- Bullit315
Love the unfalsifiable system you got going here. Everyone you don't like is or will become "gamma", by the time your rationalization is over.
- Tarrou
Contrast these two contradictory ideas. One is that gamma behavior is defined, identifiable, widespread, and recognizable. The other is that gamma behavior is unfalsifiable and is solely defined by my personal dislikes. Both statements cannot be true; the irony, of course, is that in his passive-aggressive language, Tarrou shows signs of the very behavior that he implicitly claims is impossible to recognize.
But the fact is that gammas are real, their behavior is both identifiable and predictable, and their existence has nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. In fact, in my personal life, I tend to have the most problems with Alphas, who erroneously view my Sigma self-confidence as a challenge to their place at the top of the social hierarchy and often react badly to me. I have very little real-world contact with Gammas, as I don't like them and their social rank is too low for them to be often present in my social circles.
Online is a different story, as it is Gammas who tend to make up the vast majority of persistent problem commenters on this and every other blog on the Internet. I can provide a new example almost every single day; here is one from just this morning courtesy of a previously banned Gamma commenter at Vox Popoli.
But first, some context. Aaron had been banned from VP for more than a few weeks, possibly even a few months now. I don't recall why, but his behavior was egregious enough to land him on the programmed autovanish list. He waited until he perceived I had made a mistake, then leaped to take advantage of it, leaving no less than 7 comments despite all of them being autovanished.
Once he belatedly realized that no one was seeing them, he left these two additional comments on two different posts, one of which had nothing to do with the subject he had nominally been addressing.
You can dish it out but u can't take it, eh Vox? Classic :) I know your type very well....drone on and on about being Alpha but are cowards in the end....always the sameNow, the significant thing about these two comments is that they are, almost word for word, very much the same as every other Gamma who has been banned or spammed on either VP or AG over the years. We're talking about dozens of individuals who are totally unrelated except for their similar behaviors. The accusations of cowardice, the obsession with power, the assertion that he knew it was coming, the contempt for everyone else who didn't rise up and join his one-man revolution against me, the posturing about being too strong, too smart, too effective, too something to be permitted to remain active in the community, all of these things are standard Gamma responses. Even the weird spelling and capitalization is par for the course.
- Aaron
I was waiting for u to ban me....I'm a little bit too effective for you eh Vox? I dont blame u, u are a weak man after power, and I undermine your power... Well, this will be our little secret. Your dumb as fuck followers won't know a thing.
- Aaron
The only thing that is missing from Aaron's reaction is the feigning of enjoyment, the "LOL", and the various claims of how the Gamma finds it "hilarious" or "so funny" to be kicked out.
Now, I didn't create this pattern of behavior. I didn't define it. I merely recognized it and labeled it. And once you recognize it, you can't unsee it, but will see it everywhere you go. That's because Gamma is real, it is a normal category of male sociosexuality. It's not merely an insult or an invented name to call someone in order to get a rise out of them.
Gamma is not even intrinsically bad, it simply is, and wishing it away or pretending it doesn't exist will not change anything. In fact, the very worst thing for a Gamma male is for him to pretend that it does not exist, because until he accepts the fact of its existence, accepts that the psychological profile fits him, and accepts that his behavior conforms to certain recognizable patterns, it is very difficult for him to even begin to do anything to surmount it and raise his social status.
41 comments:
Gamma is not even intrinsically bad
It is. It keeps you prisoner in a world of self-delusion. It is better to face the facts about yourself even if they are painful. The first step in recovering from gamma is acknowledging you have a problem.
I had to deal with someone like this a while back. He was convinced he was very, very special... yet always was ultimately led about by other people. At one point he acted like he was a trustworthy confidant and stalwart defender of truth... and then totally flipped like a switch and went passive-aggressive and then outright accusative, failing to deliver work he had promised to finish and throwing a list of complaints my way and shrieking about how bad I was. It was utterly perplexing and I still can't figure out why any person with a Y chromosome would act that way. After trying to deal with him, it got so silly that I simply walked away and blocked his emails. There was really no way to know when he was being honest or not and it was tiring. The hyperbole was far beyond normal as well. I still have no idea why he was alternately obsequious and accusatory, but it fits the personality pattern.
