True. My financially modest bravo fiancé will never be Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, but he is one of the kindest, most sensitive, (about others, not himself) selfless, gentle, reasonable, wise, even-keeled, strong, emotionally tough, empathetic, understanding, decent, happy-go-lucky-lucky, responsible, helpful, initiative-taking, thoughtful people that I know, and there's NO ONE I would rather spend the rest of my life with.
Since his goal is the Eastern Orthodox priesthood, he will likely never be rich or famous or politically powerful on earth because his treasures will probably only come in the afterlife, unless you count a house full of children and a doting, grateful, appreciative wife. Being a king at home and the lowliest servant at his parish may just have to do for him in this life, I'm afraid. 😂
I suspect that the Sigma SSH type overlaps with the INTJ (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Judging) personality type: both types are given the highest and rarest position on both scales; humorously, they both have received the greatest amount of hype.
Returning to this piece after some personal reflection, I see that Vox has revealed part of the deeper nature of the Sigma male.
What really distinguishes the Sigma is that he has a personal mission. A special mission. It could be said that the Alpha also has a mission, but it is of a different nature. Bravos, Deltas, Gammas, etc. do not have a mission. Now, the Gamma has a mission—in theory—but it exists only in the realm of pure fantasy.
A Sigma is like James Bond, while an Alpha is the commander of the royal infantry.
"Kuragin is based on a real man, Anatoly Lvovoich Shostak, who successfully seduced Tatyana Bers, the younger sister of Tolstoy’s wife who was the model for the character of Natasha."
Can anyone refer me to more information about Tolstoy's background that talks about this more?
Most people cannot separate the logical from the emotional, so a neutral approach to discussing behavior patterns without ascribing some morality to them is a hurdle most people can’t jump over. The simple statement of “the SSH is amoral” just does not compute with most rhetoric-driven people, so they jump to talking about something that helps them process the concept emotionally, such as morality, which completely forays the original discussion.
Most people cant talk about a topic. They talk about what they wanted to talk about, once the topic was brought up.
Staying on topic is a skill that most dont seem to want to learn, so dealing with the SSH not including morality would take time to separate that from what they already know, and they dont want to.
As with "Science" the new generation will adopt this, but unlike "Science" it makes the world easier to understand so doesnt have to be forced on people.
The recalcitrants refuse to see it as anything different than what they already know with a rebrand.
On that note, I think Vox once said that a lot of people don't listen during conversation but rather think about what to say next. It's likely the same way with staying on topic.
But going back to the Coffee Guy Chris' statement, to be fair there are some desirable qualities in certain SSH roles that many men want to emulate. The flip-side being how some people "jump" to concluding that Gammas are automatically the worst evil imaginable, even though morally good gammas exist like CS Lewis. The fact that many people use their emotions as a substitute for a moral compass or moral discernment may have something to do with the entanglement between the emotional and moral.
Gammas aren't evil, they are annoying and disruptive. They can cause bad things and ruin situations, but i would clearly separate that from evil.
Of course there can be evil gammas, and one of them here admitted to maliciously destroying any group that allowed him to join, if he didn't respect them.
Thats evil, but it's minor league evil. Its nowhere near as bad as the Wolfy Tubman, who is also lower on the evil scale than others.
Better to not confuse a bad outcome with evil, as bad outcomes should be avoided, but evil should be hanging from the city gates.
Since Buddhism was mentioned at the beginning I started wondering how to classify Buddha. By the time I finished reading I thought its possible he could be a sigma, even being a monk. Singular dedication to his mission of founding a monastic religion, situationally mistaken as an alpha in at least being a leader (among celibates though); views women as always trying to seduce men, which implies at least some women are attracted to him but they're contrary to his mission so must be resisted. I don't know. Is there a better classification?
"The Sigma always has his mission, and it is of absolutely no concern to him what others might make of it or whether they approve of it. And his lack of interest in what others perceive to be in his self-interest is invariably confusing.."
