The harsh reality is that most of us who fashion ourselves to be “Sigmas”, really are probably just Gammas aspiring to be the Alpha male. But it’s easy to imagine oneself as Sigma when you rarely engage in social hierarchies.
Second point; people are using the term “Sigma” far too loosely now in these circles. It seems to have become something more akin to the MBTI personality designation, with little or no respect at all for one’s actual social status.
Someone on another forum brought up the topic of historical Sigmas, and apparently for some, Octavian—you know, Caesar Augustus, first emperor of Rome—was a Sigma male because he used “cunning and indirect maneuvering” to increase his political power. It’s getting ridiculous with some of you. Putin is a Sigma? Seriously? Dude’s a bloody Alpha. That’s what an Alpha is—the top dog. Alpha. First. Primary. Please correct me if I’m wrong Vox, but you didn’t intend for this to be a “What’s your spirit animal?” system of classification…?
Last point; these social strata likely have existed since before all recorded history and were very well known and generally accepted in traditional societies as what we now call the Caste system. (Apologies if I’m being redundant). The Alpha roughly corresponds to the Warrior class; Sigma roughly to the Priest/Sage class; Betas and Gammas roughly to Merchants and/or Laborers. But these weren’t just arbitrary designations set in place by clever authoritarians—they were in tune with nature & ideally aligned to each individual’s personal inherited traits, and also to their lineage by birth. Yet, with enough leeway for social mobility either up, down, or sideways within the hierarchy. Some good historical/mythological examples of Sigmas would be the Buddha, Socrates, and Odin. Sigmas would often fulfill the “magician” function but could also fulfill the function of the “explorer”, the “spy”, the “poet”, etc.
TLDR; I think it’s important not to confuse an Alpha who utilizes Machiavellian strategies with a Sigma. They’re ultimately different beasts.
I never comment on articles, but this commenter really caught my eye. I wanted to say that, although I intellectually kind of agree with this bravo fellow in his assessment of the overall situation, I find it absolutely stupefying. To me this sounds like 'waahh. why won't you tell me what to do?' When I was reading this, I had this overwhelming feeling that this must be what a talking dog would sound like. I have been chuckling since I read this, at the thought of someone being considered to lack human traits because they are not militantly subservient. Imagine having to get your own ride from the airport? Oy. This substack is very intellectually stimulating.
It is important to remember that ssh os not moral prescription. The nTure of any category lends itself to different temptations but all can be good or bad, even the Omaga. Thos may invole the Alpha commiting to one women and resisting his urge to play the field, or the Sigma to contemplate the impact on his teamor family and approach it differently where he still moves on but he makes people feel valiable. The Omega has the most dificulty but even he can util,ize his temperment for good.
In this cas the bravo has the problem of putting the alpha on a pedestal and needs to remeber that is not healthy.
The confusing part for many people is that the Sigma simply doesn't think about the group in the same way they do. Sigma could do everything similar to an Alpha only to complete the objective (or get board) and move on with no thought to the other people. To the sigma the goal was achieved time to find something interesting, where will thrive off the people and look at the team he built and see what else they (the group) can achive.
I can see where the Bravo is mystified and can sometimes feel betrayed by a Sigma as the Bravo will give everything for the group and the Sigma only cares about what interests them.
Reminds of the "Tsst" episode of South Park, at the end where Cartman's mom thinks she's developed a friendship with Cesar Milan, and he's completely indifferent. He had a job to do, he did it with total detachment, and she's devastated because she thought he was personally invested.
It also seems Sigmas would only do best in emergency situations. Where Alphas would fall short. How would it be accomplished until normalcy can allow Alphas to come back into power?
It's interesting to watch the behavior of a Sigma father in a tight knit community. They're able to push through projects that they care about deeply, raise an awesome family, mill lumber to build his own house, and run a solid family business.
When he moved to the community, he took on a few of those projects and did them well enough (by himself when possible, of course) that people started looking towards him for leadership. It took years for people to realize that the Sigma would only take on projects that he wanted to take on, would complete them on a time table that worked for him and his family (usually faster than you'd expect, but sometimes painfully slow), and was otherwise too busy to be bothered about leadership. Would avoid it like the plague and generally find a way to duck out of any conversation he could on it.
You can look to him for good advice on how to do something. But even hint on having him do something with it, and he's gone like the wind.
A great friend to have though. He understands loyalty. It's just hard to get him to remember to follow through on things if it's not a pressing concern to him.
I’m a bravo with a sigma nephew I’m pretty close to. I think what usually confuses bravos about sigmas is that we’re probably the rank in the hierarchy that could most accurately be described as “group animals”. sigmas are the complete opposite in that respect. I mostly just find a lot of his behaviors confusing. Weirdly enough, in the few cases I’m aware of the irritation doesn’t seem to be shared. Most sigmas I know of seem to like bravos compared to most of the other ranks.
