The taxonomy of game

I have found this list very helpful. So, I must strongly disagree with this rebuttal.

I am a natural Sigma. Not the faggy, goth kind, but the kind described in Vox’s post:

Sigmas – the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma’s withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood’s movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it’s not intentional torture.

Again, this classification is great, but I refuse to "entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell." I’ve entertained it in the past, and my suspicions are continually re-confirmed. The masses are, in fact, Hell.

Per Talleyrand’s rebuttal, a sigma "is really a man with a majority of alpha characteristics with a dash of Omega ones and little or no beta attributes." I’m not sure what that means. An alpha that’s part omega?

One of my best friends is a classic alpha. In social settings, we act very differently – too differently to be classified in the same way. I guess you could break up the alpha category into extroverted alphas and introverted alphas. But why not just use sigmas instead?

It’s also instructive to compare our relative success with the ladies. He was consistently more successful than me in terms of quantity, though I was able to hold my own. I was always more successful at landing LTRs. Girls got tired of his shtick – girls always go for the alphas, but they don’t always settle down with them. More importantly, we had success with very different types of girls. I was always better with smarter ones and he was always better with dumber ones. He was always better on his own – picking up girls on my own was pretty much impossible outside of organized settings, like school. I wouldn’t be caught dead opening a set in a random bar by myself. He still loves that shit. Interestingly, when paired up, we were virtually unstoppable. Every girl that was not sucked in by his out-going alpha-ness couldn’t get enough of my natural aloofness, dismissive-ness, and disdain. Every alpha should have a sigma wingman, but every sigma needs an alpha wingman.

Anyway, Talleyrand is partly correct, in that both of us could be considered alpha. For example, we’d be relatively dominant personalities in social groups, at least with respect to betas or omegas. But Vox wins because our behaviors, methods, and successes were so wildly different that a separate category is overwhelmingly useful.

One Response to The taxonomy of game

  1. […] Foseti – “A Moral Theory of Game“, “The Taxonomy of Game” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: