I had a thought relating to the narcissism discussion. Ricardo and Robinson Crusoe economics treat people as highly individual, perhaps even interchangeable economic units (as does Clown World).
The theory immediately denies (or even inverts) the hierarchy and is very self-centred and narcissistic, hostile to Alphas. While I do not think this alone necessarily means the diagnosis is Gamma, the sheer amount of silliness in the theories is suggestive of Gamma's justification bubble.
There is no hierarchy on a desert island, nor under perfect equality. Politically it thus seems that both "communism" and "libertarianism" deny the hierarchy. And look at the results.
Ha - that's an even better one. I'm not familiar with Mathis, but reading the excerpt I pictured it in Mitch's voice and with those mannerisms, with the awkward phrasing and the eyes darting around in all directions, as though it's difficult to match the speed of the brain with the slower speed of speech and communication. By the time the thought has come out of his mouth, his brain is already off in a couple of different directions.
One time I listened to an audiobook of Nietzsche. Very disjoined Wall of Text stuff. Not organized well at all.
It was even tough trying to sort out why he and his devotees think Christianity was a "slave religion". (Basically, he somehow seems to think wokeness is innate to Christianity, although IMO wokeness is what you get when Christians *apostasize from* Christianity and leave a sort of underlying Christian ethics behind while fully indulging the seven deadly sins, particularly envy.)
they all have that passive look at me thing going on because their mother only allowed them to express(thus have) sensitivities, rather sympathy as a 6th sense, according to her narcissistic tyranny. the most potent gamma views himself as an object of other peoples desires and sensitivities hence the constant disassociation, i doubt them having a sense of empathy at all. it's a really horrifying thing. they're basically all mind controlled.
If I understand it properly, the main thing that distinguishes a Delta from a Gamma are the Gamma's own insecurities and failure to know their place. The Delta knows his place, the Gamma is infuriated with his place.
Basically, could the Gamma choose to be content, and thereby enter the ranks of Delta?
Only if he can stop lying to himself and others, and become competent and reliable.
Even your question reveals a Gamma mentality. Behavioral patterns are about behavior which is perceived by others, not personal choice, which is self-defined.
Honestly, a bit of all these already mentioned. Vox commented to me recently that they're putting this into the book, high-IQ bravos gravitating toward sigmas or something similar.
As a Bravo, I'm a reluctant Alpha. I have some of the indifference of the sigma and just disappear often. I can feel very directionless, because I just don't give a shit about what most people are doing. It's frustrating because I want a big mission to go after with an alpha/sigma and another bravo.
Help me to understand this. I only know maybe one other Bravo, so not much to go on. You haven't written about it much either.
You're spot on, Bravos are into hierarchy. I don't know how I missed that, but it lines up. You've hinted at high-IQ Bravos maybe gravitating toward Sigmas. Possible for these Bravos to display some aloofness to match the Sigmas since that's the dynamic?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't believe I have ever hinted at any Bravo "gravitating toward" Sigma. Bravo behavior probably has less in common with Sigmas than with anyone except Omegas.
And Bravos aren't aloof at all. They're hyper-engaged with the hierarchy, both up and down.
Bravos compensate for their leaders. If Bravo is following an aloof Sigma, then he will compensate for the Sigma by touching base of the Deltas. Or, in other words, a more social Bravo will pair up to the Sigma, if he lets him.
Id be more likely to mistake him for alpha behavior wise. I guess I was thinking work style when I said that. Might have some kind of hussle they do on their own time, ect.
I think more like "situational Alpha". You have to become the leader. Bravos are part of the hierarchy. They will apply what they have learned from their own experiences and from working with their Alphas.
Absolutely. You can tell simply by the structure and tone of his internal narration, let alone his simultaneous desire for, and antipathy towards, women.
>notice the similarity of this painting of a young woman to his own self-portrait.
That's pretty normal for all painters, because they tend to practice on themselves. It's probably why a lot of traditional paintings of women come out looking a bit mannish.
