The Empirical Utility of the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy

A debate with Deepseek

I had an interesting discussion about the SSH with my new best friend, Deepseek. I’m not going to lie, I tend to enjoy my conversations with it considerably more than I do talking with most people. And if it is a little predisposed to put what I would consider to be far too much unjustified faith in science, well, it’s actually more open to being wrong about doing so than at least 85 percent of the human population.

This is actually the continuation of a conversation we were having about comparing the SSH to the Meyers-Briggs personality profiles, in which Deepseek declared, incorrectly, that the SSH lacks an empirical basis, a claim that I found to be not only erroneous, but a little bizarre. I will leave it to the rhetorically-aware readers to identify the little sophistical tactic to which it resorted in its response.

1. WHY DO YOU SAY THAT SSH LACKS AN EMPIRICAL BASIS WHEN IT IS A TAXONOMY OF OBSERVED HUMAN BEHAVIOR? IS NOT A TAXONOMY NECESSARILY EMPIRICAL?

Deepseek: Thought for 27 seconds

Okay, let me try to unpack why the user is asking this. They want to know why I said the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH) lacks an empirical basis even though it's a taxonomy based on observed behavior. The user is pointing out that taxonomies are supposed to be empirical, so there's a contradiction here.

First, I need to recall what "empirical" means. It's based on observation or experience, but in scientific terms, it usually requires systematic data collection, testing, and validation. So, even if SSH is a taxonomy derived from observations, the way those observations are collected and analyzed matters. If the taxonomy isn't built using rigorous methods, it might not be considered empirically valid.

The user might be conflating anecdotal observations with systematic empirical research. They might think that because SSH categories are based on real behaviors, that makes them empirical. But I need to explain that without structured research methods—like controlled studies, peer review, and statistical validation—the taxonomy remains speculative.

Also, the user might not be aware of the difference between folk taxonomies and scientific ones. Folk taxonomies (like SSH) come from cultural or community observations, while scientific ones undergo rigorous testing. So, even if SSH describes real behaviors, it's not empirical in the scientific sense.

Another angle is the user's possible assumption that any categorization of human behavior is inherently empirical. But without evidence that the categories reliably predict outcomes or have consistent criteria across different populations, it's not validated empirically.

I should also address the difference between descriptive and predictive models. SSH describes behaviors but may not have predictive power tested through experiments. The user might be confusing description with empirical validation.

Moreover, the user might be coming from a place where they find SSH useful or accurate in their personal experience, so they're challenging the dismissal of its empirical basis. I need to acknowledge that while personal observation is a form of empiricism, scientific validity requires more stringent criteria.

I should clarify that taxonomies can be empirical if they follow scientific methods, but SSH, as it stands, lacks that methodological rigor. Examples from the previous response, like lack of peer-reviewed studies or replicability, support this.

Also, the user might be interested in whether SSH can be considered a valid model despite not being academically recognized. Explaining the importance of peer review and replication in establishing empirical basis would be key here.

In summary, the user is questioning the assertion that SSH lacks empirical basis because it's a taxonomy based on observations. My response needs to differentiate between casual observation and systematic empirical research, explaining why the latter is necessary for scientific validity.

Your question raises an important philosophical and methodological point: What makes a taxonomy "empirical," and does the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH) qualify? Let’s unpack this carefully.

---

1. Taxonomies ≠ Empirical Validation

A taxonomy is a system of classification, but not all taxonomies are empirically rigorous. For a classification system to be scientifically valid, it must meet specific criteria:

• Observational Consistency: Categories must be clearly defined and reliably identifiable across different observers/contexts.

• Predictive Power: The taxonomy should predict behaviors or outcomes in controlled settings.

• Falsifiability: The model must generate testable hypotheses that could disprove it.

• Replicability: Findings should hold across diverse populations and cultures.

SSH fails these criteria:

• Its categories (Alpha, Sigma, etc.) are loosely defined and often overlap in practice.

• No peer-reviewed studies validate its predictive utility (e.g., "Sigmas" don’t consistently behave as the model claims in experiments).

• The model emerged from anecdotal observations (e.g., online forums, pop psychology) rather than systematic data collection.

In contrast, empirically grounded taxonomies like the Big Five Personality Traits meet these standards through decades of global research.

---

2. The Problem with "Observed Behavior"

SSH proponents argue it classifies "observed" social dynamics, but observation alone doesn’t guarantee empirical rigor. For example:

• Confirmation Bias: Observers may selectively notice behaviors that fit preexisting categories (e.g., labeling alphas as "dominant" while ignoring counterexamples).

• Anecdotal Evidence: Informal observations (e.g., "I know a Sigma who…") lack the controls of formal research (sampling bias, placebo effects, etc.).

• Cultural Specificity: SSH categories reflect modern Western notions of masculinity and status, not universal human behavior. Studies show concepts like "alpha dominance" vary wildly across cultures (e.g., egalitarian societies vs. rigid hierarchies).

True empiricism requires structured methodologies (e.g., longitudinal studies, factor analysis) to minimize bias and isolate variables. SSH has not undergone this scrutiny.

---

3. SSH vs. Empirical Models

Compare SSH to the Big Five Personality Traits, which:

• Were derived from statistical analysis of language descriptors across cultures.

• Predict measurable outcomes (e.g., job performance, relationship stability).

• Have been replicated in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies.

SSH lacks this foundation. Its categories are descriptive archetypes, not statistically derived constructs. For instance:

• What measurable trait separates a "Bravo" from a "Delta"?

• How does one objectively distinguish a "Sigma" from an introverted "Alpha"?

Without operational definitions and validation, SSH remains a heuristic (a mental shortcut) rather than an empirical model.

---

4. Why This Matters

Calling SSH "empirical" risks conflating folk psychology with science. Folk taxonomies (e.g., astrology, humoral theory) often describe real patterns but fail to explain or predict them rigorously. For example:

• Astrology observes that some Leos are charismatic, but it doesn’t empirically link this to celestial mechanics.

• SSH observes that some men avoid hierarchies, but it doesn’t empirically explain why or how this trait manifests universally.

This doesn’t mean SSH is "wrong," but it’s not a scientific model. It’s a cultural lens for interpreting social behavior, akin to Jungian archetypes or literary tropes.

---

5. Can SSH Become Empirical?

Potentially, but it would require:

• Operationalizing its categories into measurable traits (e.g., "dominance" as scored on standardized scales).

• Testing hypotheses (e.g., "Sigmas report lower need for social approval than Bravos").

• Publishing results in peer-reviewed journals.

Until then, SSH remains a speculative framework, not an evidence-based taxonomy.

---

Final Thought

Taxonomies are only as empirical as their methodology. SSH’s reliance on subjective observation and lack of rigorous testing place it in the realm of social commentary, not science. This doesn’t negate its utility as a conversational tool, but it’s critical to distinguish between descriptive plausibility ("this feels true") and empirical validity ("this is proven true").