> Weirdly enough, in the few cases I’m aware of the irritation doesn’t seem to be shared. Most sigmas I know of seem to like bravos compared to most of the other ranks.
Do any ranks find Bravos irritating?
Contrast the other ranks interacting with the Sigma: Alphas have too much ego, Deltas don't relate, Gammas won't shut up, and Omegas need a shower.
Bravo is the closest peer SSH rank and doesn't get in the way.
I think the most obvious difference is, in the hypothetical situation a sigma is ostracized from his in-group, Usually the most that will happen is “well, that’s a shame” then he’ll move on almost immediately. If a bravo is ostracized from his in-group, it honestly might send him into a multi week depression where he doesn’t leave his house for a few days, completely shuts down, ect. Not everyone’s opinion has this effect on him, just “his people”.
I generally concur with pretty much everything in this post, but there are a couple of points I have noticed that personally I put down to the fact that each Sigma is quite unique in his screwed-upness, which I think can be more of a divergence within the class than for most other classes or types.
For example, I think it is obvious Putin is a Sigma, but he clearly has got at least SOME alpha-like leaderships skills. Not necessarily in terms of caring about the team per se, because I think insofar as I have studied him (not extensive) the way he seems to control the "team" is by direct, aggressive consequences if they screw up. But at a wider level he must care about something that either approaches caring about others (in some admittedly somewhat psychopathic/abstract fashion) and/or is unique to his personal ideas/messed-upness.
To an extent, your aloofness, or mine, is palpable to most humans, yet... you tend to do much of what you do because you have a wider picture of how you would like the world to be and aim to shape it that way within your power to do so. I don't know your specific motivations, so they may be different from my own, but for myself, the concern for the "others" is limited to my immediate family in the first place and in a more abstract/generic sense for the rest of the nearby humans (geographically) and into a progressively less personal generic "goodwill" I hope humanity at large grows into.
On reflection, after typing all that out, I suppose it doesn't exactly qualify as the warm concern most mammals might construe as "care" but hey... close enough for practical purposes I think.
The other point is that as head of a small (spec-ops indeed!) team I think at least some Sigmas can function well for years, as long as they are given a certain latitude within the parameters of their purposes. At least, that has been my experience, but I accept it is not necessarily typical of all or even most Sigmas. I don't know what the ratio of them that this applies to or not is, but I suspect it's dependent on the specifics of his damage more than a general pattern intrinsic to the class.
My perception is that to get past the armoured exterior of a sigma is extremely difficult/impossible and if it does happen it is a possible mixture of blind circumstance (he doesn't necessarily even know himself how) and his allowing it to some degree. IF you can get past all that... you may find it almost impossible to match the kind of loyalty/obsession (eh... it's a fine line...) they may have to a person or concept.
"My perception is that to get past the armoured exterior of a sigma is extremely difficult/impossible and if it does happen it is a possible mixture of blind circumstance (he doesn't necessarily even know himself how) and his allowing it to some degree. IF you can get past all that... you may find it almost impossible to match the kind of loyalty/obsession (eh... it's a fine line...) they may have to a person or concept."
Agreed. I will go even further and say that if the Sigma detects that there is a conscious effort to get under the personal "shields", he will become more averse to the idea of opening up at all. Most will be able easily detect attempts at manipulation if it results in atypical behavior or a variation in patterns of behavior or personality traits of others.
In the Sigma, I imagine loyalty is the default when they're in an organization that respects and rewards them. There would be a bit of overlap with the Alpha/Bravo on this axis, and I suspect this is the harmonizing resonance "up" the SSH chain. In the long run, for the Sigma, the pay (while important) seems to be almost a secondary consideration, once a certain threshold is met.
I want to challenge the idea of Sigmas being “fucked up”. Sigmas are only fucked up from the perspective of Betas and the other middlemen. Alphas, as well as women, recognize the Sigma’s ability to “reach beyond the mundane” as inherently valuable, though it may not result in an affable disposition in day-to-day interactions.
"This is what is destroying STEM academia right now." Off-topic, but I found Bruce Charlton's paper/short book on this illuminating: "Not Even Trying: the corruption of real science" https://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/
"I think it's hard until the Sigma figures out that not only doesn't he belong, he doesn't even value that sense of belonging like most men do."
I.e., as with all the other roles (and for women, too), "Know thyself", rather than wish you were, or try to be, something you're not. Although, it seems there is leeway within each category (Vox Day seems to have learned to function fairly well within teams) and it may be possible for people to learn to function as other roles, e.g. a Bravo learning to be (or act as) an Alpha.
I'm more familiar with a different set of categories - not an SSH - and the guy who came up with it hoped and worked so that the people he treated, whatever type they were, would grow to maximise the advantages and strengths of their type and reduce or minimise the weaknesses.
