The primary reason why gammas are easy to characterize as 'evil' is low status equates to 'undesirable.' And unsociable tendencies tend to exacerbate this correlation. Any man absent social clout and sexual desire is easy to be rebranded as 'evil' when he loses power, as many Alphas and Sigmas know. And fickle man is quick to discard and rebrand those who have served their purpose as 'evil.' All the more reason to not cave.
I imagine that Tolkien percipiently portrayed this through characters ranging from Boromir to the less likeable Gollum (but SMEAGOL loves hobbitses). Every one is subject to the demise of poorly wielded power but we are tempted differently because we have different parts to play.
It is difficult to read C.S. Lewis and his beautiful insights and think 'evil', especially knowing his friendship with Tolkien.
The beauty of good works is that the truth can outlive the self-delusions we are all capable of. If there is an immortality worth reaching for, perhaps creating something so objectively good and beautiful and true that posterity softens our faults is a decent aim.
Boromir is not a Gamma. He’s a natural Alpha who’s way out of his depth in the Fellowship. Remember that in his normal life he’s a charismatic warrior and leader.
The Gammas in LOTR are Gollum and Saruman. Even Sauron is in fact an evil Bravo, a former servant to Morgoth, the biggest gamma ever to gamma in all of Eä.
Gamma, like every other SSH status, has both good and bad results from his inherent and immutable characteristics. Good and bad depend on how these characteristics are used. Gammas are subject matter experts and extremely difficult to dissuade, even when there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. They are passionate about their beliefs to the point of foolhardiness. The walls of text, also a feature.
Using some examples that have been mentioned here at Sigma Game:
Paul - wrote about 70% of the New Testament (Walls of text?); shipwrecked 4 times, chased out of towns by various authorities, debated in the Agora and preached in the Areopagus, and continued his missionary journeys and preaching in spite of ill health and significant personal danger (unyielding and difficult; legalistic?; how many people would have questioned their life choices after the second shipwreck, or after hanging on for dear life for a day in the middle of the ocean?).
Augustine of Hippo: One of the Church fathers; quoted by Catholics and Protestants; prolific writer with City of God and Confessions as two of his more famous examples.
C.S. Lewis: An English Professor who converted in his thirties and became one of the foremost Christian apologists. He was asked by the BBC to give radio broadcasts about Christianity and faith. He was asked while other more obvious choices, e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury, any clergyman, or seminarian, was not considered as good a choice. He was a lay theologian, and his works are still cited and studied extensively.
All three of these men were gammas. All three used personal references to explain things. All three were prolific writers which allowed them to explain difficult subjects while maintaining the accuracy of the ideas. They were worried about being right.
If Alphas lead to direct the team and society, Sigmas offer course correction or a pivot to a new direction, Bravos make certain that the orders of leadership are followed and everyone is pointed in the same direction, and Deltas make sure that everything keeps running, the Gammas act to preserve the system or slow its decay. When focused in this fashion, they are effective and useful. It feels like, when a leader moves on, the Gammas are there to maintain the structure or standards that were previously established. They are detail-oriented and intractable, and they have to be directed and kept in their lane.
Paul's comfort with violence and courage in the face of persecution is why I think he is high rank, not low.
When Stephen was stoned, he was supervising. Alpha/Bravo in the Jewish community and Pharisaic hierarchy.
As a Pharisee he led a group to Damascus to persecute Christians. As a Christian he led multiple missions trips and planted churches. He had leadership chops and his life of social achievement demonstrated he was a man of action who was not afraid to exercise the power and authority he possessed.
Dealing with this exact issue right now. I posted an innocuous post about how evangelism often is best done by our life lived counter-culturally, so that it challenges people to think about the why behind the Christian faith. Turns out I have a gamma friend who gave me several walls of text… I tuned out after one reply stating my point.
He’s a doctor and Calvinist, so that’s a double whammy for me. Being the more shepherding type, this is my cross to bear. Good thing is, he believes and is somewhat aware of his tendencies. Bad thing is, he still really wants us to believe what he believes is best.🥴 Vox, maybe a post on handling gammas in a church setting..?
