Socio-Sexual Hierarchy

Off Topic
101

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

Not having done any formal study of psych. I’m going to have to read that one a few times lol. [/quote]

These are basically people who turn their back on reality, specially the reality of other people, “bury their heads in the sand” type of approach to problems, and who kill through neglect.

Armed with the twin monsters of passivity and denial, their indifference to others, and their increasing disengagement from the environment are all negative forms of aggression - passive resistance - an aggressive withholding of themselves from reality, specially the reality of the other person.

Denial and passive resistance are key words to understanding this behavior and how it can make others angrier and reactive when dealing with people like that. So they look like the good guy/girl and the victim, whilst you, trying to get a response from them, look like the perpetrator.

Stealthily deceptive, as I see it.

102

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It makes him a man willing to do whatever is necessary to get the job done.

[/quote]

So do psychopaths.
Does that make them Alpha?
[/quote]

Arnold’s a narcissus through and through. But not a psycho as far as anything I’ve seen or read about him. [/quote]

I agree. narcissus pure bred.
I enjoy him as a light weight entertainer; watched all his movies. But they are fluff. Funny almost because Arnold can laugh at himself. No body considers him a serious actor, not even a good actor, as I understand.
He had bags of charisma and drive to achieve, that’s for sure.

I was trying to make a point by taking it to the lowest extreme.

By his argument are we also to say psychopaths are Alpha?

103

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It makes him a man willing to do whatever is necessary to get the job done.

[/quote]

So do psychopaths.
Does that make them Alpha?
[/quote]

Arnold’s a narcissus through and through. But not a psycho as far as anything I’ve seen or read about him. [/quote]

I agree. narcissus pure bred.
I enjoy him as a light weight entertainer; watched all his movies. But they are fluff. Funny almost because Arnold can laugh at himself. No body considers him a serious actor, not even a good actor, as I understand.
He had bags of charisma and drive to achieve, that’s for sure.

I was trying to make a point by taking it to the lowest extreme.

By his argument are we also to say psychopaths are Alpha?

[/quote]

Not at all. I had a run in with borderline sociopath which is very similar to a psychopath and she was not at an alpha. In fact, she had traits similar but not exactly like your post before the last one you made. She was extremely manipulative, smart, and an expert at playing the victim for malevolent purposes. By the time most people in her circle figured it out, all the damage had already been done.

I did know she had some serious daddy issues and bad early experiences with men and I think her sociopathic tendencies arose from deep seated insecurity.

104

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It makes him a man willing to do whatever is necessary to get the job done.

[/quote]

So do psychopaths.
Does that make them Alpha?
[/quote]

Arnold’s a narcissus through and through. But not a psycho as far as anything I’ve seen or read about him. [/quote]

I agree. narcissus pure bred.
I enjoy him as a light weight entertainer; watched all his movies. But they are fluff. Funny almost because Arnold can laugh at himself. No body considers him a serious actor, not even a good actor, as I understand.
He had bags of charisma and drive to achieve, that’s for sure.

I was trying to make a point by taking it to the lowest extreme.

By his argument are we also to say psychopaths are Alpha?
[/quote]

I would say that psychopaths are sigma… if you want to stick to that more elaborate taxonomy. From what I understand, at some level, the alpha still has a need for followers, whereas the sigma doesn’t.

Because of the shallow affect and lack of empathy, I’d say that definitely leans more to sigma

105

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Served him well too, because he made it to the absolute top in not only one but three professions.

[/quote]

And dropped right back down.
Is that the mark of an Alpha?
[/quote]

Ulitimately yes.

106

[quote]LoRez wrote:

I would say that psychopaths are sigma… if you want to stick to that more elaborate taxonomy. From what I understand, at some level, the alpha still has a need for followers, whereas the sigma doesn’t.

Because of the shallow affect and lack of empathy, I’d say that definitely leans more to sigma[/quote]

Did you watch Collateral?

Would you say your example above is like the character played by Tom Cruise, Vincent?

He played an assassin, but I want to have another example of “indifferent”/lack of affect/lack of empathy for comparison.

107

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Served him well too, because he made it to the absolute top in not only one but three professions.

[/quote]

And dropped right back down.
Is that the mark of an Alpha?
[/quote]

Ulitimately yes. [/quote]

Are you then disregarding the level of psychological health and the possession of free will of the human being and treating mankind just like an animal?

I am just trying to assess from which perspective you look at man from, in order to understand your definition of Alpha-Beta-Omega.

