You've mentioned a kind of brokenness. Why that word?
In the Omega post you mentioned Omega and Sigma don't get the same good feelings from socialization that normal people get. Other things engage their drive, but socialization is a chore. Is that the gist of it? The Alpha is getting juice from the responsibilities of his role through the social aspect involved, that the Sigma just doesn't get?
Are Machiavellian tendencies a Sigma predictor? George Patton, Steve McQueen in Thomas Crown Affair.
Where would the protagonist of "The Northman" fall on the SSH?
Since his kingship was stolen from him as a child, and he chooses to become a slave to enact his revenge, the majority of the movie has him unable to ever really play the Alpha role, but at times it feels like he is a "situational Bravo" if there is such a thing.
BTW this is such an intense high-T movie, I didn't notice any obvious Gamma or Omega characters.
So how has Putin been so successful in politics and learned to play the game so effectively ? You think it’s something he essentially had to work at a lot ?
He killed or exiled a lot of the oligarchs. Some commenters even said that the sanctions killed what little political resistance Putin had left from the business class.
Part of his success is that his opponent is Clown World... beep, beep. Clown World leaders disdain history. For them, it is always year zero. On the other hand, Putin appears to be a student of history and this knowledge helps him remain patient. Why rush things when your enemy is in swift decline.
It would be interesting to me to look at a historical sigma constrained by christian mores. Someone who eschewed wealth or was a worldly failure through chance or because he would not play by the world's rules & refused the advances of women other than his wife. Perhaps this makes the task of discovering them difficult if not impossible.
perhaps just with the womanising would be interesting enough and easier. I'm going to put forward Sir Isaac Newton as an example although being a virgin and unmarried is a little extreme.
Not to derail this post about the historical sigma, but would Napoleon’s Marshal Joachim Murat be an example of a historical Lambda? His flamboyant reputation, lust for power, and general disloyalty near the close of the Napoleonic wars seem like indicators.
Slightly off topic: since the Sigma Game substack has been growing crazy fast, increasing in respect and recognition of impact day by day, I wonder where on the "optimistic" scale it would appear in an updated version of the graph in the following? Next to Simplicius and Robert Malone?
FYI the author just posted this disclaimer (re. inclusion, relevancy, etc.)
"I've received feedback that Curtis Yarivn, Billionaire Psycho, Millennial Woes, Peachy Keenan, Mary Harrington, Lorenzo Warby, Helen Dare, Paulos, Vox Day etc. are not included as well. The purpose wasn't to make a comprehensive list, but rather to establish a framework for assessing dissident Substackers (or others) generally."
I understand a bravo can act the role of alpha somewhat adequately, even if not perfectly
And a gamma can perform the delta adequately
Can a delta perform bravo as adequately? Or is the level up between those two a bigger jump?
Thanks for the post and any insight you can provide. I understand it’s slightly off topic, my apologies if that’s unwelcome. I don’t want to distract from the hosts intent.
Off topic: I've been trying to increase my nascent understanding of SSH by doing retro profiling. I've been a part time musician various times over the years, and marveled at how quickly a band packed with talent and prospects can devolve so quickly. Now I am seeing how one poisonous gamma has often brought things crashing down, or how alpha and sigma rivalries can pull a band apart.
Instead of relating personal experiences, I thought I'd speculate on a well known music group. I know many find the Eagles loathsome, but I use this example because the people, history, and interpersonal relationships are familiar to most. Corrections are welcome, because I'm trying to learn to apply the model accurately.
Here's a history of the Eagles from the SSH perspective. The band begins with:
Glenn Fry- Alpha
Don Henley-Alpha
Bernie Leadon-Alpha
Randy Meisner-Delta
Too many alphas from the git-go, but the common goal of stardom keeps them status quo for a few years. Fry and Henley start pushing the band toward rock, and they invite gamma Don Felder in. Felder infuses fresh rock sensibilities that increase the band's popularity. But he will also sow the seeds of collapse later. Tragically--for them at least--Felder is made a full partner.
Leadon departs and is replaced by Joe Walsh. Walsh was rock star in his own right before the Eagles, but seems more content being a team player in a band he doesn't have to lead--especially one that provides steady money and controlled substances. We'll say delta.
With only two alphas now, the tension heightens between Henley and Fry. But matters are made worse by increasing gamma challenges to their authority by Felder. Meanwhile, Meisner takes a downturn. Health issues affect his ability to hit those stratospheric tenors. His stress escalates under the constant brow beating by Fry who questions his competence and utility to the band. He departs. He's replaced by delta Tim Schmit. Tellingly, neither Schmit or Walsh are made full partners.
Felder's gamma wipeout comes on a night of macho posturing between Fry and Felder. Felder doesn't take his licks or stand his ground. Instead he scores a KO against his own guitar. In secret king fashion he wins the Middle Wit Championship of Stringed Instrument Boxing. The band is done.