"The only thing that is missing from Aaron's reaction is the feigning of enjoyment, the "LOL", and the various claims of how the Gamma finds it "hilarious" or "so funny" to be kicked out."
Actually, it wasn't missing. I think the cute smiley face when he says "Classic :)" is exactly the same thing. 100% gamma.
Gotta agree with Dexter. You're flat out wrong, Vox, on that one. Anything below delta is leaving yourself or a fellow man to wallow in his own shit. I say that as a recovering at least part gamma.
I was totally gamma as a geek in high school and college. It never made sense to me why my fellow gamma geeks and our culture was instinctively considered suspect by the majority until I looked back as a recovering man from that life and saw it metastasize into our current SJW culture. Gamma geek culture taken into the mainstream is in many respects the air middle and upper class SJWs breath.
Dishonor is inherently bad. Gamma the rank is not inherently bad. One can be an omega ascetic saint.
Gamma (and omega) appear to be "damaged man" or "immature man" ranks, as opposed to Delta and up. The distinction is that Delta and up are normal neurowired personalities which one can't change, just like one can't change his Myers-Briggs profile. But one can graduate from Gamma, since it's not his innate condition, but one that usually Deltas or maybe defective Betas fall into through lack of guidance.
PA
The distinction is that Delta and up are normal neurowired personalities which one can't change
The sociosexual rank of Delta, defined by its variability, is neurowired and can't be changed? ;)
The sociosexual rank of Delta, defined by its variability, is neurowired and can't be changed?
In my opinion a Delta can't become a Beta. In the post "Assessing Your Place on the Hierarchy" on my blog I gave a case-study of Paul McCartney, the classic Delta, who tried to overshoot his rank and suffered the consequences.
All of the Game/PUA examples and testimonials to self-improvement I've read or witnessed are a case of a lower Delta becoming a greater Delta. That's really where all the action is.
PA
I'd disagree, PA, I've seen deltas get 'promoted' by alphas and act as betas for them. I have been a good lieutenant for an alpha, but I'm more of a natural sergeant. With an alpha to provide vision and concept direction, I can plan and direct, on my own I'm just a team leader.
Alphas and sigmas on the other hand - born, not made.
I completely agree. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
As for the current discussion about whether or not a person of a certain rank can move up or down the hierarchy, I guess it's possible. I think many Sigmas are former Omegas. Many Gammas get ashamed of themselves and their behavior and transition to Deltahood. And Deltas can become Betas, given the circumstances - say a Delta is blessed with a great fortune in life, becomes more self-confident as a consequence, gets more assertive. A Delta may even reach Alphadom. I haven't seen it happen yet, but I think it's possible.
I wish I were narcissistic enough to call Vox out with ad hominem instead of addressing the facts in evidence. Maybe I could even tell him that I'm a better author, but haven't been published yet because that hasn't been important for me.
Sargeant is greater Delta. Beta starts at Lieutenant.
Even common people out there subconsciously know what gamma is, even if they can't quite explain it, and they don't like it. Take, for instance, the gamma hate for Trump, contrasted with delta and beta acceptance, which has proven to be an almost perfect indicator of gamma status in the Republican primary. (Go here and scroll down to the list of candidates, and look at who endorsed whom.) People subconsciously realize that gammas hate Trump. And IRL, when I wear a MAGA cap, people who don't know me act much more at ease around me to an almost ridiculous degree, and girls show much more interest, even if they ostensibly don't like Trump themselves.
Internet drama.
If you want a good laugh, read what Gammas think of themselves.
Vox invented the term but it underwent a metamorphosis when the actual Gammas got a hold of it.