What a lot of people - including a lot of artists - don't know about portraits is that every portrait is a self-portrait. It's even more true when the artist doesn't know or recognize this, because they will be unable to see the distinction between what they think a face should look like, and what the face of the person they're representing actually looks like. I saw this over and over again when I was part of a weekly portrait group, walking around the room during breaks every image looked like both the sitter and the painter.
Edited to add: Notably, very few of the artists I knew did self-portraits. It can be a very uncomfortable process. It really is just that they expect faces to look a certain way, which happens to strongly resemble the way the artist looks.
The team leader is superior. He does not want a co-captain, but support. You ought to bring 80% to the table and she can fill in your 20% gap. 50-50 is for men who bring 20% to the table.
Nietzsche has always been the gamma icon: all the talk of the "Ubermensch" and "the herd" and the "will to power" in the face of the reality of who Nietzsche himself was is textbook secret king delusion bubble.
Nietzsche is taken seriously by a wide cross section of people and his works have been studied extensively and intensely for over a century. He is far from being a mere 'gamma icon'. As with all philosophers, it is up to the individual to determine what of their thoughts and worldview resonate and where the weaknesses may lie. I'm not convinced by many Nietzschean concepts, but placing them in sarcastic inverted commas and dismissing the author wholesale by regurgitating a buzzword you learnt on an Internet blog is not the way to go about refuting them. Watching all the secret kings on this thread summarily dismiss an historically significant philosopher has been amusing.
The fact that lots of people read him does nothing to change the fact that Nietzsche is the gamma with a megaphone. At the core of his writings is a rejection of all objective meaning (e.g., Christianity) and positing oneself as the arbiter of all meaning in the place of any objective account. It's the quickest way to delude oneself into always being right, which is at the core of gamma behavior.
Aside from being a delusional and grandiose way of thinking, it also means that nothing could really matter: if all meaning comes from an individual, it could also be taken back on a whim. Nothing would actually have any pull or any undeniable value in its own right. Such is the perspective inherent to a king without a castle, a sovereign over a land of nothing.
1. Christianity is not an example of 'objective meaning'. It is a religion which many people believe, and many do not.
2. Nietzsche does not reject all objective meaning. He questions, for example, the contemporary meaning given to concepts like good and evil and attempts to show that past meanings have differed. This is not the same as saying that these concepts have no meaning at all. No philosopher rejects objective reality, other than perhaps Immaterialists like Berkeley.
3. Your entire last paragraph rests on the mistaken conclusions of your first one.
I am not sure whether you were the OP of the comment I responded to, but you are a good example of someone who struggles to express himself in a sensible way. It is not your grasp of English, you write well enough, but the rather the glibness and superficiality of what you try and pass off as analysis. Christianity is not 'objective reality', it is a faith based belief system. Nietzsche did not 'reject objective reality', he simply questioned contemporary attitudes and understandings of certain concepts, as philosophers are won't to do. You describe Nietzsche as a 'gamma with a microphone'. At the time he wrote, nobody knew who he was, and he himself knew he was only writing for a tiny handful of readers. How is this 'a microphone'? How much Nietzsche have you actually read? Have you read a biography?
Based on your above comment, I very much doubt you have done any of these things. Rather, you have superficially absorbed the useful SSH concepts that Vox Day has provided you, and then glibly tossed them around like so much smart boi confetti. You declare Nietzsche to be a gamma, and the only proof you offer is that his ideas and thinking are 'gamma'. Which must be true because Nietzsche is a gamma. Because you said so. Spend less time bloviating in the comments here and more time reflecting on how and to what degree the concepts provided might apply to yourself.