108

[quote]LoRez wrote:

at some level, the alpha still has a need for followers, [/quote]

I don’t know about that.

My take on it would be alphas are natural born leaders.
Even when they don’t want followers, they end up attracting such and/or are placed on positions of leadership.

Maybe they are born in possession of qualities that allows future nurturing to mold them in a way that further reinforces those qualities.

Is it possible that if the nurturing was dysfunctional or just not appropriate to the alpha’s inborn qualities, he then becomes a sigma or an alpha in beta’s clothing or at the lowest level of psychological health:

Can a born alpha child ( human ) be so badly nurtured that it develops into an Omega adult?

P.S. I don’t have the answers.

109

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Served him well too, because he made it to the absolute top in not only one but three professions.

[/quote]

And dropped right back down.
Is that the mark of an Alpha?
[/quote]

Ulitimately yes. [/quote]

Are you then disregarding the level of psychological health and the possession of free will of the human being and treating mankind just like an animal?

I am just trying to assess from which perspective you look at man from, in order to understand your definition of Alpha-Beta-Omega.
[/quote]

The level of psychological health I disregard completely, in a way Hitler and Stalin were as, if not more alpha, in the leader of men kind of sense as Churchill, Ghandi and MLK.

It gets even better, Churchill, Ghandi and MLK were at least as fucked up psychologically as the other two were, maybe more so.

The same is true for managers who dominate all day and then take it is the ass with a strap on at night from a dominatrix- in fact, those might be relatively healthy, psychologically speaking.

If the urge to dominate is so strong that you make it that far you either are unaffected, then you are a sociopath, or it takes its toll, then you have your kinks, quirks and whatnot.

From the game perspective, alpha simply means someone who gets laid unconditionally and a beta might get laid too, but on other terms.

Admittedly, getting laid is alpha, alphas get laid is a bit tautological, but the point was not to build an airtight philosophical system but to identify the traits they had in common.

It is interesting to point out that the right kind of psychopath, namely class B personality disorder types, get laid plenty.

110

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

Not at all. I had a run in with borderline sociopath which is very similar to a psychopath and she was not at an alpha. In fact, she had traits similar but not exactly like your post before the last one you made. She was extremely manipulative, smart, and an expert at playing the victim for malevolent purposes. By the time most people in her circle figured it out, all the damage had already been done.

I did know she had some serious daddy issues and bad early experiences with men and I think her sociopathic tendencies arose from deep seated insecurity. [/quote]

Well, but according to Orion’s definition ( but I could be misunderstanding him ), she could be Alpha ultimately because she was intelligent enough to achieve her goal, and the end justifies the means.

She had a destructive purpose and she became an expert in her field and achieved her purpose, then ultimately dropped down from her position of “power” over others.

111

[quote]orion wrote:

Admittedly, getting laid is alpha, alphas get laid is a bit tautological, but the point was not to build an airtight philosophical system but to identify the traits they had in common.

It is interesting to point out that the right kind of psychopath, namely class B personality disorder types, get laid plenty. [/quote]

Thanks. I understand better, now.

Will think about it.

112

[quote]orion wrote:

It is interesting to point out that the right kind of psychopath, namely class B personality disorder types, get laid plenty. [/quote]

I have noticed that to be true.

113

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It is interesting to point out that the right kind of psychopath, namely class B personality disorder types, get laid plenty. [/quote]

I have noticed that to be true.
[/quote]

Yeah well, they are running natural asshole game so to speak.

Exagerated self importance, disregard for other peoples emotions, manipulative, unwilling (in fact unable, but who sees that from the outside?) to form intimate connections…

And the best part: They are not even aware that they are doing it.

The interesting thing is that they behave exactly as a high status primate would if he was so kind to slum it a bit and condescend to grant a low ranking female access to his dick.

That also should throw you off a bit when it comes to the whole psychologically healthy bit, because if you look at someone from the point of low social dominance, there is no way for you to tell the difference.

And, since relative to the real captains of industry, grade A politicians and whatnot we are all low social dominance it could well be that we are completely unable to assess their mental health, they could be downright demented, they could be high social dominance.

114

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

Not having done any formal study of psych. I’m going to have to read that one a few times lol. [/quote]

These are basically people who turn their back on reality, specially the reality of other people, “bury their heads in the sand” type of approach to problems, and who kill through neglect.

Armed with the twin monsters of passivity and denial, their indifference to others, and their increasing disengagement from the environment are all negative forms of aggression - passive resistance - an aggressive withholding of themselves from reality, specially the reality of the other person.