A woman of this type that I knew morphed her competitiveness into humour and worked alone as a consultant, treating people one-on-one. She had an astonishing intuition and was very good at one-liners that would stimulate hope and reflection in her clients. She still did tick people off from time to time, tho. She was one of the very few unmarried women I know who wasn't crazy.
One of the purposes of the SSH is to allow men with one profile to succeed even if placed in a different situational role. I can mimic Delta now, with some success, for a limited time.
In an organizational setting, is it more productive to collaborate with a Sigma to come up with a role explicitly designed for them rather than hand them a pre-defined role that might be suitable for them (e.g. skunk works)? Does the Sigma value having that kind of input?
I ask this to see how best to create an environment that is mutually beneficial to both an organization and a Sigma so that the Sigma feels valued and stays loyal. Unlike Gammas who should be kept away, and Omegas who need to be kept away, it makes sense to recruit and keep Sigmas who can give the organization an edge.
Certainly. For example, three of my professors at university separately offered me the chance to do independent studies with them when they realized a) I understood the material better than anyone else in the class, b) I very seldom went to class, and c) I didn't even bother buying the textbook.
I very much appreciated their offers, worked very hard on all three studies, and turned in papers that were up to twice as long as they'd required.
My favorite of the three clearly recognized the Sigma profile. His description of them was "brilliant fuck-ups". As in "Brilliant fuck-ups like you don't belong in a class. It's pointless for you and disruptive for the class."
No fictional character is "accurate", but he points in the right direction. Jack Reacher is also a good example. Kvothe and Rand al'Thor are the antitheses.
I've been working the same gig for nearly 15 years, in a corporate spec-ops role (I laughed so hard when I read that). My colleague and I have described our role in the organization as similar to that of a chief warrant officer in the Army. We get the stuff that no one else can solve, or has the time to learn, because the particulars of my VHI give me ridiculous reading speed and retention of what I read.
When paired with a Bravo, we are a team to be reckoned with. "For the glory of Alpha, the team and, most importantly, my paycheck!" I jest poetic, but I have just summarized some of the best professional relationships that I have had as a subject matter expert consultant working alongside a competent project manager. Competent PM's are most frequently the Bravo archetype. I have tried to lead, I suck at it. The core issue - my lack of personal emotional attachment to the team - is the thing that lets me say "the hell with it" when things get hard as a leader. When my own reputation is on the line, and my own livelihood, things are different. I have, and have had the wisdom to not take the much-vaunted promotion to "manager" when offered. My failure as a leader was for a kids robotics team, and I still feel really badly about stepping out past my limit on that one. But - that's how we learn.
At danger of inflating an ego that is extremely large (regardless of how righteously), OP nailed it.
I really appreciate the self-knowledge on display here. Impressive and very helpful!
I would love to read more about Sigmas, if you deem it worthy of a future post.
I'm curious about how they can best lean into their strengths and best avoid the potential pitfalls that come with this particular type/rank in the SSH.
I have a few questions:
1) How should Sigmas proactively optimize their work lives based on what you've explained here as their best use by organizations?
2) How should Sigmas try to disarm Alphas to prevent being resented by them?
3) How and when should Sigmas serve as short-term situational Betas or Deltas?
4) How should Sigmas resist backsliding into possible "at their worst" tendencies, whether those be downsides of Sigma-hood itself or possible backsliding into teenage Delta or Gamma tendencies?
Anyway, thank you for starting this great new Substack. Even though you've covered a lot of this before, I'm still finding the subject fascinating and helpful.
1. If a Sigma is trying to "optimize their work lives... as their best use by organizations", he is going to have a very miserable time. It is almost always better to build a new team to accomplish a specific task, than to mold an existing team for a new purpose.
2. It takes a lot of hard work. Most of the time, it is easier to simply avoid Alphas, by quitting as necessary.
3. Situational Betas is likely too much hassle to a Sigma. Unless the Alpha is an ultra-Chad like Trump.
4. When that happens, it is time to quit. No point in fighting. Salvaging the situation takes so much more work, than building a new team from scratch.
Suspect I worked for Sigma also and very frustrating after working for clearly Alpha officers.
1. Question for SDL: If a busted Alpha=Sigma (some form of childhood trauma I think you once said leading to an exit from the game), is there any utility to description of busted Bravos and/or busted Deltas who would otherwise fit those behavioral patterns but are reticent to join any hierarchy (ibid: trauma)? Not suggesting the current categories aren't enough to chew on (you're writing a book after all). Bring it up since I've known guys you need a crowbar to get to join anything but if you do they're good asset.
2. Fringe benefit: telling a Gamma not only is he not a busted Alpha/Sigma, he's not even a busted Delta, relative to quality of women he's able to get (understand SSH bigger than that)
None whatsoever. The childhood trauma is simply a potentially explanatory theory based on far too small a sample pool.
The reason the Sigma stands out is because he flat-out will not join the hierarchy. All the introverts who think they aren't part of it are kidding themselves; for crying out loud, half of them seriously think they are "secret Alphas" because people rely on them.
