Post: #51

Most guys are not lone-wolves. They're just introverted or odd and use that term "lone-wolf" to feel better about themselves.

You'll know you're a lone-wolf when you survive, not because you care if you survive or not, but because you want to give life one last 'fuck you'. It's not hope; it's and anger and bitterness that lives inside them.

I've met maybe 2-3 guys from here who I would call true lone-wolves. But most people have someone or something they are willing to live for and because of that, they are not truly "lone".

Post: #52

(07-10-2017 08:31 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 06:47 PM)rpg Wrote:  I think a defining element of sigmas is that sigmas have a superior skill set in certain things which give them an advantage. Really great with guns, cars, sports but are unable to translate it into social dominance. Without the superior skill set which is regularly proven, not a has been, the sigma would be closer to an omega. Just my 2 cents.

Again back to the social rejects Blaster listed. None of those people and no shitty underground DJ with a diva complex would have that kind of skill set. Omegas have no charisma. Sigmas do. Not the kind to inspire loyalty but the kind that says the first "Booooooooo" at a bad concert. He's the first person in and the first person out.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking of all Sigmas as 'obvious, drunken losers'. Those with incredible willpower can tame their destructive instincts. I'm a lone wolf by nature, but am, at a superficial glance, surrounded by a large circle of friends who had to work very hard to get to know me, but obviously wanted to to put the required effort in. You could look at Trump and think he's accumulating wealth and things like an alpha. Don't always think people are playing the game on the same level. They'd be his superficial rewards, hence his lack of pretension, and his ability to be comfortable in humble surroundings.

What's he seems really-interested in is bending others to his meet his point of view. And if the 'others' becomes an 'entire nation', well, it's something to do. Watch John Steele getting the Betchloff guys to speak openly of the Jewish Question over a couple of years, when they originally were clutching at pearls. "Shh. You can't say that."

This is why I suggested to Catalyst, if most conversations bore you, make the game about bending the group to your will.

What is game? Being about to smoothly-engage in conversation, listen to a parallel internal dialogue, read body language and the vibe of your surroundings, and predict expectations of behaviour, all at the same time.

It's just a way for an intelligent man to make a conversation with a woman far more intellectually-stimulating than what she is capable of offering him.

(07-10-2017 03:39 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  This bullshit again?

Ha! Rhyme, mate: you were recently-offered a job offering exposure with money behind it, a wage and the chance to be put in the circles with exactly the kind of women you'd do very well with. How did you respond? "No artistic integrity in that at all, fuck that."

Your increasing-contempt for your ex-collaborator's being such a pathetic goodguy feminist to get laid? Your desire to be very good what you do and to raise the bar? Your visible detachment and boredom at playing other people's songs, and wanting to write your own material? Your anger that everyone in the scene is posing-and-playing with ironic detachment, instead of putting themselves out there in rock star fashion?

Me offering to buy you a self-contained recording unit, no strings, so you didn't have to rely on your collaborator to get your ideas down, because I recognise talent and like to do my bit helping out other artists, and you handwaving the offer way and quickly-changing the subject.

Everything I've ever said to you was under the presumption you were an Alpha Male - you're fit, dress well, are highly-intelligent, and give off a natural vibe of being removed from / above the crowd - and none of my advice was applicable because you're not interested in playing the game. That's cool. Neither am I.

Like me, you're currently-working a job far beneath your intelligence and skillset, and are having an enjoyable enough time doing it.

Like me, you find the concept of Sigma contemptuously-narcissistic as hell.

I think I was starting to realise. Did you notice when the opportunity arose to possibly work together, I said, "whilst there's a couple of structurally-important notes here and there that you'd HAVE to hit, you'd have free run to create the rest of your part. Build on what's there or don't?" Do you understand that a songwriter willing to put that level of faith in a contributing musician instinctively-recognises someone whose strength is thinking beyond the standard way of doing things? See the respect I have that I know there's not point giving you orders?

