0: Introduction:Welcome, lads, to the ultimate thread on male psychology. This thread is intended for those who have a genuine intellectual interest in learning how male thought processes work. It's a long journey.To begin, we're discarding everything post-Cartesian. Outside of a few references to empirical data, don't expect standard psychology because it doesn't work: Freud and every psychologist hangs by their own noose, considering the suicide rate of psychiatrists is higher than the average population (google it.)Actions speak louder than words. Moving on.ITT:We will analyze the misconceptions around the term "hierarchy."We will analyze hierarchy in its manifold manifestations as well as hierarchy in the abstract.We will induce the property that serves in one’s ascent to the top.We will offer metaphysics at a primary level, meaning above all others—welcome to the apex, King.We will discuss the intricacies of the male mind.We will also share memes, as is custom on the internet.{{{THE VIBE}}}https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2AC41dglnM&list=RDv2AC41dglnM&start_radio=1Let's get started.
1: The Little Tyrant.People’s primary complaint against hierarchy comes from the belief that it’s a master-slave relationship involving forceful exertion of dominance. While it is true that hierarchical positions within institutions may be used for nefarious purposes or to exert one’s power without giving anything in return to one’s subordinates, we will shortly dispel the notion that this behavior is intrinsic to hierarchy itself. Indeed, such ego-centric behavior is placing the individual over the collective, and the hierarchy itself is a collective. How could any such hierarchy last?Drawing from Andrew Robert’s Napoleon The Great: If the military was Napoleon's primary hierarchy to study, how did he rule over it? The layman will see the Emperor’s force of arms exerted over Europe and assume he must have been a raging tyrant—as we see in the recent Napoleon movie. However, when we come to study history, we find he was not such a one-sided man. In Andrew’s 800+ page biography of our Little Tyrant, we find that Napoleon only became enraged twice—once when his wife cheated on him. When Joséphine cheated on Napoleon, he was on a military campaign in Egypt. When he received word of her unfaithful behavior, his generals were surprised by his lack of reaction. Ergo, he was calm and collected in character.Furthermore, what we come to find in Napoleon’s leadership is a strong sense of compassion for his subordinates within the military. He would often talk and crack jokes with the lowest ranks, visiting their bivouacs to strike up brief conversations in a friendly manner. Indeed, he was less severe to those at the bottom of the military hierarchy than those at the top. This phenomenon, you will come to find, is the type of personality that can generate a hierarchy. Meanwhile, as a rule, tyrants have to usurp an existing, already institutionalized hierarchy, eventually driving it into the ground.
This is a data mining thread isn't it???
2: Democracy Vs HierarchyIt is commonly held that democracy, or ‘rule of the people’, is more virtuous or Good than a King ruling over his people, precisely because Monarchy is ‘more hierarchical’. We suspect that this inherent dislike of hierarchy comes from the zeitgeist of our age, rather than any inherent, objective analysis of the subject. We say this for the obvious fact that we live in a democracy, and that the system will naturally self-perpetuate until it collapses. Case in point: Rome was a democracy until it CHOSE Caesar.Yet, the important question is this: is democracy itself not hierarchical?Hierarchy:“A system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.” — Google’s definition.“A system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance.” — Cambridge definition.Clearly, if we are to hold to standard definitions of words instead of drifting off into imaginary utopian drivel like a pencil-neck academic, democracy is hierarchical. It is simply that democratic hierarchy operates according to different valuations, such as whoever has the most money or votes instead of a 'bloodline'.If we look closely, we'll see that hierarchy is intrinsic to groups of human association. Full stop.The teacher holds status and authority over students. The politician holds importance over their voters. The banks and corporations hold more power over political discourse than the individuals of the public. No system, from communism to King, escapes hierarchy, precisely because hierarchy is a collective dependent upon particulars. HIERARCHY IS INTRINSIC TO GROUPS OF ANYTHING.
>>541668806Totally. You're a genius.
