Ask the Sigma: Why Hate on Gammas?

A new reader calls into question the legitimacy of the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy

Male hierarchies and behavioral patterns obviously and observably exist.

A presumably new reader posed three questions. And I’m sure most of you are thinking what I’m thinking, but when it’s inconclusive, it’s best to give people the chance to prove you wrong.

Let's keep this short:

1. Vox, why do you make fun of "Gammas" so much?

2. Could you please give us readers some examples of someone disagreeing with you on this website and not getting censored?

3. To what degree are you convinced of the reality of the SSH? (Change my mind, but I don't think it works)

1. Because Gammas are dishonest, malicious, and disruptive. I have had to deal with Gammas attempting to disrupt the discourse on my various sites for the last 22 years, since I launched comments on VP back on October 2003. I now have so much experience dealing with the problems they create that I can reliably spot most of them within two or three written sentences, and one or two spoken sentences. And since new Gammas appear here on a regular basis, the need to socially fumigate the site never ends.

2. Certainly. And I can provide these examples so easily that the question clearly calls the new reader’s honesty into question. This is the first indication that the reader could be a Gamma himself, as he appears to be attempting to set himself up as prosecutor, judge, and jury.

   1. From the top post on the site, three examples of uncensored disagreement:

      1. The example you cited is not helping make your point. There is no responsibility on the man's side. He was spending too much time to himself and had a hands-off approach to raising the children. I cannot help but side with the woman in question. Raising children is an incredibly arduous and thankless job (depending on the phase). It is the woman's job to make a house a home, nurture her family, and to rear the young. It is a husband's job to provide and make his wife feel loved and supported. The blow-up in question should have never gotten to that point and it may not have had the husband been more empathetic towards his wife.

      2. What this story demonstrates is that people are going into marriages without good communication skills. Was there an ongoing conversation about his role in the family after work and on weekends? Was there a discussion about his man cave? Or was it just waiting for the pot to boil and then having a fit?

      3. Lawrence is just as responsible for the collapse of his family by being passive aggressive and taking her crap without any pushback. “Walking on eggshells?” What kind of man does that? Im happy my husband does not let me go too far or get lost in my selfish emotions. He does this by pushing back. I also have ways of punishing his bad behavior. We keep ea other in check. We fight sometimes but it’s healthy as no resentments fester. Men should not be scared of making women cry.

   2. From the fifth-most-popular post on the site, three examples of uncensored disagreement. Nor are these posts even remotely unique; amongst the comments in the very post in which the reader posed his questions, there were examples of people disagreeing with me without being censored.

      1. I believe competence is the word you’re looking for. Women are attracted to competence.

      2. Well that is true, but stupidity is unattractive. Most people will select their intellectual peers. At least if they are in the normal intelligence range.

      3. One problem that we have here is the definition of intelligent. Nobody wants a dullard or a dolt. But most people want someone who is capable, aware, quick-witted, clever. A person who is highly capable of programming a computer but lacking in many other attributes of mind may be “highly intelligent” but also quite limited.

3. I am 100-percent convinced of the reality of the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, and, in fact, there is absolutely zero room for the reader or anyone else to doubt its reality, because a) it is a taxonomy and b) documentary evidence for this taxonomy has existed since 2010. One might as reasonably ask about whether one believes in the reality of the European Union, which is simply the name given to a supranational political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe.

   The question is a poor one and indicates a mildly disordered mind because the reality of something, its utility, its precision, and its scope of application are four different things. Nor does it matter at all if the reader thinks “it works” or not; I don’t think the European Union works very well, but it observably exists and has a causal relationship with many observable events, such as the modern Volkswanderung that has caused such chaos everywhere from Dover to the Playa de la Barceloneta.

   The SSH is real, it possesses considerable utility, and its scope of application is vast, from direct familial relationships to large organizational management policies. The only area where it is relatively weak is its precision. For example, JD Vance struck me as a Gamma, but his strong performance as a VP candidate and Vice-President has been much more indicative of a Bravo. This is one example of an apparent failure of the SSH as a predictive model, or at least, of our ability to apply it correctly. But the lack of perfect precision does not render an analytical tool useless, it simply means that we still have a lot to learn about male behavioral patterns. I further note that the complete absence of precision and utility over a period of four centuries combined hasn’t prevented most people from even beginning to question the legitimacy of either the theory of evolution by natural selection or the law of comparative advantage. Believe it or not, the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is much more firmly established and supported by logic, observation, and genuine scientific evidence than either.

   

   One day, the SSH will be taught as part of the basic educational process.