Cut to the mid-90's and the band reunites. Emotions have faded, but not the behavior patterns. Felder gammas again, this time questioning the fairness of the unequal payouts to Walsh and Schmit. He claims to be looking out for their interests, but neither man asked for this. For the litigious-prone Henley, it's the last straw. At great financial cost, Felder is excised.
B-b-but...he wrote the music for Hotel California. And he's still reminding everyone of that.
I wonder if guitar players are more likely to be a gamma than the other typical band members?
"While My Guitar Gently Explains"??
As I noted elsewhere on another thread, the guitar player too often is the band's showoff, and solos can seem forced and excessive (Wall of Notes)? It can be a real wank-fest at times.
Being a guitarist myself, I have a tendency to lean away from guitar solos, because they can seem forced at times. This is NOT true however of music where the guitar is a featured element of the sound (Van Halen, Dire Straits, etc.)
I don't know if guitar players tend to be more gamma than the general array of musicians. But since learning the SSH and applying it to my personal experiences, I can see how stable and successful bands work for the same reasons as a business. You need an Alpha, a Bravo or 2, and reliable Deltas to fill. Delta musicians are hard to find because they're already working in steady gigs. So new or pickup bands have to call the gammas in the wild. Some of them are very talented, and it puzzled me before why there were always in a new band every few months or their attempts to start their own failed quickly.
I won't speculate on why the music business is the way it is because I don't have experience in that tier of it. But I immediately noticed when I started doing profiles that extremely few top level music acts have gammas as members. Or if they did, they were kicked out for the sake of the band's survival. Sigmas, it should be no surprise to learn, tend to become solo acts.
Caesar was so far ahead of his opponents and his time that the case could be made he was a time traveler from the future. Guy played 4-D chess like a master. Even some of the minor tales of his political maneuvering are astonishingly clever.
To wit: at a certain point debt relief was something that voters were clamoring for. Caesar shrewdly noted that granting it would cause financial chaos and also make the lenders his outright enemy.
So what to do? This: Caesar quickly took out personal loans from every single lender in Italy, placing himself heavily in debt. Then when the people clamored for debt relief, he said, well, of course he would gladly grant debt relief, but, as he was now personally the most indebted Roman citizen, if he granted debt relief he would be seen as only helping himself, and such a selfish move would not be tolerated.
So the debt reliefers, who all supported him, stopped clamoring for it, and actually thought the better of him for not abusing the system to enrich himself! Problem solved.
Caesar's impoverished gentry childhood and seemingly effortless seduction of women from a young age both seem to me to be defining characteristics. With the first, he both identified with the people and yet was not of them -- paving the way for his populism and for him to be a traitor to his gentry class. And his sexual precociousness point to a man full of charm of the human condition even from a young age, showing how he could make his troops loyal in the face of overwhelming odds.
This is why I tend to think he was more a Sigma that mastered playing the social game, without really being himself a part of it, but really treating it more like simply the necessary actions required to obtain his aims. I mentioned him because I find that possibility intriguing. I don't personally aspire to political power, but from a practical perspective, it would certainly come in useful for certain things. And depending on how the world goes in the next few years, may even become necessary.
The love that Caesar's troops and lieutenants had for him belies a finding that he was a sigma. Mark Antony took it as a personal affront when Caesar got murdered and raised holy heck, even to the point he quit his debauchery and ended up with Cleopatra, the same woman Caesar had put on the throne and had a child with.
Caesar also really appreciated psychology on a deep level. His conquest of Gaul was not merely about treasure and Roman expansion. Rome had a constant fear of the Gaullish boogeyman for hundreds of years since the Gauls had taken Roman in 390 BC. The Gauls spooked the fearless Romans like no others. Caesar conquered Gaul partly to put these fears to rest and free Roman psychology -- and also make himself into their psychic hero. Sigmas, no matter how competent, do not do that. They simply win.
I only partially agree. Sigmas do not tend to inspire crowd-like followings, but they can and do inspire quasi-fanatical few that would follow them into hell. A Sigma that took on the politics game as just a means to an end, without really being attached to it other than as to achieve his purpose might be able to foment such an effect. In any case I think Ceasar was one of those outliers whichever category he most aptly may have fit. Besides, he was stabbed by his own son too... so... kinda Sigma.
Caesar was a textbook Alpha. There is no question about it. Everything he did was within the hierarchy, and he didn't break with it until he was forced. If his daughter doesn't die, the Triumverate doesn't break apart and Caesar never crosses the Rubicon.
And Marc Antony was his loyal Bravo. Octavian was the Sigma.