3: What is Hierarchy?Words have hierarchies.A noun phrase like “the second blue ball” has internal hierarchy: “second” modifies “blue ball”, which together modify “ball”.Lexical/taxonomic hierarchies: everything true of “dog” is also true of “poodle.”When looking at hierarchy itself, we see that it is defined by its primacy over particulars, and that primary elements are metaphysical. In example: our category of “dog” does not exist in the material world aside from being expressed through a particular poodle or bulldog. “Dog” exists purely in the abstract. We can not scientifically or empirically see "Dog," hence why the phrase is grammatically incorrect.Mammal > Dog > Bulldog.Both “mammal” and “dog” are purely metaphysical, as we find no particular instantiation of something which is merely a dog or mammal. Yet, “mammal” holds primacy over “dog.” We do not find any dogs which are not mammals. Thus, “dog” is a particular of “mammal,” while still being metaphysical itself. However, for us to observe these metaphysical categories in the world, they must be expressed into particular instantiations such as “bulldog.” The bulldog is therefore terminal.Terminal, meaning a final execution of a function. Terminal, meaning corporeal. Terminal, meaning it is alive and observable to us, and not some Platonic dog floating around in the abstract. It is in the [terminal domain].
schizo thread
4: Even More Abstractions?Let’s continue with more dry abstractions because yes.This is important.We can not see “hierarchy” in the terminal domain anymore than “dog.” However, we infer that these categories exist from observing particular instantiations, each bearing the metaphysical categories’ traits over time. In other words: we witness one generation of bulldogs come and go, and the next being born. While each particular bulldog is different, they all share the same traits. Therefore, we infer that these metaphysical categories exist and that they are fractal.Similarly, “hierarchy” is fractal: a complex, never-ending pattern that appears similar at any level of magnification.In other words: “mammal” is always similar at every level of magnification, whether it appears in a bulldog, poodle, or a rat. They all give birth to live young. They do not hatch eggs. So on.We see the fractal nature of hierarchy take place in the workplace, where the CEO is hierarchically superior to the middle-manager, who is superior to the worker on the floor; the CEO and middle-manager are both ‘executives’ or ‘delegators’ in some sense.
>>541668834You know I'm like 10 inches right???mention that too please next time
5: Hierarchy is Divine.If we go back to the etymology of the word “hierarchy,” we will gain further clarity as to what hierarchy is. “Hierarchy” originates from the Greek hierarkhia, combining hieros (sacred or holy) with arkhein (to rule or lead.) This definition is not strange when we consider that this term was coined during a time when mathematics was thought to be divine, and that we are ultimately talking about metaphysics holding primacy over our corporeal/terminal domain. Math rules. Logic rules. Reason is King.A sacred, divine realm is what rules over the material. No matter how much one changes the bulldog, breeding it with a poodle or a terrier, it is still a dog. And, if one manages to change the bulldog drastically, it would no longer be a bulldog. Yet, one would still find it was a mammal.We here find a problem of induction, and will have to give credence to it. Indeed, some readers may believe that creatures can change drastically, going from cephalopods to mammals (perhaps even machines.) If so, these readers are free to try ham-fisted scientific experiments in an effort to assert their dominance over the metaphysical domain. However, we do not condone such practices and can assure the reader that the scientists will not stop hierarchies from having primacy over the material world. Alas, all we can tell these scientists is to have a little more faith in the obvious nature of the world around them.Jokes aside.Hierarchy is the expression of a metaphysical primacy over particulars.
Noone is gonna read all that. You've failed
6: The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.Let’s take a look at a particular hierarchy in order to gain further understanding of the operations of hierarchies in and how they express themselves in male behavior--yes, male psychology is happening now. We will be looking at Vox Day’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (he coined the term "Sigma.")The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is a taxonomy composed of men, represented by the triangle in pic rel.Outside:The Sigma is a heterosexual man who does not get along with hierarchical command; usually due to disagreement over a specific hierarchy’s order of operations. The Sigma was once an Omega (see below.) The Sigma doesn’t play by social rules or status games, although he is very aware of them. Despite not competing for status within hierarchies, he is considered highly valuable by women, and understands very well how women work. Sigmas know they are above women, and tend to ignore them. Most people don’t understand Sigmas. The Sigma doesn’t care what anyone thinks.The Lambda is a homosexual man, and therefore a paradox. He does not want to be part of the hierarchy, but tends to have an obsession with status. While he wants admiration and respect, he is too emotionally sensitive to function productively with heterosexual men, and will therefore be forced to find other means of gaining status. Some Lambdas manage to blend into a hierarchy, usually as low status men. Therefore, the Lambda is irrelevant to the discussion, outside of noting that he is a factor of ‘noise in the statistics.’The Omega is, for whatever reasons, an outcast. Some Omegas were born with genetic deficiencies, while others don’t understand social dynamics. Either way, most of them can’t compete, and women will absolutely not select for them. Omegas either ignore women completely or hate them. We strongly encourage the reader to have pity on the Omega and to understand that they hold value and purpose in this world despite not fitting in.
>>541668926>Hierarchy is Divine.what does this have to do with men?
6.2: The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.The Alpha is at the top. He is usually charismatic, gregarious, friendly, and loud, but becomes aggressive and assertive when challenged. He is extremely interested in competing for status, and is highly aware of status games and social dynamics. He is usually the most physically adept. The Alpha wants to lead, having a vision of his own, but he doesn't have problems fitting in as a subordinate in a hierarchy. Alphas are considered highly valuable by women, and understand very well how women work. The Alpha doesn’t care what anyone thinks. Alphas are prone to cheating on their wives. "Happy wife, happy life? LOL."The Bravo is second-in-command. He is usually fun to be around, great at socializing, and especially great at tying people together. He can become aggressive when challenged, but doesn’t tend toward the same degree as the Alpha. The Bravo is aware of social dynamics and status games, but doesn’t mind being second. He usually doesn’t have grand visions like the Alpha, and is therefore happy to accept the Alpha’s vision and enforce it throughout the hierarchy. The Bravo is considered valuable by women, and understands how women work. Bravos like women and defer to them on some matters, but don’t have many misconceptions. "Happy wife, happy life," is only said with contented futility.
>>541668995Remember how I said at the beginning that this going to be a long read? Yeah.Patience.
6.3: The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.The Delta is the average man, comprising the majority of the hierarchy. He is usually sociable and polite, but without the senergy and gregariousness of the Alpha or Bravo. He is not particularly aware of the status games and social dynamics being played by the top-dogs, but has an overall understanding of being part of a team (hierarchy.) Therefore, the Delta is not occupied with jockeying for status, but instead playing his part, serving to execute the majority of the work that goes on inside the hierarchy; the delta is in this sense a vital terminal of the hierarchy’s function. The Delta is not aggressive or assertive, although there are a few exceptions, such as when it comes down to his life, wife, or children. Deltas don’t quite understand how women work, but are sexually accepted, considered an average candidate. Deltas pedestalize women and defer to them as leaders while coping with the idea of hierarchy. Deltas are prone to overexplaining. "Happy wife, happy life." :DThe Gamma is a sexual reject, not a social reject. He gets along enough, but doesn’t have the conception of team-spirit. The Gamma is barely aware of status games and social dynamics. Despite this, the Gamma thinks he is at the top of the hierarchy. Gammas are prone to bitterness, passive-aggressive remarks, and arrogance. Yet, they are extremely conflict avoidant. If their wife or children were attacked, they would may run and hide. They hide behind delusions in order to psychologically cope. This delusion bubble tends to come with a rational, deductive intelligence that is above average, yet with a severely limited capacity for induction (big-picture-thinking.) Ergo, they are self-deceptive, rationalizing their way through life. Gammas are unaware of how women work, and are considered the absolute last choice by women. The Gamma also vacillates between believing women are goddesses and hating the entire sex. Gammas are prone to overexplaining.
