I have a great deal of respect for Roissy's analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman's "rationalization hamster". And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man's ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal.
However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy's social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don't score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy's construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don't, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner:
Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!
Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.
Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.
Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.
Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.
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.
Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.
I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.
My thoughts are that all men, no matter what category they fit into, evoke characteristics of other categories as needed.
My husband is probably 50% Sigma, 30% Alpha and 20% Beta. He knows how to be aggressive but my husband also knows when to soften up. My husband can be incredibly romantic and sweet, but the romance is always tempered with a passionate confidence. I love it. He is the loner number cruncher type, with a wife who is the social director. We are your classic introvert/extrovert couple.
I agree, that any given man is a blend of these but that some men fall clearly into one of them or at least across a smaller number.
I do not believe if a man learns from this information that it is synthetic. I think the ability for a man to use his mind and adapt is as Alpha as anything else. That said. But it should be clear that pure Alphas are in their own way losers too. However, many women as drawn to play with these guys.
I find intelllectual value in the above. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions from it and use it to my advantage.
What I do believe is that context matters. For example depending on circumstances many of those Alphas may not be so Alpha. One could argue then that they as not true Alphas. A Beta in one sphere may indeed be an Alpha in another. But my point is that a man can be totally dominant in his realm. He can be the AMOG of AMOGs in his social and professional sphere and draw the attention of women within and without. But I get it, we are talking about drawing super model types. Also you can have a guy who is otherwise successful but his wife is having sex with her personal trainer. I mean this happend to Shaq.
But what is the value of Roissy to the married man? I think what Athol has brough to the table is simply awesome. Using "game" within the marriage for the benefit of both partners. To make the marriage better.
But I think that married men also benefit from understanding game so that they can protect the marriage from external predators and by understanding the female perspective on how they could be drawn to other men. I don't know how many times we have read some absurd scenario where the husband goes, "but I was ok with this".
From my perspective, I feel I am the absolute best man for my wife. There is also no woman on the planet who I would sleep with just because I could.
But if it is about racking up the numbers and banging super models then sure there are Alpha guys out there. No doubt many women find them desirable. Pre-selection is in effect.
My thoughts exactly FirstYearDown. Our behavior is fluid and depending on the time and place, a man could be a hybrid of all categories. Full archetypes are very rare.
My thoughts exactly FirstYearDown. Our behavior is fluid and depending on the time and place, a man could be a hybrid of all categories. Full archetypes are very rare.
Which means a true dominant male can adapt and exhibit these traits as needed. The ones who can do this are the true dominant males. Those stuck in one mode .... are by definition then ... weak.
Which means a true dominant male can adapt and exhibit these traits as needed. The ones who can do this are the true dominant males. Those stuck in one mode .... are by definition then ... weak.
Right you are. Adaptability in a species, as well as in individuals, has always been, and will continue to be, a trait of the superior.
Because brushing off something you either don't have the capacity to understand or believe in or are afraid of what you might find if you look inward is somehow better?
Because brushing off something you either don't have the capacity to understand or believe in or are afraid of what you might find if you look inward is somehow better?
I worked as a Psychologist for several years and now work as a lawyer. I believe i have a descent understanding of psychology seeing how it was one of the two things i majored in and seeing how psychology in general was my profession for a while.
does not jive with the level of education required for this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldmember357
I worked as a Psychologist for several years and now work as a lawyer. I believe i have a descent understanding of psychology seeing how it was one of the two things i majored in and seeing how psychology in general was my profession for a while.
And if you indeed are telling the truth, which I find doubtful being that the majority of those with that level of education would have something far more substantial too say then...
Women are attracted to leaders as men are to physical health and beauty. We are genetically programmed to want reprodutive qualities and they want survival. Being the 'leader' or in with the leader goes towards that.
I worked as a Psychologist for several years and now work as a lawyer. I believe i have a descent understanding of psychology seeing how it was one of the two things i majored in and seeing how psychology in general was my profession for a while.
Six mumfs ago I coodnt spel injineer. Now I are wun.
79Likes
Alpha, Betas, Delta, etc 