They tilt left for many of the same reasons women do - social harmony, enforcement of the civic religion, and so forth, along with the emotional rewards for doing so... or, perhaps more saliently, how the drawbacks for not doing so are more daunting for Bravos than other high-SSH men:
"The problem for the Right is that Bravo is a profile that will inevitably be very, very difficult to find given the massive headwinds that must be resisted by any individual who is willing and able to stand in opposition to the mainstream narrative."
"Know Thyself - Instead of "good" vs "evil", consider judging a gamma by "self-aware" vs "self-deceiving".
By all means, avoid or marginalize a self-deceiving gamma who refuses to take personal accountability. But a self-aware gamma can leverage their skills and minimize their SSH shortcomings via:
* avoid serving in an Alpha role, and instead
* develop a close relationship with an Alpha whereby you can quietly and above all privately provide your subject matter expertise, and not get butthurt when the Alpha ignores 90% of what you recommend
* avoid situations which would trigger a gamma meltdown, and instead
* practice skills like Cognitive Behavior Therapy to determine whether an emotional reaction is justified
* find a moral/ethical code, and associate with people you trust to beat you up when you deviate
And finally,
* shut up shut up shut up. Do not give advice unless explicitly asked. And even then, verify by asking "Are you sure you want me to tell you what I think you should do?"
Echoing @Aristides, @Dave, and @taignobias, I don't think lying is intrinsic to Gamma-tude. But rather, his will-to-power / hunger / dissatisfaction, low charisma, and lower empathy, are the defining traits of a Gamma. Perhaps laziness is another.
The self-deception is a pitfall of his other traits.
Their hunger for external recognition and validation speaks to an incomplete self-deception. Or does anyone think the need for acknowledgement is a defining trait?
Yes, the Gamma need for acknowledgement is defining. There's an angry little boy inside who didn't get the love and attention they felt they deserved.
Members of all SSH types have will-to-power / hunger / dissatisfaction issues Omegas and gammas have low charisma. And almost nobody is empathetic.
The core intrinsic problem facing a Gamma is that they are unhappy with how the world works, and more specifically with how they are not rewarded for their skills. Self-deception occurs when their analytic skills tell them that in order to thrive, *they* must change, and they refuse to do so.
Gammas lie because they self-deceive themselves into believing it is a winning strategy.
Bravos and Deltas like the prestige of their positions, but it does not drive them upward, the way it does to Alphas and Gammas. Bravos and Deltas in general are more loss-averse than Alphas and Gammas. [As measured against the ethnic average.]
The avaricious are well-represented across the SSH, probably same proportion as genpop. But that is different from social-climbing. A greedy person can be perfectly content with counting his coins in the dark, away from everyone else.
The contrast between the "good" and " evil" gamma is well presented in the movie: Sleeping with the enemy (1991) with Julia Roberts. Both gammas are high functioning in my opinion.
The SSH is a funny thing. The higher one's rank, the more useful as a yardstick, the taxonomy it's designed to be; the lower one's rank, the more useful as an examination of conscience.
The fact that CS Lewis was estimated to be a Gamma should answer that question. Also I can't believe I didn't realise before that the Greek letter for Gamma is an L.
I kinda thought by now that MCI would've corrected some of this Gamma = Evil heuristic. I can't say with certainty, but I'm sure I've met folks who're self-centered and neurotic that weren't also secretly supervillains. And anyone who's been to prison knows there's a hard negative spectrum for the upper-ranks.
Back in my DnD days, we used to have myriad discussions about how every job class and alignment type could be rendered the villain of a campaign if the circumstances were correct, so I immediately accepted Vox's explanation of how these types break down. Perhaps it'd be worth the effort to chart out, not just class examples from media, but examples that also cover the upper and lower ends?
This is also something we used to do a lot with DnD; Darth Vader = Lawful Evil = Evil Bravo?
Gamma, as I understand it, is a way of recognizing low-status thinking and behavior in a person.
