"Alpha, beta, delta, gamma, omega, sigma" personality archetypes | INFJ Forum

"Alpha, beta, delta, gamma, omega, sigma" personality archetypes

Gaze

Donor
Sep 5, 2009
28,265
44,748
1,906
MBTI
INFPishy
What do you think of this theory of behavior (usually ascribed to males but could also fit women)? Do you think there's validity to the theory? If so or not, please explain why or why not. Various sites especially forums have people who have written their own versions of each archetype. Many seem to find the descriptions helpful, somewhat accurate, and use the descriptions to find compatible partners when dating and to manage dominant/submissive relationship dynamics. Do you see these descriptions reflected in everyday dating or relationship dynamics? Do you see yourself more as dominant or submissive or a mix of the two? What would you see as the flaw in the theory if you someone adheres to this too rigidly? Which figures in society, pop culture, or media do think are good examples of each type?

Below are three descriptions I found which are similar but also a bit different, showing how the archetypes are being understood differently depending on the person and the reasoning used to rationalize the theory.


Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren't as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy's friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don't have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha's former girlfriends.

Lifetime sexual partners = 2-3x average.

Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can't attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.

Lifetime sexual partners = 1-1.5x average

Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

Lifetime voluntary sexual partners = .5x average

Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.

Lifetime sexual partners < 2

Sigma: The outsider who doesn't play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don't accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. In a social situation, the sigma is the man who stops in briefly to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a Tier 1 girl that no one has ever seen before. Sigmas like women, but tend to be contemptuous of them. They are usually considered to be strange. Gammas often like to think they are sigmas, failing to understand that sigmas are not social rejects, they are at the top of the social hierarchy despite their refusal to play by its rules.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html

Gamgams.png

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=160378801&page=1

alpha: you are confident and your own man. you do your own thing and have complete confidence in everything you do. you have your self doubts, but you don't let it cloud your judgment and logic. you are well liked by almost everyone, and you just have an easy charm and swagger about your presence. women are drawn to your charisma and presence. you enjoy being social and having lots of people around. you are a natural leader

beta: you are kind of shy and introverted and not very confident in yourself. you are constantly plagued by insecurities and self-doubts and you can never commit to anything in the fear that you will fail in it. you are somewhat liked by people but they tend to look at you rather condescendingly and woman tend to friendzone you. you are nervous around other people and social situations because you're always afraid that people are judging you. you are a born follower

omega: you are the polar opposite of the alpha male, but in a good way. like the alpha male you are confident, intelligent and have a sense of charisma about you, but unlike the alpha male, you are completely your own person. you do not need anyone, and you can even be emotionally distant due to your complete self-possession. you trust few people and foster even fewer intimate relationships. omegas do not care for leadership by others as they are perfectly capable of leading themselves

gamma male: you are sort of the "invisible" guy. there is nothing really spectacular about you. you are not a beta, but neither are you an alpha. your personality and presence usually blends in with the rest of the room and you're just sort of...there. people like you just fine and you usually don't have too much trouble with girls, but all the same, there is nothing particularly memorable or remarkable about you. you are not a born leader nor a inherent follower, although you can take on those tasks depending on the situation

sigma male: you are a manipulative mastermind. you are a spider waiting to lay your trap. you possess a cunning, intuitive mind and can sway people to your will. you don't have the casual swagger of the alpha or the omega but you do have a clever presence about you and people tend to be both wary and respect you for that. you can often be even more powerful than the alpha or the omega male in social situations due to your ability to persuade and manipulate them. you are neither a follower or a leader but rather a wild card.
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/a...mma-or-sigma-male-descriptions-itt.250127262/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Asa
What do you think of this theory of behavior (usually ascribed to males but could also fit women)?

I think it is silly and a bit demeaning to put people in boxes notated as inherently better or worse. Other than that, I think the concept is a bit short-sighted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LostInTheForest
I hate the way that people behave in large groups, but I agree with what [MENTION=4361]Elis[/MENTION] said about putting people into boxes with a hierarchy like that as being a bit demeaning.

Also. More than one "alpha male" winds up having multiple wives and divorces under his belt then has trouble retaining his respect and the respect of others once he ages. Then all of a sudden he'll leak crazy that's been building up and do something like become obsessed with Scientology. Cough ESFJ guys cough Tom Cruise.
 
