Can it be, then, that we’re not supposed to be alphas at all times, but we must be alphas at any given time? Is there such thing as a dynamic and fluid hierarchy that’s necessary for a stable life? Or is some rigidity necessary in a hierarchy; if not the role players, then the role itself?
Why are 95 percent of people today binary thinkers? By nature or because our culture has corrupted into a state that imparts this so that few resist it growing up? Did Christendom's culture in the past insure against this by a recognition of gradation in created being, and in the possibility of different levels of vice and virtue coexisting within persons?
We've all gone to school. The tests which we go through in school, they aren't hard enough to get rid of those who aren't more than a simpleton. There are very confident simpletons in our schools and universities, because they've been rewarded and praised.
If we had lived in political tribes without indoor plumbing, where life is nasty, brutish and short, Nature would have eaten us alive. And the only men and women left, would have been those who weren't simpletons. The people who lived during the medieval ages, the people who built the cathedrals which we can't build today, they weren't simpletons.
I think that the universe itself is built on a binary-good creates and evil destroys. The infiltration of evil into the good, whatever good that is porous enough to be infiltrated, then creates the gradients and fractals and shades of the two. For example, a good man must contend internally against an evil nature while an evil man wants good things for himself (at least what he feels is good). Both have elements of good and evil but there are ultimate absolutes from which good an devil flow
The question I have is if women can play situational roles in the SSH at the workplace, particularly the roles of Alphas or Bravos. When they had to bounce out Zuckerberg from Facebook because he wasn’t quite the situational Alpha he needed to be, they brought in a woman who had a much better vision for the profitability of the company. Now we know FB is fake and gay, and they might have set her up for success by having people tell her what vision to have, they picked a woman to either implement or define the vision of the organization, which she seemed to do.
Relating this to my own work experience, I find that while playing the role of the situational Alpha at work, a few things helped me out. First, I work in an organization where almost everyone is a skilled tradesman and the organization is 90% Delta. Deltas are the easiest to manage by far by simply saying, “good job” and honestly appreciating what they do. Just take an interest in them and they have something to feel good about at the family dinner table. Second, I always had a genuine Bravo at my side willing to clean up the messes I pointed out to them. Once you show them the mess to clean up, they never let the mess happen again. The third thing I have/had going for me is I understand how do drive performance though analytics, which none of my peers and former bosses really understood. It was how I knew where to direct the Deltas and Bravos. In short, I would see the problem/deficiencies through analytics and I knew where to direct the Bravos and Deltas attention, automatically improving performance. The feeling of accomplishment always made me feel good about my situational role.
Now a lot of the success I had at work playing the Alpha had a lot to do with the personal relationships and interactions with the men around me. Poking fun at the Deltas with the Bravo, but then ultimately admitting they do a good job, calling out the Gammas to the silent applause of their peers, and just joking around in general to form bonds with other men. I’m not sure this would work with a women in the role.
The things I hate about being the situational Alpha are the following. Going to awards ceremonies for workers, having to help people get their kids internships in the organization, participating in mentorship programs, going to meet and greets, going to retirement parties and the rest of the pomp and circumstance. I would imagine women like these things because they somehow equate it to being about them in some weird way.
Is it any different for a woman thrust into such a role? There are no women in situational Alpha roles in my organization so I’m not sure if a woman can play a part in SSH in the workplace. Any thoughts?
It's not part of the SSH, but to the extent that the male hierarchy interacts with the Female Social Sexual Matrix, the social profile fitting to women is "wife"
Think "his gal Friday", especially the older married lady who runs the office. Sort of Bravo-ish. Kid sister or daughter gets you the Delta-ish role, particularly on mixed teams.
It'd be a serious mistake, though to put a woman in a male role *as* a pseudo male. I think the history of ruling Queens sans husband, makes this clear.
One of the best I've read in a while. Being able to articulate what a binary thinker is, and determining that someone s a binary thinker is as useful as the SSH itself is.
>and a mismatch of situation and behavioral pattern reliably spells failure.
This sounds a lot like John Lennon's story. A delta/possible gamma who was raised to alpha status through artificial hype ended up putting out the worst cringe-fest ever recorded - Imagine - and then getting shot. For contrast, you have Mick Jagger, who despite the possibility of receiving some artificial hype himself, is a legit alpha. He never settled for marrying the Wicked Witch of the East.
@sigmagame Vox, curious to know what Bravo roles you've experienced if any and what that was like for you. My thinking is that of all the mismatches in situational hierarchy roles for a Sigma, a Bravo role is possibly one of the most ill-fitting.