You're a very cool cat, Rhyme. Keep on being you.

Post: #53

(07-10-2017 09:17 PM)LINUX Wrote:  Most guys are not lone-wolves. They're just introverted or odd and use that term "lone-wolf" to feel better about themselves.
You'll know you're a lone-wolf when you survive, not because you care if you survive or not, but because you want to give life one last 'fuck you'. It's not hope; it's and anger and bitterness that lives inside them.
I've met maybe 2-3 guys from here who I would call true lone-wolves. But most people have someone or something they are willing to live for and because of that, they are not truly "lone".

Perhaps the idea isn't to take the 'lone-wolf' term literally, rather as a general description.
Yet nonetheless.
I'm still not sure I understand the angst against this proverbial 'sigma' type.

A type of guy who largely does his own thing, yet may be a bit verbose about his conduct online.
& then...?
If the sigma largely keeps to himself & it's possible to simply ignore his diatribe online be going to a different thread or going to a different website; why the fuss?

Or does the sigma's harsh derision at established behaviour send a small chill up the spine of those dependent on those established aspects of life?

Post: #54

(07-10-2017 09:32 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  I'm still not sure I understand the angst against this proverbial 'sigma' type.

Alpha's are used to being the Bully, and if that means they have to physically-fight and get beaten up to protect their status, they don't care.

Sigma's are the only ones who can psychologically-bully Alphas in a way that makes them lose public face in front of others.

Make sense? Hence, the hatred.

Post: #55

(07-10-2017 09:42 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Alpha's are used to being the Bully, and if that means they have to physically-fight and get beaten up to protect their status, they don't care.

Sigma's are the only ones who can psychologically-bully Alphas in a way that makes them lose public face in front of others.

Make sense? Hence, the hatred.

Oh it's what I already suspected. Just figured I'd be a bit sly about it.

Post: #56

(07-10-2017 09:24 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Don't fall into the trap of thinking of all Sigmas as 'obvious, drunken losers'.

No they're not drunken losers. They're always completely lucid they just have the balls to kick the snake when the Alpha is scared if it's poisonous.

Quote:Those with incredible willpower can tame their destructive instincts. I'm a lone wolf by nature, but am, at a superficial glance, surrounded by a large circle of friends who had to work very hard to get to know me, but obviously wanted to to put the required effort in. You could look at Trump and think he's accumulating wealth and things like an alpha. Don't always think people are playing the game on the same level. They'd be his superficial rewards, hence his lack of pretension, and his ability to be comfortable in humble surroundings.

The sigma is described in one sentence:

"Money is of no object."

Even if they have no money. They'll find it somehow. It's like those pockets like darkholes in old school cartoons where Tom pulls a hammer out of his fur pocket to smack the shit out of Jerry.

Their game is life and game over is irrelevant as they'll enjoy it nonetheless. They'll just act as if they can put in another quarter to continue.

It's why I don't see the narcissism to that kind of worldview. They have a host of problems but zest for life is a virtue I can't ignore. Narcissists are too busy ego stroking to truly smile. A sigma is always smiling in public and in pleasant company. Atleast on the inside.

Quote:What's he seems really-interested in is bending others to his meet his point of view. And if the 'others' becomes an 'entire nation', well, it's something to do. Watch John Steele getting the Betchloff guys to speak openly of the Jewish Question over a couple of years, when they originally were clutching at pearls. "Shh. You can't say that."

That's one way to do it I guess. But the more successful ones do these kind of things in a matter minutes. 10 tops.

Remember my friend who I mentioned in the second PM a while back(lets call him "R" as I'm not fond of leaving blatant paper trails on the forum). R is a forceful intellectual working on his PHD at a rather prestigious school to spite the establishment giving it to him so he can teach at a Christian school using his very traditional worldview.

His fringe views, which are very similar to the forum but quite different, normally inspire outrage, but he manages to silence any opposition to him with careful wordplay and a tone of well measured indignation. His speaking style I would very much compare to our very own Quintus Curtius wear it's calm, collected, and forceful all at once.

