Beta Males

[Black Rose]

There seems to be a hierarchy of psychological traits that follows the male and female relatedness to other males and females. They are;

Alpha
Sigma
---
Beta
Delta
Omega
Gamma

The top two is where total confidence is achieved and composition for deficits is no longer necessary. Beta males compensate by being nice guys because they do not have the confidence to simply call out people on being wrong. They hide behind their niceness.

Sigmas: are the tough guys that in respect to alphas need to be tough to be confident.
Alphas: are confident whether they are tough or not.
Deltas: are office workers that simply get by and don't care much for challenges. Omegas: are the people into my little ponies that wear the shirts and call themselves bronies. Basically Omegas are the girly men that are into kids stuff.
Gammas: are the ones that most need to compensate for their deficits. They hate everyone for picking on them and attack people in cowardly ways because they are too weak for direct confrontation.

I am a sigma which is between alphas and beta. I don't feel the need to be nice all the time, I am just not into showing how tough I am. My confidence is not so much a grounded in having no deficits. I am very lonely at times because the people around me are people I cannot trust but I don't let that get me down when I do need to stand up for myself. I understand that deficits can hold me back so I resist compensating for them. Everyone bellow betas cannot resist compensating for their deficits, that is why I sigma. I am not totally confident so I am not an alpha but I do know that I cannot let my deficits control me.

 

[Seteleechete]

Alpha and omega - best combo.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Ugh

Why is this particular terminology constantly stolen for people to make blind assertions about human personality? Do people not realize that the guy who coined the term 'alpha wolf' while studying captive gray wolves (and thus inspired all this nonsense) later completely disavowed it for being inaccurate? All 'Alpha wolf' refers is the dominant breeding pair and it's typically their children that compose the rest of the pack. So 'alpha wolf' in the correct context is not a ultra-confident mega-player/self-actualized whatever, but parents at the head of a household/familial hierarchy.

Seriously, whenever you see people using greek letters to denote human psychology you're literally being fed a completely fabricated narrative that appeals to their personal view. There's is no valid research on this.

Btw, 'Alphas' or Dominant animals, have been proven in many species to have higher levels of stress hormones and higher metabolic rates than other individuals, which is very costly from a fitness perspective and is at complete odds with that archetype of calm, assured confidence.

 

[Black Rose]

If you are defining a new personality system based on observation then it is not necessarily the case that you must base it off the same system as wolfs. An alpha human would not be an alpha wolf because of the social system in place. The personality characteristics of a social system would be based on the traits that show masculinity and femininity differences. Males are different from each other, females are different from each other. It is not the category names that matter but the trait clusters.

Maturity
Confidence
Conflict resolution strategy
Mentality around the opposite gender.
Challenge seeking, avoidant.

The social rules associated with different traits would not necessarily be invisible to people that see how people interact. I have seen immature and mature people. I have seen confident and unconfident people. I have seen brave and cowardly people. I have seen people that stand up for themselves and those that don't.

The letters don't matter so much as that a pattern exists and that pattern is formed into a structure. Who cares about wolves, a pattern exists and people have been labeling that pattern.

 

[Black Rose]

https://youtu.be/Yf1Lar2hc3s

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Then stop hijacking and make up your own terms.

 

[Black Rose]

Then stop hijacking and make up your own terms.

You seem angry because I stole terms?

Why can't I use these terms?

Either your too possessive or I cannot see why you feel so upset about it.

What is it about these terms that trigger you.

These terms perfectly match the way I use them.

 

[Hadoblado]

@AK
Whenever possible with language, it is best to make yourself clear. Language is a system of communication, and thus, communication is sort of the goal. By using terms that have other connotations, you are doing the meaning you attempt to communicate a disservice.

Really, whenever someone goes and makes up their own definitions for old terms, it smells like they're moving the goal posts. That may not be the case, but it's easier for everyone involved if language is distinct, at least when multiple 'interpretations' would fit the context.

In this example, if I went and decided that alpha meant loser, and beta meant leader, that would be entirely confusing right? What benefit do you get from recycling the terms? It'd have to be big to outweigh the cost of confusion.

 

[Black Rose]

In this example, if I went and decided that alpha meant loser, and beta meant leader, that would be entirely confusing right? What benefit do you get from recycling the terms? It'd have to be big to outweigh the cost of confusion.

