A good tell for Sigma was how the business leaders of Russia bristled at Putin. Rival alphas who didn't like the way Putin was treating them. Similarly with Xi there was the purge of uncooperative business leaders in China.
Alphas like Trump are loved by business leader alpha rivals and Trump was constantly getting sucked up to by them.
I believe the difference is that Alphas are vulnerable to flattery and Sigmas are not. Flattery is a very hierarchy cementing interaction so alphas need those public displays to keep their group going. Vox called it 'showing due respect'. On the other hand I've seen Sigmas take flattery all sorts of different ways, most commonly accepting the praise in the moment but not publicly reciprocating it with a hierarchy cementing pat on the head which then enrages the other party.
Why would a sigma hang around in an alpha role for so long? Putin is a situational alpha, but it must be incredibly wearing on him to play alpha, and sub-optimal for the country. I imagine a sigma would assume the role as a bridging gap and then move to a covert position of power in the shadows. His KGB days were probably his happiest. It seems scarier to have a sigma in command of a nuclear arsenal as he is more likely to just one day go "F-this" in exasperation of his foreign peers (not mention his subordinates). Am I right to think that a sigma in an alpha role would have a lower threshold for conflict?
The mission. He already tried to step down once, but his chosen successor was insufficiently competent.
A Sigma wouldn't necessarily have a lower threshhold for conflict, but he's also far less likely to bluff. That's probably why the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine caught so many Western observers by surprise; they were judging Putin by their usual standards for a leader, which means Alpha.
Then is the Sigma the epoch-maker, not ham-strung by the faults (chiefly the need for popularity and legacy) of the Alpha, thus more formidable to bring about those epic, historical, world-changing missions?
I think Sigma leaders like Putin and Xi are more effective for changing courses. Alpha leaders are more effective for making people enthusiastic about the course they're on. Boris Johnson was great "leading" the people toward a direction they wanted to go, which is to say Brexit. He had no idea what to do about it, or Covid, or anything else, except "lead" precisely nowhere very emphatically.
Interesting. So what do credit the seemingly good relationship between Trump as president and Putin, given Alphas tend to bristle at Sigmas who refuse to accept their frame?
I recently have been reading Robert Caro’s books on Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson which are really long studies about how power is wielded. Both craved attention and company and absolute fealty in the way of the alpha but both also would retreat into solitude for long periods to strategize when things got very tough I. The manner of the sigma. Neither of them felt the need to reveal their plans to anyone including close associates or even wives/family until those plans had been carried out (often to great effect). It seems that often great leaders have some combination of sigma and alpha traits.
The Western strategy seems to rely heavily on winning the media war. This seems dubious; the public opinion of Westerners does not matter in the battlefield, and Russia is only doing better the more distance it keeps to the Clown World. The meme describing the situation is https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2331680-monkey-putin
In essence the Western military command has been behaving like a Gamma high on Clown World retardery. A good example of this is the summer offensive, where breaching the entire Russian defence order using a military tactic that was known to not work was supposed to be a slam dunk.
In many places the Ukraine forces are surrounded and it seems like this is because holding to the land looks better in the media.
Nailed it. Putin is far too enigmatic to ever be confused for a classic Alpha. If he were an animal, he would be a Siberian Tiger, and all the happier for it.
Was Stalin a sigma? I remember a character in Aldous Huxley using a dichotomy of 'Peter Pans' and 'Musclemen'. In his scheme, the volatile Hitler was a Peter Pan and the calculating Stalin a Muscleman.
“The tsar’s ideal would be more like a cemetery in which he stood alone, vertical, the sole survivor among all his enemies and even all his friends, relatives, and children.”
That quote makes it sound like it would be miserable to be a Sigma’s child. But I am doubtful that is true given Vox is a Sigma who genuinely likes his kids.
In a future post, would it be possible to explore the behavioral patterns of fathers in various SSH roles towards their children, as well as advice for different roles in order to maximize strengths and minimize pitfalls?
Thanks, Vox! Looking at current male political leaders via your SSH lens is going to be interesting and doubtless revealing. The challenge may be filtering for the Media bias to get real data about them.
So, if I'm understanding, your claim is that the West was trying to get him to get him to react as a typical Alpha to challenges of authority. That the bluster and bravado they hoped would occur would put off and destabilize his underlings as he over reacted. This would end up forcing the underlings to quit or rebel or Putin would end up putting them on the chopping block.
