A portrait in Gamma

If you want to know what a Gamma male is, consider what sort of nominally male individual responds to being blocked on social media like this.

Ode To That Signed Book by Him Who Chose To Block Me

O that novel on my shelf
by him who chose to block me,
Who signed it o’er to my self,
in belief that it would rock me,
who called me friend and colleague then,…
in the hopes I’d write some praise,
with fine excerptable blurb,
that might his royalties raise.
But alas! Alack! That book
of Heinleinian flavor,
with ray gun blasts, I ne’er took
an afternoon to savor.
My author pal got online
with Hugo-baiting rancor
o’er books both poor and sublime,
with allies like a canker.
My friend whose best wishes lie
beneath his byline banner,
unpersoned old humble I
in well-worn Facebook manner.
Now that novel on my shelf
by he who has ejected
reminders of my base self
who politics rejected,
do I keep it there to read
or prize as a memento?
Do I pluck it like a weed
and sell it for my rento?
Do I say that madness reigns
in crusades so demented?
Do I satisfy with words
that hurt feelings were vented?
I don’t know, and yet that book
sits still in my library,
teasing me with every look,
idle, sad, contrary.
In my garden of friend’s works,
I cannot bear to weed it,
even as it cruelly lurks,
where I will never read it.

If your response to reading that is: "I wonder how many cringeworthy poems that loser has written to various "miladies", you've grasped the concept correctly.

A portrait in Gamma rage

In the event you did not understand what I mean by the concept of "Gamma rage", this should suffice to explain it. Gammas, and men with strong strains of Gamma, know they are low-status, so they tend to react with disproportionate anger whenever they feel they are disrespected. They mimic Alphas in this way, but their reaction is so over-the-top and embarrassing that they inevitably feel humiliated once they calm down. And unlike Alphas, they never get over it. A Gamma will wait years to try to take a verbal shot at someone he feels has humiliated him, whether the person knows it or not.

This all started with a typical Gamma being a Gamma. I'm not even entirely sure what he was whining about, probably being blocked on Periscope or something, but I know I told him to stop being a little bitch about it. I don't have time for Gammas on Twitter, so I blocked him as soon as he started being a little bitch about having been called a little bitch.

That's when the emails started:

1. You fucking pussy. You call me a bitch on Twitter, I respond in kind, and you fucking block me? Who’s the “little bitch” now? Don’t you ever fucking dare talk to me the way you talk to some SJW prick again. I never treated you with anything but respect, fucking told you you were one of the reasons I joined Twitter, did nothing but have your fucking back even if it could have gotten me kicked off Twitter, and you turn around and call me a bitch? Motherfucker you owe me an apology and I better fucking get it too. Be a fucking man and apologize for calling me a bitch, otherwise we can handle it another way, but that insult is not standing. You will either apologize to me and unblock me, or believe me, one day I will ask you to call me a bitch to my face. Its one or the other, YOU PICK, but we’re fucking dealing with this one way or the other. There’s no fucking way you are calling me a bitch and thats the end of it.

I responded: You are a little bitch. Read this email again tomorrow and ask yourself what you would think if someone sent it to you? You didn't treat me with respect. But what is worse, you didn't treat yourself with respect. You're either a Gamma or a former Gamma because this is a classic example of low-status rage over perceived disrespect. Now, calm the fuck down before you further embarrass yourself. This probably isn't the first time you've done this, so I expect you know the drill. You will never, ever, get an apology from me, but you might be able to avoid public humiliation if you simply settle down.

That was only communication to him. Those who are familiar with Gammas can probably guess what happened next: the stream of ranting emails.

