Alpha Mail: Stalking the Sigma

Anais wonders where to find these rare and difficult, yet highly attractive beasts:

I don't see a way to email you here, so I will venture to ask my question about Sigmas... I'm obsessed with them. I'm an attractive young woman (not attractive enough to marry a Very Alpha alpha, but I think it's reasonable to shoot for a lower alpha/higher beta if we're talking about the "normal" hierarchy) who swoons primarily for Sigmas. I love reading this blog because it helped me put a name to the kind of men I have always fallen madly in love with. I'm an introvert myself. I get plenty of attention on dating sites, out in the world, etc . . . but Sigmas don't seem to congregate on Match.com or often show up at a random party. I have never been into hook-ups or casual relationships, and my only long-term relationships have been Sigmas met in totally unlikely ways.

Maybe this is a hopeless question, as the only place I have ever encountered significant concentrations of Sigmas was at the quirky college I attended- but where is a good place to meet them? I live in a big East Coast city (not NYC). When I encounter them in the wild, they usually really like me.

The fact that Sigmas are relatively rare does not mean they are impossible to find. They are not unicorns. On the other hand, they are less easily spotted than Alphas, who thrive upon being the center of attention, and they aren't necessarily going to come to your attention in a pack of loud, rambunctious men out having a good time.

But there are a few tricks that may prove useful in identifying them in the wild.

1. Look for the guy who is out in the group, is an obvious part of it, but keeps breaking away from it, especially to pursue women. Sigmas are solitary hunters. They don't need the emotional support from their friends to pursue women, and tend to think that their friends only get in the way.  If you see a group of guys, and one of them seems to periodically vanish and return, he could be their Sigma.
2. Pay particular attention to the guy who locks eyes with you, disappears for a while, then later appears unexpectedly at your side or behind you. Sigmas like to take people off-guard.  The guy who smiles and approaches you directly probably isn't a Sigma.  He is more likely the guy who initially makes you feel slightly alarmed and WTF was THAT?
3. If a man seems to be intentionally trying to turn you off or irritate you, he may be a Sigma.  Sigmas relentlessly test and qualify women in order to categorize them.  Of course, he could simply be a jerk. Or a social incompetent. 
4. Does he cut you away from the crowd? Sigmas aren't herd animals and will always prefer a quiet conversation of two to group banter.  If you're looking for a Sigma and you sense the man with whom you're talking is separating you from everyone else, you may be in luck.  Or he may just be a serial killer.
5. Do others look to him for leadership? And does he provide it or does he shy away from it?  If the latter, you may have struck sigmatic gold.
6. Does he make you feel that if you don't take your pants off, he might just go ahead and do it himself without bothering to ask you?  And do you find it worrisome that somehow, that doesn't seem to upset you the way you know it is supposed to? You may have found the type of introvert you seek.
7. Does he engage you in conversation/flirt with you/have sex with you without even asking your name? Probably Sigma.

If you're seeking a man who isn't a part of the social hierarchy, then keep an eye out for those who ignore its rules, demonstrate contempt for it, and appear to be playing an entirely different game.  If you're at a party, look at see who is off by themselves in a dark corner. You should be able to identify them readily enough.

Those who are glaring at people, nursing drinks, and mumbling to themselves are the Gammas. The one who is simply watching with a slightly arrogant smile on his face is the Sigma.

Alpha Mail: is sigma the alpha of gamma?

The League of Bald-headed Men posits an interesting theory in light of the discussion of Thrift Shop Game:

An interesting ditty. It shows that the hipster irony culture has filtered down to the proles, wiggers and normals. 'I could take some Pro Wings, make them cool, sell those."

This hipster irony culture is pure gamma, it's the acme of gamma. "You made fun of me for being a geek, and now I'll make geekdom cool."  This goes hand in hand with my theory that "sigma is the alpha of gamma", ie that sigma is what happens when gammas enact their will to power. 