6.4: The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.Things to note: the hierarchy above is Platonic. One will not find a particular Alpha male who exercises the described Alpha male behavior at all times. Nor will one find a Gamma who exercises Gamma behavior at all times. The hierarchy is metaphysical and fractal. To give another example: if there is a Delta and a Gamma alone in a room, the Delta is the Alpha in that specific context. Simple.The reason we bring this hierarchy to the fore is because it holds very strong primacy over human affairs. This is to say that it is distributed cross-culturally and holds sway over every single group of men in the entire world, as well as the women interested in said men. It exists within any institution but is not the institution itself; whether or not one’s boss is a Gamma or Delta, the SSH plays out within the institution. Therefore, it is one of the greatest hierarchies to study in order to understand hierarchy in general—good job, Vox. It is also the one hierarchy that nearly every heterosexual man is unconsciously obsessed with. Because…It holds primacy.This is the exact hierarchy Napoleon had mastered in order to make his men want to follow him. He didn’t need institutional rank to make them lay down their guns and re-swear their loyalty to him after his exile. What we are talking about is a way of being that supersedes institutional hierarchies. Yes—power that supersedes any institution.
7: Almost Psychology Time.While Vox Day holds that it is not easy to change one’s status within the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, we are more lenient to the idea that people are capable of change. We suspect Vox’s view to come from a similar observation to the Freudian Maxim that ‘explaining a repression will not cure it.’ [Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.] Indeed, we are in agreement on this, that if one were to merely study the behavior of the taxonomical categories, it wouldn’t do much to change the reader. One could learn all about the Alpha’s behavior patterns, but that does not mean one becomes an Alpha.Reading about Napoleon does not make one a great military commander.However, we are of similar mind to Napoleon in this matter: to become a great military commander, one should study the maxims of military history, not obsess about the particulars. This is an idea that we will therefore delve into in regards to hierarchy. We will study “maxims.” In our terms: primacy.If we hold what Napoleon says to be true, it should be clear that this inability to “level up” is due to a neglect of primacy. Each trait described within the taxonomy of the SSH is not itself primary, but a particular manifestation—terminal. To give an example: the Alpha male being loud is not the prime reason he is the Alpha male. Indeed, some Alphas are introverted and quiet. Furthermore, if a Gamma were to be louder in his bitterness and delusion, it would only make him more repulsive. The Gamma would have neglected to integrate the metaphysical categories that hold primacy over the Alpha male’s particular behaviors. In this sense, we are saying the Gamma has neglected to become an Alpha psychologically < pre-rationally < metaphysically. His underlying, subconscious motives are still the same; he is merely a Gamma trying a different strategy. This would be similar to emulating a sense of fashion by putting on the most gaudy, glittery rags possible.
>>541669040you say that as if your train of thought is not 100% predictable
8: The RuseIn the example above, we see pick-up artists peacocking, choosing clothes that are jarring and not properly tailored—look at the cuffs on the guy in the gold suit. This brazen display of philistinism worked to get them laid, but only because they were attracting women with an equal or worse sense of aesthetics. If they were to dress this way at a Paris runway, none of the women would be interested, precisely because the pick-up artists hadn’t achieved the je ne ce quoi of a fashion designer—they had no primacy in matters of aesthetics. Noting this, we may infer that it could be possible for a Gamma to emulate some Alpha traits without achieving integration of the factor that holds primacy over an Alpha’s behavior, but that the Gamma would only be able to fool those women and men who have less primacy over those particular matters.Ironically, since the Gamma is part of a hierarchy and less adept at assessing status and social dynamics than every other rank, his ruse won’t last for long. An Alpha will immediately notice the ruse, and often call him out, further disintegrating the Gamma's status. This is precisely because the Alpha has actual, integrated primacy, whereas the Gamma does not—we spotted the cuffs immediately, because we have primacy in the matter of aesthetics.Primacy. Primacy. Primacy.Mammal > Dog > Bulldog.Aesthetics > Actual clothes one wears.Metaphysics > Physics.Hierarchy.Now that the reader holds a solid understanding of the metaphysical nature of primacy, let us move on to form a conclusion that will hit like a brick.