I think we can all admit that every one of us has fallen into it at some point in life—I know I certainly have.
The real tension is not between Gamma, Delta or Alpha, but between the righteous and the wicked. A righteous Gamma and a wicked Alpha can both exist, and both can be true.
I would say rather that Gamma is the natural inclination towards those low status thoughts and behaviors. It seems almost impossible for them to overcome the curses that come with them, but those who do have been great service to the world.
Praise be to God, who makes us new in Christ and can make the rejected stone into the capstone.
You have very little say in how your parents treat you during the most important years in children's brain development.
If your parents modeled abusive or other anti-social behaviors, the fact that you're naturally inclined to mimic those behaviors due to brain chemistry is not a value statement. Whether you decide to leave those behaviors aside and follow the good, the beautiful and the true - or whether you decide to perpetuate those awful behaviors you were raised under because "self-improvement is too hard" - is a value statement and entirely up to you.
I'd guess the pertinent factor in the age-old nature Vs nurture debate is that when they align the subject has much greater difficulties resisting the subsequent inclinations.
No one comes into this world knowing all the rules.
The difference is how each responds to identical situations. Alpha and Sigma would quickly figure out the rules to continue success or to avoid repeating a failure. The Deltas wait to be told the rules. The Gammas resent being told the rules.
Everybody has had WTF just happened moments. It’s how one responds that makes the difference.
"...inherently 'evil'..."
What is it about the phrase "amoral taxonomy" that people don't understand?
🔥
Unreflective copy-pasted AI text is a new online hack commentary pattern.
Same level of mediocrity, but quicker and with more words.
*consider gamma to be inherently “evil”.*
It’s not a great start when the defining criteria of the piece are introduced in the equivalent of ironic air quotes. If this is good Gamma…
The primary reason why gammas are easy to characterize as 'evil' is low status equates to 'undesirable.' And unsociable tendencies tend to exacerbate this correlation. Any man absent social clout and sexual desire is easy to be rebranded as 'evil' when he loses power, as many Alphas and Sigmas know. And fickle man is quick to discard and rebrand those who have served their purpose as 'evil.' All the more reason to not cave.
I imagine that Tolkien percipiently portrayed this through characters ranging from Boromir to the less likeable Gollum (but SMEAGOL loves hobbitses). Every one is subject to the demise of poorly wielded power but we are tempted differently because we have different parts to play.
It is difficult to read C.S. Lewis and his beautiful insights and think 'evil', especially knowing his friendship with Tolkien.
The beauty of good works is that the truth can outlive the self-delusions we are all capable of. If there is an immortality worth reaching for, perhaps creating something so objectively good and beautiful and true that posterity softens our faults is a decent aim.
Boromir is not a Gamma. He’s a natural Alpha who’s way out of his depth in the Fellowship. Remember that in his normal life he’s a charismatic warrior and leader.
The Gammas in LOTR are Gollum and Saruman. Even Sauron is in fact an evil Bravo, a former servant to Morgoth, the biggest gamma ever to gamma in all of Eä.
Never said he was.
Gamma, like every other SSH status, has both good and bad results from his inherent and immutable characteristics. Good and bad depend on how these characteristics are used. Gammas are subject matter experts and extremely difficult to dissuade, even when there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. They are passionate about their beliefs to the point of foolhardiness. The walls of text, also a feature.
Using some examples that have been mentioned here at Sigma Game:
Paul - wrote about 70% of the New Testament (Walls of text?); shipwrecked 4 times, chased out of towns by various authorities, debated in the Agora and preached in the Areopagus, and continued his missionary journeys and preaching in spite of ill health and significant personal danger (unyielding and difficult; legalistic?; how many people would have questioned their life choices after the second shipwreck, or after hanging on for dear life for a day in the middle of the ocean?).
Augustine of Hippo: One of the Church fathers; quoted by Catholics and Protestants; prolific writer with City of God and Confessions as two of his more famous examples.