1. Its so brave of you to call me a bitch from Italy, you fucking mutt. I’ll tell you what, you have my email address, you tell me the next time you are making an appearance in NYC and I promise I will be there to give you an opportunity to say that to my face, and then we’ll see which one of us is humiliated you little silver spoon brat. Unlike you, I didn’t have a rich daddy, everything I have I earned, and there’s is NO DOUBT in my mind that I would fucking annihilate you if you called me a bitch to my face, and frankly I know there is no doubt in your mind either. But if there is, just let me know the next time you are visiting NYC and I’ll give you a chance to prove it.
2. Incidentally I don’t even know what a Gamma is. Speak English too me, you fucking jerk off, or don’t speak at all. And if its an insult, which I’m sure it is, my response is, FUCK YOU and I repeat, I fucking dare you to say that to my face. Just let me know when you are visiting NYC, you have my email address. No arguments are necessary. I’ll introduce myself, tell you to say it to my face, and we’ll find out what kind of fucking man you are? Case closed. 
3. BTW what are you going to do to publicly humiliate me, attack me while I’m blocked and I don’t have a chance to fight back? Wow, that is so fucking brave! If you want to attack me, if you are itching for an internet fight, GREAT, but at least have the balls to make it a FAIR FIGHT and give me a chance to hit back. Unblock me and lets roll  I will fuck you up intellectually the same as I would physically, and you know it. 
4. Here’s what I just posted on twitter, and I’m just getting started, I’m gonna pull your covers and destroy you, you fucking mutt. You fucked with the wrong guy ;-) you want a war with me, YOU GOT IT, now I will do everything in my power to expose you as the pussy that you are. I gave you one fucking chance to apologize, now FUCK YOU. "Vox Day is a fucking punk, a silver spoon brat who inherited daddies wealth, challenge this fake tough guy and watch how fast he blocks you. I could show you my full correspondence with this mutt via email, and I will if I have too, but the bottom line is, he would rather block me than debate me. Know why? Because he's a fucking coward. Go ahead, challenge that silver spoon brat who inherited daddies wealth and you'll see what I mean." you’re move, motherfucker, do you have the balls to unblock me and debate me? Oh wait, I know, you are above debating me because you’re so fucking special and the rest of us are beneath your station. But of course thats just a convenient cover for a coward, to feign superiority. Fact is, you’re a coward who hides behind the veil of superiority.
5. Still afraid to unblock me and debate me? LOL You fucking mutt, I can’t even shame you into unblocking me. I thought you were supposed to be tough, what are you so afraid of? What can I do to you on Twitter, I can’t knock your fucking teeth out. LOL

If you imagine how this kind of guy reacts to being rejected by a girl, or worse, being dumped by one, you can probably understand why women instinctively react to Gammas as if they were carriers of plutonium-enhanced Black Plague.

"Then we cried"

And then she dumped him. Deservedly. Ye cats.

One cannot gamma any harder

You see, my dear Gamma males, this is why you NEED TO STOP LYING. Everyone sees through it.

Mailvox: maintaining rank

RL asks about the way in which old tendencies periodically resurface:

I've seen a number of Gamma-related posts on AlphaGamePlan lately, and it got me thinking. I used to be very Gamma. Now, partly through following a lot of your advice, and that of some good people in my life, I've turned a lot of that around. Thank you for that. I truly appreciate what you do, and I doubt I'm alone in that gratitude.

These days, I have a good woman in my life. No, not some stunning supermodel.  You and most of your readers would regard her as rather plain, no doubt. Probably a 5 or 6, tops. But I went from having a lot of trouble attracting women, to attracting average women very easily, and pretty girls on occasion (but that was harder and never lasted long). She is feminine, loyal, and we've been together a long time now. On our second child. My income has tripled, I've become stronger physically, though again, nothing terribly impressive. Just went from wimpy to normal.

But every now and again, the Gamma side reasserts itself temporarily. Or at least it tries to. Old habits just don't want to die completely. Usually when the episode passes, I tell folks (truly) that I was just temporarily crazy, and if I wronged anybody I try to make amends for it. Most of the time I keep a lid on it, but other Gammas might want to know that this may be a lifelong battle, if their experience is anything like mine.

Is it ever really possible to move up a rank permanently? Because at times, I start thinking that though I've come a very long way, and I probably look Delta-ish (with just some weird quirky behavior once in a while) to most people, there's always a part of me that's always mired in that Gamma crap. Gamma is almost like Jungian Anima possession, in that way.

Does anyone ever fully expel that garbage? Do you know anyone who did? And if so, how? Just keep trucking? Or is there something else a man ought to do once he's seen as generally Delta-like?

Delta is good. Delta is, for some, a wonderful achievement. But I don't think anyone ever completely outgrows their old psychological habits. My suspicion is that it's rather like working out and physical fitness; the more you use your new habits, the stronger they are, the less you use them, the weaker they become.

