[quote]kamui wrote:
I think Hitler is pretty clear clut, just because he was so extreme, but in case of Stalin or Mao I think we are pretty much unable to, yes.
[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]
No, I think high social status will see you as someone to be manipulated, they will form no intimate relationship with and who is ultimately dispensable.
That is not only not mentally ill, that is normal.
That is the same way a narcissist would see you though.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
I think Hitler is pretty clear clut, just because he was so extreme, but in case of Stalin or Mao I think we are pretty much unable to, yes.
[/quote]
I’m sure all the speed and other drugs Hitler did didn’t help.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Obviously we’re talking in some sort of hypothetical realm here, so there’s nothing of real substance to reference.
But I would say that an alpha, while a natural leader, isn’t really an alpha unless the followers exist. Not that he really cares about them, but rather that his desires become manifest in part through the actions of his followers.
In contrast, the sigma is entirely self-reliant. If he wants something to happen, he does it himself, or takes it from someone else. The alpha uses his followers for that. The sigma also sometimes attracts followers, but has absolutely no use for them.
But that’s just my take on it.
[quote]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?[/quote]
I’m really not sure how much nature vs nurture comes into this. I don’t know whether these personalities are inborn, or whether they’re developed. And, once developed, I’m not sure if one could actually change into another – other than via genuine brain damage.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
I think Hitler is pretty clear clut, just because he was so extreme, but in case of Stalin or Mao I think we are pretty much unable to, yes.
[/quote]
Then i have to agree. Which is becoming a disturbingly frequent occurence.
If you clone a herd of cattle from one alpha bull, you will have cattle all over the hierarchical range. So I think nurture has a huge roll in it.
[quote]orion wrote:
No, I think high social status will see you as someone to be manipulated, they will form no intimate relationship with and who is ultimately dispensable.
That is not only not mentally ill, that is normal.
That is the same way a narcissist would see you though.
[/quote]
I fully understand now.
But how about Prince William, Royal family, dating and marrying Kate, the commoner?
Ok, you would say his mother was a commoner and therefore he is a half breed.
Let’s consider the union of Charles and Diana, then.
( Though to me that is so easy: he was Royally UGLY, and she was pheasantly pretty )
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I can’t think of anything right now where you also see the male-female dynamics too.[/quote]
An interesting movie to look at would be Blue Sky ( 1994 ).
Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange.
Tommy Lee Jones is one of my favorite actors.
I used to think of him as Alpha but now I am thinking more Sigma.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No, I think high social status will see you as someone to be manipulated, they will form no intimate relationship with and who is ultimately dispensable.
That is not only not mentally ill, that is normal.
That is the same way a narcissist would see you though.
[/quote]
I fully understand now.
But how about Prince William, Royal family, dating and marrying Kate, the commoner?
Ok, you would say his mother was a commoner and therefore he is a half breed.
Let’s consider the union of Charles and Diana, then.
( Though to me that is so easy: he was Royally UGLY, and she was pheasantly pretty )
[/quote]
First of all, if women are hypergamic and aim upwards, man necessarily aim downwards.
Then, Princ Charles is an utter beta herb, he hugs trees.
Literally, he does.
He could be ugly as sin, but that is unforgivable, which is why she did the nasty with strapping young cavalier who must have been anything but, because boning the woman of the heor to the throne took balls the size of Liechtenstein, or massive narcissistic delusion, which ,from a female POV is really the same thing.
His son is pretty much the same, she will cheat on him.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I can’t think of anything right now where you also see the male-female dynamics too.[/quote]
An interesting movie to look at would be Blue Sky ( 1994 ).
Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange.
Tommy Lee Jones is one of my favorite actors.
I used to think of him as Alpha but now I am thinking more Sigma.[/quote]
I’ll watch that as soon as I get a hold of it.
As far as the male-female dynamics, actually, in American Psycho, you see it with the main character and his secretary. For whatever reason, she is very responsive to the way he treats her. Not to say that either one of them is anywhere near psychologically healthy, but that’s not what this is about.
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, if women are hypergamic and aim upwards, man necessarily aim downwards.
Then, Princ Charles is an utter beta herb, he hugs trees.
Literally, he does.
He could be ugly as sin, but that is unforgivable, which is why she did the nasty with strapping young cavalier who must have been anything but, because boning the woman of the heor to the throne took balls the size of Liechtenstein, or massive narcissistic delusion, which ,from a female POV is really the same thing.
His son is pretty much the same, she will cheat on him. [/quote]
I know Charles is a tree hugging bunny lover.