In a world where social pressure and rank are of the utmost importance to 98% of the humans who inhabit it, coming across a man who neither cares nor is pressured by others' opinions of him would be frustrating, or seem downright crazy. And since the Sigma sees himself apart from society and having a different purpose, of course others' opinions are going to be, for the most part, incorrect and antithetical to his life mission, so 9 times/10 he will be vindicated in ignoring the populace, sometimes even those closest to him.
Greyjoy, you might be right. It’s been a while since I’ve read/watched so don’t remember all the details. Bolton seems like the worst kind of gamma to me. Well, whatever he was, he was the worst kind of it. I don’t think he attracted anyone. He was just a rapist.
Iron man a sigma? " there's nothing to sign. there is the next mission and nothing else". Captain america, alpha. Hence there conflict together. Again proving the reliability of the social sexual hierarchy. The authors have no direct knowledge of the social sexual hierarchy yet they are writing about it same as Tolstoy.
"And his lack of interest in what others perceive to be in his self-interest is invariably confusing and sometimes even upsetting to others, especially those who are what passes for being close to a Sigma."
People often make the leap from being impressed/struck by a sigma to having high hopes for him. Especially for those who resemble any sort of mentor for a young sigma, they often feel let down when it becomes apparent the sigma has no interest in carrying the torch they intended to pass to him.
The disappointment for the Sigma is equally disheartening.
Imagine having people drawn to you and your endeavours at every turn, eagerly awaiting your guidance, when that was never your intent. And insomuch as you provided guidance, it was largely circumstantial, as your eyes were fixed on the goal first and foremost.
That's not to say the Sigma doesn't have expectations (or even aspirations) for others, but it's often wished that followers had hitched their cart to a competent Alpha horse.
What they probably want is drive, and for that, they require a mountain to conquer. Must be difficult not being able to find any mountains anywhere you look...
"Which, of course, is why one tends to inordinately find Sigmas among Man’s most memorable monsters as well as his most well-loved heroes and saints." - morals are very important.
On the SSH and morality, it is helpful to consider the parable of the talents. The five talent man is the alpha or sigma, the three talent man is a bravo or high delta, the one talent man is a low delta or gamma. None of the men are judged according to how many talents they were given; rather each is judged according to how he used the talents he received. The failure of the one talent man was cowardice, which is reflective of the cardinal vice of the gamma; he might well be convicted of laziness in addition.
Alpha or Sigma status does not preclude servitude. In both variations of the parable the faithful servants are elevated to rulership. David was an alpha, and a faithful servant to his king, Saul. Joshua was an alpha, and a faithful servant to Moses. Assuming high SSH status precludes service is a category error.
The post makes it clear that the SSH isn't about morality. The parable of the talents is inappropriately applied. That parable is not about personality profiles, it's about profitable and unprofitable servants. There are Omegas and Gammas that are profitable servants in business. We all have to keep food on the table.
True. My financially modest bravo fiancé will never be Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, but he is one of the kindest, most sensitive, (about others, not himself) selfless, gentle, reasonable, wise, even-keeled, strong, emotionally tough, empathetic, understanding, decent, happy-go-lucky-lucky, responsible, helpful, initiative-taking, thoughtful people that I know, and there's NO ONE I would rather spend the rest of my life with.
Since his goal is the Eastern Orthodox priesthood, he will likely never be rich or famous or politically powerful on earth because his treasures will probably only come in the afterlife, unless you count a house full of children and a doting, grateful, appreciative wife. Being a king at home and the lowliest servant at his parish may just have to do for him in this life, I'm afraid. 😂
The Sigma mouse Dag in *Hypergamouse* is an interesting enough character to warrant his own spin-off. Thoughts?
No. Lacey has enough to do as it is.
I suspect that the Sigma SSH type overlaps with the INTJ (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Judging) personality type: both types are given the highest and rarest position on both scales; humorously, they both have received the greatest amount of hype.
Returning to this piece after some personal reflection, I see that Vox has revealed part of the deeper nature of the Sigma male.
What really distinguishes the Sigma is that he has a personal mission. A special mission. It could be said that the Alpha also has a mission, but it is of a different nature. Bravos, Deltas, Gammas, etc. do not have a mission. Now, the Gamma has a mission—in theory—but it exists only in the realm of pure fantasy.