C.S. Lewis: An English Professor who converted in his thirties and became one of the foremost Christian apologists. He was asked by the BBC to give radio broadcasts about Christianity and faith. He was asked while other more obvious choices, e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury, any clergyman, or seminarian, was not considered as good a choice. He was a lay theologian, and his works are still cited and studied extensively.
All three of these men were gammas. All three used personal references to explain things. All three were prolific writers which allowed them to explain difficult subjects while maintaining the accuracy of the ideas. They were worried about being right.
If Alphas lead to direct the team and society, Sigmas offer course correction or a pivot to a new direction, Bravos make certain that the orders of leadership are followed and everyone is pointed in the same direction, and Deltas make sure that everything keeps running, the Gammas act to preserve the system or slow its decay. When focused in this fashion, they are effective and useful. It feels like, when a leader moves on, the Gammas are there to maintain the structure or standards that were previously established. They are detail-oriented and intractable, and they have to be directed and kept in their lane.
Are you really calling Paul a Gamma... He literally was the forerunner of killing Christians with a Sword as Saul a Jew before converting
Paul's comfort with violence and courage in the face of persecution is why I think he is high rank, not low.
When Stephen was stoned, he was supervising. Alpha/Bravo in the Jewish community and Pharisaic hierarchy.
As a Pharisee he led a group to Damascus to persecute Christians. As a Christian he led multiple missions trips and planted churches. He had leadership chops and his life of social achievement demonstrated he was a man of action who was not afraid to exercise the power and authority he possessed.
Yeye, he was high status of the highest kind, spitting that much fire and truth.
Dealing with this exact issue right now. I posted an innocuous post about how evangelism often is best done by our life lived counter-culturally, so that it challenges people to think about the why behind the Christian faith. Turns out I have a gamma friend who gave me several walls of text… I tuned out after one reply stating my point.
He’s a doctor and Calvinist, so that’s a double whammy for me. Being the more shepherding type, this is my cross to bear. Good thing is, he believes and is somewhat aware of his tendencies. Bad thing is, he still really wants us to believe what he believes is best.🥴 Vox, maybe a post on handling gammas in a church setting..?
It was the Bravos enforcing the vax and mask mandates at large companies.
They tilt left for many of the same reasons women do - social harmony, enforcement of the civic religion, and so forth, along with the emotional rewards for doing so... or, perhaps more saliently, how the drawbacks for not doing so are more daunting for Bravos than other high-SSH men:
"The problem for the Right is that Bravo is a profile that will inevitably be very, very difficult to find given the massive headwinds that must be resisted by any individual who is willing and able to stand in opposition to the mainstream narrative."
https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/a-dearth-of-bravos
"Know Thyself - Instead of "good" vs "evil", consider judging a gamma by "self-aware" vs "self-deceiving".
By all means, avoid or marginalize a self-deceiving gamma who refuses to take personal accountability. But a self-aware gamma can leverage their skills and minimize their SSH shortcomings via:
* avoid serving in an Alpha role, and instead
* develop a close relationship with an Alpha whereby you can quietly and above all privately provide your subject matter expertise, and not get butthurt when the Alpha ignores 90% of what you recommend
* avoid situations which would trigger a gamma meltdown, and instead
* practice skills like Cognitive Behavior Therapy to determine whether an emotional reaction is justified
* find a moral/ethical code, and associate with people you trust to beat you up when you deviate
And finally,
* shut up shut up shut up. Do not give advice unless explicitly asked. And even then, verify by asking "Are you sure you want me to tell you what I think you should do?"
Echoing @Aristides, @Dave, and @taignobias, I don't think lying is intrinsic to Gamma-tude. But rather, his will-to-power / hunger / dissatisfaction, low charisma, and lower empathy, are the defining traits of a Gamma. Perhaps laziness is another.
The self-deception is a pitfall of his other traits.
Their hunger for external recognition and validation speaks to an incomplete self-deception. Or does anyone think the need for acknowledgement is a defining trait?
Yes, the Gamma need for acknowledgement is defining. There's an angry little boy inside who didn't get the love and attention they felt they deserved.