However, because he's a sigma, he simply doesn't operate that way. He's more level headed and not as prone to outbursts about his authority as an Alpha because he doesn't NEED the authority as part of his Identity. He sees it as important to accomplish his goals as leader of Russia and what he cares about and loves, but that's it. It's not like Trump, bumbling from one challenge to another and canning people along the way (often rightfully so, but really destabilizing because he never bothered to find loyal underlings).
But, because the west never really grasped the situation in the Kremlin, their strategy was simply destined never to work in the first place. All it's done is strengthen Putin's resolve, shown his strength, his antifragility, and his prudence of action against clown world.
As a Bravo who can lead when there's no Alpha, I can imagine an Bravo leader in situations like that would be casting about for a leader to take the reins and fix the situation for them. Someone to help them, but also smart enough to NEVER SAY A DAMN WORD about it in public, realizing it would result in a loss of confidence and that you have to put on the Alpha face for everyone. and bear the burden until you find the leader to follow.
I can only imagine most of the GOP are deltas with how they fold on things and can't handle conflict. But it might just be the money. Hard to tell. I can't see any of them really taking high positions of power like the Presidency, but you never know.
I think your interpretation is giving it too much credit. It actually appears to be some sort of weird Gamma strategy akin to the scenario commonly seen in Hollywood of exposing the Alpha and stealing his girl while everyone claps.
Maybe SSH works better as a descriptor of psychological motivations at the collective / political / civilisations level, than as a heuristic for categorising individuals?
Be interesting to see a list of world leaders categorised by their SSH! I.e. how widely people agree with the categorisations, especially as, I guess, they all have to be "situational alphas" in some regards
No. Individuals display a pattern of behaviour, diverging from the behaviour situationally does not change the pattern.
Collectives can also display a pattern of behaviour, and the behaviour would be expected to be close to the behaviour of people in charge of said collectives. Still, SSH is based on individual behaviour.
A good tell for Sigma was how the business leaders of Russia bristled at Putin. Rival alphas who didn't like the way Putin was treating them. Similarly with Xi there was the purge of uncooperative business leaders in China.
Alphas like Trump are loved by business leader alpha rivals and Trump was constantly getting sucked up to by them.
I believe the difference is that Alphas are vulnerable to flattery and Sigmas are not. Flattery is a very hierarchy cementing interaction so alphas need those public displays to keep their group going. Vox called it 'showing due respect'. On the other hand I've seen Sigmas take flattery all sorts of different ways, most commonly accepting the praise in the moment but not publicly reciprocating it with a hierarchy cementing pat on the head which then enrages the other party.
Why would a sigma hang around in an alpha role for so long? Putin is a situational alpha, but it must be incredibly wearing on him to play alpha, and sub-optimal for the country. I imagine a sigma would assume the role as a bridging gap and then move to a covert position of power in the shadows. His KGB days were probably his happiest. It seems scarier to have a sigma in command of a nuclear arsenal as he is more likely to just one day go "F-this" in exasperation of his foreign peers (not mention his subordinates). Am I right to think that a sigma in an alpha role would have a lower threshold for conflict?
The mission. He already tried to step down once, but his chosen successor was insufficiently competent.
A Sigma wouldn't necessarily have a lower threshhold for conflict, but he's also far less likely to bluff. That's probably why the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine caught so many Western observers by surprise; they were judging Putin by their usual standards for a leader, which means Alpha.
Then is the Sigma the epoch-maker, not ham-strung by the faults (chiefly the need for popularity and legacy) of the Alpha, thus more formidable to bring about those epic, historical, world-changing missions?
I think Sigma leaders like Putin and Xi are more effective for changing courses. Alpha leaders are more effective for making people enthusiastic about the course they're on. Boris Johnson was great "leading" the people toward a direction they wanted to go, which is to say Brexit. He had no idea what to do about it, or Covid, or anything else, except "lead" precisely nowhere very emphatically.
If Alpha is the matter, is the Sigma their anti-matter in conflict willing to annihilate both themselves and the Alpha for the good of the mission?
No. Stop trying to redefine things. It's not helpful.
Interesting. So what do credit the seemingly good relationship between Trump as president and Putin, given Alphas tend to bristle at Sigmas who refuse to accept their frame?
Putin showed Trump due respect, and vice-versa.
I recently have been reading Robert Caro’s books on Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson which are really long studies about how power is wielded. Both craved attention and company and absolute fealty in the way of the alpha but both also would retreat into solitude for long periods to strategize when things got very tough I. The manner of the sigma. Neither of them felt the need to reveal their plans to anyone including close associates or even wives/family until those plans had been carried out (often to great effect). It seems that often great leaders have some combination of sigma and alpha traits.
I follow the situation in Ukraine every day.