A Sigma is like James Bond, while an Alpha is the commander of the royal infantry.
"Kuragin is based on a real man, Anatoly Lvovoich Shostak, who successfully seduced Tatyana Bers, the younger sister of Tolstoy’s wife who was the model for the character of Natasha."
Can anyone refer me to more information about Tolstoy's background that talks about this more?
When, for the first time in her life, her father took her to St.
Petersburg, she met a distant cousin, Anatol Shostak. Tanya char-
acterized him this way: “He was one of those people one often
meets in society. He was self-confident, unaffected and free of all
embarrassment. He loved women and was popular with them. He
[172}
knew how to approach them directly, caressingly and boldly. He
knew how to make them think that the force of love endows one
with rights, that love is the greatest satisfaction. No obstacles existed
for him. He was not good but he was good-natured. In money mat-
ters he was honest and even generous. In society he was witty and
br illian t. He was adept at languages and had the name of being
an intelligent youth.”
https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.67548/2015.67548.Tolstoy-a-Life-Of-My-Father_djvu.txt
do sigmas have a super ego?
Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?
You've been out ridin' fences for so long now
Oh, you're a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin' you
Can hurt you somehow
It is interesting to read chapter one where Prince Vasili describe his two sons and accepting the fate for what it is.
He describe Anatole has an active fool who costs him 40,000 rubles a year.
Most people cannot separate the logical from the emotional, so a neutral approach to discussing behavior patterns without ascribing some morality to them is a hurdle most people can’t jump over. The simple statement of “the SSH is amoral” just does not compute with most rhetoric-driven people, so they jump to talking about something that helps them process the concept emotionally, such as morality, which completely forays the original discussion.
Most people cant talk about a topic. They talk about what they wanted to talk about, once the topic was brought up.
Staying on topic is a skill that most dont seem to want to learn, so dealing with the SSH not including morality would take time to separate that from what they already know, and they dont want to.
As with "Science" the new generation will adopt this, but unlike "Science" it makes the world easier to understand so doesnt have to be forced on people.
The recalcitrants refuse to see it as anything different than what they already know with a rebrand.
On that note, I think Vox once said that a lot of people don't listen during conversation but rather think about what to say next. It's likely the same way with staying on topic.
But going back to the Coffee Guy Chris' statement, to be fair there are some desirable qualities in certain SSH roles that many men want to emulate. The flip-side being how some people "jump" to concluding that Gammas are automatically the worst evil imaginable, even though morally good gammas exist like CS Lewis. The fact that many people use their emotions as a substitute for a moral compass or moral discernment may have something to do with the entanglement between the emotional and moral.
Gammas aren't evil, they are annoying and disruptive. They can cause bad things and ruin situations, but i would clearly separate that from evil.
Of course there can be evil gammas, and one of them here admitted to maliciously destroying any group that allowed him to join, if he didn't respect them.
Thats evil, but it's minor league evil. Its nowhere near as bad as the Wolfy Tubman, who is also lower on the evil scale than others.
Better to not confuse a bad outcome with evil, as bad outcomes should be avoided, but evil should be hanging from the city gates.
Good Gamma: writes enormous walls of text against really evil things.
As a Monk preferably.
Since Buddhism was mentioned at the beginning I started wondering how to classify Buddha. By the time I finished reading I thought its possible he could be a sigma, even being a monk. Singular dedication to his mission of founding a monastic religion, situationally mistaken as an alpha in at least being a leader (among celibates though); views women as always trying to seduce men, which implies at least some women are attracted to him but they're contrary to his mission so must be resisted. I don't know. Is there a better classification?
"The Sigma always has his mission, and it is of absolutely no concern to him what others might make of it or whether they approve of it. And his lack of interest in what others perceive to be in his self-interest is invariably confusing.."
In a world where social pressure and rank are of the utmost importance to 98% of the humans who inhabit it, coming across a man who neither cares nor is pressured by others' opinions of him would be frustrating, or seem downright crazy. And since the Sigma sees himself apart from society and having a different purpose, of course others' opinions are going to be, for the most part, incorrect and antithetical to his life mission, so 9 times/10 he will be vindicated in ignoring the populace, sometimes even those closest to him.