It may be somewhat useful to see a post or two specifically describing what occurs in the various situational mismatches and which ones are the most unusually occurring. For example, an Omega in an Alpha role strikes me as exceedingly rare, while a Delta in a Bravo role would be more common.
From personal observation, binary thinkers tend to also turn away from a truth when it does not fit into their simple thinking. In this, it is like they turn away and become complacent. Consequently, this also makes binary thinkers easier to manipulate, and they can be easily duped accordingly because they do not have the prudence to see that their current thinking may be lacking something. They go on and suffer for it.
The problem with nosology, or the science of classification systems is that all classification systems of human behaviour are models. They should be reliable. Reliable is good: without being reliable they are not valid. However, in the quest for reliability you often find that the same behaviour is seen as a criteria for multiple concepts. This is before one thinks about what is due to character and what is due to the situation one is in.
There are very common, habitual, patterns we all have in our interactions. Some of this is probably hard-wired in our neurological networks -- though they are more flexible than most people comprehend -- and some of this is habitual. There are various emotional and situational challenges we face.
How we react will depend on how much cognitive reserve we have to deal with emotions, our habits of dealing with emotions, and the resources we have. Do not confuse the situational position you are in with your strengths and weaknesses. Do not hold the models of character too tightly.
Instead strive each day to do good, and not bad. For we have done the things we ought not to have done, and not done the things we ought to have done.
I find that binary thinking is good for dealing people when nuance become tiresome to explain.
An example:
Yes, Trump can be bad, but he's better than Harris and we live in a first-past-the-post representative democracy and it's election day so we don't have time to pump years of Econ and Civics into you. So Trump good, Harris bad.
---
This is good news for gammas and omegas. You can try on situational Alphaship and see how hard it is, and be happy you aren't it. Seriously. There's a lot of work being top dog.
By understanding the SSH. A Meritocratic organisation can encompass behavioral pattern in addition to other talents allowing better allocation of people to the right places. Applicable to every context from Kingdoms to companies.
I really like your three paragraphs starting with "Power is not hierarchy ..." and ending with "...gives them the conceptual tools required to correct them" without the questions from the audience. I think that if you need to write towards a binary disposed audience that gives them a hook. The innate, unchanging personality type vs fit and mismatch with the ubiquitous externally defined situational roles.
An article worth pondering over.
Can it be, then, that we’re not supposed to be alphas at all times, but we must be alphas at any given time? Is there such thing as a dynamic and fluid hierarchy that’s necessary for a stable life? Or is some rigidity necessary in a hierarchy; if not the role players, then the role itself?
Life as a perpetual chain of OR gates. Blame Boole
I appreciate all the compliments.
Why are 95 percent of people today binary thinkers? By nature or because our culture has corrupted into a state that imparts this so that few resist it growing up? Did Christendom's culture in the past insure against this by a recognition of gradation in created being, and in the possibility of different levels of vice and virtue coexisting within persons?
We've all gone to school. The tests which we go through in school, they aren't hard enough to get rid of those who aren't more than a simpleton. There are very confident simpletons in our schools and universities, because they've been rewarded and praised.
If we had lived in political tribes without indoor plumbing, where life is nasty, brutish and short, Nature would have eaten us alive. And the only men and women left, would have been those who weren't simpletons. The people who lived during the medieval ages, the people who built the cathedrals which we can't build today, they weren't simpletons.
I think that the universe itself is built on a binary-good creates and evil destroys. The infiltration of evil into the good, whatever good that is porous enough to be infiltrated, then creates the gradients and fractals and shades of the two. For example, a good man must contend internally against an evil nature while an evil man wants good things for himself (at least what he feels is good). Both have elements of good and evil but there are ultimate absolutes from which good an devil flow
The question I have is if women can play situational roles in the SSH at the workplace, particularly the roles of Alphas or Bravos. When they had to bounce out Zuckerberg from Facebook because he wasn’t quite the situational Alpha he needed to be, they brought in a woman who had a much better vision for the profitability of the company. Now we know FB is fake and gay, and they might have set her up for success by having people tell her what vision to have, they picked a woman to either implement or define the vision of the organization, which she seemed to do.
Relating this to my own work experience, I find that while playing the role of the situational Alpha at work, a few things helped me out. First, I work in an organization where almost everyone is a skilled tradesman and the organization is 90% Delta. Deltas are the easiest to manage by far by simply saying, “good job” and honestly appreciating what they do. Just take an interest in them and they have something to feel good about at the family dinner table. Second, I always had a genuine Bravo at my side willing to clean up the messes I pointed out to them. Once you show them the mess to clean up, they never let the mess happen again. The third thing I have/had going for me is I understand how do drive performance though analytics, which none of my peers and former bosses really understood. It was how I knew where to direct the Deltas and Bravos. In short, I would see the problem/deficiencies through analytics and I knew where to direct the Bravos and Deltas attention, automatically improving performance. The feeling of accomplishment always made me feel good about my situational role.
