Saturday, July 2, 2016

Alpha Mail: the Omega perspective

This was submitted by an Omega reader.

There are very few shows that depict an omega, if for no other reason than that omegas are too small a group to be worthwhile targeting and even if you did target them they would resent it. The few accurate depictions of omegas on screen and in print are usually as antagonists. On the screen Ralph Fiennes in Red Dragon as the abused Francis Dolarhyde. In comic book characters, Eddie Brock as Venom. Please note I am excluding Jack’s Medulla oblongata from Fight Club (movie and book) as that is a gamma / alpha juxtaposition. This particular perspective will only focus on those omegas consumed by a sense of rage. For those who enjoy or just consent to being ignored, congratulations, you are being ignored again.

The first step to understanding the “angry omega” as Delta man puts it is to understand why he is angry. Unlike the gamma who was bullied some, or got by on being a class clown, the omega was bullied constantly. And not just bullied but more than likely abused, perhaps even sexually. Abuse of some sort more than likely came from peers, but even worse it came from authority figures, parents, teachers, etc, people they should have been able to trust. To reiterate, this bullying or abuse is not punching and stealing lunch money, it is locking the kid the basement for 12 hours, squirting them with a hose and making run naked in front of their friends, forcing them to smell flatulence embedded in a couch, cleaning the toilet with their toothbrush, any other sort of humiliation with no redeeming lessons.

This is not basic training, tearing the gamma down to form him anew as a delta, this is as Ann Barnhart puts it “diabolical narcissism” reaping pleasure from the pain and humiliation of others. This sense of betrayal from authority is paramount to understanding the omega. Being bullied by peers is second nature to them by now and nothing to be surprised at. Some of the peer bullying can be circumvented by remaining quiet, the aforementioned “Quiet Omega”, but authority cannot be avoided. Being told that you must endure humiliation and that even questioning it is wrong, forges a distrust of all authority, and will usually metastasize into abject hate. Here is the birth of the “angry omega.”

Out of that hate comes another binary division of omegas, those that snap and those that use the hate as fuel. Among those people in news reports that have snapped, many are omegas, however we cannot call all of them such. The choice of targets are paramount and angry omegas generally focus their aggression on the source. That is beyond the purview of this article. Instead the rest will be focused on the “successful” omega. The successful omega is rare and will generally come off as a delta or perhaps even beta. The key differences are easy to note however. An omega in authority will usually care about his subordinates more than is absolutely necessary and perhaps too much. He will explain his actions in an attempt to write the wrongs that were visited upon him. He will have an abundant dislike and distrust of higher authority and it will be painfully clear to his peers and subordinates.

Generally the work will be top notch, because the omega views every assignment as a chance to be bullied and humiliated. Success is a matter of spite on those that hand out the assignments. Turning in a report or finishing a project is throwing down a gauntlet, a challenge to authority to find a fault. His boss will have no idea why he is combative about such good work because he doesn’t understand the underlying dynamic. If there is a genuine error in the product, the omega will become shamed, visibly as this reminds him of his childhood. This shame will turn into perhaps violent self-loathing, a rage that needs to be funneled into correcting the problem.

This can be contrasted to a gamma in that the gamma would obfuscate and make excuses after the problems were found. This is primarily to people who might encounter a successful omega.

As a peer, he isn’t hanging out after work or going out to lunch because he dislikes you, he genuinely prefers to be alone. When he looks like he is obsessed with some miniscule detail he is. As a subordinate, if you find him over explaining things or giving you’re the rationale behind choices that you are not concerned with tell him in private that you trust him and you don’t need that much detail.

 As a manager, put the omega in difficult situations where you need absolute honesty. He will hate you for always getting the worst job but the only way to drive his is through his anger. Understand that if possible you will need to move him around frequently as you’re continuing to give him difficult and thankless tasks will make you the object of his derision.

Most people will never encounter a successful omega. But if you do these hint may help you understand and better interact with them.

24 comments:

Robert What? said...

Interesting. Nobody fits wholly into any single categogy, but none of them seemed to really apply to me more than just a little bit. After reading this, successful Omega might just be the most appropriate category.

bob k. mando said...

i still think this is mostly re-inventing the wheel of the DSM ver 1-3 categories.

not that the DSM considers things from a sexual market value, nor that considering things with a SMV overlay is valueless, just that there's a lot of unnecessary work being duplicated here.


you do have one good thing here:
the consideration of parental deviancy having consequences for the child once he has grown up.

also, the acknowledgement that many people cause pain willfully and intentionally.

because they take joy in the suffering of others, even their own children.

sigsawyer said...