That seems like an odd theory, as Caesar had 3 wives & 2 well known mistresses: Cleopatra, with whom he had a son, Ptolemy XV, last Pharaoh of Egypt & Servilia, who also bore him a son, Marcus Brutus, yes, that Brutus.
Caesar was rumored as a young man to have taken an older Greek king as a gay lover. People used to tease him about it. Likely Caesar was situationally bisexual to get what he needed out a situation.
The history of many pre- and post-Christian societies suggests otherwise.
This is not to say degeneracy is moral. But plenty of Alphas have engaged in amoral behavior for their own gain. Caesar being a temporary catamite for personal gain is not unthinkable.
Not sure where the divide is, but in my opinion Sigmas, or at least my version of the class, which I refer to as Scouts do need to have above average intelligence if only to survive the (self-imposed mostly) social ostracism. But I would not put them at needing to be 145 plus. Fairly sure some are just 110 or so. I would guess most to be 110-130 or there abouts.
It may simply be that, in your social circles, a sigma needs to be 110-130 to be noticed by you. A similar bias happens in dating apps (women don't even notice 80% of men) and with psychopaths (the stupid ones are all in prison, which is why you hardly see a stupid psychopath).
You did mention the intelligence helping them survive, but it's not like the <110 iq sigmas disappear into thin air or something.
If Washington had engaged the British in a decisive battle before Yorktown, or another general had won the favor of Congress and become the de facto head of the army instead of Washington, the British today would still have an empire that spanned the globe -- but even bigger and richer.
Washington's genius --a rare mix of politician, good field general, ability to swallow his pride, and yet ability to command the loyalty of his troops even in the midst of Valley Forge -- is one of those things that have convinced me of the Great Man Theory of history.
Unlikely - the British government was sharply divided over the matter of the rebel colonists, and was in any event more concerned with the European war they were fighting at the time. In general, the British weren't great at keeping down determined rebels (of any race), which the American colonists certainly were. At best there would have been a temporary win, and then some years later the 13 Colonies would've broken away successfully.
Had the Brits defeated the colonists, they would have killed the Founding Fathers, who were the best military men and also the wealthiest and most influential men in the colonies, thereby depriving the nation of its leadership. Look up the Katyn Massacre and see how such an act by the Soviets against the Poles kept Poland in Soviet chains for 50 years.
Then, if the Brits had been smart, they would have done what empires historically did: install a small ethnic/religious minority in charge of the larger ethnic nation. This ensures that the leadership of the nation remains loyal and dependent on the empire for support, since the larger held-down ethnicity is always a danger to rise up and kill off the ethnic minority for power. For example, the Romans did this in Palestine with the Herodians, who were not ethnically the same as the Jews of Palestine-- the Heoridans were Edomites and Jewish converts.
And the Brits already had about three choices for such ethnic minority overlords for the colonies: (1) blacks; (2) native Americans (the 5 Civilized Tribes or the Iroquois nation); (3) Acadians. Any of which could have been made puppet governors or client ruling class. Or they could have imported Irish and put them in charge, thus solving the Irish question by making them loyal to the crown.
Weirdly, the actor Richard Dreyfuss and writer Harry Turtledove wrote a historical revisionist novel on this theme that made sense called The Two Georges:. https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Two_Georges
Executing the Founding Fathers of course makes sense, but you forget that a sizeable minority of the colonists remained loyal to the crown (IIRC the 13 Colonies were split roughly into thirds when the revolt started), so I'd see them as the ones being rewarded, not foreigners. And after all, it's one thing to install a minority rule foreigners, but to have a minority rule your people? I rather doubt that would've been politically possible, to put it mildly.
The Two Georges I read a few years ago, and whilst I'm not a great fan of the worldbuilding in it, I do agree that a peaceful resolution is more or less the only way you don't get the colonies breaking away sooner or later. The MP Edmund Burke famously supported the rights of the colonists (as did many others in Britain), and IIRC Pitt did too, though he wasn't in power at the time. Wouldn't have taken much to have had things go differently.
The Brits in fact did that in Canada with the French colonists and South Africa with the Dutch, but it appears they preferred to use their own people as the loyal minority in charge. It would’ve been a unique situation to have a non-British clique in charge of a defeated, largely ethnic British United States. Unless there’s an example I’m missing.
It would have unique, but not out of the question. If the colonies had just rebelled with such foresight --- and remember the entire rebellion was a Masonic plot hatched in the 1750s and 60s and slowly brought to fruition by carefully coordinated media propaganda, military skirmishes, and harassment of British officials --- then the British government would have been fools not to take extreme measures, especially given the great distances between the colonies and England. And a military occupation might have translated into more rebellion, since thats what kicked off the beginning of the rebellion in Boston. So bringing in French Canadians or blacks to keep the populace down but not too severely would have been an idea seriously considered.