If you think about it, even old Alphas far past their prime tend to show a flash of their confidence and swagger from time to time, so it should be no surprise if an ex-Gamma should revert to his previous form on occasion. The fact that you've learned not to make use of certain psychological channels doesn't mean they don't exist anymore.

It's certainly all too easy for me to revert to Omega patterns in social situations and retreat into a quiet corner, or better yet, another room entirely. Spacebunny has long known that if she can't find me at a social engagement, she only has to locate the library.

This is what Gamma looks like

And why it is not a socio-sexual rank with which a man should not content himself. The banned and spammed Casher O'Neill was sufficiently triggered by the dc.sunsets Alpha post that he left no less than 13 comments in response. But the first one was the most telling.

Vox does not understand because he has developed intellectual vices that prevent him from understanding and he lacks the inclination to healthy introspection which would allow him to see and correct it. He is, after all, a formal Christian heretic. You might as well ask Arius, Simon Magus, or the Taylor King their opinions.

Glamour Shot's theories have no basis in science (or whatever crap terms he wants to make up). What they are is the product of a deeply insecure man who has constructed a system to vindicate himself. This is why he inconsistently describes himself as Alpha/Sigma and why he ignores the implications (for himself) of what he once wrote about the relationship between Gamma and Sigma. (One thought he definitely hasn't followed to its conclusion.)

Ever since he had that psychotic episode in high school where he thrashed around desperately trying to avoid being shoved into a locker (again) by bigger and better-liked boys and broke one of their noses (which he brags about like he's Al Bundy remembering his great play) he has had to face the question of whether he is "Gamma" ("But no, he spent a couple of years in a techno band you can convince yourself you remember".) Like many smart and insecure men, he discovered that defining the terms of the debate gives him power over it vis-a-vis those who don't see the need to debate. (He's like the SJWs in that.)

This is why he posts 20 yo pictures of himself that look less like a paunchy dweeb. This is why he allows his followers to attack a marine who calls him out for his unwillingness to put his money where his mouth is. This is why he attacks his readers when they grow too tall.

Of course, many of the readers here are familiar with gammas like Casher, as Stg noted:

I can see you're bitter and jealous because Vox has many successful enterprises, books, blogs, etc. I can feel the butthurt oozing from every word you type. It calls to me. It demands I give you a wedgie and shove your head in the toilet. 

Bitterness is the chief hallmark of the Gamma. They are bitter about many things, but above all, about men who are more successful with women than they are. Someone once characterized Gammas as "Alpha ambition without the ability", but it would be more accurate to say "Alpha entitlement without the attributes".

That being said, Casher isn't bitter due to my various endeavors, some of which are successful. He is bitter because I have rejected his Secret Kingship and refused to admire him for his imaginary superiority. The common gamma pattern is to fawn on someone he admires and attempt to establish some sort of "special relationship" with the admired figure. What he's attempting to do is raise himself to a Beta position with an Alpha. Sometimes, this works; look at how John Scalzi has built a very successful publishing career due entirely to his relationship with Patrick Nielsen Hayden.

Much more often, it doesn't, as the admired figure does not see anything special or useful in the Gamma and treats him just like everyone else. That's the case with Casher; you can see it in the ludicrous assertion that I attack my readers when they grow too tall. That's an illustrative combination of Gamma Delusion Bubble with Gamma Rejection Rage. But it could be worse. The worst situation is when the Gamma gets what he wants, is given the opportunity to work with the admired figure, screws it up because that's what Gammas do, and then is cast out for his incompetence. Whereas a Delta would feel bad, knowing that his failure is his own fault, the Gamma reacts with rage to disguise his own shame and self-loathing.

This is why you should NEVER allow a Gamma into an inner circle or a startup, because the chances are better than 50/50 that he will eventually devote himself to the failure of the very enterprise he was expected to help build.

Anyhow, this is neither the first nor the 20th time that a Gamma whose Secret Kingship went unappreciated has reacted this way either here or at VP. There is a surprisingly long list of them, and all of their weird little rants follow the same pattern; many of them even contain very similar insults and insinuations. Far from casting any doubts on the socio-sexual hierarchy, they serve to further confirm it.