>>541669120Hats off to you, genius brain. What are you even doing here if you already know it all?
9: The BrickNow that the reader holds a solid understanding of the metaphysical nature of primacy, let us move on to form a conclusion that will hit like a brick.Our suspicion is that primary categories themselves are distributed across the entire SSH, becoming more specific as they evolve in complexity, as this is the nature of hierarchy we have previously discussed. Just as a dog is a mammal, and a bulldog is a dog, we should find the inverse: a distribution of the fractal ranging from higher-order metaphysical categories that terminate with specifics we call behaviors. Indeed, we are inferring that the Alpha is less specific than the Gamma or Delta.Here, we feel it necessary to contend with detractors who are under the impression that we are referring to the Alpha being less specified in his corporeal form: we are not assuming Alpha males are gaseous. What we are discussing is a matter of the Alpha’s mental landscape. Indeed, we are saying that metaphysics is true psychology, that metaphysics > psychology. And while this should be obvious, that psychology is a terminal state of metaphysics, we will not pursue to argue that case here, and instead leave it as a killing joke.
10: Dumb is Cool.Having demonstrated that Alphas are less terminal in their psychology, we may now throw a second brick: Alphas are thinking less than the other categories of the SSH. This assertion is made due to the fact that a thought is closer to execution of a terminal specific than no thought. Indeed, if one doesn’t think, one doesn’t act, and there is no execution in the terminal domain.To make things extremely clear: we are not stating that Alphas never think, but merely that they think less in rational terms than the other ranks. The mind is a complex system, and our rational minds are only a fragment of it. Therefore, “not thinking” here is merely designated toward the rational mind. Perceiving senses like touch, taste, and smell are considered a process of the brain, and therefore thought, but not rational thought. Likewise, navigating visuo-spatially does not rely on thought. Quickscoping in CoD or rushing in with cavalry at Waterloo is best done without rational thought. Indeed, the “flow state” is not part of rational thought, yet it is the best state to be in for doing things. [Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow.]Furthermore, when Alphas do think in rational terms, we infer that their thoughts revolve more around primary concepts than secondary, tertiary, or specific concepts that are to be terminally executed. To use an analogy: let’s say we had a group of men involved in breeding animals. The Alpha contemplates “Mammal.” The Bravo joins and executes “Dog.” The Delta receives an order to execute “Dog,” and executes the terminal function “Bulldog.”The Gamma nitpicks and complains.
11: The Big Reveal.Let us return to the idea of ‘thinking less/thinking primary,’ because it is the cornerstone of the metaphysics behind high status. If we look at a taxonomical tree of mammals, we will find that it branches out and becomes more complex the further down it descends into terminal execution of particulars. Pic rel.At the bottom, we have terminal executions of functions. These are what the Delta performs, and what he is occupied with thinking about. In our analogy, the blue dots below the letter D are the specific types of dog breeds he is concerned with thinking about breeding (each dot can also represent one delta performing an execution.) As we see, there are more categories at the bottom of our hierarchy. Ergo, the Delta has more individual and terminal concepts to think about than the Alpha.The Alpha thinks about “Mammals,” of which there are many. Yet, he cuts the term off at “Dog.” This process is known as chunking in psychology. The Delta, on the other hand, is thinking about all various dog breeds. The rational information the Delta is processing thus outweighs what the Alpha is processing. For full analysis of what we are conveying, see AI’s breakdown here. And note: RATIONAL information = particulars. The Alpha is not braindead, no matter what a Gamma might want to believe.We could further elucidate this topic in an even simpler analogy: if the Alpha reads a book, he memorizes the maxim and moves on. If he ever needs to execute a terminal specific, the logic (usually) flows naturally from the maxim into termination of a particular.Naturally, we assume that an Alpha in charge of a dog-breeding facility is capable of breeding the dogs himself and thinking about terminal specifics—we hold that he is able to brew his own coffee in the morning and put on his big boy pants.