I think it's hard until the Sigma figures out that not only doesn't he belong, he doesn't even value that sense of belonging like most men do. Of course, you can't truly know that until you are at or near the top of the social heap.
Gammas pursue status because they think it will fix their problems in the same way poor men pursue wealth. And how would they know it won't when they don't have it. They were all secret Alphas before the Sigma was articulated. And now they all identify themselves as Sigmas, which is every bit as ludicrous.
This is noticeable on y- tube, lots of videos about being a Sigma. A lot of us remember those "secret Alpha" arguments from the pre-SSH days.
The Sigma definition permitted an easier path for the posturing. They could focus on the "outside the group" lone wolf aspect, while conveniently ignoring the "mistaken for alpha", the top-tier woman, and having Bravo supporters.
It may only be one less rationalization, but every bit helps when you're fending off observable reality. Cogdis is cheap, but it's not free!
“[…] he doesn't even value that sense of belonging like most men do.”
1. Is this one of the qualities that separates the Omegas from the Sigmas? Do Omegas still want to belong while Sigma don’t care? The Bravo in the original post mention the Sigma having all the damaged qualities of an Omega so wanted clarification on that.
2. How does this translate to a Sigma being a father? It sounds like Sigmas are going to have the hardest time being fathers out of all the SSH roles. As discussed elsewhere in the comments, the Sigma is going to have to overcome their natural aversion to leading, having a plan, and making people feel like they belong (because they themselves don’t care about belonging).
Or is there something different about leading a family that makes it easier for the Sigma to display leadership traits?
On a tangential note, are Sigma fathers likely to beget Sigma sons? Or are they more likely to have Alpha sons who inherit their Alpha qualities and become Alpha because they grow up in an environment with a leadership vacuum and find themselves having to be the “man of the house?”
I don't think Sigmas have a problem at all being fathers. And I do think there is a likely aptitude for a Sigma father to tend toward teaching his sons to be as independent as possible in all things. Having a YOUNG Sigma father is pretty brutal. And older sigma father can be one of the best fathers to have form the perspective of teaching a son how to be effective at as many things as possible. The love aspect is there too but... I am reminded of a scene in one of the Mummy Movies, where Brendan Fraiser (the dad) is at odds with his son and his wife says something to him along the lines that it's his fault (the father) that his son is so combative/non-cooperative with his own father because the dad is "too harsh" or words to that effect, and the Brendan Fraiser character gets exasperated and says something like, "Look I am just trying to teach the fool how to stay alive in the world" or whatever, and the wife says "But you never tell him you love him!" With real feeling a mother might have saying that...and the dad replies, with even MORE feeling:
"I'M his FATHER! It's implied!"
And I could really relate... it's not that the Sigma dad doesn't love, it's just that he may forget to say it in like words and stuff, because, DUH!
1. the key separator is charisma. Sigmas might want to belong, but doesn't or can't deal with the hassle that comes with belonging. Thus they learn to not value belonging, or learn situational rank. Omegas, being lower charisma, face different types of hassle. They may learn to deal with the hassle, or not.
2. Love and belonging are different. A lot of organizational leadership "hassle" comes from coordination with multiple individuals. A dyadic relationship, as is the case with children and wife, by definition, has a lot less coordination. It is possible that the children are fairly independent, if that trait gets inherited. 2 people doing their own things in the same room, may be acceptable to the Sigma dad and his kid(s). In the unlikely case that the Sigma dad has a clingy Delta or Bravo son, he may pawn the kid off on a male relative when it gets to be too much. (Daughters, of course, will be different, as @RollTheStone relays below.)
It's not miserable at all, you have to remember that we don't like attachments and we don't, generally, like other people. Where others may need that sense of camaraderie, we don't. Let me put it this way, solitary confinement is not a torture for us; the confinement is annoying, but the solitary we're fine with and it's a preferable option compared to gen pop.
My favorite part is the first paragraph.
The harsh reality is that most of us who fashion ourselves to be “Sigmas”, really are probably just Gammas aspiring to be the Alpha male. But it’s easy to imagine oneself as Sigma when you rarely engage in social hierarchies.
Second point; people are using the term “Sigma” far too loosely now in these circles. It seems to have become something more akin to the MBTI personality designation, with little or no respect at all for one’s actual social status.
Someone on another forum brought up the topic of historical Sigmas, and apparently for some, Octavian—you know, Caesar Augustus, first emperor of Rome—was a Sigma male because he used “cunning and indirect maneuvering” to increase his political power. It’s getting ridiculous with some of you. Putin is a Sigma? Seriously? Dude’s a bloody Alpha. That’s what an Alpha is—the top dog. Alpha. First. Primary. Please correct me if I’m wrong Vox, but you didn’t intend for this to be a “What’s your spirit animal?” system of classification…?