Members of all SSH types have will-to-power / hunger / dissatisfaction issues Omegas and gammas have low charisma. And almost nobody is empathetic.
The core intrinsic problem facing a Gamma is that they are unhappy with how the world works, and more specifically with how they are not rewarded for their skills. Self-deception occurs when their analytic skills tell them that in order to thrive, *they* must change, and they refuse to do so.
Gammas lie because they self-deceive themselves into believing it is a winning strategy.
Bravos and Deltas like the prestige of their positions, but it does not drive them upward, the way it does to Alphas and Gammas. Bravos and Deltas in general are more loss-averse than Alphas and Gammas. [As measured against the ethnic average.]
The avaricious are well-represented across the SSH, probably same proportion as genpop. But that is different from social-climbing. A greedy person can be perfectly content with counting his coins in the dark, away from everyone else.
The contrast between the "good" and " evil" gamma is well presented in the movie: Sleeping with the enemy (1991) with Julia Roberts. Both gammas are high functioning in my opinion.
The SSH is a funny thing. The higher one's rank, the more useful as a yardstick, the taxonomy it's designed to be; the lower one's rank, the more useful as an examination of conscience.
The fact that CS Lewis was estimated to be a Gamma should answer that question. Also I can't believe I didn't realise before that the Greek letter for Gamma is an L.
Not only Lewis, though he makes a great example. Paul and Aquinas we also tend to interpret as Gammas.
Gammas seem to benefit greatly from humility before the Lord.
Hah, even better, an L turned upside down. You can't make this up.
I kinda thought by now that MCI would've corrected some of this Gamma = Evil heuristic. I can't say with certainty, but I'm sure I've met folks who're self-centered and neurotic that weren't also secretly supervillains. And anyone who's been to prison knows there's a hard negative spectrum for the upper-ranks.
Back in my DnD days, we used to have myriad discussions about how every job class and alignment type could be rendered the villain of a campaign if the circumstances were correct, so I immediately accepted Vox's explanation of how these types break down. Perhaps it'd be worth the effort to chart out, not just class examples from media, but examples that also cover the upper and lower ends?
This is also something we used to do a lot with DnD; Darth Vader = Lawful Evil = Evil Bravo?
Honestly, I'm way behind on the blog and less interested in MCI. If I am representative of a population, this post will be most helpful.
Bravo Vox, healthy way of framing it!
Gamma, as I understand it, is a way of recognizing low-status thinking and behavior in a person.
I think we can all admit that every one of us has fallen into it at some point in life—I know I certainly have.
The real tension is not between Gamma, Delta or Alpha, but between the righteous and the wicked. A righteous Gamma and a wicked Alpha can both exist, and both can be true.
I would say rather that Gamma is the natural inclination towards those low status thoughts and behaviors. It seems almost impossible for them to overcome the curses that come with them, but those who do have been great service to the world.
Praise be to God, who makes us new in Christ and can make the rejected stone into the capstone.
Amen brother
You have no say in who your parents are.
You have very little say in how your parents treat you during the most important years in children's brain development.
If your parents modeled abusive or other anti-social behaviors, the fact that you're naturally inclined to mimic those behaviors due to brain chemistry is not a value statement. Whether you decide to leave those behaviors aside and follow the good, the beautiful and the true - or whether you decide to perpetuate those awful behaviors you were raised under because "self-improvement is too hard" - is a value statement and entirely up to you.
I'd guess the pertinent factor in the age-old nature Vs nurture debate is that when they align the subject has much greater difficulties resisting the subsequent inclinations.
No one comes into this world knowing all the rules.
The difference is how each responds to identical situations. Alpha and Sigma would quickly figure out the rules to continue success or to avoid repeating a failure. The Deltas wait to be told the rules. The Gammas resent being told the rules.
Everybody has had WTF just happened moments. It’s how one responds that makes the difference.
Gammas are the ones who play the morality police and throw the moral descriptors left and right. We deem them obnoxious losers and call it a day.