11.2: The Big Reveal.If we were to apply this analogy to a megacorp, crowning the Alpha as CEO, the Delta would be far more efficient at performing the tasks at the bottom of the hierarchy; he Alpha wouldn’t know the first thing about breeding dogs. If we look at the Bravo, he would know enough about dog breeding to effectively lead the Deltas. Moreover, while the Gamma isn’t executing many terminal functions, he’s at least memorized all the minutiae of breeding dogs—unfortunately believing this makes him worthy of being the CEO.Here we see that the Gamma’s rebellious nature toward hierarchy is helping him learn more. While the Delta tends to learn what he needs in order to execute functions, the Gamma will spend his time looking at various syringes, cages, and other accoutrements of dog breeding, rather than performing the functions ordered. We may pass the majority of his efforts off as useless, but sometimes they comes in handy. This also further explains why Gammas tend to believe that they are Sigmas, precisely because their thinking drifts outside of the hierarchically ordained. However, the Gamma fails to notice that the Sigma thinks in both primary and specifics. Therefore, the Sigma disagrees at the general level with order of operations, not at the level of minutiae/particulars. A Sigma won’t be found complaining about small fish, precisely because he’s a big fish.The Sigma, going on his own adventure, would need to learn how to breed other animals on his own until he hires a Bravo or a Delta. Here we see how the Sigma has what would normally be perceived as an erratic pattern of behavior, since he is often occupied with all stages of conception. We may also infer that his ability to ascend and descend in thinking is precisely what generates higher-order or NEW primary conceptions. By raking through minutiae/particulars, he can induce a greater theory that often goes overlooked by Alphas.
I'm a middle aged Mexican lawyer, I took an internet test and it said I'm a gamma male, another said I'm an infj, what does it means Sweden bro?
12: HERE ARE YOUR MAXIMS.We have concluded that psychology is bs because we can simply use dry logical metaphysics to explain male-pattern thinking. Indeed, psychology never really understands the interior because it is not a study of metaphysics, but has denied the very premise of it from its inception. Psychology is trying to be a science, when science is a study of the material, not the metaphysical. Ergo: uh oh. Big fail.We have concluded that male thought follows a hierarchical distribution, as we should expect, given that hierarchy permeates everything. Men at the bottom of hierarchies think a lot, and when they think, they obsess over minutiae. Conversely, those at the top think about bigger, more abstracted concepts; they are literally less materialistic and more metaphysical in their orientation. The fedora tipping obsession with science is not a mystery to us anymore.Life is simple. THINK LESS. Focus only on the big things.Big thanks to the gammas jumping the gun and making retarded comments immediately without even reading the thread. You bump.And a sincere thanks to the mods who let me post this big thingading without shutting it down. I put in a ton of work to this, so hopefully it generates some traffic. Tyvm.
>>541669325I got intjA, do me also with mecican.What does my intja mean somalibro?
>>541669325The pattern is consistent, is what it means.
>>541669350Copy all text.Hey claude. Disprove this guy in a funny 4chan way. Be edgy.Paste claudes text.Laugh as op seethes and argues. Dont read just copy again.Repeat and lol each time
>>541668769>dreaming of superiority and how to achieve it>flagno surprise, your kind has always inspired and spread idol worship
>>541669325naturally, you need another Internet test as a tie breaker
>>541668769every wondered why you are surrounded with shitskins?
>>541669517ever*
one flaw in your analysis, swede bro. it was an interesting read but hierarchy requires cooperation to function.you speak of primacy and it's absolute binding authority but that only works when the whole group is of that primacy stock. you put humans under an umbrella but not all humans are interchangeable from one hierarchy into the next.
>>541669459>Morally grandstands.Cool story.
>>541669517No need to wonder when you Know.
