is also a significant factor, but much less so; it is simply why Jeb is at 3-5% rather than 0%.

29 comments:

Nate said...

I don't see a whole lot to disagee with here. it doesn't shed a ton of light on things except where Jeb and Trump and Ted are concerned.

I do disagree a bit on Paul... not his rank but his problem. The man has gotten some really horrible advice from his campaign people... and he followed it.

Cataline Sergius said...

I disagree on Jim Webb. He is a former Alpha.

I've met the guy in person. Sure he looks like a Dull Angry Thumb now but back then he could dominate an entire room just by walking into it.

Now this was several years ago and I haven't seen him since but he did have the whole Alpha vibe at the time. He always seemed to take up much more space than he actually occupied. It was entirely unconscious on his part. He was simply the man in charge when he walked in.

Which raises the question, did his campaign advisers make him behave this way or did he simply never learn how to be a Silver Back Alpha?

Classic example of the Silver Back Alpha...His boss Ronald Reagan, who could dominate a room of Junior Alphas and send them into fawning girlish admiration just by walking into a room. I saw that one too.

DaveofSpades said...

I would disagree with Kasich. He's a Gamma. Watch his tirade against Republican voters and how he doesn't understand why they don't like him but like that jerk Trump.

VD said...

I disagree on Jim Webb. He is a former Alpha.

Exactly. That was the one with which I disagreed too.

Cataline Sergius said...

Bigger question.

Why are all of the men who are trying out for the job of leader of...I'm not going to say the free world because we all thats a fucking joke... the USA are portraying themselves as such low status men?

Shit, at least Nixon tried to pretend he was an Alpha

SciVo said...

Well that's fascinating. I don't watch TV so I don't know about Webb, but I've observed how my dad -- who I would classify as a Sigma normally -- has gone through some rough patches with lower confidence as he aged, which I chalked up at the time to low T. Imagine if a simple testosterone supplement could upend the Democrat primaries. Could future history really depend on something so small?

SciVo said...

(My dad turned things around with an exercise program, that might not work fast enough for Webb.)

Nate said...

"Exactly. That was the one with which I disagreed too. "

Former = Not Now.

No reason to say he isn't a delta just because he was once an alpha.

Scott6584 said...

So I have an important question: I think it is obvious that an Alpha makes a better King, but what type makes the best President?

I don't mean who has a better chance of getting elected. I mean who will govern the most effectively. I'm not willing to assume the Alpha is automatically the best guy without some more information to support that case. Or if you think another type makes a better President, then who is that guy, and why do you think he's a better choice for America.

Full Disclosure: I'm all-in supporting Cruz, and I think Trump is doing the country a tremendous service by trampling over many of the politically correct boundaries.

Jack Amok said...

No reason to say he isn't a delta just because he was once an alpha.

I think a lot of men fade from alpha status as they encounter career or life setbacks and run out of energy to deal with them.

Frankly, it says something bad about our politics that so few of the men running for high office are unquestionably Alphas. Men without significant Alpha traits are really not psychologically cut out for leadership positions.

Jack Amok said...

I don't mean who has a better chance of getting elected. I mean who will govern the most effectively. I'm not willing to assume the Alpha is automatically the best guy without some more information to support that case.

Alphas are the only ones comfortable making decisions for the group. Every other rank is psychologically uncomfortable being responsible for someone else's well-being (and below Beta, they're uncomfortable being responsible for their own). Betas and Deltas and even Gammas may be perfectly willing to work for someone else's benefit, but when you ask them to make choices for someone else, they panic.

Almost all non-Alpha ranks will turn to someone else to make hard decisions for them. They'll find a leader and follow him, often investing completely in his leadership and rejecting evidence their leader is wrong. It is gut-wrenching for Gamma-boy to make a decision, so once he decides to throw his lot in with someone, he doesn't ever want to open up that can of distress again.

Asking a non-Alpha to run a business, a group, or a country is to turn things over to whatever swami captures your leader's mind. Bad, bad, bad idea.

SciVo said...

Scott, of course there's a distinction between electability and wisdom, but it's exactly the same as the one between effectiveness and wisdom, and the electability goes with the effectiveness because we're intelligent animals. We're intelligent enough to know that the workers are animals that will be less rebellious against the silverback. There is no one type that has more wisdom; and in fact the one type that would disagree, gammas, have the least.