I don't think any amount of explanation is going to help you here, but maybe there's a chance. I already explained why Nietzsche's ideas are gamma to the core (and so popular with gammas) much like the Revenge of the Nerds films, but I'll try one more time:
Nietzsche's madman in The Gay Science and his words to the atheists are the crux of Nietzsche's thought. He addresses them as fools because they do not understand the significance of the atheist position: that the explanatory ground on which everything they understood rested upon was no longer available to them as they proclaimed "God is dead" -- the consequence of this being that they are now responsible to create for themselves some new ground on which their understanding of everything can be based. The "ubermensch" is a man deluding himself into thinking that he can remake himself as God, can himself be an arbiter of meaning and value.
And no matter how riled up you get, baseless accusations are always retarded and usually reflective. I've actually lectured on Nietzsche as part of a Heidegger course I taught, and have taught several existentialism courses. There was also a very renowned Nietzsche scholar in my Ph.D. department, and several Nietzsche-obsessed graduate students in my cohort. They made for quite the gaggle of gammas.
Curious: Is it a failure on the part of the parents if their son becomes an omega?
Denial of reality is a helluva drug
Tesla never got along with women. Best quote being that they were all out of his league, when he was young. Then he was out of theirs, when he matured
Tesla never got along with women. Best quote being that they were all out of his league, when he was young. Then he was out of theirs, when he matured
I had a thought relating to the narcissism discussion. Ricardo and Robinson Crusoe economics treat people as highly individual, perhaps even interchangeable economic units (as does Clown World).
The theory immediately denies (or even inverts) the hierarchy and is very self-centred and narcissistic, hostile to Alphas. While I do not think this alone necessarily means the diagnosis is Gamma, the sheer amount of silliness in the theories is suggestive of Gamma's justification bubble.
There is no hierarchy on a desert island, nor under perfect equality. Politically it thus seems that both "communism" and "libertarianism" deny the hierarchy. And look at the results.
Hierarchies are real.
Romans 13:1
Huh...Mathis looks more masculine than his portrait.
https://aretheyright.com/miles-mathis/
I figured the selfie was a much younger self.
I just realized the self portrait reminds me of Eugene Levy's character in "A Mighty Wind." Image here: https://imgs.search.brave.com/_H0CN-veFbM0V8OtKI-4UTvWXFaZ58PmMCqpTbO7o74/rs:fit:500:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9kZWNp/ZGVyLmNvbS93cC1j/b250ZW50L3VwbG9h/ZHMvMjAxNC8xMS9h/LW1pZ2h0eS13aW5k/MS5wbmc_dz02NDYm/aD0zMzUmY3JvcD0x
Looks like he's also ending up the same way as Levy's character...
https://nightskyradio.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/mitch-cohen.png
Ha - that's an even better one. I'm not familiar with Mathis, but reading the excerpt I pictured it in Mitch's voice and with those mannerisms, with the awkward phrasing and the eyes darting around in all directions, as though it's difficult to match the speed of the brain with the slower speed of speech and communication. By the time the thought has come out of his mouth, his brain is already off in a couple of different directions.
Nah... It's 1970s softcore porn in the style of David Hamilton.
One time I listened to an audiobook of Nietzsche. Very disjoined Wall of Text stuff. Not organized well at all.
It was even tough trying to sort out why he and his devotees think Christianity was a "slave religion". (Basically, he somehow seems to think wokeness is innate to Christianity, although IMO wokeness is what you get when Christians *apostasize from* Christianity and leave a sort of underlying Christian ethics behind while fully indulging the seven deadly sins, particularly envy.)
Well said.
Calls to mind the song “Diamonds & Rust”.
The original full version.
they all have that passive look at me thing going on because their mother only allowed them to express(thus have) sensitivities, rather sympathy as a 6th sense, according to her narcissistic tyranny. the most potent gamma views himself as an object of other peoples desires and sensitivities hence the constant disassociation, i doubt them having a sense of empathy at all. it's a really horrifying thing. they're basically all mind controlled.
What happens to a Bravo who doesn't have an Alpha to support? Does he take on Sigma characteristics, or Gamma?