That is why she was not attracted to him probably, not because of his ugliness and giant ugly hands.
I actually bumped into the younger bother of Dodi, Diana’s lover, while I lived in London.
( I worked for the Aquatic Design and went to their ubber apartment on Hyde Park to fix their aquarium.).
The young man looked at me as if “I” was game, lol…he was like a little lion cub with his instincts kicking in for the catch. I am sure his older brother similarly though he could help himself to any woman.
I thought this shed some light on what you said above:
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, if women are hypergamic and aim upwards, man necessarily aim downwards.
[/quote]
On the hypergamic theory, I would like to add that it reminds me of Genesis, where the woman is “taken from the man”.
I disagree when people say: “He/She is my other half”.
To me, it felt right to say to of my husband: “He is my ultra half and I am his missing piece.”
Feminists are looking for equality when what they really want is equity.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Obviously we’re talking in some sort of hypothetical realm here, so there’s nothing of real substance to reference.
But I would say that an alpha, while a natural leader, isn’t really an alpha unless the followers exist. Not that he really cares about them, but rather that his desires become manifest in part through the actions of his followers.
In contrast, the sigma is entirely self-reliant. If he wants something to happen, he does it himself, or takes it from someone else. The alpha uses his followers for that. The sigma also sometimes attracts followers, but has absolutely no use for them.
But that’s just my take on it.
[quote]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?[/quote]
I’m really not sure how much nature vs nurture comes into this. I don’t know whether these personalities are inborn, or whether they’re developed. And, once developed, I’m not sure if one could actually change into another – other than via genuine brain damage.[/quote]
In addition to the cattle deal, there’s also the big fish in a small pond kind of thing going on too. Some people are totally alpha in a small town, then bring them to a huge city and there a fish out of water and are never really able to get back on there legs again. At least not like they were.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
She had a certain kind of power over other people by playing victim, but she was never friends with popular or powerful people. Her boyfriend was just someone with his own self confidence problems that was the epitome of white knight syndrome which is exactly why he was her boyfriend. He was easily manipulated by her b/c of that and she nearly got him to start a physical confrontation with me. The only reason he didn’t is because I scared him when he didn’t see any fear in me when he tried to start something. Soon after that, he got kicked out of the apartment complex. I have a hunch that it had something to do with her, but I don’t have any evidence of that or even rumor of it. Being the way she was, she would have been easily able to deflect any blame on her at the time.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I can’t think of anything right now where you also see the male-female dynamics too.[/quote]
An interesting movie to look at would be Blue Sky ( 1994 ).
Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange.
Tommy Lee Jones is one of my favorite actors.
I used to think of him as Alpha but now I am thinking more Sigma.
[/quote]
Weird movie. Watched it last night.
Interesting dynamics though… what’s his name, the commander guy, clearly alpha. You even notice it where he’s using some of the other guys for moral support for his actions; he doesn’t need to show off, but he needs to show off. His son growing up in his dad’s footsteps. Tommy Lee Jones character seemed definitely sigma, although clearly a bit battered for wear.
Sigma, just not a very successful one I’d say. And his wife was nuts.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Sigma, just not a very successful one I’d say. And his wife was nuts.[/quote]
You would have to define his “success” in being the stabilizing force for his mentally ill wife and their children.
Their dynamics, in a more extreme degree, reminds me of that “very few men can do it” that Orion was talking about in being in a relationship with an unstable woman, with a daddy void to be filled.
A man can get sucked into that void.
Jessica Lange’s character even called him “Daddy”, if I recall. ( She won best actress for that performance ).
Well, the “alpha guy”; a total asshole. I don’t consider that alpha but I am relating alpha with being healthy and honorable and I know it isn’t in the definition here.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Sigma, just not a very successful one I’d say. And his wife was nuts.[/quote]
You would have to define his “success” in being the stabilizing force for his mentally ill wife and their children.
Their dynamics, in a more extreme degree, reminds me of that “very few men can do it” that Orion was talking about in being in a relationship with an unstable woman, with a daddy void to be filled.
A man can get sucked into that void.[/quote]
He did do a good job with that, I admit.
Yep, she did.
Being healthy and honorable is a choice for the alpha, but not a requirement. Social dominance in the group structure is really the only requirement, afaik.
If he were a more successful sigma, he’d have played by the rules well enough to get his way, and no-one would have ever noticed or been able to tie it back to him. Probably some minor issues with authority, but nothing to get him transferred, court martialled, or thrown in the looney bin.
But I understand, he was too busy dealing with the pressure at home to be able to handle it all.