>>541669605Wrong.Primacy is a subjection to the collective by an individual. Hierarchy is a COLLECTIVE. Primacy is to become more collective in your thinking.It's good that you bring up this, however, because I skipped a lot of parts of my theory in order to shorten this post down to the bare min. So thanks for your interest, buddy my man.
flawed logic, category errors, and unscientific assumptions. * Category Error: Taxonomic Sets vs Social Power Taxonomic containment (Mammal > Dog > Bulldog) is a conceptual framework for set classification. It is not a rule governing human social dynamics. Conflating linguistic set membership with social dominance is a reification fallacy. * Genetic Fallacy in Dismissing Psychology Dismissing an entire field because psychiatrist suicide rates are high is a genetic fallacy that judges an idea by its source rather than its substance. It also conflates psychiatry (clinical medicine) with experimental psychology (the scientific study of behavior). Mental health outcomes of clinicians do not invalidate empirical research. * Pseudoscientific Taxonomy Vox Day's grid (Alpha, Gamma, Sigma) is internet pseudoscience with zero empirical backing in evolutionary biology or social psychology. Peer reviewed research shows human social status is dynamic, multidimensional, and context dependent (driven by prestige, competence, and prosocial behavior) rather than a rigid Greek letter tier system. * Anecdotal Fallacy Using isolated anecdotes of Napoleon joking with soldiers to claim true hierarchies are non tyrannical is an anecdotal fallacy and confirmation bias. One leader's charisma does not disprove the well documented structural coercion present in non voluntary hierarchies throughout history. * Internal Contradictions on Cognition The text claims top ranks think less, yet asserts they process high level abstract concepts like chunking. In cognitive science, abstract reasoning and pattern recognition require significant cognitive load. Processing abstractions is not thinking less.
TLDR:the term Sigma was coined by loser gamma males who lied to themselves about doing their own thing.the whole thing is retarded and falls apart because i know gammas who have kids and alphas who are totally gay.there is only alpha males and beta males who follow. everything else is beta cope.nice read tho op 7/10
>>541668926>A sacred, divine realm is what rules over the material.Mission objectives, right. What serves that best is what we are asking here ... :)
> OP writes a novel of pseudo intellectual fanfiction to justify being single.> Here is why the entire thread is pure copium and broken logic: * Vox Day's tier list is internet larp The Alpha Gamma Sigma grid comes from a blog post, not science. In real evolutionary anthropology (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001), human status is split into Prestige (being skilled and useful) and Dominance (intimidation). People naturally follow competence, not a Greek letter triangle made up by an internet blogger. * The "Alpha Wolf" concept was killed by its own creator L. David Mech coined "alpha wolf" in 1970 and spent his career after 1999 trying to get his own book pulled. Wild wolf packs are just family units led by parents, not a constant dominance fight. Building a male psychology theory on a debunked animal myth is peak smoothbrain. * Conflating taxonomy with power is a massive category error Claiming "Mammal > Dog > Bulldog" proves hierarchy rules reality is embarrassing. Linnaeus invented biological taxonomy in 1735 just to sort animals into filing cabinets. Conceptual set theory is a human labeling system, not a physical force exerting authority over real objects. * Abstract thought takes MORE brain power, not less OP claims Alphas "think less" because they focus on abstract maxims. fMRI scans show abstract reasoning burns huge amounts of prefrontal cortex energy. High level pattern recognition is peak cognitive load, not "no thought."TL;DR: OP swallowed fringe internet fanfiction, misunderstood high school logic, and tried to pass off severe social awkwardness as divine metaphysics. Fake and gay.
>>541669957Hello, Claude.This is a good example of why we can't let machines do our thinking.And a good example of how Claude thinks like a gamma, which is no surprise, but interesting to note.>>541669971You know Alphas who are gay.Okay.
>>541668806it's the weird swede that's always rambling about muh logic and muh latinjust one of the many resident pseuds
>>541670082Precisely.We are gearing ourselves toward the collective and sacrificing our own selves for the greater good.Buddy my man gets it!