Gamma Males: These kind of dudes are more or less self-reliant, self-motivated, and self-assured in their own personality that no one can change their ways. Some of these kind of males are considered loners, but this is not to case for all Gamma Males. Because of their stern personality, many people tend to write off these men as "Betas" by default because they won't conform to being whatever "Chic Alpha" trait exists during that time period. The man who's confident in his own self-worth and looks is said to go a long way with what women want
"...is said to go a long way with what women want." He doesn't actually know what women want. It's all theory for him.
You seem to be taking outlier behaviour and exalting any similarities you find as evidence of a primary correlation. Gamma is in every man. It is not a category of person so much as a category of behaviour. You're basically taking scraps of broken manhood, stitching them together and constructing a whole personality out of them.
Tarrou is almost right. If you keep doing this, 'gamma' will not be everything you are not, but a caricature of what all men leave behind as they grow, a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from the shedded skin of God's works in progress.
There's nothing of value in the dross. Look instead to the prototype. There every man will find hope.
You seem to be
Like clockwork, isn't it? Even when you point it out, they can't stop.
Men have more compassion for these souls than women do.
Now, I didn't create this pattern of behavior. I didn't define it. I merely recognized it and labeled it.
Indeed. Nothing new under the sun. We need to look no further than the Scriptures where King Solomon recognized and described the "Gamma" as the Proverbial fool.
Stumbled over this on Twitter today. Interesting reading and it sparked some possible thoughts on how gammas are created by schools.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-and-the-pursuit-leadership/201602/bullies-cause
No one expects the seems-quisition!
Does someone know a post explaining strategies to argue with a Gamma? Sometimes you can't avoid this. I don't think Vox has dealt with this topic. What are the best tips to avoid being manipulated and win the discussion?
This is not directed at you. But I find in general that "manosphere" writers (vast generalization, I know) tend to be very short-fused towards criticism of any kind, even mild criticism. I would imagine true alphas would not care about criticism, and would ignore it, and certainly not react by banning commentators. Perhaps its my problem, as I HATE any censorship by anyone of anyone. Light is a disinfectant. Let their comments stand. Let they post as often as they want. We don't need a mommy to shelter us...
@Cail Corashev
That can't be the limit of your comprehension, surely. Your blog suggests you're neither as small a man nor as derivative a thinker as that. But then..."grammar pedantry". Indeed.
What happens when a gamma interacts with another gamma? Do they get along?
A post is due on which ranks give the most trouble to which ranks Or getting along well of cross ranks.
Another reminder of how useful the Vox hierarchy of sociosexual ranks is, and how different its meaning is from the standard manosphere Alpha-Beta (and sometimes Omega) model.
The classic structure really defines specific behavior dynamics. Alpha = dominance, Beta = submission, Omega = withdrawal/rejection. It is a valid model for understanding men's hierarchical relationships, or their interaction with women, since the latter viscerally, even if unconsciously despise male submission.
On the other hand, the Vox structure defines holistic categories of men, rather than individual behaviors or traits. People may debate what factors fall to what degree in what category, or the exact boundaries of each, but they describe real, readily identifiable personality profiles. I've found it very useful in identifying and assessing all sorts of situations.
I'd agree with commenters who see Alphas as born, not made, but do see more fluidity in the lower ranks. In particular, I suspect the proportion of Gammas is rising, as a feminine-primary, emasculating culture and the catty-snarky world of impotent internet battles wear away at boys who might otherwise grow to be Deltas.
The man who's confident in his own self-worth and looks is said to go a long way with what women want
"Is said" by gammas themselves.
Actually experience tends to indicate otherwise...
@steve
My impression is that, usually, the only men who are able to actually like gammas are other gammas, although deltas can be easily browbeaten into following them if they get into positions of power. Gammas will get into bitchy catfights with each other for any number of reasons, though.
I'd say those who hate gammas the most are omegas, because they're bullied the most by them and lack the goods to fight back. The high ranks (alpha, sigma, and to a lesser extent beta) view them with contempt and don't feel bad about beating them up, but generally think of them as background noise.
In particular, I suspect the proportion of Gammas is rising, as a feminine-primary, emasculating culture and the catty-snarky world of impotent internet battles wear away at boys who might otherwise grow to be Deltas.