So I guess the proper question is whether a particular candidate's policy correctness outweighs his likelihood of being less effective at getting other people to go along with his plans. Of course the worst would be a very effective person with very bad plans, so effectiveness isn't the be-all and end-all; but a very ineffective person with very good plans would not be much use. So it's an optimization problem, of trying to find the least ineffective candidate with the least bad plans that is also not lying about them.

SciVo said...

Jack, as an ex-gamma I can tell you that they're perfectly willing to make a decision if no one else will, but they might literally toss a coin. I mean actually throw a physical coin into the air and call heads or tails. Because at least it's better than no decision at all, right? And the universe is on your side!

Jack Amok said...

I mean actually throw a physical coin into the air and call heads or tails. Because at least it's better than no decision at all, right?

Well, that's sort of the point - they can blame any failure on the coin then. That's the important thing for the non-alpha, to have a reason they aren't to blame if things don't work out.

Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 said...

The only way Hillary! (TM) gets beaten is with an Alpha male for the ladies to swoon over. Can you imagine if Jeb had locked the nomination? Might as well crown the giant spider now if that was the case.

Mastermind said...

Might as well rate Hillary too, she is for all intents and purposes a man.

Samuel Nock said...

Obama = Lambda?

(I know, not a candidate.)

Civis Silas said...

Part of Webb's problem might be the fact that he's feeling more than a little incongruous--the Democrats simply aren't his party any more. He can't be the kind of candidate that they would want, and it is frankly a waste of his time if he's not willing to find a rich backer and go Full Donald. Age probably plays a role as well. He's 69, and(unfortunately) not everyone is Donald Trump.

Russell Newquist said...

Almost but not quite relevant:

Ron Paul = sigma

Desiderius said...

"Shit, at least Nixon tried to pretend he was an Alpha"

He actually was.

He was notorious in WWII as the best poker player in the Navy.

Desiderius said...

"Why are all of the men who are trying out for the job of leader of...I'm not going to say the free world because we all thats a fucking joke... the USA are portraying themselves as such low status men?"

The theory is that's the way to get the votes of low-status men.

Of course it doesn't work for women, which is why the coward Romney lost.

Sokrates said...

http://freedompowerandwealth.com

A great analysis! The comming months will show more and more how the dynamics between all those characters is working out.

sigbouncer said...

These are great. It seems like it's been awhile since you've done one of these. Would definitely like to see more of this done with popular movies and tv shows. I think I still watch the show Survivor with vested interest just to breakdown the socialsexuality of the contestants.

On Lincoln Chafee. After watching him speak at one of the dem debates. I was surprised to research that Chafee was actually the captain of the Brown University wrestling team. From there he moved on to shoeing horses for 7 years at racetracks in the US and Canada. Chafee came off to me as somewhat of an Omega in watching him debate.

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

You forgot Hillary Clinton. Where does he rank?

RobertT said...

I disagree that Alphas are the only ones comfortable making decisions for the group. I don't think Sigmas would shrink at that. But I would certainly like to know.

RobertT said...

I disagree that Alphas are the only ones comfortable making decisions for the group. I don't think Sigmas would shrink at that. But I would certainly like to know.

SciVo said...

Prediction: There will be a year-long global baby boom from Q4 2016 through Q3 2017, with the strongest effect in the USA. In the rest of the world, the effect will be proportional in different respects to how English-speaking they are and also to how white they are.

Reasoning: Men are learning how to be better breeding material. Trump is providing a ZFG role model that I've found myself emulating to some extent, without even consciously planning to. It's easy to simply lift self-censorship, which should cause more panties to drop in the coming year. The de-wussification effect on national birthrates will be proportional to the amount of exposure to Trump's example, and also to how wussy the men were to begin with.

Confounding factors: There are white and/or Christian nationalists urging white and/or Christian men and women to throw off the anti-natalist shackles on our minds and just make some babies. However, some of them have been doing it for awhile, and we can reasonably expect them to continue. So, the way that we can tell how much might possibly be attributable to alpha modeling of baby-worthy behavior is how much is on a nine-month delay from the remainder of this election.

SciVo said...

On the other thread, I talked myself into disagreeing about Carson. The way Trump's been going after him hard lately could be an alpha/sigma conflict. Think about it.

Jack Amok said...

I disagree that Alphas are the only ones comfortable making decisions for the group. I don't think Sigmas would shrink at that. But I would certainly like to know.

Sigmas can, but usually don't care enough to bother.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.