The theory is very valid. All you have to do is survey a party or bar scene or any type of opposite sex interactions; in college campuses, work environments and even online dating sites to verify how accurate it is. It is not about hurting people's feelings since our culture has a very hard time accepting social heirarchy because of the idea that everyone being equal and treated equally. Humans follow the nature hierarchy of survival and survival of the fittest and no amount of social babying is going to get rid of this primal behavior.

Those in denial of this hierarchy is in denial of their own position in the world; man or woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
I do think the hierarchy is different for females though. This would be more interesting to explore because females use more passive aggressive behaviors to land a mate or career or position of power and such and I think it extends further than being attractive, sexual or not. What you think [MENTION=1669]Gist[/MENTION]?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
I do think the hierarchy is different for females though. This would be more interesting to explore because females use more passive aggressive behaviors to land a mate or career or position of power and such and I think it extends further than being attractive, sexual or not. What you think @Gist?

Although I don't like the descriptions because they are a bit one dimensional, I think the theory is sound and reflects reality better than we would like to admit. You're right that the Alpha female would not be the same as the Alpha Male. For example, the Alpha male rules through his and other's belief in his verility, strength, power, control, exceptional physical and mental agility. That's presumed to be natural for the Alpha Male. He, in essence, "demands" recognition to be a true Alpha. He requires that recognition as Alpha. The Alpha Female, is more subversive. I think she rules with a different kind of strength and power. She is not necessarily softer, but her tactics for achieving control and dominance are different. I see her as more of a mastermind, who is effective at using emotional and psychological tactics to achieve recognition. She's more indirect, and less forceful but no less competent or confident as a female Alpha. I think she can wield her power in ways a male alpha can't. A male alpha has to appear dominant to maintain his status and power. A female Alpha, can appear less dominant or assertive but yet wield enormous influence, sometimes in more ways than the Alpha. The Alpha's power is through direct imposition, while the female Alpha's power is indirect and subtle.

Female bosses are good examples of this. I see many female bosses who strive to gain power and influence by behaving as their male counterparts, not realizing they have power that the male does not necessarily wield. They believe that to be seen as equal or powerful, they must take on or mimic qualities of the typical alpha male bosses. However, the Alpha female has her own unique power, that may not be as obvious as the male alpha but it can just as efficient and effective. Unfortunately, as you've already mentioned in your blog, that the feminine is not appreciated as it should, and too often dismissed or disregarded as naturally weak and inadequate. It's an untapped potential, that goes beyond sexuality. Feminine power (not female power) is very easily underestimated. It's just a less visible form of power, but quite potent.

How about you? Does this fit with what you were questioning about Alpha Females?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solongo
Although I don't like the descriptions because they are a bit one dimensional, I think the theory is sound and reflects reality better than we would like to admit. You're right that the Alpha female would not be the same as the Alpha Male. For example, the Alpha male rules through verility, strength, power, control, and exceptional physical and mental agility. That's presumed to be natural for the Alpha Male. He, in essence, "demands" recognition as an Alpha. He requires that recognition as Alpha. The Alpha Female, is more subversive. I think she rules with a different kind of strength and power. She is not necessarily softer, but her tactics for achieving control and dominance are different. I see as more of a mastermind, who is effective at using emotional and psychological tactics to achieve recognition. She's more indirect, and less forceful but no less competent or confident as a female. I think she can wield her power in ways a male alpha can't. A male alpha has to appear dominant to maintain his status and power. A female Alpha, can appear less dominant or assertive but yet wield enormous influence, sometimes in more ways than the Alpha. The Alpha's power is through direct imposition, while the female Alpha's power is indirect and subtle. Female bosses are good examples of this. I see many female bosses who strive to gain power and influence by behaving as their male counterparts, not realizing they have power that the male does not necessarily wield. It's not as obvious but it can just as efficient and effective. Unfortunately, as you've already mentioned in your blog, that the feminine is not appreciated as it should, and perceived as naturally weak and inadequate. It's an untapped potential, that goes beyond sexuality. Feminine power (not female power) is very easily underestimated. It's just a less visible form of power, but quite potent.

How about you? Does this fit with what you were questioning about Alpha Females?

i agree wholeheartedly with how you described feminine power. now the question becomes how do we as females access this power? feminine power is definitely miscontrued and used to create polarity within the female population and culture. the division is very much obviously sexual; since sexual power is after all the power to create life and take life - this power is potent and dangerous at the same time.

every female has access to this type of power and i think the female social hierarchy will be based on the choices a woman makes in using this power or not using it or abusing it or giving it away. i actually don't blame men as the feminists do regarding the use and abuse of the feminine sexuality and power; i think it is lack of teaching and guiding that is so absent within female generations and families. to be led and guided correctly by out mothers, sisters and grandmothers and not by the kardashians and housewives of whatever that tarnishes and degrades the female power.
 