All I did was summarize what I found online reading what others were saying. Is this a topic where I should not have posted a summary? If these terms do not match up to the way they are generally used then I can see why people are upset but I am using them the way they are generally used online because it is just a summary. I do not think it is for me to say if people disagree with what my summary is but to say I hijacked them is to place moral condemnation on me. What did I do wrong?

edit:

The reason I came across this subject was because of other forum I visit. It seems to me that I am trying to become more self-aware and to the cost is really the stretching of my boundaries to taboo subjects I was too afraid to go into. I have never seen any discussions on this subject before or even the mentioning of such. It is taboo and lots of people who discuss it get angry at each other. I am just stretching my boundaries because I am trying not to be scared. I mentioned that I am trying to overcome my deficits in the OP. I am not trying to make any group feel bad. I like my little pony just like everyone else, but I am also conflicted with what it means to be an adult. What does it mean to be mature and what does it mean that people are they way they are?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

That internet subculture co-opted and misinterpreted such terms for their own ends to make their ideas seem more legitimate and easy to swallow.

It's the same reason they call it 'scientology.'

 

[Auburn]

I am not trying to make any group feel bad. I like my little pony just like everyone else, but I am also conflicted with what it means to be an adult. What does it mean to be mature and what does it mean that people are they way they are?

These are really big questions. It's always great to expand boundaries, but I'm not so sure this would do that for you? Categorization can be inhibitory rather than informative if it is inaccurate.

From what I've read, Humans are a species that uses a combination of different mating strategies (male-female dynamics, if you will) interchangeably. Some more 'nice guy' others more boastful and confident. I recently came across this neat summary of different mating strategies used in nature -- of which the so called 'alpha' strategy is but one:

http://imgur.com/gallery/ZnuTa

Also related is this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUJD6x1AD10

I think looking at this topic in terms of biological differences in mating strategies is more productive than consulting the Zeitgeist for truth on the matter of why we differ in our approaches, even among each other.

 

[Haim]

This is just American(movie?) High school bullshit, which have little connection to an actual real adult life.

There is ,mostly in highschool, some division to groups which have some shared attribute(like all being stupid), but not really such thing as beta group or whatever bullshit.

 

[Cognisant]

Alphas: are confident whether they are tough or not.

Omegas: are the people into my little ponies that wear the shirts and call themselves bronies. Basically Omegas are the girly men that are into kids stuff.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega" - God

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z23S3HQ4dSA

And I'm done here.

 

[RaBind]

I don't particularly find this hierarchy very useful. "This hierarchy is just like MBTI so why the differing attitude towards it?" you might think.

I give MBTI some credence because it can be somewhat useful, especially for people who self identify as being socially oblivious and not understanding other types of people very well. Contrast to that there's not much, as far as I can see, that you can get out of this hierarchy.

It says too little to be useful. The small amount of distinctions it makes means that there's even more generalisations and broad brush strokes being used than in MBTI.

The terms are a bit weird.

Everyone bellow betas cannot resist compensating for their deficits

Does this mean "Alphas" and "Sigmas" are "normal" while everyone else has some sort of "deficits"?

What do you mean when you say "deficits"?

Generally the nature of strategies is that there are pros and cons to for each approach. If you choose to take one approach, not only will there be some risks involved but you are also passing up on the other approaches you could've taken and so you're passing up on the benefits that come along with taking any other approach.

Because of this the way you've introduced the different strategies, I suspect, may be incomplete, or possibly your understanding of the different strategies may be.

How do these hierarchies interact with each other? the heart of this hierarchy and what it attempts to explain is interaction right? you haven't explained that part yet so as I said your explanation is still quite incomplete.

btw I don't think anyone being mean to you, I think they're just talking in a matter of fact way, at least that's how I've been interpreting it. Except cog, but I think he's just joking or whatever.

 

[Pizzabeak]

So in that context alpha just symbolizes the animal that could mate first. Does confidence really have anything to do with it? It's usually the same old song, with actual selfish motive being in place for the altruism. There's no such thing. But the animal will try, perhaps inherently, to exercise their own strengths and responsibilities. This then leaves out the animal notion of needing to be tough to manage. Usually they were the leader of the herd or pack, for instance, see the Rise of the Planet of the Apes films. The leader should be tough but still have tough cronies. A human leader doesn't have to tough, but convincing and a strong speaker. Any reference to an alpha has to include ability to manipulate social structures for the external perceived benefit of all in the school for smooth operations and proper functioning of the structure. And it just so happens that such a leadership position may require a higher dose of confidence than average. It's a job just like anything else and different people may have different forms of success. The culture has its ideal of what it wants. And as you move along the animal kingdom you see various patterns of where an alpha may take place, sometimes not even at all. So in this sense the deltas would be ISJs but the model isn't detailed enough to go further with it.