And finally, the idea that I was ever a Gamma is amusing. I didn't have that much socio-sexual success in junior high and early high school, nor was I ever given to self-delusion or bitterness. I was definitely an Omega. But it's entirely typical of Gamma navel-gazing and projection that they can't even think of anything worse to call someone than what they are themselves.

Gamma self-destruction

A tech Gamma wonders why he sabotages himself:

I am a mid 20s white male who has been afforded immense privilege in life. I am outwardly extremely confident and able to get what I want. I have dozens of opportunities in front of me, more than 99% of people. Yet instead of being grateful for these opportunities, I feel like I do not deserve them. As a result, I frequently begin an endeavor, see some initial success, but then self destruct just prior to an inflection point, thus destroying any chance of future success.

This happens everywhere. School, athletics, relationships, businesses. Because I feel I do not deserve what I have, I self-destruct before I can take anything to the next level. It seems to be a subconscious attempt at equalizing my reality with what I feel I deserve.

I believe the cause of this is overthinking everything. I am analytical and often overzealous in my choice of analysis. I feel like I am observing myself from the third person. What I see, I don't like.

How do I get over this self-loathing? Do I need to stop overthinking? Is that even possible? Do I just need to accept this state of mind and seize control of it?

This is a normal state of Gamma delusion. He believes he is "outwardly extremely confident" and is "able to get what I want", and yet he repeatedly fails at everything he does. But the reality is that he's not really fooling anyone. It's not about "equalizing my reality with what I feel I deserve". That's nonsensical psychobabble. He fails because he has what is wrongly called "fear of success", which is actually "fear of being seen trying and failing".

What he has to do is adopt the philosophy "fail faster". The more you try and fail, and the faster you can speed up that process, the more likely it is that one or more of your future endeavors will meet with success.

The heart of all Gamma problems can be summed up with a single phrase: "what will they think of me?" That is a self-shackling thought, and it can cripple even the most intelligent individual. Don't be afraid to fail. Don't be afraid to be seen to try. Even the most successful people fail, badly, most of the time.

Signs of real intelligence

SIGNS OF REAL INTELLIGENCE

1. You learn from mistakes
2. You read for fun
3. You can argue from multiple perspectives
4. You think before you speak
5. You don't care what others think 

Note how four of those five factors simply don't apply to gammas who like to consider themselves highly intelligent. If you are a gamma male who refuses to admit mistakes, only argues from your current point-of-view, reacts emotionally and incontinently to criticism, and observably care deeply about what others think of you, what are you telling others about your intelligence?

And before anyone tries to get pedantic, note that if you refuse to admit your mistakes, you are most certainly not learning from them.

The fifth factor may explain why Sigmas tend to be more intelligent, on average, than Gammas.

Alpha Mail: how Gammas "help"

People who spend most of their time attacking their own side. I have seen you mention this several times in the past. I just got done dealing with someone who did this exact thing, with their reasoning being that:

1. There is a higher standard and thus it's more important to criticize your own people.
2. If he attacks his own side, this forces them to "use their brain" and come up with better arguments/positions.
3. He's actually helping in the long run so no one should be mad at him.

I pointed out that it doesn't particularly help since all he is doing is presenting a fractured image that will embolden others, but he really seems to be riding the "I'm actually helping and we should be grateful" thing.

I suspect if I point out that his actions are almost identical to a traitors, I will be told that I just don't care or don't believe enough, or that I am shortsighted/ungrateful/dumb/whatever.

What is bothering me most is that, I follow the logic of what he is saying, but the attitude is strangely excited and zealous when it comes to this sort of thing. I'd except this sort of zest when arguing against someone else, not your own people.

The answer is pretty simple. Gammas are risk-avoidant social scavengers. It's dangerous to attack the enemy. They hit back. So, they always prefer to leap in, boldly and loudly, whenever someone on their own side is fully engaged, then stab them in the back.

This is relatively safe, provides them with a sense of moral superiority, and allows them to advance in social status at the expense of the victim.

The correct response, of course, is to throw the treacherous little weasel out of the group, which has two benefits. One, no one is going to miss a treacherous little weasel that no one liked anyhow. Two, it will teach the other gammas that there are more serious risks to be run by attacking one's own side than by simply fighting the enemy.