This historical sigma is to be admired but deltas and gammas that pine away wanting to be sigmas don’t get it. It’s a strange and lonely existence. Unless you are already inherently a sigma you really would not enjoy being one.
The Sigma is inherently a broken man & there's a thin line that seperates him from being an Omega. No man should want to be a Sigma, all they see is his ability to attract great female attention & be aloof to it, but also aloof to the heirarcy of man. But it's a lonely existence.
A sigma has the learned impression that his is, from the world's perspective, a lonley experience, but it is completely normal and enjoyable to him. If he is responsible he learns that this aloofness is not beneficial to his family (especially his kids) or friends who require more interaction. And so exerts effort on his part to interact on the bare minimum of what is normal, which energises them, often to the equal and opposite detriment of his own energy levels.
No. It would be useful if people who had literally nothing to do with developing any of the concepts would stop trying to "explain" them to others.
The Sigma is far more akin to the Alpha than to the Omega. He may have something broken within him that detaches him from the normal social patterns, but he is not, by any means, "a broken man". His existence is not lonely in any way. Nor is his existence strange to him; it is entirely normal.
This is why it's so stupid for Gammas and Omegas to attempt to pass themselves off as Sigmas. Their very attempts to "explain" it make it clear they are nothing of the sort.
Sigma will not get confused with Omega, agreed. They're basically successful Omegas would be more accurately said. It may be better said that Sigmas seek lonesomeness & solitude, where as loneliness happens to the Omega. But, both are ok with it.
No. Sigmas are basically Alphas who neither seek nor enjoy the Alpha rewards and responsibilities. Literally no one has ever confused me for an Omega. I am ALWAYS confused for an Alpha in new situations, especially by the Alphas.
People who don't have a sigma friend don't understand that point. You always invite your sigma friend to your backyard BBQs because you enjoy talking to him & his wife.
You'd never invite the omega to your backyard BBQ, because you really don't like him & wonder why hell your friend of a friend even knows him.
You invite the gamma only because your good delta friend & the gamma get along, for some reason you fail to understand & the gamma would complain to your delta friend if he didn't get invited.
But your sigma friend, you always invite him, because sigma friend & wife are just fun to talk to. In person, you'd never mistake him for a loner.
It appears they want the sexual status without the social. Most would probably be content with appearing alpha, bravo, or sigma specifically in front of women, not men.
"He was not loved by either his men or his officers" is maybe the most overlooked/ignored sigma descriptor.
Sigmas may be admired for their nonchalance or respected for their success, but they inherently rub a lot of people the wrong way for a lot of different reasons.
He was certainly an extreme rarity among politicians, in that he never liked long speeches or long political debates. Silent Cal was not just his social nickname; he once convened a legislature by telling them "above all, be brief." From that, I can glean he was definitely not a gamma; gammas love to hear themselves talk, and love to have meaningless bureaucratic and social chitchat going, to gain info on their opponents and to show their own perceived verbal wit.
Much like Eisenhower did 30 years later, he managed to convey a sense of normalcy and good times over a chaotic time period. Lot of talent to do that.
Interesting eyes.
You've mentioned a kind of brokenness. Why that word?
In the Omega post you mentioned Omega and Sigma don't get the same good feelings from socialization that normal people get. Other things engage their drive, but socialization is a chore. Is that the gist of it? The Alpha is getting juice from the responsibilities of his role through the social aspect involved, that the Sigma just doesn't get?
Are Machiavellian tendencies a Sigma predictor? George Patton, Steve McQueen in Thomas Crown Affair.
Where would the protagonist of "The Northman" fall on the SSH?
Since his kingship was stolen from him as a child, and he chooses to become a slave to enact his revenge, the majority of the movie has him unable to ever really play the Alpha role, but at times it feels like he is a "situational Bravo" if there is such a thing.
BTW this is such an intense high-T movie, I didn't notice any obvious Gamma or Omega characters.
So how has Putin been so successful in politics and learned to play the game so effectively ? You think it’s something he essentially had to work at a lot ?
He killed or exiled a lot of the oligarchs. Some commenters even said that the sanctions killed what little political resistance Putin had left from the business class.
Part of his success is that his opponent is Clown World... beep, beep. Clown World leaders disdain history. For them, it is always year zero. On the other hand, Putin appears to be a student of history and this knowledge helps him remain patient. Why rush things when your enemy is in swift decline.
The mundane interpersonal codes that define normal social hierarchies fade when survival is at stake.
Likely relevant in the not-too-distant future.
It would be interesting to me to look at a historical sigma constrained by christian mores. Someone who eschewed wealth or was a worldly failure through chance or because he would not play by the world's rules & refused the advances of women other than his wife. Perhaps this makes the task of discovering them difficult if not impossible.