I think the omega's more likely to interpret his ostracization as bullying and grandiosely exaggerate how much life has shat on him. There's more clarity than the gamma has, but I doubt many omegas own up to the fact that it was their own deficiency that caused them to be tormented.

'Bullying' is the way kids sort themselves into a sociosexual hierarchy. It divides the wheat from the chaff; either your instinct is to stand up for yourself, or your instinct is to curl up and run away. Betas either fight back or join the bully. Deltas band together to keep from getting singled out. Gammes get beaten, then run home and lie to themselves that they won by not fighting back. Omegas curl up and hope the world goes away.

Sokrates said...

Categories are always artificial to a certain degree, but nevertheless they work very well to classify people and get a good idea about who they are and how you treat them. I think the categories of alphagameplan is very accurate and a wonderful tool.

From: http://freedompowerandwealth.com

VFM #7634 said...

The successful omega is rare and will generally come off as a delta or perhaps even beta.

Successful or high-functioning omegas may not be extremely rare. For example, VD has identified David Petraeus as one. Ben Carson may be another. It would demonstrate that only looking for men like the "have you seen my stapler?" guy in Office Space would be misleading. Of course, they cannot be all that common either, otherwise they wouldn't be considered weirdos by most people.

The high-functioning ones that appear delta or beta may start to attract a few women, including attractive ones, but such women will themselves be outliers from the bulk of the female population. These omegas will still have absolutely no luck with "basic bitches," who will of course dismiss them as weirdos. Meanwhile, the bullying problem will mostly resolve itself, if only because they are loners and therefore generally not involved in group activities that lend themselves to bullying in the first place.

There will still be some bullying of course; because they're weirdos, they'll still run into the occasional trouble from white knights or be backstabbed by gammas (although granted, gammas backstab everybody). And because of their social foibles, they'll also be common targets of people who want to exploit and use them -- which of course wouldn't help their opinions of the human race much.

Finally, I think there are probably some synthetic sigmas, but they'd have to have been former high-functioning omegas. I don't see most men managing to become anything other than a synthetic alpha or beta.

@sigsawyer
I think omegas are generally bewildered as to why people are treating them that way. They may know clearly they're different, even deficient, and don't fit in. If he is grandiosely griping about his life, he most likely does so in a private journal. But I suspect it's more common to just hold it in, which is why snapping is a risk.

@bob k. mando
What's DSM?

mavwreck said...

'Bullying' is the way kids sort themselves into a sociosexual hierarchy.

So it's OK to torment other kids (and sow the seeds for future disasters), because it's a useful sorting function?

Jose Coces said...

Omega here. For very long I thought myself as a gamma, but, truth is I never identified in myself most of the gamma traits. That thing about being treacherous, puffing yourself up, trying to appear to be more than you actually are, or being prone to white knighting? Never did any of those things, and they are essential gamma traits. So, I was left with delta and omega. But I never identified with delta, either, because I am no average joe - I'm below most average joes in the sexual market - and neither with omega, because I'm no basement dweller loser, nor a social outcast.

By not being a social outcast I mean some people actually care enough for me to invite to parties, birthdays, going out, etc. And I am pretty grateful to the them for that. Left to myself, I barely leave my apartment, ever. I am a sexual outcast. It's not because of my appearance. I take care of it, have a decent body, and do not have an ugly visage. It's just a way of behaving that you cannot quite grasp how it looks like to others, i.e. what are you doing wrong, but that is very obvious and despicable to girls, as if they sense something about you instinctively. I almost never need to say or do anything particularly bad to be rejected by a girl. It's just there, in the way I am. All it takes is a few minutes. Over time, I've learned to live with it. Do my own thing, hire the occasional hooker to take care of my sexual needs. I always thought I could someday crawl out of it and be a normal guy, by following the "out of gammatude" steps outlined by VD and Delta Man in this blog. Never accomplished much.