Last point; these social strata likely have existed since before all recorded history and were very well known and generally accepted in traditional societies as what we now call the Caste system. (Apologies if I’m being redundant). The Alpha roughly corresponds to the Warrior class; Sigma roughly to the Priest/Sage class; Betas and Gammas roughly to Merchants and/or Laborers. But these weren’t just arbitrary designations set in place by clever authoritarians—they were in tune with nature & ideally aligned to each individual’s personal inherited traits, and also to their lineage by birth. Yet, with enough leeway for social mobility either up, down, or sideways within the hierarchy. Some good historical/mythological examples of Sigmas would be the Buddha, Socrates, and Odin. Sigmas would often fulfill the “magician” function but could also fulfill the function of the “explorer”, the “spy”, the “poet”, etc.
TLDR; I think it’s important not to confuse an Alpha who utilizes Machiavellian strategies with a Sigma. They’re ultimately different beasts.
I never comment on articles, but this commenter really caught my eye. I wanted to say that, although I intellectually kind of agree with this bravo fellow in his assessment of the overall situation, I find it absolutely stupefying. To me this sounds like 'waahh. why won't you tell me what to do?' When I was reading this, I had this overwhelming feeling that this must be what a talking dog would sound like. I have been chuckling since I read this, at the thought of someone being considered to lack human traits because they are not militantly subservient. Imagine having to get your own ride from the airport? Oy. This substack is very intellectually stimulating.
It is important to remember that ssh os not moral prescription. The nTure of any category lends itself to different temptations but all can be good or bad, even the Omaga. Thos may invole the Alpha commiting to one women and resisting his urge to play the field, or the Sigma to contemplate the impact on his teamor family and approach it differently where he still moves on but he makes people feel valiable. The Omega has the most dificulty but even he can util,ize his temperment for good.
In this cas the bravo has the problem of putting the alpha on a pedestal and needs to remeber that is not healthy.
The confusing part for many people is that the Sigma simply doesn't think about the group in the same way they do. Sigma could do everything similar to an Alpha only to complete the objective (or get board) and move on with no thought to the other people. To the sigma the goal was achieved time to find something interesting, where will thrive off the people and look at the team he built and see what else they (the group) can achive.
I can see where the Bravo is mystified and can sometimes feel betrayed by a Sigma as the Bravo will give everything for the group and the Sigma only cares about what interests them.
Reminds of the "Tsst" episode of South Park, at the end where Cartman's mom thinks she's developed a friendship with Cesar Milan, and he's completely indifferent. He had a job to do, he did it with total detachment, and she's devastated because she thought he was personally invested.
It also seems Sigmas would only do best in emergency situations. Where Alphas would fall short. How would it be accomplished until normalcy can allow Alphas to come back into power?
A smart Alpha can handle a crisis, perhaps with less team disruption than a Sigma.
Maybe. Voxday had pinpointed their weaknesses like with Donald Trump being sabotaged.
It's interesting to watch the behavior of a Sigma father in a tight knit community. They're able to push through projects that they care about deeply, raise an awesome family, mill lumber to build his own house, and run a solid family business.
When he moved to the community, he took on a few of those projects and did them well enough (by himself when possible, of course) that people started looking towards him for leadership. It took years for people to realize that the Sigma would only take on projects that he wanted to take on, would complete them on a time table that worked for him and his family (usually faster than you'd expect, but sometimes painfully slow), and was otherwise too busy to be bothered about leadership. Would avoid it like the plague and generally find a way to duck out of any conversation he could on it.
You can look to him for good advice on how to do something. But even hint on having him do something with it, and he's gone like the wind.
A great friend to have though. He understands loyalty. It's just hard to get him to remember to follow through on things if it's not a pressing concern to him.
Can we develop some sort version of Godwin's law for the SSH?
Someone can probably do a better job, but I'll kick things off:
As a SSH comment gains word count and the ratio of "I" increases, the probability that it is written by a Gamma approaches 1.
Sort of a credit rating or misery index. Or maybe a "gamma score" that shows up on the comment right after you post.
Or even bring back the miscrosoft word clippy: "It looks like you're writing a wall of text. Would you like some help?"
I’m a bravo with a sigma nephew I’m pretty close to. I think what usually confuses bravos about sigmas is that we’re probably the rank in the hierarchy that could most accurately be described as “group animals”. sigmas are the complete opposite in that respect. I mostly just find a lot of his behaviors confusing. Weirdly enough, in the few cases I’m aware of the irritation doesn’t seem to be shared. Most sigmas I know of seem to like bravos compared to most of the other ranks.
> Weirdly enough, in the few cases I’m aware of the irritation doesn’t seem to be shared. Most sigmas I know of seem to like bravos compared to most of the other ranks.
Do any ranks find Bravos irritating?
Contrast the other ranks interacting with the Sigma: Alphas have too much ego, Deltas don't relate, Gammas won't shut up, and Omegas need a shower.
Bravo is the closest peer SSH rank and doesn't get in the way.