You could always ask the creator of the substack. He's not historical yet, but give it another half century.
perhaps just with the womanising would be interesting enough and easier. I'm going to put forward Sir Isaac Newton as an example although being a virgin and unmarried is a little extreme.
Not to derail this post about the historical sigma, but would Napoleon’s Marshal Joachim Murat be an example of a historical Lambda? His flamboyant reputation, lust for power, and general disloyalty near the close of the Napoleonic wars seem like indicators.
Possibly a topic for a future exploration?
Slightly off topic: since the Sigma Game substack has been growing crazy fast, increasing in respect and recognition of impact day by day, I wonder where on the "optimistic" scale it would appear in an updated version of the graph in the following? Next to Simplicius and Robert Malone?
https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/an-overview-of-dissident-right-substack
Who cares? They don't even have VP on there, which is much more relevant than this one.
FYI the author just posted this disclaimer (re. inclusion, relevancy, etc.)
"I've received feedback that Curtis Yarivn, Billionaire Psycho, Millennial Woes, Peachy Keenan, Mary Harrington, Lorenzo Warby, Helen Dare, Paulos, Vox Day etc. are not included as well. The purpose wasn't to make a comprehensive list, but rather to establish a framework for assessing dissident Substackers (or others) generally."
https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/an-overview-of-dissident-right-substack/comment/51507280
Hey Vox great post. Love the historical examples.
I understand a bravo can act the role of alpha somewhat adequately, even if not perfectly
And a gamma can perform the delta adequately
Can a delta perform bravo as adequately? Or is the level up between those two a bigger jump?
Thanks for the post and any insight you can provide. I understand it’s slightly off topic, my apologies if that’s unwelcome. I don’t want to distract from the hosts intent.
At Waterloo, his forces were being decimated by fierce artillery fire (as were the French - war makes for rapid advances in tech).
He told his officers, "Hard pounding this, gentleman. Let us see who will pound the longest."
Sigma, yes?
No, that signifies nothing but staying cool under fire.
Off topic: I've been trying to increase my nascent understanding of SSH by doing retro profiling. I've been a part time musician various times over the years, and marveled at how quickly a band packed with talent and prospects can devolve so quickly. Now I am seeing how one poisonous gamma has often brought things crashing down, or how alpha and sigma rivalries can pull a band apart.
Instead of relating personal experiences, I thought I'd speculate on a well known music group. I know many find the Eagles loathsome, but I use this example because the people, history, and interpersonal relationships are familiar to most. Corrections are welcome, because I'm trying to learn to apply the model accurately.
Here's a history of the Eagles from the SSH perspective. The band begins with:
Glenn Fry- Alpha
Don Henley-Alpha
Bernie Leadon-Alpha
Randy Meisner-Delta
Too many alphas from the git-go, but the common goal of stardom keeps them status quo for a few years. Fry and Henley start pushing the band toward rock, and they invite gamma Don Felder in. Felder infuses fresh rock sensibilities that increase the band's popularity. But he will also sow the seeds of collapse later. Tragically--for them at least--Felder is made a full partner.
Leadon departs and is replaced by Joe Walsh. Walsh was rock star in his own right before the Eagles, but seems more content being a team player in a band he doesn't have to lead--especially one that provides steady money and controlled substances. We'll say delta.
With only two alphas now, the tension heightens between Henley and Fry. But matters are made worse by increasing gamma challenges to their authority by Felder. Meanwhile, Meisner takes a downturn. Health issues affect his ability to hit those stratospheric tenors. His stress escalates under the constant brow beating by Fry who questions his competence and utility to the band. He departs. He's replaced by delta Tim Schmit. Tellingly, neither Schmit or Walsh are made full partners.
Felder's gamma wipeout comes on a night of macho posturing between Fry and Felder. Felder doesn't take his licks or stand his ground. Instead he scores a KO against his own guitar. In secret king fashion he wins the Middle Wit Championship of Stringed Instrument Boxing. The band is done.
Cut to the mid-90's and the band reunites. Emotions have faded, but not the behavior patterns. Felder gammas again, this time questioning the fairness of the unequal payouts to Walsh and Schmit. He claims to be looking out for their interests, but neither man asked for this. For the litigious-prone Henley, it's the last straw. At great financial cost, Felder is excised.
B-b-but...he wrote the music for Hotel California. And he's still reminding everyone of that.
This is an excellent analysis.
I wonder if guitar players are more likely to be a gamma than the other typical band members?
"While My Guitar Gently Explains"??
As I noted elsewhere on another thread, the guitar player too often is the band's showoff, and solos can seem forced and excessive (Wall of Notes)? It can be a real wank-fest at times.
