Eureka! This post inspired an insight into the dynamics of the social axis (A, B, D, G; excludes L, S, O).
Male social reputations are characterized by conflict. Social archetypes may be predicted according to two personality factors: social aggressiveness and objective superiority in conflict, as illustrated below.
Alpha – Confrontational, dominant.
Beta – Nonconfrontational, dominant.
Delta – Nonconfrontational, submissive.
Gamma – Confrontational, submissive.
To further illustrate this breakdown, let’s consider the difference between Alphas and Betas. A Beta may or may not be objectively superior to an Alpha in a point of contention, but for one psychological reason or another he is disinclined to conflict. He will not pick a fight, although he may be driven to conflict by a more confrontational personality (A or G). Contrarily, Alphas constantly seek out small conflicts in order to keep the pecking order stable. Maybe they enjoy conflicts, or their dad picked on them as a kid, or whatever. Doesn’t matter, except that they pick fights and win consistently. Big men may seem insufferable, but their constant shows of dominance are essential to group stability as a basic matter of human nature. If no one “lays down the law” consistently, people start acting up.
(In classical conditioning terms, we would expect people who win fights to be more likely to enjoy engaging in them. But contra this expectation it is clear that Betas and Gammas exist in large numbers, which I will address below- in part- and fully at some time in the future.)
As a practical matter, the tendencies of nonsocial, nonhierarchical male archetypes are irrelevant at the tactical and operational levels of human action. They are either too rare (sigmas represent less than 1 in 1,000 males) or the effects of their individual actions on the greater social system are negligible in the short term. Kant was an Omega with an unusually weighty impact on the West at large, but his existence did not affect Germany’s GDP within his lifetime, and possibly not at all. Only the social dynamics ought to be considered as a matter of tactics and operations, and only at the strategic level and above should we concern ourselves with such statistical outliers as Kant.
I’d like to introduce a symbolic method of illustration to the theory of male social conflict. Here is an example of an interaction:
B ~ G, a Beta and a Gamma come into peaceful contact.
B ~< G, the Gamma initiates conflict.
B >< G, the Beta stands ground and returns fire.
B >> G, the Gamma turns and flees.
B ~> G, the Beta ceases hostilities and extends an offer of peace.
B ~ G, the Gamma accepts and mutual hostility has temporarily ceased.
Another example. Try to imagine the interaction according to the symbols, and see if it matches the explanation at the end.
A ~ D
A >~ D
A >< D
A >> D
A ~> D
A ~ D
In this scenario, an Alpha initiates conflict with a Delta. The Delta tries to stand his ground, but finds himself outmatched and submits/flees. The Alpha is pleased with this outcome and ceases hostilities, extending the olive branch. The Delta accepts.
These interactions are statistical in nature. The archetypes are tendencies, unlike the laws governing chemical interactions. For instance, an Alpha can lose an argument, but they are characterized by a consistent pattern of winning. Statistically rare interactions often give rise to maladaptive behaviors. For instance, Gammas don’t usually win, so when they do win they often aren’t gracious in victory. This would be illustrated like so:
D ~ G
D ~< G
D >< G
D << G
D ~< G
D << G
D >< G
D << G
As you can see, the Gamma never ceases hostilities or extends the olive branch, because he has never been in the superior position before. He is unable to control his confrontational nature, and continually presses the attack. Every previous conflict ended when the Gamma submitted to the stronger party, but here we have an infinite loop. The Delta attempts to cease hostilities, but this fails to appease the Gamma, and when he fights back he is defeated, so he will continue to be harried to the ends of the earth. It isn't accidental that this matches the behavior of degenerate rabbits (due to mutation accumulation, ref. Charlton and Trust), feminists, cultural Marxists, et al.
Please note that there are some hidden assumptions in place. This is a social model, as in R-selection. Social conflict only has costs measured in terms of reputation, and nobody gets killed over an insult (that would be K-selection). There is also an assumption that the hierarchy exists in a vacuum, with no external inputs to the system. However…this is certainly not the case in the modern day.
Consider the exemplary case of "victim identity politics". In this bizarre new world, there is a real, substantial, externally imposed reward system for failure, and punishment for success. “Victims” who tend to be in a lot of conflicts, and also tend to failure, are elevated to some semblance of success by an authority external to the male pecking order that we’ve considered. In such a world, it is therefore no surprise to see more males expressing the Gamma strategy of picking lots of fights and losing. Even further, we see that there are no checks or balances on this Gamma male behavior: they will continue advocating for more and more Realpolitik along these lines, and vote for more external rewards for losers like themselves.