> Do any ranks find Bravos irritating
Bravos are extremely irritating in a large company where they make up a significant portion of the management hierarchy.
They need a plan instead of just working out one.
They refuse to think strategically.
They try and enforce pointless rules dreamed up by HR loonies.
They need pats on the head from the alpha.
They need to constantly run things by the alpha since they care more about head pats than outcomes.
I get along with them well in a social context but at work they are as bad as gammas.
I think the most obvious difference is, in the hypothetical situation a sigma is ostracized from his in-group, Usually the most that will happen is “well, that’s a shame” then he’ll move on almost immediately. If a bravo is ostracized from his in-group, it honestly might send him into a multi week depression where he doesn’t leave his house for a few days, completely shuts down, ect. Not everyone’s opinion has this effect on him, just “his people”.
I generally concur with pretty much everything in this post, but there are a couple of points I have noticed that personally I put down to the fact that each Sigma is quite unique in his screwed-upness, which I think can be more of a divergence within the class than for most other classes or types.
For example, I think it is obvious Putin is a Sigma, but he clearly has got at least SOME alpha-like leaderships skills. Not necessarily in terms of caring about the team per se, because I think insofar as I have studied him (not extensive) the way he seems to control the "team" is by direct, aggressive consequences if they screw up. But at a wider level he must care about something that either approaches caring about others (in some admittedly somewhat psychopathic/abstract fashion) and/or is unique to his personal ideas/messed-upness.
To an extent, your aloofness, or mine, is palpable to most humans, yet... you tend to do much of what you do because you have a wider picture of how you would like the world to be and aim to shape it that way within your power to do so. I don't know your specific motivations, so they may be different from my own, but for myself, the concern for the "others" is limited to my immediate family in the first place and in a more abstract/generic sense for the rest of the nearby humans (geographically) and into a progressively less personal generic "goodwill" I hope humanity at large grows into.
On reflection, after typing all that out, I suppose it doesn't exactly qualify as the warm concern most mammals might construe as "care" but hey... close enough for practical purposes I think.
The other point is that as head of a small (spec-ops indeed!) team I think at least some Sigmas can function well for years, as long as they are given a certain latitude within the parameters of their purposes. At least, that has been my experience, but I accept it is not necessarily typical of all or even most Sigmas. I don't know what the ratio of them that this applies to or not is, but I suspect it's dependent on the specifics of his damage more than a general pattern intrinsic to the class.
My perception is that to get past the armoured exterior of a sigma is extremely difficult/impossible and if it does happen it is a possible mixture of blind circumstance (he doesn't necessarily even know himself how) and his allowing it to some degree. IF you can get past all that... you may find it almost impossible to match the kind of loyalty/obsession (eh... it's a fine line...) they may have to a person or concept.
"My perception is that to get past the armoured exterior of a sigma is extremely difficult/impossible and if it does happen it is a possible mixture of blind circumstance (he doesn't necessarily even know himself how) and his allowing it to some degree. IF you can get past all that... you may find it almost impossible to match the kind of loyalty/obsession (eh... it's a fine line...) they may have to a person or concept."
Agreed. I will go even further and say that if the Sigma detects that there is a conscious effort to get under the personal "shields", he will become more averse to the idea of opening up at all. Most will be able easily detect attempts at manipulation if it results in atypical behavior or a variation in patterns of behavior or personality traits of others.
In the Sigma, I imagine loyalty is the default when they're in an organization that respects and rewards them. There would be a bit of overlap with the Alpha/Bravo on this axis, and I suspect this is the harmonizing resonance "up" the SSH chain. In the long run, for the Sigma, the pay (while important) seems to be almost a secondary consideration, once a certain threshold is met.
I want to challenge the idea of Sigmas being “fucked up”. Sigmas are only fucked up from the perspective of Betas and the other middlemen. Alphas, as well as women, recognize the Sigma’s ability to “reach beyond the mundane” as inherently valuable, though it may not result in an affable disposition in day-to-day interactions.
"This is what is destroying STEM academia right now." Off-topic, but I found Bruce Charlton's paper/short book on this illuminating: "Not Even Trying: the corruption of real science" https://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/
"I think it's hard until the Sigma figures out that not only doesn't he belong, he doesn't even value that sense of belonging like most men do."
I.e., as with all the other roles (and for women, too), "Know thyself", rather than wish you were, or try to be, something you're not. Although, it seems there is leeway within each category (Vox Day seems to have learned to function fairly well within teams) and it may be possible for people to learn to function as other roles, e.g. a Bravo learning to be (or act as) an Alpha.
I'm more familiar with a different set of categories - not an SSH - and the guy who came up with it hoped and worked so that the people he treated, whatever type they were, would grow to maximise the advantages and strengths of their type and reduce or minimise the weaknesses.