He functions as a high Delta.
A Bravo will never, ever, become a Sigma or take on Sigma characteristics.
Ah, this now explains my dad up to when my brother married and had kids. Got it.
If I understand it properly, the main thing that distinguishes a Delta from a Gamma are the Gamma's own insecurities and failure to know their place. The Delta knows his place, the Gamma is infuriated with his place.
Basically, could the Gamma choose to be content, and thereby enter the ranks of Delta?
Only if he can stop lying to himself and others, and become competent and reliable.
Even your question reveals a Gamma mentality. Behavioral patterns are about behavior which is perceived by others, not personal choice, which is self-defined.
You're probably right.
Honestly, a bit of all these already mentioned. Vox commented to me recently that they're putting this into the book, high-IQ bravos gravitating toward sigmas or something similar.
As a Bravo, I'm a reluctant Alpha. I have some of the indifference of the sigma and just disappear often. I can feel very directionless, because I just don't give a shit about what most people are doing. It's frustrating because I want a big mission to go after with an alpha/sigma and another bravo.
He becomes a reluctant Alpha.
Kinda directionless. Probably come off like a sigma minus the indifference.
Not even a little bit. Bravos are deeply into hierarchy.
Help me to understand this. I only know maybe one other Bravo, so not much to go on. You haven't written about it much either.
You're spot on, Bravos are into hierarchy. I don't know how I missed that, but it lines up. You've hinted at high-IQ Bravos maybe gravitating toward Sigmas. Possible for these Bravos to display some aloofness to match the Sigmas since that's the dynamic?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't believe I have ever hinted at any Bravo "gravitating toward" Sigma. Bravo behavior probably has less in common with Sigmas than with anyone except Omegas.
And Bravos aren't aloof at all. They're hyper-engaged with the hierarchy, both up and down.
Bravos compensate for their leaders. If Bravo is following an aloof Sigma, then he will compensate for the Sigma by touching base of the Deltas. Or, in other words, a more social Bravo will pair up to the Sigma, if he lets him.
Admittedly My Idea of “comes off like a sigma” might be a bit off.
Does Owen really strike you as a Sigma in any way, shape, or form?
Despite all the making fun of people he does, Owen genuinely likes people.
Id be more likely to mistake him for alpha behavior wise. I guess I was thinking work style when I said that. Might have some kind of hussle they do on their own time, ect.
I think more like "situational Alpha". You have to become the leader. Bravos are part of the hierarchy. They will apply what they have learned from their own experiences and from working with their Alphas.
Really nice paintings.
What about the fictional narrator of Notes from Underground, known as the Underground Man? Is he a gamma?
Absolutely. You can tell simply by the structure and tone of his internal narration, let alone his simultaneous desire for, and antipathy towards, women.
>notice the similarity of this painting of a young woman to his own self-portrait.
That's pretty normal for all painters, because they tend to practice on themselves. It's probably why a lot of traditional paintings of women come out looking a bit mannish.
What a lot of people - including a lot of artists - don't know about portraits is that every portrait is a self-portrait. It's even more true when the artist doesn't know or recognize this, because they will be unable to see the distinction between what they think a face should look like, and what the face of the person they're representing actually looks like. I saw this over and over again when I was part of a weekly portrait group, walking around the room during breaks every image looked like both the sitter and the painter.
Edited to add: Notably, very few of the artists I knew did self-portraits. It can be a very uncomfortable process. It really is just that they expect faces to look a certain way, which happens to strongly resemble the way the artist looks.
Nonsense.
Noted, that falsifies my theory.
When reading Notes from the Underground, I pictured Nietzsche as the main character.
The team leader is superior. He does not want a co-captain, but support. You ought to bring 80% to the table and she can fill in your 20% gap. 50-50 is for men who bring 20% to the table.
Nietzsche has always been the gamma icon: all the talk of the "Ubermensch" and "the herd" and the "will to power" in the face of the reality of who Nietzsche himself was is textbook secret king delusion bubble.
