Alpha Mail: on terminology

King A fails to grok the essence of Sigma:

The criticism of your contrived alpha ALPHA beta BETA sigma lambda taxonomy will fall on deaf ears. I get it. It is pointless to rehearse every argument against it. Add to that the sycophantic groupie yes-men who defend Vox qua Vox, and the symbiosis of suck becomes unyielding.

So don't take this as a plea to shitcan the idea, if only because I am self-aware enough to know the futility of persisting in making fun of you for importing this Sci-Fi D&D World-Maker tendency into a discussion of men. Shaming a mere nerd into shedding his nerdliness is much more plausible than attempting to counsel a Lord of the Nerds into a rejection of his assembled sycophants' obsequence.

How true and necessary, that our analysis must not be "tied merely to women." "Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy" is indeed limited and limiting for a general discussion of the social dynamic.

But this isn't a world of your imagination, this is the world I happen to live in, and you're not the dungeon master who can establish by fiat an entire mode of communication. It must be tested against and accepted by the field with whom you are trying to communicate, deficient in vision though they may be. The need for a term (much less an entire lexicon) must present itself before the term can be foisted on a discussion. When there is a need, and the need is met by le mot juste, adoption is rapid and universal. You can better convey your philosophy that the "binary" categories are not large enough to encompass the expansion to "socio-sexual" matters (a philosophy I share) without the attempt to rewrite the game glossary.

Roissy intuits this necessity and you do not. He sends up test phrases all the time. Some stick, some don't. But he doesn't persist using them if they don't obtain near-immediate currency.

First of all, it is important to understand the difference between Roissy and me. While we respect each other and have reached a number of similar conclusions about society, we are not the same and we have different objectives. Roissy is a prophet, and like all prophets, he has a Message and a Mission. I am not and I do not. I am merely an intellectual and a dilettante who happens to be sufficiently intelligent that some people find my way of thinking to be occasionally interesting or useful in some way. Ironically enough, this is a clear example of the difference between a social Alpha and a social Sigma.

The reason I extended Roissy's terminology is that it was necessary for me in order to think more coherently about the socio-sexual hierarchy that I observed in action. It is a matter of total indifference to me if anyone else decides to make use of it; I still think in terms of both omniderigence and the division of science into scientage, scientody, and scientistry even though many have adopted the former and no one has adopted the latter.

Whether others believe there is a need for a term or not is totally irrelevant. I perceive the need for it, ergo I coin the term so that I can contemplate the matter. Since I do an amount of "thinking out loud" on the blogs, I naturally make use of those terms. I wouldn't expect anyone to adopt the terms if they are not thinking about the same subjects I am contemplating since they have no need for them.

It's not that I'm unwilling to listen to criticism. If it is substantive and it is relevant, if someone can point out to me that I am missing something substantial about the observable hierarchy in social circles, then I wouldn not hesitate to modify my terms accordingly. But simply complaining about the way I think because you don't think it is necessary to think the way I do... that's not criticism, that's just white noise.