Being a guitarist myself, I have a tendency to lean away from guitar solos, because they can seem forced at times. This is NOT true however of music where the guitar is a featured element of the sound (Van Halen, Dire Straits, etc.)
I don't know if guitar players tend to be more gamma than the general array of musicians. But since learning the SSH and applying it to my personal experiences, I can see how stable and successful bands work for the same reasons as a business. You need an Alpha, a Bravo or 2, and reliable Deltas to fill. Delta musicians are hard to find because they're already working in steady gigs. So new or pickup bands have to call the gammas in the wild. Some of them are very talented, and it puzzled me before why there were always in a new band every few months or their attempts to start their own failed quickly.
Yes, that's for real. It's easy to see why the successful acts now have a feature artist or two and hired professional musicians.
So much money and fame is riding on it that it has to be a business. No wonder music seems bland and formulaic. Like our food, lol.
I won't speculate on why the music business is the way it is because I don't have experience in that tier of it. But I immediately noticed when I started doing profiles that extremely few top level music acts have gammas as members. Or if they did, they were kicked out for the sake of the band's survival. Sigmas, it should be no surprise to learn, tend to become solo acts.
Gammas Ruin Everything?
If left unchecked. Fry and Henley should have kept him a hired hand, instead of a senior partner.
I am enjoying the substack on the wars of Napeloeon as much or more than sigma game. Well done on the cross over.
I need to read up more on Julius Ceasar. The generic overview is he was an Alpha, but there could be said to be a few Sigma traits too.
Caesar was so far ahead of his opponents and his time that the case could be made he was a time traveler from the future. Guy played 4-D chess like a master. Even some of the minor tales of his political maneuvering are astonishingly clever.
To wit: at a certain point debt relief was something that voters were clamoring for. Caesar shrewdly noted that granting it would cause financial chaos and also make the lenders his outright enemy.
So what to do? This: Caesar quickly took out personal loans from every single lender in Italy, placing himself heavily in debt. Then when the people clamored for debt relief, he said, well, of course he would gladly grant debt relief, but, as he was now personally the most indebted Roman citizen, if he granted debt relief he would be seen as only helping himself, and such a selfish move would not be tolerated.
So the debt reliefers, who all supported him, stopped clamoring for it, and actually thought the better of him for not abusing the system to enrich himself! Problem solved.
Caesar's impoverished gentry childhood and seemingly effortless seduction of women from a young age both seem to me to be defining characteristics. With the first, he both identified with the people and yet was not of them -- paving the way for his populism and for him to be a traitor to his gentry class. And his sexual precociousness point to a man full of charm of the human condition even from a young age, showing how he could make his troops loyal in the face of overwhelming odds.
This is why I tend to think he was more a Sigma that mastered playing the social game, without really being himself a part of it, but really treating it more like simply the necessary actions required to obtain his aims. I mentioned him because I find that possibility intriguing. I don't personally aspire to political power, but from a practical perspective, it would certainly come in useful for certain things. And depending on how the world goes in the next few years, may even become necessary.
The love that Caesar's troops and lieutenants had for him belies a finding that he was a sigma. Mark Antony took it as a personal affront when Caesar got murdered and raised holy heck, even to the point he quit his debauchery and ended up with Cleopatra, the same woman Caesar had put on the throne and had a child with.
Caesar also really appreciated psychology on a deep level. His conquest of Gaul was not merely about treasure and Roman expansion. Rome had a constant fear of the Gaullish boogeyman for hundreds of years since the Gauls had taken Roman in 390 BC. The Gauls spooked the fearless Romans like no others. Caesar conquered Gaul partly to put these fears to rest and free Roman psychology -- and also make himself into their psychic hero. Sigmas, no matter how competent, do not do that. They simply win.
I only partially agree. Sigmas do not tend to inspire crowd-like followings, but they can and do inspire quasi-fanatical few that would follow them into hell. A Sigma that took on the politics game as just a means to an end, without really being attached to it other than as to achieve his purpose might be able to foment such an effect. In any case I think Ceasar was one of those outliers whichever category he most aptly may have fit. Besides, he was stabbed by his own son too... so... kinda Sigma.
Caesar was a textbook Alpha. There is no question about it. Everything he did was within the hierarchy, and he didn't break with it until he was forced. If his daughter doesn't die, the Triumverate doesn't break apart and Caesar never crosses the Rubicon.
And Marc Antony was his loyal Bravo. Octavian was the Sigma.
100% congruent
Thanks. I am sure you have read more on all of them than I have.
That seems like an odd theory, as Caesar had 3 wives & 2 well known mistresses: Cleopatra, with whom he had a son, Ptolemy XV, last Pharaoh of Egypt & Servilia, who also bore him a son, Marcus Brutus, yes, that Brutus.