Now a lot of the success I had at work playing the Alpha had a lot to do with the personal relationships and interactions with the men around me. Poking fun at the Deltas with the Bravo, but then ultimately admitting they do a good job, calling out the Gammas to the silent applause of their peers, and just joking around in general to form bonds with other men. I’m not sure this would work with a women in the role.
The things I hate about being the situational Alpha are the following. Going to awards ceremonies for workers, having to help people get their kids internships in the organization, participating in mentorship programs, going to meet and greets, going to retirement parties and the rest of the pomp and circumstance. I would imagine women like these things because they somehow equate it to being about them in some weird way.
Is it any different for a woman thrust into such a role? There are no women in situational Alpha roles in my organization so I’m not sure if a woman can play a part in SSH in the workplace. Any thoughts?
It's not part of the SSH, but to the extent that the male hierarchy interacts with the Female Social Sexual Matrix, the social profile fitting to women is "wife"
Think "his gal Friday", especially the older married lady who runs the office. Sort of Bravo-ish. Kid sister or daughter gets you the Delta-ish role, particularly on mixed teams.
It'd be a serious mistake, though to put a woman in a male role *as* a pseudo male. I think the history of ruling Queens sans husband, makes this clear.
I defer to the gents on this one, of course.
One of the best I've read in a while. Being able to articulate what a binary thinker is, and determining that someone s a binary thinker is as useful as the SSH itself is.
>and a mismatch of situation and behavioral pattern reliably spells failure.
This sounds a lot like John Lennon's story. A delta/possible gamma who was raised to alpha status through artificial hype ended up putting out the worst cringe-fest ever recorded - Imagine - and then getting shot. For contrast, you have Mick Jagger, who despite the possibility of receiving some artificial hype himself, is a legit alpha. He never settled for marrying the Wicked Witch of the East.
@sigmagame Vox, curious to know what Bravo roles you've experienced if any and what that was like for you. My thinking is that of all the mismatches in situational hierarchy roles for a Sigma, a Bravo role is possibly one of the most ill-fitting.
It may be somewhat useful to see a post or two specifically describing what occurs in the various situational mismatches and which ones are the most unusually occurring. For example, an Omega in an Alpha role strikes me as exceedingly rare, while a Delta in a Bravo role would be more common.
What can we call people that cant even get yes or no correctly?
Normal.
From personal observation, binary thinkers tend to also turn away from a truth when it does not fit into their simple thinking. In this, it is like they turn away and become complacent. Consequently, this also makes binary thinkers easier to manipulate, and they can be easily duped accordingly because they do not have the prudence to see that their current thinking may be lacking something. They go on and suffer for it.
The problem with nosology, or the science of classification systems is that all classification systems of human behaviour are models. They should be reliable. Reliable is good: without being reliable they are not valid. However, in the quest for reliability you often find that the same behaviour is seen as a criteria for multiple concepts. This is before one thinks about what is due to character and what is due to the situation one is in.
There are very common, habitual, patterns we all have in our interactions. Some of this is probably hard-wired in our neurological networks -- though they are more flexible than most people comprehend -- and some of this is habitual. There are various emotional and situational challenges we face.
How we react will depend on how much cognitive reserve we have to deal with emotions, our habits of dealing with emotions, and the resources we have. Do not confuse the situational position you are in with your strengths and weaknesses. Do not hold the models of character too tightly.
Instead strive each day to do good, and not bad. For we have done the things we ought not to have done, and not done the things we ought to have done.
I find that binary thinking is good for dealing people when nuance become tiresome to explain.
An example:
Yes, Trump can be bad, but he's better than Harris and we live in a first-past-the-post representative democracy and it's election day so we don't have time to pump years of Econ and Civics into you. So Trump good, Harris bad.
---
This is good news for gammas and omegas. You can try on situational Alphaship and see how hard it is, and be happy you aren't it. Seriously. There's a lot of work being top dog.
Sigma sun
Alpha rising
Delta moon
😂
By understanding the SSH. A Meritocratic organisation can encompass behavioral pattern in addition to other talents allowing better allocation of people to the right places. Applicable to every context from Kingdoms to companies.
I really like your three paragraphs starting with "Power is not hierarchy ..." and ending with "...gives them the conceptual tools required to correct them" without the questions from the audience. I think that if you need to write towards a binary disposed audience that gives them a hook. The innate, unchanging personality type vs fit and mismatch with the ubiquitous externally defined situational roles.