Over time, and I mean decades, you start ignoring stays symbols because they are without worth and impede your mission.
Euron Greyjoy and Ramsay Bolton are evil Sigmas.
Greyjoy, you might be right. It’s been a while since I’ve read/watched so don’t remember all the details. Bolton seems like the worst kind of gamma to me. Well, whatever he was, he was the worst kind of it. I don’t think he attracted anyone. He was just a rapist.
Ramsay Bolton wasn't a gamma. Terrible person, yes. Gamma, no.
Game of Thrones isn't a great SSH measure because Martin can't help but harm his high status characters to the benefit of his low status.
Wasn't Bolton obsessed with being approved by his father and being in charge?
Bastards without the father's big name, they choose do a lot in order to get the freedom which comes with the name.
Iron man a sigma? " there's nothing to sign. there is the next mission and nothing else". Captain america, alpha. Hence there conflict together. Again proving the reliability of the social sexual hierarchy. The authors have no direct knowledge of the social sexual hierarchy yet they are writing about it same as Tolstoy.
Iron man is an Alpha, not a Sigma. Captain America and Iron Man's conflict is that of two Alphas, not a Sigma-Alpha conflict.
"And his lack of interest in what others perceive to be in his self-interest is invariably confusing and sometimes even upsetting to others, especially those who are what passes for being close to a Sigma."
People often make the leap from being impressed/struck by a sigma to having high hopes for him. Especially for those who resemble any sort of mentor for a young sigma, they often feel let down when it becomes apparent the sigma has no interest in carrying the torch they intended to pass to him.
The disappointment for the Sigma is equally disheartening.
Imagine having people drawn to you and your endeavours at every turn, eagerly awaiting your guidance, when that was never your intent. And insomuch as you provided guidance, it was largely circumstantial, as your eyes were fixed on the goal first and foremost.
That's not to say the Sigma doesn't have expectations (or even aspirations) for others, but it's often wished that followers had hitched their cart to a competent Alpha horse.
Passion is for a night.
What they probably want is drive, and for that, they require a mountain to conquer. Must be difficult not being able to find any mountains anywhere you look...
"Which, of course, is why one tends to inordinately find Sigmas among Man’s most memorable monsters as well as his most well-loved heroes and saints." - morals are very important.
On the SSH and morality, it is helpful to consider the parable of the talents. The five talent man is the alpha or sigma, the three talent man is a bravo or high delta, the one talent man is a low delta or gamma. None of the men are judged according to how many talents they were given; rather each is judged according to how he used the talents he received. The failure of the one talent man was cowardice, which is reflective of the cardinal vice of the gamma; he might well be convicted of laziness in addition.
"The five talent man is the alpha or sigma"
Why would you assume a servant is an alpha or sigma?
Alpha or Sigma status does not preclude servitude. In both variations of the parable the faithful servants are elevated to rulership. David was an alpha, and a faithful servant to his king, Saul. Joshua was an alpha, and a faithful servant to Moses. Assuming high SSH status precludes service is a category error.
Managerial competence does not mean high socio-sexual status.
Given all you know about a person is that he's good at managing stuff (ex: finance/numbers), do you think that is an indicator of Sigma or Alpha?
"This guy is good at investing money. He must be good at leading men and seducing women."
The post makes it clear that the SSH isn't about morality. The parable of the talents is inappropriately applied. That parable is not about personality profiles, it's about profitable and unprofitable servants. There are Omegas and Gammas that are profitable servants in business. We all have to keep food on the table.
Morality still remains applicable with the talents and behavioral patterns you are given. Suiting you for different roles in the Hierarchy.
Talents is simply what you are given in the world. The Spiritual isn't severed from the Physical.
How is it any different from riches of any other advantage?
God created the SSH in its unfallen state. The fact that it exists is an indication of Divine Design.
It means whatever is given to you at your birth is what you are responsible for. Including your genetics or behavioural pattern.
More given. More demanded. Etc.
In the parable Jesus tells in Matthew, the master specifically reprimands the 1 talent servant as "wicked and slothful servant".