I was doing research on what MBTI landed where, and it led me back here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon and Wyote
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
 
the types organized into Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Omega
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote
I think any mbti type can be anywhere in social hierarchies, but as far as infjs go you are gonna see a lower rate of alphas
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon and Asa
The theory is very valid. All you have to do is survey a party or bar scene or any type of opposite sex interactions; in college campuses, work environments and even online dating sites to verify how accurate it is. It is not about hurting people's feelings since our culture has a very hard time accepting social heirarchy because of the idea that everyone being equal and treated equally. Humans follow the nature hierarchy of survival and survival of the fittest and no amount of social babying is going to get rid of this primal behavior.

Those in denial of this hierarchy is in denial of their own position in the world; man or woman.

Lol No. It’s hardly denial if I authentically reject a construct that was never mine to begin with. Yes that most likely originates with some measure of having been relegated to the bottom of it or cast out from it, but across the span of years other people’s perceptions wouldn’t be expected to change from that as much as one’s own, now would they? It’s not unlike considering a cult/religion member “lapsed“ or “fallen“. The very arrogance.

People who need to categorize it can call it Sigma or “Heyoka” or “empath” or something else… call it the man in the moon for all I care but that fabricated assessment of my rank in society Is the illusory falsehood whose participants are in denial is not completely arbitrary. The idiocy of it is comical too; it can’t figure out what to “do“ with me and that’s a reflection of it’s constituent individuals’ inability to mind their own business with regard to me doing the same. Beliefs can be facts or feelings and just because you need to believe somebody’s in denial does not mean it’s true.

The denial is your own projective displacement regardless of whether or not you see it. The fact that we are both unaffected either way but only you need to think that should tell you something. No denial here I’m well aware my non-participation might be confounding, you just don’t seem to be aware that’s supposed to be when you catch a clue about keeping your rules to your own life like a grown-up and allowing others the same consideration
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildfire
One problem with it is that it seems to be based on status quo and SJ world. INFJ as change makers naturally are more likely to fit into sigma group.

Where do artists and intellectuals sit within it? Makes me think of Jordan Peterson and his dominance hierarchies, but the same problem exists. It’s based on success in the status quo, and ignores those who are outside of that for good reasons. It labels these people as losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon and Wildfire
I've often heard people talking about these social categories, but it seemed so absurd I never took it as anything more than a meme.

Thank you for posting a concise summary. It actually captures something very observable about a lot of males. I have been called a sigma several times in the last couple of years, and I thought it was some sort of autistic taunt, but my bad lifestyle seems well described above.

I don't like that the descriptions assume no morality and don't try to account for it because I've had friends from every social paradigm, but who surpass the paradigms described above. For example, a good friend of mine easily fits the alpha description, and enjoys the adulation of betas, but doesn't react badly to my endless disregard for his social cache. Moreover, I am abandoning my hedonistic tendencies and want to turn whatever out-of-the-box thinking or social abilities I have towards the benefit of others to the exclusion of benefits to myself.

Sigh, it's like we're just cave men with fancy things and knowledge for so much of our lives.
 
These lists contradict each other. Upon Googling, I found several more lists that contradict each other.
Is there a dominant popular list that overrides all the contradictions?

Women don't prefer men from one category. We all have a type and our type could land anywhere on this list. For example, I know an Alpha woman who only dates Omegas from the first list (the type that lacks ambition and can't keep a job.) While she runs top companies she routinely dates homeless crackheads. She is drop-dead gorgeous and she can have anyone she wants. She runs in a circle of Alpha women who all routinely date Omegas, too.

I only date(d) the one who doesn't follow the hierarchy, the "artist" and independent thinker. In the first list, this is the Gamma. I am not into how Gamma is described in other lists.

Alpha men, as described here, are gross. Egotistical blowhards.
Alpha men described as thoughtful leaders who take care of the people in their packs are more attractive. He's the ideal dad, grandfather, sensei, or mentor... wise, patient, does not have a hot temper, not egotistical but knows who he is, takes care of others, teaches, helps others become better people.