Seeing a bleeding heart socialist and democrat silenced and attentively listening in a matter of minutes blew my mind. I don't think I've ever seen that feat repeated ever before. Granted they were on friendly terms before they talked politics. Nonetheless astonishing.

Anyways back to them being mistaken from drunks. Far from it. They're just naturally the first person to speak up without any stimulus(though alcohol consumption may vary).

Quote:This is why I suggested to Catalyst, if most conversations bore you, make the game about bending the group to your will.

BOOOOORRRRRINGGGGG!

Kidding you're right and wrong. That's too Machiavellian and too serious I would say. I completely agree with the end game and there's no problem there, but the ends just don't justify the means.

Bend the group to your will, but make the conversation fun. If you're a stiff at the party people will notice. Speak up in your own way and run the conversation true to your personality and nothing will go wrong.

Just be wary of social cues and don't say anything you might cringe at. It's a valuable lesson to think before you speak, but have fun with it.

Quote:What is game? Being about to smoothly-engage in conversation, listen to a parallel internal dialogue, read body language and the vibe of your surroundings, and predict expectations of behaviour, all at the same time.

It's just a way for an intelligent man to make a conversation with a woman far more intellectually-stimulating than what she is capable of offering him.

Agreed and furthermore it excites the womanfolk too. Be cool be awesome be dashing. And she won't stop listening. Half the game is letting her talk and parrying when you can. The other half is getting her to listen with intent.

When you get those wide eyes and the "Wow just wow" look you can't help but be happy. I think the purpose of the game is to inspire. Maybe not loyalty(discipline is better for that if you ask me). Maybe not love. But inspiring joy.

Leading her into my world makes me just as happy as it makes her. Atleast for a few moments. I love adventure.

Post: #57

Sigma? That class is so weak. I'm a total rogue sporting vorpal blades. You motherfuckers never stood a chance. I don't even have to talk down an AMOG attempt. I just strike that motherfucker down and shadowstep to my apartment with the bitch in my arms.

She never stood a chance.

Post: #58

Quote:

(07-10-2017 10:21 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  This is why I suggested to Catalyst, if most conversations bore you, make the game about bending the group to your will.

BOOOOORRRRRINGGGGG!

Kidding you're right and wrong. That's too Machiavellian and too serious I would say. I completely agree with the end game and there's no problem there, but the ends just don't justify the means.

Nah, "Your Will" sounds Machiavellian, but simply means, what you personally-find enjoyable. Think of how a good working dog herds. It's the dog's will over the animal. He controls where it goes, and the dog is always having a good time doing it: even the calculated-fucking with people that a Sigma does is generally-fun and charming to observe, at least until they push the wrong nerve or take things too far.

Trump would enjoy the company of plain-talking, honest people with simple pleasures, so of course he'd be interested bending the public dialogue to champion their interests, instead of those of the Left.

Cardguy would enter a conversation in his office about television shows and he'd lead the group to start talking about what he found interesting at the moment. I have no idea how he didn't end up arrested, given the climate in England. His threads, given the forum, were really just to keep himself stimulated, and if others wanted to come for the ride and have a good time, so be it.

What's a better way to put it? It's like you deliberately pull down the fences the group has erected around its muddy little pen of safe, acceptable topics of conversations, and drive them into warmer, sunnier pastures. Most people like roaming free, once you've herded them out out of the run. Catalyst: that's when people really start surprising you, and forcing you to rethink your assumptions of them.

Maybe less-abrasive Sigmas are Social Cattle Dogs, with the obvious challenge coming from the Alpha of the herd.



Think of how much Trump has changed the acceptable narratives in 18 months.

Post: #59

(07-10-2017 11:25 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Quote:

(07-10-2017 10:21 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  This is why I suggested to Catalyst, if most conversations bore you, make the game about bending the group to your will.

BOOOOORRRRRINGGGGG!