I, on the other hand, have tended to be of the opinion that sigma is what happens when OMEGAS successfully enact their will to power or otherwise transform themselves into sexual dominance.  Let's consider the evidence for the One Man Riot's theory, pro and con:

PRO:

• Sigmas often appear to have intellectual interests more in common with the average gamma than those of the average alpha.
• The gamma-sigma antipathy appears, in some circumstances, to be even greater than the gamma-alpha version. A product of similar traits clashing?
• Neither sigmas nor gammas tend to be socially dominant.
• Both sigmas and gammas often appear to be vengeful.

CON:

• Gammas are extremely concerned with hierarchy.  Sigmas and Omegas are not.
• Hipster irony culture is pure gamma, but it is extremely fashion-conscious and therefore hierarchical. While it may be the acme of gamma, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with sigma.
• Gammas are bitter, jealous, approval-seeking, and rule-abiding. Sigmas are contemptuous, disdainful, and rule-breaking.
• Gammas find conflict painful and tend to avoid it. Sigmas find conflict enjoyable and tend to thrive on it.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of applicable observations; feel free to add more, either pro or con, in the comments.  In summary, while I don't think the League's theory is absurd, I don't think it holds up when considered in sufficient detail. And I can't honestly think of a single sigma of my acquaintance that I would have considered to have been a gamma in the past.

Speaking only of my own experience, I can say that one thing that separated me even as a pre-adolescent proto-sigma from the omegas and gammas alike was my supreme confidence in my intellect and in my athletic abilities.  The refusal of my age peers to value the former and the inability of my coaches to understand and utilize the latter never caused me to doubt either for even a millesecond.

So perhaps that imbalance may be a key to understanding why a sigma develops such indifference towards the hierarchy.  He is aware that he is objectively superior in one regard or another but also knows that the hierarchy is incapable of recognizing that superiority or valuing it fairly.  It also would explain the apparent similarity between the sigma and the gamma that The League has observed, the important difference being that the gamma's belief in his proper social rank is subjective and intrinsically delusional.

Delta is not failure

I suppose it's inevitable, but one of the things that I find irritating is the way that men who learn about Game in general, and the socio-sexual hierarchy in particular, immediately going about attempting to rationalize a way that they can assign the highest perceived value to themselves. First everyone's an alpha. Then everyone's a sigma. I have no doubt if some new Game blogger concocted a brilliant new system in which Oompa Loompa was the top category, we'd be seeing all sorts of men fall all over themselves to describe themselves as Oompa Loompas.

Now, this doesn't bother me because I'm determined to put myself forward as a special snowflake and nobody else gets to be a sigma. Sigma, as I've pointed out before, is a less dominant and lower form of ALPHA. So, I'm doing precisely the opposite of what the Oompa Loompas are doing. The reason it bothers me is because it is self-sabotaging behavior every bit as counterproductive as going out and asking your girlfriend's mother how you should treat your girlfriend.

If you're in the position of S, an introvert who hates social interactions and wants to know how to approach women, thinking yourself a sigma is arguably the very worst thing you can do because it allows you to pretend that your failed strategy is the correct one. The sigma can afford to stay in and blow off the world because the hot girl will show up at his door, unannounced and uninvited. You can't and therefore because that's not your socio-sexual rank, you need to comport yourself differently and adopt different tactics.

Men who are socially or sexually dominant, (or better yet, both), can regularly get away with things that deltas can't ever imagine doing. For example, when one of my best friends made junior partner at his law firm, the firm threw him a cocktail party to celebrate. My band was playing downtown later that night and I didn't want to cart around a change of clothes, so I showed up in the ripped jeans and t-shirt I was planning on wearing on stage. In addition to being the only man there not in a suit and tie, I was sporting the only mohawk. My friend introduced me to everyone, most of whom were perfectly pleasant, but when the attractive secretary half-rolled her eyes at my appearance, I took the opportunity to tell her, as we were shaking hands, that I wasn't wearing any underwear.