But now I've read this...well. It pretty much describes me, with a few little differences here and there. I have some fear of authority, I care for those in positions below mine, and I never finish a job without the feeling of having done something wrong (when you actually did all you could, or that was expected to). There's also the sad feeling that your condition and lot in life cannot actually be improved, all you can do is keep going on until the day you die, but things will never be much different for you, so the least you can do is not make it worse for others. Yeah, some omegas rampage and hurt people, but others, perhaps most...would love to be better, but, failing that, just want to be left alone.

Dexter said...

"Out of that hate comes another binary division of omegas, those that snap and those that use the hate as fuel."

One proviso here is that most of the "omegas that snap" were very likely "functioning" for a long time before they snapped. So if one of your coworkers is an omega and you think he's "just" one of the "hate as fuel" types, I would say, watch him carefully and rehearse your personal Active Shooter drill. You never know when he'll snap...

Unknown said...

Christian love is the relationship between subject and object that builds worth in the object rather than responding to it.

In other words, not this.

Dexter said...

I think the omega's more likely to interpret his ostracization as bullying and grandiosely exaggerate how much life has shat on him.

I don't agree. Bullying and abuse by peers and authority figures definitely happens. This is clearly different from ostracizing you - indeed, when they repeatedly single you out for punishment, you find yourself asking, "why they hell can't they just leave me alone?" Being ostracized would be far preferable to being bullied.

As a recovering omega, I consider that abuse by authority figures was a major factor contributing to my former omega-hood. Believe me, regular severe beatings were the least of it. Now that I am a parent myself, I can readily see that what my family members did was not "old fashioned strict parenting, let's keep the kid in line and toughen him up" but outright child abuse.

When I was bullied by peers, I fought back, so I guess in your view I was beta rather than omega in that respect. Ain't nothing you can do to fight back when your family bullies you though.

VoodooJock said...

Some of these omegas are no more prone to snapping than an Alpha or Sigma. A lot of them have internalized the hate to the point they hate themselves. They'd destroy the self before they'd do others. I'd say a good percentage of suicides not stemming from a chemical imbalance in the brain are a function of this.

stevo said...

"Bullying' is the way kids sort themselves into a sociosexual hierarchy.

So it's OK to torment other kids (and sow the seeds for future disasters), because it's a useful sorting function?"

OK or not its the way it is

sigsawyer said...

"So it's OK to torment other kids (and sow the seeds for future disasters), because it's a useful sorting function?"

Okay has nothing to do with it, it's human nature. Thousands of well-meaning, intelligent professionals with love in their little hearts have tried to stamp out bullying. It's still here. Teach your kids to throw a punch and stick up for themselves.

"naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret"

Laramie Hirsch said...

Wow. This could be me.

Funny, though, how people here talk like they could give a damn about being decent to such people. That it's some sort of justifiable natural selection to treat then like crap or work them hard like a nigger. Most people are shitty, though. Most people go to Hell. So, there's also that. Enjoy your hedonism.

Hammerli280 said...

Interesting discussion. Particularly since I'd argue that part of the definition of Omega is not merely problems in the sexual hierarchy, but in life generally. That a successful Omega is a contradiction in terms.

On the other hand, I think the binary breakdown of the introvert side of the spectrum into Sigma and Omega lacks enough fineness to really capture the situation.

Douglas Jackson said...

"For those who enjoy or just consent to being ignored, congratulations, you are being ignored again."

Yep. Not that i object, I just thought it was funny.

In any case, you missed what is to my knowledge the best depiction of a "quiet omega" in fiction: Bartleby the Scrivener. (If you ask, do all such omegas eventually give up and waste away? No: but if Bartleby hadn't, there would be no story to write. Get it?)

gnossoss said...

"It's just a way of behaving that you cannot quite grasp how it looks like to others, i.e. what are you doing wrong, but that is very obvious and despicable to girls, as if they sense something about you instinctively. I almost never need to say or do anything particularly bad to be rejected by a girl. It's just there, in the way I am. All it takes is a few minutes."

I was gamma with some omega for a long time. I felt this way too. Here's what I learned about it after I overcame it:

When you're in this position, you tend to feel like you know you're not likable, and when people then don't like you you feel like they're peering into your soul and seeing all your flaws the way you do. In reality, that isn't the way it is.