Kidding you're right and wrong. That's too Machiavellian and too serious I would say. I completely agree with the end game and there's no problem there, but the ends just don't justify the means.

Nah, "Your Will" sounds Machiavellian, but simply means, what you personally-find enjoyable. Think of how a good working dog herds. It's the dog's will over the animal. He controls where it goes, and the dog is always having a good time doing it: even the calculated-fucking with people that a Sigma does is generally-fun and charming to observe, at least until they push the wrong nerve or take things too far.

Trump would enjoy the company of plain-talking, honest people with simple pleasures, so of course he'd be interested bending the public dialogue to champion their interests, instead of those of the Left.

Cardguy would enter a conversation in his office about television shows and he'd lead the group to start talking about what he found interesting at the moment. I have no idea how he didn't end up arrested, given the climate in England. His threads, given the forum, were really just to keep himself stimulated, and if others wanted to come for the ride and have a good time, so be it.

What's a better way to put it? It's like you deliberately pull down the fences the group has erected around its muddy little pen of safe, acceptable topics of conversations, and drive them into warmer, sunnier pastures. Most people like roaming free, once you've herded them out out of the run. Catalyst: that's when people really start surprising you, and forcing you to rethink your assumptions of them.

Maybe less-abrasive Sigmas are Social Cattle Dogs, with the obvious challenge coming from the Alpha of the herd.



Think of how much Trump has changed the acceptable narratives in 18 months.

I'd say they're more like Shiba Inu's(The wiley ones)





Or Bulldogs (the not conventionally popular but popular guys) [And can you say no to that face?]



Even if they're fat. Even if they're a bit dopey. They always have that bit of charm that a simply graceful and buffed up Mastiff, Rottweiler, Pitbull, or Husky(maybe not the Huskey they're charming as hell) lack.

Post: #60

(07-10-2017 09:54 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 09:42 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Alpha's are used to being the Bully, and if that means they have to physically-fight and get beaten up to protect their status, they don't care.

Sigma's are the only ones who can psychologically-bully Alphas in a way that makes them lose public face in front of others.

Make sense? Hence, the hatred.

Oh it's what I already suspected. Just figured I'd be a bit sly about it.

Read this post in Littlefinger voice for maximum effect.

Post: #61

(07-10-2017 11:25 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Maybe less-abrasive Sigmas are Social Cattle Dogs, with the obvious challenge coming from the Alpha of the herd.

Never underestimate a fucking blue heeler.

I usually have no problem befriending dogs and even cats, and there is this local guy I run into a lot who takes his blue heeler everywhere with him, and I have tried everything with that dog except bribery (food) and he is decisively and temperamentally simply not having it.

I have yet to meet a dog living so completely on his own terms as this one. He always looks at me like, yeah, right bro, I'm on to you.

His owner feels bad for me. He'll come around, he says, it just takes time. The guy doesn't understand when I say not to worry about it, because the truth is, I like his dog exactly how he is.

Skeptical as fuck.

Post: #62

(07-10-2017 05:43 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  The funniest part about this is I already made these exact arguments back in March when Zelcorpion was arguing with me that I was a Sigma, and I was rationalising myself out of the label, thinking it 'arrogant' and 'narcissistic'. Apologies to Zelcorp - given my upbringing, and the harsh childhood transition to Gamma Fuck (Contempt For Everyone for not liking me) to Sigma Fuck (Everyone now likes me 'cause I have Contempt For Everything and don't care if they like me or not), I've got to say he was right. I just would never be able to have gotten ahead in my career if I didn't perform Beta. I just know how to control my mouth.

Well - glad that you accept yourself for what you are.

Sigmas by default are independent, but they are also attractive to women. The difference to an Alpha is probably best seen that Alphas are men who also attract a wide broad admiration of men, enjoy being the center in social situations.

Of course with all those artificial classifications - it is to be taken with a grain of salt. You can't act all Alpha/Sigma all the time - especially when working in jobs or dealing with family situations. Sometimes you gotta swallow the pride if you are sane to keep the job or keep the family peace.

