Monday, February 23, 2015

"Alphas" as Gammas

I've written before of a few guys I know who devoted their lives to being Pick-Up Artists. All of them, not surprisingly, ruined their lives, except for a few who quit early.

Again, none of them were "Alphas." If anything, they hated women. Any man who lies to and tries to manipulate women and uses them as Narcissistic Supply to fill the void where his character used to be...does not like women.

If you want to use that ridiculous sociosexual Greek alphabet soup, these guys were "Gammas," except they were popular with women.

Here's the definition of Gamma: "The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects."

The ones I know, who did end up getting involved long-term with women, had these women pretty much run their lives. They went from hating and trying to manipulate them to putting them on a pedestal. These guys just happened to be attractive. Otherwise, in terms of character, they were close to being pure Gamma.

Notice that "Gammas" either hate women or put them on pedestals. That's what narcissism is: grandiose or devalued. The PUAs I knew were good-looking and charming (the 20% "Alpha" part) but the other 80% was pure "Gamma."

Everyone has a grandiose and devalued self. If we didn't have a devalued self then no one would be susceptible to shame and humiliation.

In fact, my experience with this "sociosexual hierarchy" is that it's close to being worthless.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is my beef with the whole Greek alphabet classification of people. If you take any of these classifications to their logical conclusion without society intervening, you wind up with extremes in behavior that you would call psychotic. Thus, you wind up with either the choice that these classifications are not in fact natural, or you wimp out and call for society to intervene on behalf of alphas to keep them from being killed, which sort of puts a damper on the whole alpha thing. It's all BS, I think.

speakeasyx said...

It's all silliness. I'm rather thankful Bob, that you're out here hammering this home, week after week. Fighting codependency with codependency doesn't work. To use a religious metaphor, "Can Satan cast out himself? A house divided cannot stand against itself."

Using 'Satan' (in this case) as a metaphor for Hubris, hatred, envy, pride and spite, the wannabe Lothario's seem to think being the right hand of the Devil trumps the system when, in actuality, they are simply quite literally becoming the right hand of the Devil---chained to the lifestyle that comes directly from the part of us that holds no moral highground whatsoever.

A man with no moral high ground (high ground that he has cultivated HIMSELF through self-discipline and hard work, not the narcissistic, power-hungry high ground), he has no moral fortitude within him to even pretend properly that what he possesses is in anyway 'confidence.'

Bob Wallace said...

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn once wrote that every square of the earth is continually claimed and reclaimed by God or Satan. I'm beginning to think he's right.

Anonymous said...

Are there any peer-reviewed studies and publications in respected, reputable journals of all of this stuff that is in the manosphere (heartiest, rational male, red pill reddit, dalrock, etc. ) regarding male and female behavior such as alpha, beta, etc.?

If not, all of this discussion in the manosphere is just conjecture and a lot of idiocy. People are basing their major life and relationship decisions on this stuff.

DeNihilist said...

I see one of the top pua, alfalfa males, Krauser, has basically proven that all the alfalfa game stuff is shite. This guy has written a book about a one year experiment with day game. He approached 1000 woman and banged 22 of them. Completely within the bounds of chance.

Not only that, but he aint pretty, so it doubles the shite that game can get you over not having good looks.

Yet he is still a hero in the pus cult.

Laughable.

Ah, but some argue, he had 63 dates and he banged 22 of those so his success was a lot higher then 2.6%. Hmm, never seen a scientific expirement worth anything that did not show ALL of the results.

Then you have guitar guy, good looking, walking with an empty guitar case asking random women for their phone numbers. Over 60% of the women he approached gave up their numbers. Yet this REAL sociological expirement is never discussed in the realms of the pua's.

Geez, I wonder why?

Bob Wallace said...

Hell, if I was to ask 1000 women to sleep with me I'd probably get 20 to say yes. Now that I think about it, that's a pitiful percentage.

Anonymous said...

"Hell, if I was to ask 1000 women to sleep with me I'd probably get 20 to say yes. Now that I think about it, that's a pitiful percentage."

But your still getting some action.

I'm assuming the only women that you approach are ones that you find attractive, if not, oh well..., maybe not so good.

Bob Wallace said...

I always waited until women gave me the double-look before I said anything to them.

The word "recognize" means "to look twice."

Glen Filthie said...

Well I dunno here, Bob.

I have seen PUA and slut behavior from both men and women - particularly once they've gone through a messy divorce. Back in the 70's we called it 'The Rebound'.
Nobody wants to be alone, and people that have been very monogamous for a long time tend to be squirrely when they hit the dating game for the first time in ages. It's natural and forgiveable for the short term, methinks...

Bob Wallace said...

I've seen the Rebound, too. Then we had the Catholic School Crazies, who went nuts when they got out of school.

A.B. Prosper said...

The PUA's do have some useful things to teach. I've used maintain the frame, "disinterested game." "dread game" and a few of the others in normal social settings.

I seem to have it down well enough since a female relation of mind said "If you ever marry, AB your wife will probably be complaining to her girlfriends and wondering if you love here."

Nicest thing I've heard in a long time.

Anyway as 11:15 noted most people are a bit of all traits and IMO mostly being Alpha is about image.

Now as to what Glen said, I wasn't dating age in the 70's but the rebound was known well into the 80's , I wasn't dating than either though and it survived into he 90's

I will also say some people do enjoy being without a "relationship" as they call it these days.

I know I do. Compared to when I was in love and engaged or actually dating, its pure bliss,

It gives me more freedom and much less stress .

And if pussy was something I needed and I don't I can always go Craigslist or to a legal brothel to scratch the itch. The later is probably cheaper and is certainly safer than dating too.

I do not think being Gamma is bad or that MGTOW is either though getting an education in how women actually are is good for all men.

And yeah sure I probably have Gamma traits galore being a sociable High-IQ introvert but I neither hate nor pedastalize women .
They are just people who mostly have little in common with me and whose company I do not enjoy very much beyond sometimes the natural psychical reaction to the female form. There are always exceptions of course.

Also as far as invisibility goes, I feel sorry for the Gammas who hate it .

Being invisible around girls is like a super-power.

Its especially nice once you learn three things.

1st to turn it off.

2nd When visible if you are the quiet type to project a bit of heterosexuality to avoid the want you as gay BF issues and being hit on by gays

3rd You learn to listen to what women say when they don't see you. Do that you'll learn more about women than you'll ever want. That was my 1st red pill really.

Its not perfect of course, I've actually had to chide women for trash talk at work.

"Hey this is work and there is a guy here and possibly customers." a bit of a roll reversal and I suppose very gamma but I found it highly amusing .

Basically it boils down to "Relationships are trouble, sex is risky. Is this person going to add enough to my life to make it worth while?"

In most cases I'd say no and it fails cost benefit analysis.

Many folks experiences will very and a its not my business anyway.

On that note the PUA types being sex and game obsessed think the sex is the goal which is simply stupid.

The normal healthy family is the goal but what is normal is hard to obtain or maintain and for many, not worth the risk.

Earl Thomas said...

After reading up on what represents a gamma it seems they have three common traits.

Narcissism, neurosis, and victimhood.

And women seem to have many of these personality traits as well. When a man displays these that makes him 'gamma'. Nobody likes it when a man goes all in with those personality traits.