How science fiction became gamma

It was because Isaac Asimov was a spaghetti-armed nerd who hated and envied stronger men whom women liked better than him:

“I imagine that almost any male would at least occasionally wish he had biceps as hard as chrome steel and could wield a fifty pound sword as though it were a bamboo cane and could use it to drive vile caitiffs to the chine…Oddly enough, I shudder at such things…Heroes date back much farther than Conan, you may be sure. They are as old as literature, and the most consistently popular one are notable for their muscles and not much else…

It took the ancient Greeks to come up with something better. In the Odyssey, however, the hero is Odysseus, who is an efficient enough fighter but, in addition, he had brains…In this battle of brains and brawn, however, the audience is never quite at ease with the victory of brains…Clearly, the readers are expected to feel that it is noble and admirable for the hero to pit his own superhuman strength against the lesser physiques of his enemies, and also to feel that there is something perfidious about a magician pitting his own superhuman intelligence against the lesser wit of his enemies.

This double standard is very evident in sword-and-sorcery, in which the sword-hero (brawn) is pitted against the sorcery-villain (brain), with brawn winning every time. The convention is, furthermore, that brawn is always on the side of goodness and niceness (a proposition which, in real life, is very dubious…Nevertheless, I consider the typical sword-and-sorcery tale to be anti-science fiction; to be the very opposite of science fiction. It is for that reason that you are not likely to find anything of the sort published in Isaac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine.”

Gammas destroy everything they get their hands on, because they are primarily motivated by negativity. They have no desire to build or improve, they harbor the desire to get even for past wrongs both real and imaginary.

The Gamma self-destruct

Gammas regularly engage in social self-destruction. Precisely what triggers it, I haven't learned yet, but it is the result of overestimating their own importance to others, most likely as a consequence of erroneously attributing their sense of self-importance to those they feel should appreciate them. Consider the following example of a volunteer proofreader who discovers that his efforts have not given him a veto over the publisher's book covers.

I agree that the pointless promiscuity prevents this from being promotable as a young adult novel. The previous covers were excellent.

This was fine. It's a legitimate opinion and the Gamma was agreeing with someone else who felt the cover was too alluring. However, note that the first commenter spoke his piece and left it at that. The Gamma, of course, did not. The other weird note was the use of the term "promiscuity", which didn't even make sense. This is the first sign that we're dealing with a Gamma here, as in an attempt to appear smarter than they are, they often use words they don't fully understand in an improper manner.

VD: Thank you for all the virtue-signaling. As I'm sure you know, we don't care. If you are under the mistaken impression that I am even remotely concerned with your standards of decency, I would invite you to read the prologue of A Sea of Skulls. Preferably at a hospital capable of treating stroke victims.

Vox, perhaps an open discussion about the pros and cons of presenting an oversexualized image to young boys in an already oversexualized culture that has serious problems with cavalier attitudes toward sex would be more constructive than the caustic defensiveness I see you reactively spouting. Your snark is approaching McRapey levels.

And now we're off to the Gamma races. First, the appeal to "open discussion". The Gamma always wants a jury trial, particularly when one is inappropriate. Second, observe the dishonesty and emotional projection. My response is neither caustic nor defensive; it is not even remotely snarky. If you have read the book mentioned, then you will be aware that, if anything, I am putting the contrast mildly. Anyone who has an issue with the cover of Daughter of Danger is going to have very serious problems indeed with the orc-rape, murder, and pillage of a household that is described, in graphic and sadistic detail, in A Sea of Skulls.

Mindlessly accusing folks of being "puritans" without knowing them or even really engaging with the conversation is little different than the SJW squawking "Nazi!" And a question to consider: Do we really want to take the position of mocking purity?

He continues with a false and inappropriate comparison. He then follows that up with a rhetorical question meant to emotionally manipulate those who disagree with him.

Caustic defensiveness, reactively spouting, snark, and McRapey? You're projecting. I'm not discussing this with you. Just go away now. And that is the polite version.

I've already recognized that I'm dealing with a Gamma. I don't like Gammas and I won't argue with them, because I know there is no point. So, I tell him to go away.