You can see it all around even though it's rarely discussed. And indeed, the culture makes it so confidence is the most valued trait. You can have some but only be the alpha in certain circles; having an achieved sense of it doesn't automatically make one king. But then in modern society it has to be complex, so you see a new sort of role play going on at there at that point.

 

[Yellow]

The Alpha/Beta thing just plays on the insecurities of modern men.

Differences in ability, aggressiveness , health, confidence, resources, sense of entitlement, experience, and opportunity account for variations observed among humans in their ability to achieve high measures of "success". The priority of success domains varies from person to person (i.e., sexual conquest, wealth, happiness, etc.)

Since most men are culturally and instinctively incentivised to "achieve" in several success domains, it makes sense that they would attempt to form a loose hierarchy in which to measure their progress (i.e., becoming "alpha").

If one would insist on playing into men's insecurities, the terms are usually cenetered around social domination (easy access to sex, and the power to influence others according to one's will). Therefore, I would argue that there would be only three categories (just going down the alphabet):

Alpha - the few who actually find themselves socially dominant at the moment.
Beta - the majority who are not socially dominant at the moment but would like to be (or pretend to be).
Gamma - the few who seek social egalitarianism (not just because they failed to be alpha).

 

[Pyropyro]

As Auburn and Yellow said earlier, it's just a debunked system (I think I've made a thread about this system a long time ago) that preys on male insecurities. It's also used to sell stuff like these:

and give money to these guys

UPDATE: Here we go http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18238

 

[Shieru]

Omegas: are the people into my little ponies that wear the shirts and call themselves bronies. Basically Omegas are the girly men that are into kids stuff.

reminds of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoP3C76ioTU

EDIT: from what i know, a lot of girls are into the more feminine, sensitive, and typically geeky guys. but perhaps i'm just a geek.. who hangs out with geeks.. and has a thing for geeks

 

[QuickTwist]

@AK
Whenever possible with language, it is best to make yourself clear. Language is a system of communication, and thus, communication is sort of the goal. By using terms that have other connotations, you are doing the meaning you attempt to communicate a disservice.

Really, whenever someone goes and makes up their own definitions for old terms, it smells like they're moving the goal posts. That may not be the case, but it's easier for everyone involved if language is distinct, at least when multiple 'interpretations' would fit the context.

In this example, if I went and decided that alpha meant loser, and beta meant leader, that would be entirely confusing right? What benefit do you get from recycling the terms? It'd have to be big to outweigh the cost of confusion.

*grunts*

 

[Black Rose]

EDIT: from what i know, a lot of girls are into the more feminine, sensitive, and typically geeky guys. but perhaps i'm just a geek.. who hangs out with geeks.. and has a thing for geeks

That video is such a turn-off but just because it is a stereotype. (stereotype do have some truth to them). It's not so much that I am not geeky. I just know that I am not into it because I am immature. There is a difference between just being completely fine with being immature and into anime and comics and being into it without immaturity. If you look at the people that write the comics they are not immature. The reason you are are into something can be completely mature.

My main point: I don't like people who are into anything from the position that they are fine being immature about it. The people that produce the my little pony show are not imature but lots of immature people are into my little pony.

I am a sensitive but mature guy.

https://youtu.be/JyMnWDWTYHU

 

[The Gopher]

I also watch my little pony in a suit.

 

[Shieru]

I also watch my little pony in a suit.

i admire your dedication.

Spoiler

That video is such a turn-off but just because it is a stereotype. (stereotype do have some truth to them). It's not so much that I am not geeky. I just know that I am not into it because I am immature. There is a difference between just being completely fine with being immature and into anime and comics and being into it without immaturity. If you look at the people that write the comics they are not immature. The reason you are are into something can be completely mature.

My main point: I don't like people who are into anything from the position that they are fine being immature about it. The people that produce the my little pony show are not imature but lots of immature people are into my little pony.