Caesar was rumored as a young man to have taken an older Greek king as a gay lover. People used to tease him about it. Likely Caesar was situationally bisexual to get what he needed out a situation.
That's called gay-for-pay today. The victims are often not gay, they just really need the money or status.
The history of many pre- and post-Christian societies suggests otherwise.
This is not to say degeneracy is moral. But plenty of Alphas have engaged in amoral behavior for their own gain. Caesar being a temporary catamite for personal gain is not unthinkable.
Would you say that a sigma is always highly intelligent?
Assuming highly intelligent means IQ > 145
(possibly giving rise to the name 'sigma'?)
No.
Not sure where the divide is, but in my opinion Sigmas, or at least my version of the class, which I refer to as Scouts do need to have above average intelligence if only to survive the (self-imposed mostly) social ostracism. But I would not put them at needing to be 145 plus. Fairly sure some are just 110 or so. I would guess most to be 110-130 or there abouts.
It may simply be that, in your social circles, a sigma needs to be 110-130 to be noticed by you. A similar bias happens in dating apps (women don't even notice 80% of men) and with psychopaths (the stupid ones are all in prison, which is why you hardly see a stupid psychopath).
You did mention the intelligence helping them survive, but it's not like the <110 iq sigmas disappear into thin air or something.
Good points. However, a Sigma tends to be relatively hard to miss, in a different but analogous way to an Alpha.
It's astonishing how much British dominance in 1800s resulted from Wellington on land, and a single day of Nelson at sea.
War is the engine of history.
If Washington had engaged the British in a decisive battle before Yorktown, or another general had won the favor of Congress and become the de facto head of the army instead of Washington, the British today would still have an empire that spanned the globe -- but even bigger and richer.
Washington's genius --a rare mix of politician, good field general, ability to swallow his pride, and yet ability to command the loyalty of his troops even in the midst of Valley Forge -- is one of those things that have convinced me of the Great Man Theory of history.
Unlikely - the British government was sharply divided over the matter of the rebel colonists, and was in any event more concerned with the European war they were fighting at the time. In general, the British weren't great at keeping down determined rebels (of any race), which the American colonists certainly were. At best there would have been a temporary win, and then some years later the 13 Colonies would've broken away successfully.
Probably not.
Had the Brits defeated the colonists, they would have killed the Founding Fathers, who were the best military men and also the wealthiest and most influential men in the colonies, thereby depriving the nation of its leadership. Look up the Katyn Massacre and see how such an act by the Soviets against the Poles kept Poland in Soviet chains for 50 years.
Then, if the Brits had been smart, they would have done what empires historically did: install a small ethnic/religious minority in charge of the larger ethnic nation. This ensures that the leadership of the nation remains loyal and dependent on the empire for support, since the larger held-down ethnicity is always a danger to rise up and kill off the ethnic minority for power. For example, the Romans did this in Palestine with the Herodians, who were not ethnically the same as the Jews of Palestine-- the Heoridans were Edomites and Jewish converts.
And the Brits already had about three choices for such ethnic minority overlords for the colonies: (1) blacks; (2) native Americans (the 5 Civilized Tribes or the Iroquois nation); (3) Acadians. Any of which could have been made puppet governors or client ruling class. Or they could have imported Irish and put them in charge, thus solving the Irish question by making them loyal to the crown.
Weirdly, the actor Richard Dreyfuss and writer Harry Turtledove wrote a historical revisionist novel on this theme that made sense called The Two Georges:. https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Two_Georges
Executing the Founding Fathers of course makes sense, but you forget that a sizeable minority of the colonists remained loyal to the crown (IIRC the 13 Colonies were split roughly into thirds when the revolt started), so I'd see them as the ones being rewarded, not foreigners. And after all, it's one thing to install a minority rule foreigners, but to have a minority rule your people? I rather doubt that would've been politically possible, to put it mildly.
The Two Georges I read a few years ago, and whilst I'm not a great fan of the worldbuilding in it, I do agree that a peaceful resolution is more or less the only way you don't get the colonies breaking away sooner or later. The MP Edmund Burke famously supported the rights of the colonists (as did many others in Britain), and IIRC Pitt did too, though he wasn't in power at the time. Wouldn't have taken much to have had things go differently.
The Brits in fact did that in Canada with the French colonists and South Africa with the Dutch, but it appears they preferred to use their own people as the loyal minority in charge. It would’ve been a unique situation to have a non-British clique in charge of a defeated, largely ethnic British United States. Unless there’s an example I’m missing.
It would have unique, but not out of the question. If the colonies had just rebelled with such foresight --- and remember the entire rebellion was a Masonic plot hatched in the 1750s and 60s and slowly brought to fruition by carefully coordinated media propaganda, military skirmishes, and harassment of British officials --- then the British government would have been fools not to take extreme measures, especially given the great distances between the colonies and England. And a military occupation might have translated into more rebellion, since thats what kicked off the beginning of the rebellion in Boston. So bringing in French Canadians or blacks to keep the populace down but not too severely would have been an idea seriously considered.