I said it loud enough for everyone in the vicinity to hear it too. Everyone except her howled with laughter, including my friend's father, who was a top executive at one of Minnesota's Fortune 500 companies. Those who understand game won't be surprised to hear that the next time I showed up at the law firm a few weeks later, still very much underdressed, she was as deferential as if I was a corporate executive wearing an expensive Italian suit. She got the message from their reaction: the normal rules don't apply to this guy.

Does this mean you should start going commando, dressing inappropriately, and ignoring the rules of social etiquette? Not at all. What worked well at one particular time for one specific individual in a certain group of people probably won't work if any of those variables are different. What it means is that you have to know yourself and know how you are comfortable behaving before you can start to stretch yourself and expand your behavioral patterns.

Game is very effective. But you can't expect to use it and successfully imitate the behavioral patterns of higher ranking men if you place most of your effort into rationally justify your existing ones. Delta is not failure. Even omega is not failure. They are starting points.

Alpha Mail: Sigma spotting

Nate spots the shy and retiring sigma in the wild:

So I spent last week on cruise ship... hokey I know... but hey... the food was awesome and well... SEC spring break girls. Nuff Said. Anyway... during all the fun I came across something a true rarity. I ran into what I conclude is a true sigma in the wild.

Now I know that per game theory I am supposed to have some problem with Sigmas. Of course... I believe Game Theory is still in its infancy... and like so many other assumptions that one is wrong. I am not the least bit concerned about another guy getting a hot chick. God bless him. He's not a threat to me. Regardless... on with the story.

So there are bars all over the ship... and I have found a favorite. Its a bluesy type piano bar with a rowdy piano player that makes elementary school jokes at cute buzzed college girls. It was beautiful. I have 4 bama girls to my left... and to my immediate right are 4 UK girls... two of which can't decide who they want to make out with more... me.. or each other. Two bama girls are solid 9s... two are 8s. One of the UK girls is a 10 sent from Hell itself... two 9s and a 7. There was one other notable girl in the bar... a ginger 10 ... there with her sister...

Wait... what was I talking about? Sorry... the Sigma. Right.

So in walks this like... 350 pound... 6'1" lard ass. Pale as a ghost... introverted as all hell. He sits at the very end of the bar... and is quiet the whole time. He participates in the name that tune contest and such... but only in the most insignificant manner. My initial impression was... omega. Hard core omega... only here on a dare... He seemed shy... down right scared... I felt sorry for the guy.

Because he was so big... he was easy to spot on the ship. I ran into him several times and I remembered his name so I would always make a point to go see him and say hi. He remembered me... and every time met me with a smile and seemed to enjoy talking about the bar and the girls there. He was not what I expected... so I suppose this was the first hint I had that I was trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Delta maybe?

So then... the third night of the trip... again I am in the piano bar... this time listening to the Bama girls complain about how slutty the UK girls are for making out with each other in public. (The bama girls only did that back in their cabin. cell phone cameras and facebook... you know...) when in walks the big man. And low and behold... he has with him the blonde 9 dressed like a stripper that nobody has ever seen before. And she is clearly.. with him.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

The Bama girls were mystified and the UK girls seemed genuinely offended.

They hang out for a while... then she leaves and he hangs out longer. He lets her go. Cool as the other side of the pillow. He's not fawning over her. She's fawning over him...and when she tries to lead him... he sends her away. None of the other girls show a ton of interest in him... but a few of them are shooting him glances which he seems totally oblivious too.

So omega, delta, and gamma are all out.... now what?

Later that night at the comedy show it was all tied up nicely with a ribbon and everything. The comedian pointed the Big Man out and asked what the wildest thing he ever did was... and he said "sex in a movie theater." The comedian said.... sure.. ok... respectable but nothing special...

Then Big Man pointed out... it was a Disney Movie.

See?