I would agree that gamma is rising. I imagine that the 20-25% or so of white men who support Hillary Clinton over Trump are mostly gammas, with some omegas, lambdas, and a certain number of naive/low-IQ/whipped low deltas. The percentage of Millennial white men who are gamma is probably even higher.
Gammas will get into bitchy catfights with each other for any number of reasons, though.
That's something that really stands out. The emotionally and verbally incontinent, yet never directly dangerous style of conflict preferred by Gammas is like that of women. And like women, when Gammas actually try to destroy an enemy, they prefer to do so by some indirect and personally safe means.
What are the female equivalents of these sociosexual categories? What is the gamma equivalent? Or no female gammas? Uggos delusionally thinking they are hot and acting like it, maybe?
@steve
The categories only apply really to men because female personalities aren't nearly as variable. However, for women, I suppose you could make rough equivalents this way:
"Alpha" female: HB9-10. The creme de la creme, such as the Trump women and those beauty pageant winners who aren't chosen for transparently SJW purposes.
"Beta" female: HB7-8. Cuter-than-average girls. Highly likely to be in sororities.
"Delta" female: HB4-6. Average girls who like men all right.
"Gamma" female: NB2-3. Most in the United States are fat. If young, usually have piercings, multiple tattoos, butchered, oddly-colored hair, and hard-leftist political attitudes. Act like they hate men but are raging sluts if they do get sexual attention. If older, think of aging leftist hags with Secret Queen complexes such as Hillary, Merkel, etc.
"Omega" female: NB0-1. Includes the severely mentally ill, fat, and retarded. Likely to be coalburners if black or Muslim men available in the area.
"Sigma" female: HB8-10, but weird and unlikely to ever be found associating with the popular cliques. Think of smoking hot goth, wiccan, or "lesbian" girls.
"Sigma" female: HB8-10, but weird and unlikely to ever be found associating with the popular cliques. Think of smoking hot goth, wiccan, or "lesbian" girls.
Heh, yep! I loved to date them, years back. Vanishingly few alt type women are actually hot these days, thanks to rampant obesity and feminist psychological poisoning.
I'd agree the male hierarchy doesn't really apply to women, though, or even have a direct analogue.
@Eater of Rabbits
Heh, yep! I loved to date them, years back. Vanishingly few alt type women are actually hot these days, thanks to rampant obesity and feminist psychological poisoning.
I know a few, even now. "Gammas" are indeed much more common. But unlike the "Gamma" females, "Sigma" females do take good care of their bodies, although nowadays they're as likely to butcher their hair as the Gammas. They tend to take leftist political beliefs, but strangely enough, they don't appear to be poisoned by them in the same way "Gamma" females are, and actually find badthinking men a turn-on rather than a turn-off. (I've never run into Nazi/white power chicks, but I imagine the hotter ones would also fall under this category.) They also tend not to associate with "Gamma" females, despite the apparent political overlap, but instead with each other (if they can find them) or with "Deltas".
I'd agree the male hierarchy doesn't really apply to women, though, or even have a direct analogue.
It's quite a lot fuzzier -- primarily because there's no leader/follower distinction for women, most of the boundaries are based more upon a combination of hotness and mental illness than anything else. But even so, I could see both the Secret Queen "Gamma" and the hot but weird alternative "Sigma" as identifiable types.
In fact, come to think of it, men tend to marry or have the most stable relationships with their direct female "counterparts". Gamma males with "Gamma" females. Betas with "Betas", and so forth.
Hah. Just found this blog post defining a Gamma female. He sees them pretty much the same as I do, except that I'd include certain non-fat specimens such as the HuffPo editorial board.
You say two things can't be true at the same time. I agree. Cruz can't be a gamma and a sigma at the same time. So, either you blew the call, you allowed your political hopes to skew your read, or your system doesn't work.
Tarrou, if you've been paying any attention at all, or read Leo's description of him, you'd understand that Cruz' gammatude was not nearly as obvious as it was for the other Gammas, and is of a very atypical type. It only became obvious when Trump squeezed him.