This historical sigma is to be admired but deltas and gammas that pine away wanting to be sigmas don’t get it. It’s a strange and lonely existence. Unless you are already inherently a sigma you really would not enjoy being one.
The Sigma is inherently a broken man & there's a thin line that seperates him from being an Omega. No man should want to be a Sigma, all they see is his ability to attract great female attention & be aloof to it, but also aloof to the heirarcy of man. But it's a lonely existence.
A sigma has the learned impression that his is, from the world's perspective, a lonley experience, but it is completely normal and enjoyable to him. If he is responsible he learns that this aloofness is not beneficial to his family (especially his kids) or friends who require more interaction. And so exerts effort on his part to interact on the bare minimum of what is normal, which energises them, often to the equal and opposite detriment of his own energy levels.
Using [self-directed] as the grounds for similarity is like positing a thin line between alphas and gammas because they’re both proud.
Yes, it makes sense when you put it that way. I can see where I went wrong in that thought earlier now.
No. It would be useful if people who had literally nothing to do with developing any of the concepts would stop trying to "explain" them to others.
The Sigma is far more akin to the Alpha than to the Omega. He may have something broken within him that detaches him from the normal social patterns, but he is not, by any means, "a broken man". His existence is not lonely in any way. Nor is his existence strange to him; it is entirely normal.
This is why it's so stupid for Gammas and Omegas to attempt to pass themselves off as Sigmas. Their very attempts to "explain" it make it clear they are nothing of the sort.
You're correct. I'm out of my depth on this one.
Sigma will not get confused with Omega, agreed. They're basically successful Omegas would be more accurately said. It may be better said that Sigmas seek lonesomeness & solitude, where as loneliness happens to the Omega. But, both are ok with it.
No. Sigmas are basically Alphas who neither seek nor enjoy the Alpha rewards and responsibilities. Literally no one has ever confused me for an Omega. I am ALWAYS confused for an Alpha in new situations, especially by the Alphas.
Sigmas are very charismatic in person.
People who don't have a sigma friend don't understand that point. You always invite your sigma friend to your backyard BBQs because you enjoy talking to him & his wife.
To add on to this ...
You'd never invite the omega to your backyard BBQ, because you really don't like him & wonder why hell your friend of a friend even knows him.
You invite the gamma only because your good delta friend & the gamma get along, for some reason you fail to understand & the gamma would complain to your delta friend if he didn't get invited.
But your sigma friend, you always invite him, because sigma friend & wife are just fun to talk to. In person, you'd never mistake him for a loner.
You're probably right. Best to put a pin in it, agreed.
I imagine that if they actually knew what it really was to be a Sigma they would not choose to be one.
I think they would like the imputed status of being one, though.
To be a mid-level Bravo would be feel like a lottery win for a Delta or Gamma.
It appears they want the sexual status without the social. Most would probably be content with appearing alpha, bravo, or sigma specifically in front of women, not men.
I posted before that the few Sigmas I have known did not lead a life I would want. They are very accomplished, but alone in many respects.
I wasn't close to them, but that was my view as part of a team they had to interact with
But sometimes they confuse their fantasies with what they really want.
"He was not loved by either his men or his officers" is maybe the most overlooked/ignored sigma descriptor.
Sigmas may be admired for their nonchalance or respected for their success, but they inherently rub a lot of people the wrong way for a lot of different reasons.
Larval - holy s, that's funny...
"I don't fit in and people don't like me. I must be a Sigma."
-Gamma
Maybe of help to any confused gammas:
Sigmas are disliked because they're endlessly frustrating for various reasons despite being admired or respected.
Gammas aren't admired or respected, they're just repulsive.
A sigma can fake being an alpha too, at least in order to do whatever he wants done. He can even fake it for a few years, before he calls it quits.
That's the biggest tell. He will alpha to the top, but instead of staying there, he'll quit & do it again, in something different.
He leads differently than a natural alpha, but he can still play the game, at least temporarily.
Where would Calvin Coolidge fall on the SSH? Despite his success as a politician he strikes me as a Sigma.
He was certainly an extreme rarity among politicians, in that he never liked long speeches or long political debates. Silent Cal was not just his social nickname; he once convened a legislature by telling them "above all, be brief." From that, I can glean he was definitely not a gamma; gammas love to hear themselves talk, and love to have meaningless bureaucratic and social chitchat going, to gain info on their opponents and to show their own perceived verbal wit.
Much like Eisenhower did 30 years later, he managed to convey a sense of normalcy and good times over a chaotic time period. Lot of talent to do that.