As most men I was raised to be a Beta, but had many flashes of Sigma - those got more as I aged and with the Red Pill it is more so. Even before I often had times where I had heated encounters of the Alphas of the group - it was really funny at times, because they left everyone alone, but seemed to single me out. I did not have too many fights - usually the school fights came to a stalemate of sorts where the next moves would either seriously hurt us or we would stop.

In my opinion you cannot call yourself a Sigma (maybe only Sigma Mindset) if you are not sufficiently attractive to women/are the boss in your female relationships.

Also you will find another thing - Sigmas elicit a stronger love/hate reaction to natural Alphas.

-----

As for the examples above - yes - Bukowski is the typical Sigma, but you don't need to be the drunken poet to be that. Successful womanizing artists are sometimes the typical Sigmas.

Tesla fits more the Gamma frame, going fully without women (with MGTOW justifications) and not doing so well on the life experience spectrum.

Actually the PUA/Game field is filled with many Sigmas who turned from Gamma to Beta to Sigma. Highly intelligent loner types who overcome their shyness with Game and experiences and then become a stronger version of themselves:





Nick Krauser is an example, but also Goldmund Unleashed:





Difference to more of an Alpha type:





Though of course as AnonymousB put it - there are even levels in that Alpha / Sigma hierarchy. If you know a tough-as-nails Biker that AB talks about, then you may assume that you are Beta until you realize that if you are Beta, then what are the legions of Blue Pill men out there, who see nothing wrong dating a 35 single mom while being tall and handsome and 39?

Also if you are self-confident High-school jock who keeps his balls after school, then your Alpha state cannot compare to a cartel boss in Puerto Rico. Our experiences and environment either gives us more experience points in that respect or subtracts them. If you are financially independent, rich and successful, get laid often, then you have a different drive than if you are beaten down by life, have to swallow shit all day for years in your job to survive. Bukowski dealt with the shit swallowing by getting drunk and putting his frustrations on paper. Only when he got famous could he run loose and be the full sensitive asshole that he always was.

Funny transformation from Gamma/Beta to Sigma - Scott Adams:



Already a millionaire, but wiving up an age-appropriate single mother of 2.

After the transformation and not giving a shit anymore - shacking up with Instagram hottie, being 60, supporting Trump and generally not giving much of a shit:

Post: #63

Plunging into that every night is a moral obligation.

Post: #64

There's no way that's not some sort of P4P arrangement.

Post: #65

< Does not have to be. Met 60yo men with Game. Even with less money in the 10 mio. $ net assets you can have young girls wanting to be together with you. One 63yo guy I knew fucked the 19yo girl and then her 45yo mother. The 19yo girl still wanted to be together with him. He was in worse shape than Scott Adams, but he had Game and Frame.

Wealth can convey a massive security factor to women. He used to laugh about this female nature. By the way - that guy was cheap as a Scotsman. He had 8 cars in the garage, but was haggling about close to anything and only let the women participate in his lifestyle, never giving them anything until after quite some time. The same is sufficient with Scott Adams.

You would have to see it happen - the men need to be at least marginally bangable though.

Post: #66

Alphas are sadists. They divide the world into predator and prey, sadist and masochist, etc. They are politicians and other types of power seekers. Sigmas try to get "respect" through manipulation, fear, and intimidation.

Sigmas have no interest in playing this game. They understand it serves no purpose whatsoever. Sigmas do not seek power. Sometimes they end up getting it because they actually earn respect. They earn respect using wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and achievement.

Post: #67

Some of this seems legit, but a lot of the conversation is bordering on intellectual masturbation.

Post: #68

That's my intellectual cum on your face. I think I got some in your hair too.

Post: #69

I have no idea what this thread is about, but it seems like some serious nerd shit

Post: #70

^ We have a Gamma Megathread. I'm sure it will make much more sense than this one.