Social skills are just that, skills. They can be learned, and they can be improved, largely via practice and observation. Think of it this way: Imagine social skills are like tennis. Most people are good, some people are great. People like you (and me), due to some combination of upbringing and genetics, have absolutely no natural skill at the game whatsoever. Nothing about the game comes naturally, and the things we try don't work. What seems effortless for everyone else feels impossible for us -- we always hit the wrong kind of shot, or anticipate the shot wrong, or something, so that we fail at practically every point.

The thing is, people aren't peering into your soul -- they're lobbing you the ball, and you just weren't able to return it properly. If you could return it the way other people do, you'd be as successful as they are, and this is the important point: These skills can be learned via practice, observation, and imitation. This was the best part of game for me. It taught me exactly what I was doing that was turning people off. I learned that everything I was doing was wrong, my hygiene, posture, speaking style, attitude, hair, clothes -- everything. But the crucial thing was that game materials taught me what to do instead -- how to project confidence, what triggers women have that make them react the way they do. As a result I was able to have substantial success with women. It took changing everything about myself that could be changed, but when you get down to it, I didn't like what I was that much anyway.

The question that put it all together for me was this: If I met me, would I like me? Do I like it when other people do the things I do? If not, what do other people do that I enjoy? What are they doing that makes me feel like I like them and enjoy being around them, and how can I do those things too?

jas On said...

I never really thought about it, but that description fits me to T.

VFM #7634 said...

Interesting discussion. Particularly since I'd argue that part of the definition of Omega is not merely problems in the sexual hierarchy, but in life generally. That a successful Omega is a contradiction in terms.

@Hammerli280
Yeah, that's why I prefer "high-functioning omega" rather than "successful omega".

On the other hand, I think the binary breakdown of the introvert side of the spectrum into Sigma and Omega lacks enough fineness to really capture the situation.

As I mentioned above, omegas, when they start to function relatively well, tend to attract a few women, but these women are outliers. Of course, "outlier" can be any number of things, but the most attractive women are, by definition, outliers. (Think of David Petraeus and his affair with Paula Broadwell, who was a highschool homecoming queen.) I suspect that if an omega starts to attract very attractive women and then makes a habit of it via the increased self-confidence and maybe social status it brings, he sort of snowballs into a sigma.

The question that put it all together for me was this: If I met me, would I like me? Do I like it when other people do the things I do?

@gnossoss
I don't think it's a coincidence that these social problems have gotten drastically worse since birthrates have dropped and many more people have been deprived of brothers and, especially, sisters. Brian Gilmartin's 1980s study of what he called "love-shy men" (omegas) showed that having sisters drastically reduced a given man's likelihood of becoming omega himself. Siblings, besides being for all practical purposes the closest thing to another self anybody will ever have, will also be more brutally honest with you in a way that nobody else would.

would-be-tellin said...

sigsawyer: You're obsessing on bullying by peers; reread the item and notice how critical bullying and even outright white line abuse by authority figures is a if not the key detail (and for that matter, it can significantly enhance the bullying by peers by supporting them, not the omega).

Aeoli Pera said...

Omega is what happens when a psychotic drunk hits his dog because it won't talk to him or do the dishes (like a good roommate would!). The dog suffers learned helplessness because it doesn't understand what's happening or why, and the psychotic has no other problem-solving skills (which is why he also hits his computer).

Aeoli Pera said...

Don't bother explaining to sigsawyer, the neurotypical mind is wired to maximize confidence rather than coherence. This is basically the point of Game- believing you're high value generally makes it true. Maybe it misses some edge cases but it works well enough for government work. Which is to say, good enough for a sexual strategy predicated on navigating large groups and so specialized as to overdevelop the phylogenetically recent lobes of the neocortex: the parietal and frontal.

Aeoli Pera said...

That came off a bit caustic, but this wasn't intentional. I don't hate neurotypicals for being what they are (sig seems like a good dude), but the forced integration is unfortunate for everyone involved.

1337kestrel said...

VoodooJock said... Some of these omegas are no more prone to snapping than an Alpha or Sigma.

When an Alpha or Sigma kills a bunch of people, we don't call it "snapping". See: Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Jim Jones... Of course it's a different kind of thing.

Omegas and Sigmas are totally different- being introverts is about the only commonality. Probably, most people wouldn't worry about the distinction between Alpha and Sigma any more than they'd worry about the difference between "Band of brothers" deltas and #gamergate deltas....

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.