Denial and passive resistance are key words to understanding this behavior and how it can make others angrier and reactive when dealing with people like that. So they look like the good guy/girl and the victim, whilst you, trying to get a response from them, look like the perpetrator.

Stealthily deceptive, as I see it.

[/quote]

Your points about how scummy the intentional “game” players are well taken.

I have been thinking about that good-looking serial killer — whose name I cannot remember – lawyer, drove a VW bug and the tricks he used and the similarities to the actions of these guys (albeit on a twisted scale).

Pissing me off I can’t remember his name.

Anyway, point being, the only differences I see is the end game.

115

[quote]orion wrote:

That also should throw you off a bit when it comes to the whole psychologically healthy bit, because if you look at someone from the point of low social dominance, there is no way for you to tell the difference.

[/quote]

I agree with everything else you wrote but I am not 100% clear in understanding the latter part of the above.

What do you mean by “there is no way for one to tell the difference”? Tell if someone in low social dominance is psychologically healthy?

116

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

That also should throw you off a bit when it comes to the whole psychologically healthy bit, because if you look at someone from the point of low social dominance, there is no way for you to tell the difference.

[/quote]

I agree with everything else you wrote but I am not 100% clear in understanding the latter part of the above.

What do you mean by “there is no way for one to tell the difference”? Tell if someone in low social dominance is psychologically healthy?
[/quote]

Let me change that, I think social status is actually more important in this area.

If you are relatively low status compared to someone else, there is no way that you can distinguish between someone who is mentally ill or simply much higher status than you.

The behavior would be the same.

117

[quote]
And, since relative to the real captains of industry, grade A politicians and whatnot we are all low social dominance it could well be that we are completely unable to assess their mental health, they could be downright demented, they could be high social dominance. [/quote]

so you’re saying that :
-You can say that Shoko Asahara (Aum Shirinkyo’s Guru) is batshit crazy.
-Or that your boss is batshit crazy.
-But trying to establish a psychopathological diagnosis for Hitler or Stalin would be an exercice in futility.

that’s right ?

118

[quote]orion wrote:

Let me change that, I think social status is actually more important in this area.

If you are relatively low status compared to someone else, there is no way that you can distinguish between someone who is mentally ill or simply much higher status than you.

The behavior would be the same.

[/quote]

Ok. I think I get it.

Are you saying social status is, in our society ( of “smoke and mirrors”, IMO ), a marker of “psychological health” or more precisely: intrinsic value/worth of the person?

So, a lower status person cannot tell if a higher status person is mentally ill because they just assume they must be mentally healthy since they have made it to/are born into the top of the social group?

119

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Let me change that, I think social status is actually more important in this area.

If you are relatively low status compared to someone else, there is no way that you can distinguish between someone who is mentally ill or simply much higher status than you.

The behavior would be the same.

[/quote]

Ok. I think I get it.

Are you saying social status is, in our society ( of “smoke and mirrors”, IMO ), a marker of “psychological health” or more precisely: intrinsic value/worth of the person?

So, a lower status person cannot tell if a higher status person is mentally ill because they just assume they must be mentally healthy since they have made it to/are born into the top of the social group?

[/quote]

I think social status is mostly just a measure of power and influence, not of anything relating to the individual’s value or health. E.g., people will listen to what a high status person has to say more so than that of a lower status person. Status can be formally acknowledged via things like job titles, but in the actual social graph, it’s still a measure of power and influence. For that matter, sometimes actual power doesn’t match the formal titles.

In the absence of any formal definitions, if a person perceives someone else as being higher status, it may or may not be because of a mental illness. There’s really no way to know because they only appear as a higher-status person to an observer.

120

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

I would say that psychopaths are sigma… if you want to stick to that more elaborate taxonomy. From what I understand, at some level, the alpha still has a need for followers, whereas the sigma doesn’t.

Because of the shallow affect and lack of empathy, I’d say that definitely leans more to sigma[/quote]

Did you watch Collateral?

Would you say your example above is like the character played by Tom Cruise, Vincent?

He played an assassin, but I want to have another example of “indifferent”/lack of affect/lack of empathy for comparison.

[/quote]

In addition to “Vincent”, I’m pretty sure at least one of the characters in Reservoir Dogs fit the bill. As did Christian Bale’s character in American Psycho.

I can’t think of anything right now where you also see the male-female dynamics too.