A woman of this type that I knew morphed her competitiveness into humour and worked alone as a consultant, treating people one-on-one. She had an astonishing intuition and was very good at one-liners that would stimulate hope and reflection in her clients. She still did tick people off from time to time, tho. She was one of the very few unmarried women I know who wasn't crazy.
One of the purposes of the SSH is to allow men with one profile to succeed even if placed in a different situational role. I can mimic Delta now, with some success, for a limited time.
In an organizational setting, is it more productive to collaborate with a Sigma to come up with a role explicitly designed for them rather than hand them a pre-defined role that might be suitable for them (e.g. skunk works)? Does the Sigma value having that kind of input?
I ask this to see how best to create an environment that is mutually beneficial to both an organization and a Sigma so that the Sigma feels valued and stays loyal. Unlike Gammas who should be kept away, and Omegas who need to be kept away, it makes sense to recruit and keep Sigmas who can give the organization an edge.
Certainly. For example, three of my professors at university separately offered me the chance to do independent studies with them when they realized a) I understood the material better than anyone else in the class, b) I very seldom went to class, and c) I didn't even bother buying the textbook.
I very much appreciated their offers, worked very hard on all three studies, and turned in papers that were up to twice as long as they'd required.
My favorite of the three clearly recognized the Sigma profile. His description of them was "brilliant fuck-ups". As in "Brilliant fuck-ups like you don't belong in a class. It's pointless for you and disruptive for the class."
Thank you for the example.
Your favorite professor is also a good example of what a father should do if they end up with a Sigma son.
So, is James Bond a (relatively affable) Sigma? Or is he, as a fictional character, not an accurate SSH example?
No fictional character is "accurate", but he points in the right direction. Jack Reacher is also a good example. Kvothe and Rand al'Thor are the antitheses.
I've been working the same gig for nearly 15 years, in a corporate spec-ops role (I laughed so hard when I read that). My colleague and I have described our role in the organization as similar to that of a chief warrant officer in the Army. We get the stuff that no one else can solve, or has the time to learn, because the particulars of my VHI give me ridiculous reading speed and retention of what I read.
When paired with a Bravo, we are a team to be reckoned with. "For the glory of Alpha, the team and, most importantly, my paycheck!" I jest poetic, but I have just summarized some of the best professional relationships that I have had as a subject matter expert consultant working alongside a competent project manager. Competent PM's are most frequently the Bravo archetype. I have tried to lead, I suck at it. The core issue - my lack of personal emotional attachment to the team - is the thing that lets me say "the hell with it" when things get hard as a leader. When my own reputation is on the line, and my own livelihood, things are different. I have, and have had the wisdom to not take the much-vaunted promotion to "manager" when offered. My failure as a leader was for a kids robotics team, and I still feel really badly about stepping out past my limit on that one. But - that's how we learn.
At danger of inflating an ego that is extremely large (regardless of how righteously), OP nailed it.
I really appreciate the self-knowledge on display here. Impressive and very helpful!
I would love to read more about Sigmas, if you deem it worthy of a future post.
I'm curious about how they can best lean into their strengths and best avoid the potential pitfalls that come with this particular type/rank in the SSH.
I have a few questions:
1) How should Sigmas proactively optimize their work lives based on what you've explained here as their best use by organizations?
2) How should Sigmas try to disarm Alphas to prevent being resented by them?
3) How and when should Sigmas serve as short-term situational Betas or Deltas?
4) How should Sigmas resist backsliding into possible "at their worst" tendencies, whether those be downsides of Sigma-hood itself or possible backsliding into teenage Delta or Gamma tendencies?
Anyway, thank you for starting this great new Substack. Even though you've covered a lot of this before, I'm still finding the subject fascinating and helpful.
1. If a Sigma is trying to "optimize their work lives... as their best use by organizations", he is going to have a very miserable time. It is almost always better to build a new team to accomplish a specific task, than to mold an existing team for a new purpose.
2. It takes a lot of hard work. Most of the time, it is easier to simply avoid Alphas, by quitting as necessary.
3. Situational Betas is likely too much hassle to a Sigma. Unless the Alpha is an ultra-Chad like Trump.
4. When that happens, it is time to quit. No point in fighting. Salvaging the situation takes so much more work, than building a new team from scratch.
Why should they? I'm an extreme introvert, married to am extreme introvert. We prefer to be by ourselves or withbour kids, and the kids tire us out.
I don't want to be socialised and hate team building. Give me problems to solve.
Suspect I worked for Sigma also and very frustrating after working for clearly Alpha officers.
1. Question for SDL: If a busted Alpha=Sigma (some form of childhood trauma I think you once said leading to an exit from the game), is there any utility to description of busted Bravos and/or busted Deltas who would otherwise fit those behavioral patterns but are reticent to join any hierarchy (ibid: trauma)? Not suggesting the current categories aren't enough to chew on (you're writing a book after all). Bring it up since I've known guys you need a crowbar to get to join anything but if you do they're good asset.