Nietzsche is taken seriously by a wide cross section of people and his works have been studied extensively and intensely for over a century. He is far from being a mere 'gamma icon'. As with all philosophers, it is up to the individual to determine what of their thoughts and worldview resonate and where the weaknesses may lie. I'm not convinced by many Nietzschean concepts, but placing them in sarcastic inverted commas and dismissing the author wholesale by regurgitating a buzzword you learnt on an Internet blog is not the way to go about refuting them. Watching all the secret kings on this thread summarily dismiss an historically significant philosopher has been amusing.
The fact that lots of people read him does nothing to change the fact that Nietzsche is the gamma with a megaphone. At the core of his writings is a rejection of all objective meaning (e.g., Christianity) and positing oneself as the arbiter of all meaning in the place of any objective account. It's the quickest way to delude oneself into always being right, which is at the core of gamma behavior.
Aside from being a delusional and grandiose way of thinking, it also means that nothing could really matter: if all meaning comes from an individual, it could also be taken back on a whim. Nothing would actually have any pull or any undeniable value in its own right. Such is the perspective inherent to a king without a castle, a sovereign over a land of nothing.
1. Christianity is not an example of 'objective meaning'. It is a religion which many people believe, and many do not.
2. Nietzsche does not reject all objective meaning. He questions, for example, the contemporary meaning given to concepts like good and evil and attempts to show that past meanings have differed. This is not the same as saying that these concepts have no meaning at all. No philosopher rejects objective reality, other than perhaps Immaterialists like Berkeley.
3. Your entire last paragraph rests on the mistaken conclusions of your first one.
I am not sure whether you were the OP of the comment I responded to, but you are a good example of someone who struggles to express himself in a sensible way. It is not your grasp of English, you write well enough, but the rather the glibness and superficiality of what you try and pass off as analysis. Christianity is not 'objective reality', it is a faith based belief system. Nietzsche did not 'reject objective reality', he simply questioned contemporary attitudes and understandings of certain concepts, as philosophers are won't to do. You describe Nietzsche as a 'gamma with a microphone'. At the time he wrote, nobody knew who he was, and he himself knew he was only writing for a tiny handful of readers. How is this 'a microphone'? How much Nietzsche have you actually read? Have you read a biography?
Based on your above comment, I very much doubt you have done any of these things. Rather, you have superficially absorbed the useful SSH concepts that Vox Day has provided you, and then glibly tossed them around like so much smart boi confetti. You declare Nietzsche to be a gamma, and the only proof you offer is that his ideas and thinking are 'gamma'. Which must be true because Nietzsche is a gamma. Because you said so. Spend less time bloviating in the comments here and more time reflecting on how and to what degree the concepts provided might apply to yourself.
I don't think any amount of explanation is going to help you here, but maybe there's a chance. I already explained why Nietzsche's ideas are gamma to the core (and so popular with gammas) much like the Revenge of the Nerds films, but I'll try one more time:
Nietzsche's madman in The Gay Science and his words to the atheists are the crux of Nietzsche's thought. He addresses them as fools because they do not understand the significance of the atheist position: that the explanatory ground on which everything they understood rested upon was no longer available to them as they proclaimed "God is dead" -- the consequence of this being that they are now responsible to create for themselves some new ground on which their understanding of everything can be based. The "ubermensch" is a man deluding himself into thinking that he can remake himself as God, can himself be an arbiter of meaning and value.
And no matter how riled up you get, baseless accusations are always retarded and usually reflective. I've actually lectured on Nietzsche as part of a Heidegger course I taught, and have taught several existentialism courses. There was also a very renowned Nietzsche scholar in my Ph.D. department, and several Nietzsche-obsessed graduate students in my cohort. They made for quite the gaggle of gammas.
I'm pretty sure I would be a Nietzschean if I weren't a Christian, and that in mind, I completely agree.