Post: #71

(07-10-2017 09:24 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm a lone wolf by nature...

Post: #72

All this classification is of course some kind of mental masturbation, but there is certain truth to all of it as well.

I think that one of the reasons why this is confusing at times is because guys talk about different things.

Thus I would propose to mentally understand this as such:

A) Sexual market value of the man: 1 to 12 vs female 1 to 10:
An extremely good-looking tall muscular man is a male looks 9-10. Even if poor and in Beta personality, then he will have a high market value. He will get laid. Also a famous Hollywood actor who is a male 8 in looks will have a market value of 10. Leo DiCaprio in my opinion is a male 12 in sexual market value. Anyone that can get a harem of willing 1000 8+ girls without paying them, then he is an 11 or 12.

B) Mental Frame and internal Mindset:
If you are Blue Pill then your hope is that you have instinctively internalized a lot of things. Most men have not and they are automatically Beta, some more Gamma within. Some men are Red Pill, have a low sexual market value in real terms because they are extremely short, ugly and settled early. However whenever they are in a relationship, then they are the total boss in that LTR. Contrary to famous Betas like Paul McCartney they don't get cucked by one-legged post-wall bitches. So the more Alpha-esque frame and Red Pill/Game is firmly in a higher mindset.

C) Match of Mindset/Experiences/partly sexual market value:
That is the ideal version where Frame/Sexual Market Value/Game and experiences match up in full and we speak of the full Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Sigma man.
The self-confident Red Pill man with Game who gets laid easily, has command in a LTR and is either a loner or leader kind of guy - the epitome of Alpha/Sigma. However even when all of this matches up, then what is a 79yo who is beloved by his wife, has still massive charisma and power, but very low Sexual Market Value due to father time? Has he stopped being Alpha, because he would have no chance at being able to attract a woman in the ages of 18-45 on any honest basis?

I personally would still call him Alpha - just with a very low SMV. Just as I would call a famous rich Beta still a cringy Beta with a very high SMV.

Ultimately all those classifications are irrelevant. Maybe sometime in the future when Game and real sexual behavior finally gets added to psychology, then some scientists can take apart the human mating behavior and come up with the right nomenclature for this. But we are a long stretch away from this - currently "science" is busy "proving" that genders don't even exist, let alone that men and women differ greatly - heh.

Post: #73

Just imagine scientific terms for all this and books for college education if/when such a day happens where all this becomes mainstream.

Post: #74

^ Point taken, Suits. I've given this forum a lot of time and free content over the years - it was a very good distraction at my old workplace from a job I could do in my sleep - and get impassioned about certain topics when my curiousity is aroused to a point past the patience of others. That's the curse of being an INTJ: pulling together the predictable patterns and behaviours of people into theories that interest me rarely interest others - which is why I have to perform as a guy much, much less intelligent than I am in reality to have a strong social life.

I only ever hit post on about one third of the posts I actually write. I recognise most people won't care.

These particular socio-sexual patterns of behaviour are obviously a topic of contention for many members - it seems to a reliable irritant - so if I've bored and annoyed people discussing this, I apologise.

I'll take this a sign to temper myself and take a break from the forum for a while.

Post: #75

(07-12-2017 03:06 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  ^ Point taken, Suits. I've given this forum a lot of time and free content over the years...

That's a good thing.

Quote:These particular socio-sexual patterns of behaviour are obviously a topic of contention for many members - it seems to a reliable irritant - so if I've bored and annoyed people discussing this, I apologise.

I doubt this. Your posts are forum favourites.

(07-12-2017 03:06 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'll take this a sign to temper myself and take a break from the forum for a while.

No need to do this, unless it's necessary for personal health and/or focus on other areas of your life.

You're not a lone wolf and you're contributions to this forum are evidence of this.

Like many here, it's been a struggle for you to find people in every day life that you can relate with.

A lone wolf is someone who prefers his own company.

Lone wolf's are generally a net loss for society, no matter how cool the term sounds.