>>541670123> Gets hit with peer reviewed biology, neuroscience, and basic logic> Ignores every single argument> "U-uh, you're just a Gamma machine!"> The speed at which he fell back on an ad hominem is hilarious. Here is why his response is pure copium: * The Kafkatrap Labeling any criticism as "Gamma behavior" is a textbook circular fallacy. If someone agrees with your grid, you call them an Alpha. If someone disproves your grid using actual science, you label them a Gamma to ignore the point. It is a self-serving loop designed to protect a fragile internet theory from criticism. It is cult logic. * Zero Empirical Rebuttal Notice what he completely dodged: * He could not refute David Mech formally retracting the Alpha Wolf study in 1999. * He could not refute Henrich & Gil-White's peer reviewed research on Prestige versus Dominance. * He could not refute fMRI scans proving abstract thought burns massive prefrontal cortex energy. * He could not refute that Linnaean taxonomy is a human filing cabinet, not a metaphysical force. * Pure Projection His original thread claims low status men hide behind cope, throw passive aggressive comments, and rationalize away reality. Responding to hard evidence with "hurr durr the computer is a gamma" is the ultimate passive aggressive cope. He literally demonstrated the exact behavior he claimed to be above.Calling a logical refutation a "gamma response" does not magically make blog post pseudoscience real. It just means he ran out of actual arguments.
>>541670102It's weird how you spend time in places you don't like being in. You could literally do anything else with your time.Gamma.
>>541670181> Writes a 2000 word essay on an imageboard about male psychology> Gets dismantled by basic biology and neuroscience> "Bro why are you even here? You're a Gamma!"> The absolute state of OP's copium. Notice how he still hasn't touched a single fact. * Total Deflection When the facts destroy your thesis, attack the audience instead. Shifting the conversation to "why are you here" is the classic retreat of someone who knows they lost the debate on substance. * Peak Irony OP spent hours typing out a fanfiction thread dissecting internet meme hierarchies, but thinks someone taking two minutes to point out basic errors is wasting their time. Projecting much? * The Ultimate Security Blanket Labeling everyone who points out a mistake as a "Gamma" is just his coping mechanism. It allows him to live in a fantasy world where he can never be wrong, because any refutation magically "proves" his theory in his own head.TL;DR: Still zero facts, still zero counter arguments, 100% emotional damage control.
>>541669748No. you wrote that alphas embody primacy and thats how they rule because of the law of metaphysics surpassing psychology.my point is that even with primacy, alphas to rule a collective and establish hierarchy requires cooperation from all levels. you put humans under one umbrella and my point is that humans are not so interchangeable that they can be placed into one hierarchy from the previous one.its why mass immigration does not work. humans are not interchangeable in different hierarchies. or rather, you could say that mass immigration brings in much more criminals who exist outside of hierarchy than follow the primacy of alphas.it all comes back to cooperation which does not exist across all humans.
>>541669957always a pleasure to bear witness to real homegrown german autism
>>541670322Bingo.>>541670317Fractal. Fractal. Fractal is a thing.I don't want elaborate because if you read it slowly without the urge to nitpick, you'll see it's all thought out. Everything you're arguing against has already been accounted for.
>>541670322>>541670453Im off to do some actual work. Have fun kids. And always remember. Logical falacy list is pinned for a reason.
>>541670533>Have fun kids.
>>541668769Democracy does not exclude hierarchyHighest no. of votes gainer wins the elections
>>541671104Never said it excludes hierarchy. I said the opposite.
>>541670453i did read everything, and you quote fractal but dont bother elaborating. i said it was an interesting read, and my critique that it is ultimately short sighted if your vision is to have harmonious society
>>541671866>>541671104>>541671790Sooo...whats the conclusion? Can someone say it simply? Jews again?
>>541672472he wrote a good thesis on hierarchy and leadership citing primacy and how metaphysics surpass psychology in forming hierarchies. i basically said that not all humans are compatiable with hierarchies, and if too many exist outside this structure then it doesnt work