I rarely comment anyway, but I'll certainly go away if you wish. I've done a fair amount of free proofreading for you over the last few months, but please don't email me again requesting any more.

A beautiful example of Gamma pretense combined with Gamma fear of rejection, followed by the usual appeal to importance and being on the same team combined with a threat. He even managed to work in an implication of superiority. In just two sentences, the Gamma manages to check five identifying boxes.

[in reference to requesting further proofreading] I will certainly refrain from doing so. [In reference to the Gamma going away.] I think that would be for the best. This is exactly why I always seek to avoid working with Gammas or even permitting them to volunteer. As Mike, Milo, and others have learned, they will ALWAYS turn on you the moment they feel insufficient respect is being shown to them. The ability to work constructively with those with whom they disagree is almost completely beyond them.

And yet here you are lashing out and name-calling people with whom you disagree or who you feel haven't shown your book cover sufficient respect. Doesn't seem to different to me.

Where is the lashing out, name-calling, or most tellingly, a failure to show sufficient respect? Pure, unadulterated Gamma projection.

I consider myself alt-right and I voted for Trump, but it's amazing how quickly you folks will turn on someone who expresses what you deem to be the alt-right's version of badthink.

Notice that he has not gone away despite having been encouraged to do so. The Gamma is now revealing his fear of being outgrouped, and in his desperation, makes a weird and irrelevant appeal to claim membership in the group. What do his political views or his presidential vote have to do with the rejection of his call for more purity in book covers?

Shut up and go away, Gamma. We didn't turn on you, you turned on us. Now go away. You don't belong here.

And the self-destruction process is complete. This guy is probably reasonably high Gamma, because he didn't stick around longer or launch into a bizarre series of attacks on me, the publishing house, or other commenters on the blog. But a Delta would never have been so disloyal as to offer public criticism - a Delta with similar issues would have emailed me privately - and both Betas and Alphas would have shut up as soon as the relevant authority's lack of interest in his opinion was demonstrated.

You will see this process play out in the Gammas around you with regularity. That's why they don't have many friends or remain in the organizations they join, and to which they often contribute, for long. Sooner or later, the Gamma will overstep his bounds, and instead of backing down, he'll challenge authority, get promptly swatted down, and then, in his pride, turn what should be nothing more than a minor correction into self-destruction and banishment.

Gamma rhetoric

Remember, when the Gamma attacks you, he is very often handing you the key to deconstructing his own insecurities. A VP reader made an astute observation about a particularly ludicrous rhetorical attack on me at one of my Darkstreams:

Rhetoric only works when it plays on people's emotional insecurities. For instance, a griefer in the Periscope said "Stop acting like you've read more than ten books". The author of that rhetoric was assuming this would play on either Vox's insecurities (about his intelligence) or his audience's (about their own intelligence, or their confidence in Vox's intelligence).

The rule "SJWs always project" comes from two attributes of SJWs: 1) they are solipsistic and thus believe other people have exactly the same insecurities as they do, and 2) they want to trigger other people's insecurities with rhetoric. This leads to them attacking others in the ways that would be most effective for others to attack them.

The reason "You have to go home" and "You have to go back" work so well as rhetoric against civic parasites is that they play on a parasite's most fundamental fear: being removed from the host. Parasites without hosts have no future.

It was rather amusing. Read 10 books? I once read 70 in a month for the MS Readathon. Anyone can see right on my blog that I read more than 50 every year, as well as precisely which books. My literary consumption is not exactly a point of insecurity for me.

But you can bet that it is for him. And, based on the delusional nature of it, you can also bet that it was a Gamma.

Gamma seldom ends well

SJW and Gamma star Wil Wheaton learns that it always ends badly, even if you've been on Star Trek:

It looks like beta white knight and Cucklord Supreme, Wil Wheaton, has just had his “Feminist ally” status revoked.

If you don’t know who Wil Wheaton is, he was this kid who got famous back in the day for playing “Wesley Crusher” on the television series “Star Trek: The Next Generation“. His film career basically ended there. Apart from a few recurring roles he plays on The television Show “The Big Bang Theory”, Wil doesn’t appear in anything else.

