Sigmas and snowflakes

From Alpha Game (never followed through on kicking that habit).

I suppose it’s inevitable, but one of the things that I find irritating is the way that men who learn about Game in general, and the socio-sexual hierarchy in particular, immediately going about attempting to rationalize a way that they can assign the highest perceived value to themselves. First everyone’s an alpha. Then everyone’s a sigma. I have no doubt if some new Game blogger concocted a brilliant new system in which Oompa Loompa was the top category, we’d be seeing all sorts of men fall all over themselves to describe themselves as Oompa Loompas.

Vox Day
Delta is not failure

I don’t understand how this is difficult. There are only two variables.

Sexual rank: What is your N? (It doesn’t matter what it could be.)
Social rank: How many people are you comfortable leading (call this M)? What is the social rank of the people who follow your lead? (If you ordered them to do something, would they do it?)

Now apply these to a normal distribution (a bell curve).

Sexual rank: Is your N in the top 20% (ALPHA/Alpha/Sigma), the lower 20% (BETA/Gamma/Omega), or in the middle (BETA/Beta/Delta)?
Social rank: Is your M in the top 20% (Alpha/Sigma), the lower 20% (Gamma/Omega), or in the middle (Beta/Delta)?

I assume the pattern is obvious at this point. Man, the things I do for you guys.

This was originally a comment on the post, but my wisdom is typically ignored by the midwits over there. Openly scorned, in some cases. Course, that puts me in good company. Maybe A -> B and maybe C -> B, but not B -> not A.

Ad rem, there’s apparently a huge niche for INTJ game that isn’t being filled. I’m tempted to appoint myself as INTJ Game pedagogue, but I’m not big on responsibility. Anyway, I don’t make big decisions while I’m manic. I assume you noticed that.

great work with the Alpha Game blog, it’s one of several Game-related blogs that I follow and I have to say that your rather unique perspective on things is most interesting to read. I’m writing today because I’ve been wrestling with questions about approaching and I’d really appreciate your views on the subject.

You and I are actually pretty similar in a lot of ways. We’re both of higher than average intelligence (though objectively, you’re a lot smarter than I am); we’re both Austrolibertarians; we both harbour a dislike, even contempt, for other people beyond a certain point; we both intensely dislike unwanted physical contact; and we both score INTJ every time on the MBTI tests. On your ALPHA-OMEGA scale, I fall on the Sigma side, as you do.

There are also significant differences. I score even higher on introverted traits than you do, and you would know, as few others do, just how difficult interactions with other people can be as a result. It’s not that I lack self-confidence or the ability to speak with other people, it’s that I find small talk tiresome and frustrating. Small talk with women, in particular, can be infuriating in this regard- one can only take so much of listening to women in the office nattering on about “The Bachelor” before being tempted to end it all using the nearest sharp object. Yet, as you, and Roosh, and several others have pointed out, the ability to maintain a strong frame while generating an emotional, rather than logical, conversation, is critical to success with women.

This is an aspect of my life where I have fallen far short of my own expectations. I resolved some time ago to take corrective action, but reading theory only gets one so far.

So, here are my questions for you. How does a self-confident, bookish INTJ move past our natural dislike of other people? Given that bars, Starbucks coffee shops, and other loud environments are kryptonite to most INTJs and therefore to our game, what is the best place for an INTJ to start approaching in order to gain practice and experience? Given that INTJs, more than any other type, prefer living in our heads to living among people, how does an introvert get past the severe drain caused by social interaction in order to maintain a strong frame without having to do a lot of talking?

S, e-mailing Vox Day
INTJ Approach

Vox’s reply is correct, but incomplete.

First, let me set one thing straight. Again. If one is a genuine Sigma, there is no need to come to me for advice on success with women. As with the socio-sexual Alpha, a Sigma is, by definition, successful with them. An introvert who is not successful with women is usually a Gamma.

Second, it’s not necessary to spend much time with other people in public in order to meet all the women one could possibly require. The key is to maximize one’s efforts while one has the energy to do so. The introvert doesn’t have the time to wait for “the right moment”, he will run out of steam nine times out of ten before it arrives.


Vox Day

More advice for the poster:

Introvert Game relies heavily on nonverbal communication. Talk less, say more.

-Fix your voice. (See Ch. 3 of Strauss’ Rules of the Game.)
-Fix your posture.
-Chin up, eyelids at half-mast.
-Move slowly and deliberately.
-Stop giving a fuck. (Anyway, it’s bad for your health.)

This isn’t an exhaustive list, because it’s just the projection of inner game.

(It’s not in my nature to write concisely, but I had to get into character. Enjoy it while it lasts.)

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Game. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Sigmas and snowflakes

  1. Zeke says:

    I don't know that a Sigma would fall into the top 20% of social rank. Maybe they should be exempt from the second test?

    Do you have normal numbers for this that I might test myself against? How many people is the average person comfortable leading? I'm curious is all…not self-conscious.

  2. mobiuswolf says:

    Yeah, that’s not right for sigma. I don’t generally have much interest in being lead and less to none in leading, but when the project goes astray, I’m happy to boss them back on track regardless of their social rank.
    This has clarified things for me, I couldn’t figure out where I was.

  3. I don’t like Vox’s system, which focuses ONLY on numbers.

    People can jack up their n-counts by many means. People can get morons to follow them.

    Instead, I propose the following:

    Instead of N: what is the quality of the women who show IOIs, or who basically allow you to have Game-free interactions with them?

    Instead of M: what quality of guys are comfortable hanging with you (and you them)?

    What this shows is, instead of statistics, is what level you’re on. If hot upper echelon chicks are giving you eyes and wanna talk, and if alpha guys naturally fall into your social circles, or you at least get along with them easily, then you’re doing well.

    Based on this, I’m Beta on both axes, though I could probably go up to Alpha in the sexual realm if I approached.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Nice to see you’re alive.

      >I don’t like Vox’s system, which focuses ONLY on numbers.

      That’s not true, it focuses on behaviors. The numbers are important for illustrating the scope of the differences.

      Everything else you said was good. Defining quality is tough.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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