The Sigma-ficant flaw in Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy

Vox Day’s little socio-sexual hierarchy is not too terribly inaccurate in its portrayal of men.  It skews towards a decent breakdown of nerd guys, I am not sure how far it goes in utility for non-nerd, non-geek guys. But the flaw of his hierarchy is in considering the Sigma its own category.  In Vox Day’s hierarchy, the Sigma stands outside of it, but near the top.  But because he is a fish in water on this matter, he never noticed that Sigma is a quality of the other categories, not its own thing.  Sigma is simply the measure of how weird or unusual a guy is given his natural relative tendency to be in any of the other categories.

Donald Trump is a Sigma-Alpha, weird for an alpha.  Vox Day himself is a Sigma-Beta with some Omega traits.  A lot of nerds in general end up Sigma-Deltas, normal but with super weird hobbies.  There are Sigma-Gammas, a ready to hand example is the PUA or seduction artist.  There are even Sigma-Omegas, low end scary losers who are weird even for that group of men.  Milo Yiannopoulos is a Sigma-Lambda.

The link is in classic nerd fashion a little TL,DR about the categories, but simply put, they go like this:

  • Alpha: Super competitive, very conventional man with lots of success and charisma, generally able to pick and choose from fellow successful conventionally attractive and charismatic women.  Least likely to be “weird”.
  • Beta: Hospitable, affable, much less competitive than the Alphas, so more willing to be considered weird and paper it over with near-Alpha levels of success and charisma.  Usually prefers a conventional woman, but due to that affability totally able to navigate a sophisticated social scene with a weird wife or girlfriend if he feels she’s worth it. Weird themselves about 25% of the time.
  • Delta: The average guy.  Usually not very weird, can eventually find a girl, tends to be scared off by weirdness.  Weird maybe 5-10% of the time.
  • Gamma: A feminine man.  Attracted most to mannish women, followed by male-identified women.  Finds feminine women offputting, the more feminine, the more revolted the Gamma is.  Second least likely to be “weird” for their category.
  • Sigma: contrary to what Vox says, it’s just a tendency of the other categories.  Betas are actually very Sigma-ish compared to all the other groups because weird guys tend to make poor leaders of men but are themselves often loyal and trustworthy.  A lot of Sigmas are just weird Betas and most of what’s left is weird Deltas.
  • Lambda: men who prefer other men.  Weird for their group about as often as Deltas, which generally means a conservative bent or a modest interest in women for romance.

 

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Sigma-ficant flaw in Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy”

  1. Ha! A sigma-ficant flaw, well done. Actually his entire theory is complete rubbish. Most men are actually not flat, two dimensional creatures, they are a combination of many different archetypes. VD is not a sigma at all, he’s simply a common narcissist, immersed in his own gamma-tude.

    Like

  2. Semi-related, but now that basically the entire world is turning against RooshV, Vox is doubling down on support for him.

    I used to be an avid reader of Vox’s but I think he totally lost his way when he signed off on the whole “sexual-immorality-is-OK-for-men-only” movement. So that has been for quite some time now.

    What first got me tuned into him was 1.) his very lengthy and detailed excoriation of Michelle Malkin over her defense of imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII and 2.) his warnings to California Republicans not to be dazzled by Schwarzenegger for governor because, despite his rhetoric, he is not a principled conservative. Vox has since done a 180, clamoring for ethnic cleansing and enthusiastically endorsing The Donald.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I have a different theory —

    His system is actually far more systematic than it looks (and maybe even he realizes). You can arrange the types in a way that makes sense — kind of like MBTI, but smaller and with different qualities. The two qualities are introvert/extravert, then dominant/easygoing/insecure. So, if you arrange from, say, top to bottom along the dominant/submissive/insecure ‘gradient’ (or whatever you want to call it) you have alpha and sigma representing the dominant extravert-introvert pairing, betas and deltas as the submissive extravert-introvert pairing, and gamma-omega as the insecure extravert – introvert pairing.

    What I think you are seeing is the commonality of introversion in the sigmas, deltas, and omegas (which often looks like weirdness to others). Though I don’t really understand why you ascribe this to betas. I guess everybody’s a little weird, though…

    But that’s basically what I came up with. Maybe not right but that’s how I think about it.

    Like

  4. Jon and I were outlining the hierarchy and we found that Sigmas and Alphas are like two scales. More correctly: introverted potential leader and extroverted potential leader. The extrovert scale has Alphas, Betas, Deltas and Omegas (most Gammas). The introvert scale has Alphas (Sigmas), Betas (some Lambdas), Deltas (some Lambdas) and Omegas.

    The Alphas are the ones who can easily lead men and attract women. The Betas are the Alphas-to-be or the supporters. The Deltas are the everyday man. The Omegas are those beneath the respect of men and the desire of women. All four can be introverted or extroverted, but they are defined by their innate mannerisms, their abilities and the respect and desire they command… ie, they are defined by their POTENTIAL, not by its ACTUALIZATION.

    A brief explanation of Alphas and Sigmas as relationship prospects from that perspective:
    https://yourwifeisevolving.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/alpha-girls-sigma-girls/

    Like

Comments are closed.