Instead, he spends his time on Twitter advocating for Feminism and “Social Justice”. Wil believes that anyone who isn’t a feminist is a misogynist (and probably a racist too). Blocking people on Twitter, wanting people fired for having different views, advocating for Feminist rhetoric in fictional media, name anything that male Feminists do – and Wil probably does it too.

No matter how hard you supplicate, you can never supplicate enough. No matter how high you pedestalize, you can never pedestalize enough.

Gamma is not the way of the winner. Gamma is not MAGA mindset. Gamma is the self-deluded path to self-destruction.

Don't do this

John Scalzi provides another informative and educational lesson for those attempting to grow out of Gamma. If you think this is a clever and effective response, you are mired in Gamma yourself.

Snark not, lest ye be gamma

Ivan Throne cites an insightful tweetstorm by ClarkHat and draws some pertinent conclusions.

Snark is more dreadful than men realize.

Snark arises from bitterness. That bitterness is the product of resentment, and that resentment in turn is spawned from internal recognition of comparative weakness.

Do not be weak. Harden yourself, my brothers. Do not be resentful of weakness. It is curable.

Weakness arises in the mind and in the heart. It comes from refusal to accept reality. It comes from refusal to put in the work required to advance and grow. It comes from despair applied to the demand for cultivation, and refusal to delay gratification in preference for instantaneous appearance of victory rather than the true achievement of the apex predator: the human being.

The world was dark when I arrived. I did not make it dark. Nor did you.

But it is what it is.

Read the whole thing. It explains how three generations of sitcom programming have taught boys to rely upon snark rather than proper rhetoric and cultivate weakness and victimhood rather than strength and the will to overcome.

The Law of Gender Conservation

The Chateau not only tells, but shows. THE HORRA, THE HORRA

If you wonder why I shiv this magnificent mangina so hard, you need look no further than the reason for his internet fame: a craven, dorky, shitlib virtue signaling post on his inane Whatever blog that likened Whiteness to playing at the lowest difficulty setting on a video game.

This lumpy hypocritical doughgoon who lives in a 98% White town deserves every bit of contempt coming his way. He is the androgynous embodiment of everything that is physically and psychologically deformed in the White leftoid race.

With that as context, Scalzi’s marriage — which he loves to boast about on Twatter, always (naturally) casting himself in the egregiously self-deprecating role of the anhedonic willfully emasculated doofus beta bitchboy raising an empowered feminist daughter and licking the boots of his warrioress wife — is revealed to be the PERFECT example of the Law of Gender Conservation in action.

You shouldn't look. But you will.

The urge to save others from themselves

Do you feel the need to jump in and correct others when you see them making a mistake? Do you get a little rush out of being the hero when you are offering criticism or telling someone that they're doing something wrong? Are you just trying to help?

Well, I have bad news for you. That urge, that tendency, that behavior, is one of the more reliable Gamma tells. You see, you're not the reality police, and often people have different objectives than those you impute to them.

Learn to suppress that urge to criticize and correct. Wait until people come to you for help, don't volunteer it unasked, unless, of course, they are in imminent danger of hurting themselves or others. And if you really can't stand it, ask them if they'd like some advice, don't simply hurl it at them.

The fatal last words of the Gamma: "I was just...."

I don't fucking care. No one is interested in your excuses and justifications. It doesn't matter if you can make a technical case for inserting your irrelevant pedantry in order to get that rush you get from offering a "correction". It doesn't fool anyone when you express your deep concern that someone, somewhere, might possibly reach a less-than-entirely perfect conclusion unless you save the day. Make your own point, stop trying to "improve" and "clarify" and "explain" what others are saying.

FFS, do you really think we don't know that you get off on it? Just don't do it. It's both unnecessary and irritating to everyone else.

