Gamma vs Sigma

Two SSH ranks, two forms of communication

In addition to its primary purpose, this post should suffice to explain why you will never read any evopsych interpretations of the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, and why there is never any discussion of How or Why the various behavioral patterns evolved or what their potential affect on the future of humanity could be on the basis of the varying fitness of the different SSH ranks.

That being said, it doesn’t matter what you think about the legitimacy of evolution, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, or the Human Genome Project, because the point is not the discussion per se, but rather the way the two participants approached their disagreement, which is described below. Since this was on social media, I will omit the irrelevant rhetorical thrusts.

SIGMA: Presents an argument which contains several assumptions and a logical extrapolation as well as an amount of math.

GAMMA: Immediately informs Sigma that the argument is wrong because the math is bad and wrong. In doing so, incorrectly describes the relationship 1600X/Y as 1600Y/X. Does not point out any mathematical error.

SIGMA: Observes that since Gamma reversed the key variables and didn’t actually show any incorrect math, Sigma is dubious about the existence of any error.

GAMMA: Waves off his mistake and blames it on a “typo”. Retreats and admits the math is correct but claims the underlying assumptions are wrong. Provides a bad analogy about Sigma’s argument being like trying to use the speed of a snail to prove that Man didn’t go to the Moon in 1969.

SIGMA: Corrects the analogy by pointing out that the speed of a snail can be legitimately used to prove that a snail didn’t go to the Moon on its own.

GAMMA: Declares the mathematical argument “weak” and puts scare quotes on “mathematical” despite having admitted the math to be correct. Declares a reasonable logical extrapolation to be unsupported, then provides an unsupported extrapolation as the reason to reject the extrapolation.

SIGMA: Points out that the fact that serves as the basis of the Gamma’s extrapolation does not and cannot apply to the matter at hand. Then provides evidence to support his originally unsupported extrapolation that proves the extrapolation to be correct.

GAMMA: Complains about the rhetoric that others are now directing at him.

One thing you’ll notice about Gammas is that they will double down whenever they are shown to be incorrect, then fall silent if there is no possible way to do so. They also engage relentlessly in what can be described as argumentum ad imaginariam, which is appealing to their own imaginations.