2. Fringe benefit: telling a Gamma not only is he not a busted Alpha/Sigma, he's not even a busted Delta, relative to quality of women he's able to get (understand SSH bigger than that)
None whatsoever. The childhood trauma is simply a potentially explanatory theory based on far too small a sample pool.
The reason the Sigma stands out is because he flat-out will not join the hierarchy. All the introverts who think they aren't part of it are kidding themselves; for crying out loud, half of them seriously think they are "secret Alphas" because people rely on them.
Think through that...
The Sigma is a high functioning Pyschopath.
Not all pyschopathy is evil, their general aloofness marks them as different and not "team players"
You clearly have not interacted with enough psychopaths. In short, no.
The more we are educated on the Sigma profile the more it sounds like being a Sigma…sucks.
Not belonging anywhere all your life sounds miserable. No amount of hot females lining up is going to make up for lack of Brotherhood.
Why would anyone (Gammas) *want* to be Sigma? It sounds like Sigma is a blueprint that was involuntarily imposed on some men by a harsh world.
I think it's hard until the Sigma figures out that not only doesn't he belong, he doesn't even value that sense of belonging like most men do. Of course, you can't truly know that until you are at or near the top of the social heap.
Gammas pursue status because they think it will fix their problems in the same way poor men pursue wealth. And how would they know it won't when they don't have it. They were all secret Alphas before the Sigma was articulated. And now they all identify themselves as Sigmas, which is every bit as ludicrous.
But everyone else knows.
This is noticeable on y- tube, lots of videos about being a Sigma. A lot of us remember those "secret Alpha" arguments from the pre-SSH days.
The Sigma definition permitted an easier path for the posturing. They could focus on the "outside the group" lone wolf aspect, while conveniently ignoring the "mistaken for alpha", the top-tier woman, and having Bravo supporters.
It may only be one less rationalization, but every bit helps when you're fending off observable reality. Cogdis is cheap, but it's not free!
“[…] he doesn't even value that sense of belonging like most men do.”
1. Is this one of the qualities that separates the Omegas from the Sigmas? Do Omegas still want to belong while Sigma don’t care? The Bravo in the original post mention the Sigma having all the damaged qualities of an Omega so wanted clarification on that.
2. How does this translate to a Sigma being a father? It sounds like Sigmas are going to have the hardest time being fathers out of all the SSH roles. As discussed elsewhere in the comments, the Sigma is going to have to overcome their natural aversion to leading, having a plan, and making people feel like they belong (because they themselves don’t care about belonging).
Or is there something different about leading a family that makes it easier for the Sigma to display leadership traits?
On a tangential note, are Sigma fathers likely to beget Sigma sons? Or are they more likely to have Alpha sons who inherit their Alpha qualities and become Alpha because they grow up in an environment with a leadership vacuum and find themselves having to be the “man of the house?”
I don't think Sigmas have a problem at all being fathers. And I do think there is a likely aptitude for a Sigma father to tend toward teaching his sons to be as independent as possible in all things. Having a YOUNG Sigma father is pretty brutal. And older sigma father can be one of the best fathers to have form the perspective of teaching a son how to be effective at as many things as possible. The love aspect is there too but... I am reminded of a scene in one of the Mummy Movies, where Brendan Fraiser (the dad) is at odds with his son and his wife says something to him along the lines that it's his fault (the father) that his son is so combative/non-cooperative with his own father because the dad is "too harsh" or words to that effect, and the Brendan Fraiser character gets exasperated and says something like, "Look I am just trying to teach the fool how to stay alive in the world" or whatever, and the wife says "But you never tell him you love him!" With real feeling a mother might have saying that...and the dad replies, with even MORE feeling:
"I'M his FATHER! It's implied!"
And I could really relate... it's not that the Sigma dad doesn't love, it's just that he may forget to say it in like words and stuff, because, DUH!
1. the key separator is charisma. Sigmas might want to belong, but doesn't or can't deal with the hassle that comes with belonging. Thus they learn to not value belonging, or learn situational rank. Omegas, being lower charisma, face different types of hassle. They may learn to deal with the hassle, or not.
2. Love and belonging are different. A lot of organizational leadership "hassle" comes from coordination with multiple individuals. A dyadic relationship, as is the case with children and wife, by definition, has a lot less coordination. It is possible that the children are fairly independent, if that trait gets inherited. 2 people doing their own things in the same room, may be acceptable to the Sigma dad and his kid(s). In the unlikely case that the Sigma dad has a clingy Delta or Bravo son, he may pawn the kid off on a male relative when it gets to be too much. (Daughters, of course, will be different, as @RollTheStone relays below.)
It's not miserable at all, you have to remember that we don't like attachments and we don't, generally, like other people. Where others may need that sense of camaraderie, we don't. Let me put it this way, solitary confinement is not a torture for us; the confinement is annoying, but the solitary we're fine with and it's a preferable option compared to gen pop.