In fact, I think that if Cruz were to, hypothetically, undergo a gammatude-removal program like Delta Man's, quit being a dishonest snake, and learn some humility, he could quite possibly become a Sigma. (He won't, of course.) Jeb, Graham, and Kasich, being typical Gammas, would become Deltas instead.
A special subcategory of gamma? Now we're cooking with epicycles! So Cruz is a type, an easily recognizable type. But he's an atypical type of a typical type, that is super easy to spot, which is why it took so long, and tricked even the guy who named the types into thinking he was a different type.
"In fact, in my personal life, I tend to have the most problems with Alphas, who erroneously view my Sigma self-confidence as a challenge to their place at the top of the social hierarchy and often react badly to me. I have very little real-world contact with Gammas, as I don't like them and their social rank is too low for them to be often present in my social circles."
Yeah, Alphas as a Sigma, yeah, can see the issues there... Had a few encounters of that nature as well...
Hmmm... I'd say Gammas are "alright" if they seem to be decent and mean well. Never really had a "serious social problem" with Gammas, but the irritating, self-delusional, solipsistic, "pity-party" ones can be quite annoying but if they're a "likable person" in the end they're alright.
It's the hateful, a-hole gammmas that everyone "hates" that are the real problem. lol
But in the end, I give it all in PRAYER 'cause God LOVES them too. If anyone's cool, decent, kind, caring, interesting, funny or overall "good person" I'm always willing to connect with new people. Doesn't matter their socio-sexual "rank" and all that in the real world.
Bottom line is people don't want to waste time with unlikable, disagreeable, hateful and/or mean negative people... Really KILLS the POSITIVE social atmosphere and harmony.
And yeah, I agree with Dexter and Mike above: GAMMA is NOT a "good place" any man should just "accept" without working on to better himself out of SELF-DELUSION. It's a LIVING NIGHTMARE.
Yeah, it's one thing to say that when YOU ARE NOT IN THAT PERSON'S SHOES; but if I had to live life as a self-deluded Gamma man in all my personal disaster....
NO. I don't wish that on nobody. Not a good place to be in life... Have some Gamma friends I'd like to "steer away" from living in such a "fantasy world" of self-delusioned; but I don't "force" them and only try to reach out as I'm led of the Spirit.
Otherwise, all the other points are right on KEY. Thanks for elaborating this all out here. Amen.
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed
So Cruz is a type, an easily recognizable type. But he's an atypical type of a typical type, that is super easy to spot, which is why it took so long, and tricked even the guy who named the types into thinking he was a different type.
Something like that.
In my own case, I was reading Cruz about as well as the average Republican voter. This is exactly why he was more competitive than Jeb, Graham, or Kasich.
There was a three-step process in Cruz' undoing.
Firstly, was his Dean Scream, the "leave Heidi the hell alone!" incident. That downgraded him in my mind to no higher than Delta. And indeed, after that, he lost any competitiveness he had with Trump (except in hyper-cucked Wisconsin). Most Republican voters weren't going to choose a Delta over an Alpha, even if they didn't necessarily disapprove of him personally.
Secondly, his pick of Fiorina as his running mate could have been either Delta or Gamma. Let's say, low Delta. He lost another sliver of voters then.
Lastly, was the RNC speech, which downgraded him in my mind firmly to Gamma. At the same time, his approval rating among Republican voters tanked from 60% to 33% after that one speech.
To put it another way, Cruz-as-Delta has 60% approval among Republicans, Cruz-as-Gamma has 33%.
Still not sure I buy it, but that was a more sincere explanation than my post warranted. Fair play.
I tend to have the most problems with Alphas, who erroneously view my Sigma self-confidence as a challenge to their place at the top of the social hierarchy and often react badly to me
I've read this site and vox populi off and on for a couple years. You are not a sigma. You are a delta, with some gamma tendencies. Your standard response to people with whom you disagree and who disagree with you is to attack the individual as a coward, a liar, and a fraud.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.