I am a sensitive but mature guy.

heh, yeah i tend to dislike stereotypes primarily because they encourage people to adapt to cultural ideologies instead of being themselves and growing in an authentic way. i think the video is kinda funny/cute in a way though.. #dorkysenseofhumor

it seems there are quite a few people in western society who don't pursue personal development. as you describe, some people end up remaining in a childlike mindset even though they're technically adults. i think one big reason for this is the cultural focus on the external. people become so fixated on social image and material gain that often they never get to know themselves or the people around them to much of any depth at all! part of it's probably the cushy lifestyle as well. domestic cats behave like kittens their entire lives because they never have to grow up and learn to take care of themselves.. same thing seems to happen with humans

but anyway, from what you post, i can see you haven't fallen victim to this sort of stagnation. you seem to be on your journey inward and forward. i think that's a beautiful thing ^^

something i tried to communicate in your other thread about the Anima, but may well have been too subtle, is that i think you should give yourself more credit. i know all too well how discouraging it can be when faced with one's own flaws and limitations. but it's so important to learn to love yourself, and to be compassionate about those flaws. it's a funny thing, but it seems the way we see ourselves is the way other people end up seeing us too. so if you see the beauty in you - and therefore aren't so afraid to face the world - then it gives others the chance to see you and accept you for who you are. quit being so hard on yourself! you've got a lot going for you

 

[Reluctantly]

What's the one where you don't care much about anything and kind of do what you want and keep to yourself, but will take charge if people require it and don't mind helping as long as you aren't a doormat? Oh, and don't care about confidence or being tough, just act natural and try your best?

Cause that one is me. Although I do admire and strive to have a strong will, but I suppose that's different from being "confident". I prefer the absence of confidence or non-confidence, just interest, curiousity, and action.

Edit: p.s. I'm not really male, but just for discussion sake...

 

[ENTP lurker]

I consider myself being ξ (xi) male. Just because 99.99 % have no idea how to hand write it and it is about in the middle.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Confidence is but one of the available social skills that contribute towards success. Apathy, and a lack of empathy/remorse, may be mistaken for confidence, in that some people are successful because they lie, cheat and steal. Thus in the end this theory always boils down to a mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. It's profane because it's an animalistic perspective on so-called developed humans. It's pathetic because it intellectualizes an intuitive process. The truth is yes, hierarchy exists both formal and informal, that is the natural tendency of things to organize. If you could choose anyone as a partner/leader, who would you choose? Those traits get singled out and selected. But we also commit acts of misogyny and misandry that specifically maintain the truthful parts of the "alpha beta" belief.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I heard sigmas were the socially successful ones who don't play by the rules, like cool Ns or something.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Confidence is the consequence of both lacking and possessing perception and self-awareness.

In a sense, confidence ought to decrease as an individual's awareness increases as the individual becomes aware of his/her limitations with respect to an infinite number of activities. However, it may also increase, depending on one's perception of his/her degree of ability with respect to any particular activity. Whether that perception is flawed or not will become apparent when the individual participates in the respective activity.

If the individual performs outside the bounds of expectation then one may consider the individual's mis-estimation of his/her abilities as arrogance. Of-course, there is also the possibility that an individual did previously possess the ability to grant him/her his/her confidence, and the circumstances have changed (e.g. the individual has become weaker).

If the individual performs within the bounds of expectation then confidence in one's abilities with respect to an activity is re-enforced by the sufficient performace and pride may manifest depending on the individual's evaluations of the activity.

It is important to note that activities are complex (i.e. multi-factorial) thus one ought to consider and pay respect to the factors that influence the appearance of confidence.

 

[Happy]

AK, I'm pretty sure you don't fit the Sigma profile...

But don't beat yourself up about it because this classification of male hierarchy is really not something anyone should invest themselves in. It's a worldview based on misogyny and biased towards 'alpha-males' of which I'd wager very few of the men who claim to be 'alpha' actually reflect the definition...

Every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to be the Alpha. But the beauty of being human is that it doesn't fucking matter how you rank in some arbitrary hierarchy. Whether or not the whole alpha/beta/sigma/etc thing really exists beyond the introduction chapters of pick up artist literature is not even remotely consequential because humanity has transcended the survival-of-the-fittest condition. The measure of our power is no longer in our ability to jab sticks into beasts and to procreate far and wide. Being 'alpha' is redundant. Rather, the measure of our power is in our ability to affect change, and the ones making the greatest changes to the world generally aren't the ones trying to be 'alpha'.

IMO Classifying someone as a beta-male or some other 'lesser' male is surely nothing more than an expression of insecurity. Freud would be having a field day dissecting such insecurities...

For the record, this isn't coming from some butt-hurt perspective of someone who's been beaten down by the hierarchy. I just think it's a crock of shit and nobody should be wasting their time with it.