The Western strategy seems to rely heavily on winning the media war. This seems dubious; the public opinion of Westerners does not matter in the battlefield, and Russia is only doing better the more distance it keeps to the Clown World. The meme describing the situation is https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2331680-monkey-putin
In essence the Western military command has been behaving like a Gamma high on Clown World retardery. A good example of this is the summer offensive, where breaching the entire Russian defence order using a military tactic that was known to not work was supposed to be a slam dunk.
In many places the Ukraine forces are surrounded and it seems like this is because holding to the land looks better in the media.
Nailed it. Putin is far too enigmatic to ever be confused for a classic Alpha. If he were an animal, he would be a Siberian Tiger, and all the happier for it.
Was Stalin a sigma? I remember a character in Aldous Huxley using a dichotomy of 'Peter Pans' and 'Musclemen'. In his scheme, the volatile Hitler was a Peter Pan and the calculating Stalin a Muscleman.
And this is exactly why I read you daily...spot on
“The tsar’s ideal would be more like a cemetery in which he stood alone, vertical, the sole survivor among all his enemies and even all his friends, relatives, and children.”
That quote makes it sound like it would be miserable to be a Sigma’s child. But I am doubtful that is true given Vox is a Sigma who genuinely likes his kids.
In a future post, would it be possible to explore the behavioral patterns of fathers in various SSH roles towards their children, as well as advice for different roles in order to maximize strengths and minimize pitfalls?
Thanks for all the great posts.
It’s the predictive utility of the SSH that goes missing in the endless what am I? variations. As in this example, the indispensable point.
"Our tsar, on the other hand, lives in solitude and thrives on it. Contemplation is what gives him the strength."
The torch of his ancestors has been passed to him. In contemplation they counsel him.
Thanks, Vox! Looking at current male political leaders via your SSH lens is going to be interesting and doubtless revealing. The challenge may be filtering for the Media bias to get real data about them.
He does have that "1000 yard stare" that I would characterise a Sigma as having.
That makes sense.
So, if I'm understanding, your claim is that the West was trying to get him to get him to react as a typical Alpha to challenges of authority. That the bluster and bravado they hoped would occur would put off and destabilize his underlings as he over reacted. This would end up forcing the underlings to quit or rebel or Putin would end up putting them on the chopping block.
However, because he's a sigma, he simply doesn't operate that way. He's more level headed and not as prone to outbursts about his authority as an Alpha because he doesn't NEED the authority as part of his Identity. He sees it as important to accomplish his goals as leader of Russia and what he cares about and loves, but that's it. It's not like Trump, bumbling from one challenge to another and canning people along the way (often rightfully so, but really destabilizing because he never bothered to find loyal underlings).
But, because the west never really grasped the situation in the Kremlin, their strategy was simply destined never to work in the first place. All it's done is strengthen Putin's resolve, shown his strength, his antifragility, and his prudence of action against clown world.
As a Bravo who can lead when there's no Alpha, I can imagine an Bravo leader in situations like that would be casting about for a leader to take the reins and fix the situation for them. Someone to help them, but also smart enough to NEVER SAY A DAMN WORD about it in public, realizing it would result in a loss of confidence and that you have to put on the Alpha face for everyone. and bear the burden until you find the leader to follow.
I can only imagine most of the GOP are deltas with how they fold on things and can't handle conflict. But it might just be the money. Hard to tell. I can't see any of them really taking high positions of power like the Presidency, but you never know.
I think your interpretation is giving it too much credit. It actually appears to be some sort of weird Gamma strategy akin to the scenario commonly seen in Hollywood of exposing the Alpha and stealing his girl while everyone claps.
Maybe SSH works better as a descriptor of psychological motivations at the collective / political / civilisations level, than as a heuristic for categorising individuals?
Be interesting to see a list of world leaders categorised by their SSH! I.e. how widely people agree with the categorisations, especially as, I guess, they all have to be "situational alphas" in some regards
Trudeau?
Bojo?
Macron?
Milei?
Nixon?
The Kim's?
Varoufakis?
Bojo, Milei, the Kims, and Nixon are most likely Alphas, from what I know about them. Trudeau and Macron are either Gamma or Lambda.
Definitely not.
Azamat Baghatov,
No. Individuals display a pattern of behaviour, diverging from the behaviour situationally does not change the pattern.
Collectives can also display a pattern of behaviour, and the behaviour would be expected to be close to the behaviour of people in charge of said collectives. Still, SSH is based on individual behaviour.
Oh. Well that's just dumb. Our leader's have drank the cool-aid and believed their own propaganda.
Clown world gonna clown world, I guess.