Thursday, March 10, 2011

On terminology

There appears to be an amount of confusion relating to the difference between Roissy's binary hierarchy and my more graduated hierarchy.  However, it's not difficult to distinguish between the two hierarchies, nor is there any contradiction between them.  Roissy's hierarchy is solely sexual in nature, whereas mine is socio-sexual.  Therefore, his two categories are supersets of my seven categories.

ALPHA: natural alpha, synthetic alpha, sigma, high beta, high lambda
BETA: low beta, delta, gamma, omega, low lambda

In order to distinguish the sexual supersets from the socio-sexual sets, I suggest that when referring to a Roissyan superset, all caps should be used.  When referring to a socio-sexual set, use lowercase letters.  So, there should be no more trouble confusing an ALPHA with an alpha.  Now, there is room to discuss whether low betas should be distinguished from deltas or not, (I tend to feel that delta is such a broad category that it merits the distinction), and if lambdas even belong in the supersets considering that the supersets are defined with regards to sexual success with women rather than sexual success per se.

Regardless, the point remains that there is no intrinsic contradiction between the sexual and socio-sexual hierarchies.  Roissy's hierarchy remains perfectly valid and it is all that is necessary for PUA-centric discussions of Game.  After all, scoring is inherently binary in nature, as one either scores or does not score.  However, the logical, and I would argue, necessary, expansion of Game into areas beyond the crimson arts requires a more articulated hierarchy that is eminently justified by the observation of human social dynamics.


unclesol said...

I look forward to seeing how this blog evolves. As a married Christian I have little use for the PUA aspects of all of this, but I think the observations are interesting and how all of this plays out in other areas of life could potentially be most useful.

Difster said...


I think the Lambda aspect really needs to be looked at harder. It should either be excluded entirely, which is what I would favor, or, we crate Lambda as it's own super-set and then use Lambda-Alpha, Lambda-Beta and so on. I suspect though there's not going to be too much Lambda coverage on this blog and it might muddy the waters so maybe it's better to drop it.

The main reason I'm bringing this up is that I've got an idea for making sort of a 3-D Nolan chart to help people pinpoint more accurately where they are on the hierarchy. It would go beyond a sexual prowess quiz of course so one could see for example the depth of their alphaness.

It might take a while to figure out how to that, but if it's thorough enough, it could be used to show guys where they need to improve in order to move toward Alpha (or even beta if that's all they need).

I'm certainly open to ideas and a collaborative effort on this.

Josh said...


why does lambda matter when it comes to Game? It's prety easy for someone to tell if they're a lambda. Also, Game probably works for lambdas. And by Game I mean assless leather pants.

unclesol said...

If one were to develop a quiz for a reader to pinpoint his standing on the scale, I would suggest including more questions that are not so related to the PUA aspects of this blog. For those of use who are married, guessing how we might react in a situation can be difficult and problematic - and how we may have responded years ago may have no bearing on how we would respond now.

Anonymous said...

Assless leather pants are so cool.

Difster said...

Josh, that was an image I really didn't need in my head.

So here's something for you. Do NOT imagine Helen Thomas naked.

Anonymous said...

That was uncalled for, Dif!

Need brain-bleach now...

Difster said...

Sorry Anon, I didn't mean for you to be collateral damage.

Orville said...

Bar Rafael in ass-less leather pants.

Fixed it for ya.

Orville said...


Maybe you should try questions on relational situations that arise often in a married or cohabiting situation such as...

Your wife or live-in girlfriend asks you to take out the trash. Your usual response is:
1. Absolutely. Garbage should never touch your goddess hands (gamma)
2. Yes dear. (delta)
3. Ok, but how about some sex later. (beta)
4. Game's on. You're on your own tonight, and btw put on that catholic school girl outfit for later. (alpha)

Anonymous said...

how does this rank?
5. "Absolutely. Garbage should never touch your goddess hands." Get up leave house and dissapear for 3 days.

Michael Maier said...

Shouldn't it be CHEERLEADER outfit if the game's on?

Anonymous said...

Any suggestions for books explaining "Game 101"?

Markku said...

Garbage response, unless there is a good reason for it, like that you are going out anyway:

Say nothing, just look at her with an "are you sh*tting me?" look until she says "ok, I'll take the garbage out".

Markku said...

Silence Game, bitches.

rycamor said...

Making a big deal out of the garbage either way is a stupid, stupid mistake in a marriage. Don't make everything symbolic.

Best answers go something like:

"What's it worth to ya?" (and wink--cheesy but it works)

"Sure, when I get a moment."

"You need to get it this time... I'm in the middle of [x]."

Honestly, I know there is some value in this Game stuff, but don't, DON'T obsess about it, lads. Anything can be overdone without a little common sense and moderation. Easy does it.

Unknown said...

It is very interesting that someone always has a way of proposing an alternative theory that evolves from their self centre and finds its way into a blog. I dont like theories but I respect Rossy and Carl Jung because they had a way of seeing things that can be tested. If you wish to propose your own theory subject it to an emperical test and afterwards we can consider you serious

Post a Comment