CS Lewis knew gammas

He even coined the term to describe how they argue:

I remember one time one of my patients missed a session because his flight back from vacation was delayed. I told my supervisor this and he got angry with me, saying it was superficial to blame it on the flight instead of talking about which of my comments had triggered the patient and made him decide to miss his plane. I insisted that we’d had a perfectly good session the week before, that the delayed plane had just been a delayed plane, and me and my supervisor got angrier and angrier at each other for both missing what the other thought was the point. Finally I got on the Internet and managed to prove that my patient’s plane really had been delayed to the point where it was impossible for him to have made my appointment, at which point my supervisor switched the discussion to why it was so important to me to believe that his plane had been delayed that I would do an Internet search about it, and whether I was trying to defend against the unbearable notion that my patient might ever voluntarily miss one of our sessions. …

But this method also reminds me of something else. This is Christopher Hitchens:

“I think Hannah Arendt said that one of the great achievements of Stalinism was to replace all discussion involving arguments and evidence with the question of motive. If someone were to say, for example, that there are many people in the Soviet Union who don’t have enough to eat, it might make sense for them to respond, “It’s not our fault, it was the weather, a bad harvest or something.” Instead it’s always, “Why is this person saying this, and why are they saying it in such and such a magazine? It must be that this is part of a plan.”

The avoidance of object-level discussion in favor of meta-level discussion can get really nasty, really quickly. … This can be more insidious when complaints are less dramatic and less binary – I know a lot of psychiatrists who will respond to people saying their medication isn’t working (or is causing side effects), with analyzing their motives for wanting to piss off their psychiatrist or stay unhealthy. And finally, this is absolutely fatal to any kind of complicated social discussion – the thing where instead of debating someone else’s assertion, you bulverize what self-interest or privilege causes them to believe it.

Bulverists are gammas. Any time you are dealing with someone who always prefers to argue motive to substance, you have a pretty good clue that you're dealing with a) a gamma male, and b) someone whose communications are limited to rhetoric.

That means the only way you can even try to change their mind is to tell them they're stupid and socially reject them.

It will not work

It's a hard lesson to learn, particularly in tech, but you can never hope to succeed once gammas assume control:

I'm part of a tech/open source community where the people leading the project are displaying some very gamma behavior. They can't take any criticism, have to be right on everything, refute major points with minor technical quibbles, etc. On top of it all, there's a very big split in the community and while there's some stuff being done, the Gammas are clearly preventing further progress with their toxic attitude. That said, they do have technical talent and the problem is mostly that they seem to be in ill-fitted leadership roles where their insecurity is having a detrimental effect.

Anyway, what's the best course of action to make the community better? Is it even possible to survive Gamma leadership?

The best course of action is to force them down into their natural place in the hierarchy, which is taking orders and doing what they are told without any input into the decision-making process. This is not always possible, of course, so the second-best course of action is to leave and rebuild the project anew without their participation.

And in answer to the second question, no, it is not possible for an project, a business, or a nation to survive Gamma leadership, because Gammas are not leaders and are not successful people. They will cheerfully burn the entire thing down at a moment's notice merely because they feel insufficiently appreciated or insufficiently respected, regardless of how bad their performance has been or how poorly the project is doing.

This does not mean Gammas are stupid or untalented. In fact, they tend to be smarter than the average, and their lack of social status often means they've had the time to develop their talents beyond the norm. Unfortunately, this reliably results in them overestimating their abilities and encouraging their misplaced ambitions, and thereby seeking to promote themselves well beyond their psychological ability to usefully contribute to a group objective.

Gammas make useful critics. They are very good at identifying problems because they love nothing better than to tell someone that they are wrong. But they are hideously bad at prioritizing, delegating, managing, and providing vision.

Proof of Gamma

There are doubters about the socio-sexual hierarchy. But the more people pay attention to the way individuals behave, the less they doubt:

"It is interesting that the one thing that reliably makes people here go nuts is questioning the need to be egoistic or dominant and things like that - I can say almost anything else, criticize anything else, but not that."

They went nuts when you egoistically attempted dominance plays on someone else's blog. The thing is, and this is what makes it funny, you really truly believe you're not transparent.

Now, we can argue about your transparency; they are all saying "gamma", I personally don't have a label for it nor any interest in socio-sexual musings, but what it HAS proven to me, and I am tempted to believe that this demonstration to the audience was exactly Vox' intention, is that he has without doubt identified a behavioural category; you fit it; and his predictive model is working with such perfection as to call into doubt my... well, my doubt.

There is no question that "gamma males" exist, because it is a label applied to an observed behavior pattern repeatedly demonstrated by certain men. It's a taxonomic label, not a theory.