See... there you have your very own... "no it gets worse" story... Everyone was slightly disturbed. Sigma. All day long and twice on sunday. This is the only time I can think of when I've run into what can be genuinely described as a sigma. All that shyness.. wasn't. It wasn't shyness... it was "I don't give a damn and I still have the hot chick anyway." It was bizarre. I mean we all watch the fat dude with the hot wife in the cartoons and think.. "this is stupid." and yet here it is. Except in this case Big Man wasn't acting like an idiot. He had what many describe as "tight game"... be it adopted or natural.

By the way. A great way to know where you are on the list...

You're in a bar and the piano guy shouts, "everyone kiss the person to your left!" and the person to your left is a single hottie. You...

A) Kiss her.. and the girl next to her too... because he didn't say how far to the left. (this is the alpha answer)

B) Playfully punch her in the arm or hug her (beta answer)

C) Laugh and look awkwardly at her then quickly down at your drink when you make eye contact. (Delta!)

D) Safely at the back of the room alone you roll your eyes and act offended that anyone would suggest such a thing because you are way to cool for these stupid games. (GAMMA!)

E) Going to the bar never crossed your mind. (Omega)

F) You didn't notice because you were getting a bj in the theater during The Little Mermaid (Sigma)

This is precisely the sort of thing I was describing. Because he operates most comfortably and happily outside the social hierarchy, the sigma is at least vaguely unsettling to everyone, from alpha to omega. And that is a form of social domination all its own, and one to which women respond very readily.

The one thing that Nate is missing here is that an alpha isn't bothered by the sigma when the sigma scores a girl, but rather, when he refuses to submit to the alpha's social dominance. In the context he provided, there is no reason why he should have been anything but vastly amused by the sigma. And, of course, the fact that Nate is one of the most Dread of the Ilk tends to indicate that he's a bit more Sigma-friendly than the average alpha.

Alpha Mail: the necessary distinction

Not only is King A's attempted criticism illogical, it reveals that he doesn't grasp the difference between "social" and "socio-sexual":

Yeah. I got just about the reaction I expected from this blog. An indication of the value of a publication is the quality of reader attracted to it....

Of course there are different styles of leadership. The question is, why does this particular trait require the fabrication of an entirely new category of man? That was never adequately explained, and Occam's razor says it is an embarrassing attempt to project one's cherished idiosyncrasies over an already widely established method of communication.

Since King A is not only a regular reader, but a commenter, he is doing little more than savaging his own tail in a futile attempt to take an irrelevant shot at this blog. And everyone who reads it. Based on this information, what can we conclude about his socio-sexual rank, everyone?

I find his inability to understand the need to define the Sigma class to be more interesting, in that unlike most casual observers of Game, he doesn't confuse the sexual with the socio-sexual, but the social instead. The need for the Sigma class should be obvious, since it is a statistically significant observed socio-sexual type. It's not merely that it happens to describe my own "cherished idiosyncracies", but also those of many men who have similar socio-sexual success despite behaving in a very, very different way than the more conventional and common Alpha.

As to why the "particular trait" requires the category, Omega's post makes it perfectly clear. Sigmas are introverts. Introverts do not think like extroverts, they do not behave like extroverts, and they have a fundamentally different psychological profile than extroverts. What works for extroverts does not work for introverts and vice-versa.

In Game terms, telling an introverted Delta to mimic the behavior of an extroverted Alpha not only isn't going to work very well, even if it does work, it's probably going to make life miserable for the introverted pseudo-Alpha. Since 75% of the population is extroverted, it should be no wonder that conventional Game which doesn't account for the introvert/extrovert divide works pretty well for most people. But this underlines the importance of broadening the concepts so that it has the chance of successfully addressing the other 25% as well.

And it's particularly important given that successful Sigmas are far less inclined to care about their social success, much less impart it to others. For example, excluding Spacaebunny, I spoke a grand total of six words to five different adults today even though I was out and about in four different locations for several hours. If I didn't share information on this blog, it would never leave my mind. There will never be a series of Sigmas travelling around the country doing speeches, conducting classes, and selling videos; aside from Roissy, who shuns even interviews, the Pick-Up Artist community is obviously a collection of extroverts, who, like most extroverts, have no clue at all about how introverts can be successful except by mimicking extroverts.

Sigma vs Alpha

Whilst watching a movie:

Alpha: That reminds me of this one time....
Alpha's Girl: Tell me about it!
Alpha: [Tells long story that makes him look good.]
Alpha's Girl: Ooh, you're so awful! [Has sex with him.]

Sigma: That reminds me of this one time....
Sigma's Girl: You've got to be kidding.
Sigma: It was actually worse, because -
Sigma's Girl: Stop! Stop now! I don't want to know! [Has sex with him, sleeps with one eye open.]

Women are as strongly drawn to the Sigma as to the Alpha. But instead of having to deal with the simple angst that stems from unfaithfulness, they tend to find themselves facing a wide range of much more complicated angst. A quality Alpha story leaves the audience in a celebratory mood and inclined to exchange high-fives with the Alpha. A quality Sigma story leaves the audience amused and slightly alarmed.

And remember, a woman's hamster loves nothing so much as a vaguely sordid and possibly dangerous mystery.

Dark Biad

I've never attempted to conceal the fact that I possess two of the three Dark Triad traits. Contra the occasional accusation, I am not even remotely psychopathic. Nevertheless, I find it mildly alarming that I am apparently even more narcissistic than Yohami. How is THAT possible?

Your Total: 23

Between 12 and 15 is average.
Celebrities often score closer to 18.
Narcissists score over 20.

I wouldn't have thought one could score so high with low scores on Entitlement and Exhibitionism. But I suspect that male bloggers in general, and Game bloggers in particular, will tend to be highly narcissistic. What other sort of individual is attractive to women, sufficiently introverted to write regularly, and also assumes, correctly, that others are intrinsically interested in whatever he happens to contemplate?

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.

Game set to music

Athol translates the lyrics:

See we’ve been getting on
So good so far for so long
No, you never hurt me
No you never gone and done me wrong
(Lots of Beta, I feel so safe.)

I know that something just ain't no good
But you always do exactly what you should
(But I'm a little bored.)

So tell me?
How do I let a good man down?
How do I let a good man dow-ah ha down?
(I love you, but I'm not in love with you.)

You got to believe me
I didn’t mean to find nobody else
I don’t wanna hurt you but I gotta do right by myself
(It just happened... over 40-50 hours of chatting on Facebook.)

You make me happy but he gives me thrills
You give me comfort but he gives me chills
(His Alpha makes me wet. You're nice.)

Now, being possessed of a more than generous helping of Dark Biad, I've never been what you would call naturally inclined towards BETA behavior. I've never really understood men who are upset for extended periods of time over women who leave, for the obvious reason that if a woman doesn't want to be with you anymore, she doesn't want to be with you. In most circumstances, a woman who doesn't want to be with you will make your life a lot more miserable than it would be if you're completely free to do whatever you want all the time without concern for her or anyone else.

Seriously, how can that possibly be deemed an intrinsic net negative? I'm not saying that it can't be painful when a relationship ends or that some degree of regret might not be in order, but you have to admit that being completely free to do whatever you want all the time without concern for anyone else is pretty damn good compensation.

Then again, I suppose the opportunity cost equation might look a little different to the non-narcissistic. Or perhaps one reason women tend to leave men they find boring is somehow connected to the lack of interests possessed by said boring men. Anyhow, the key is to understand that happiness doesn't ultimately derive from other people, being an intrinsically subjective thing means it ultimately has to come from within.

Perhaps the wisest thing Spacebunny ever told me was that I could not make her happy. It's her responsibility, not mine. And my happiness is not her responsibility either. In a relationship, your responsibilities concern your commitments to one another, not the futile task of actively managing the dynamic state of the other's feelings.