Caustic Ramblings

In addition to those 4 types I went over in the previous post, I have a system of 7 secondary temperaments, based on the planetary archetypes. We could observe that people usually have about 2-3 of these that stand out in their personality, sometimes with one being dominant.

1. Vitalistic (Sun)
2. Withdrawn (Moon)
3. Dispassionate (Mercury)
4. Emotive (Venus)
5. Driven (Mars)
6. Bountiful (Jupiter)
7. Disciplinary (Saturn)

Vitalistic people tend to have a rather "sunny" disposition, meaning they are extroverted, have an immediately-noticeable presence when they enter a room, are generally full of personality and sometimes great charm/charisma. They are lovers of life. On the flipside they can be more narcissistic, egocentric and attention-seeking than the average person. They generally love activity, especially that involving the body.

Withdrawn people are what we call introverts in contemporary parlance. Sometimes shy and reserved, sometimes secretive; sometimes wallflowers, "seen but never heard." They tend to feel drained when around large crowds, constant group activity or when required to assert their own presence for a sustained period of time. Prefer quiet and serene surroundings.

Dispassionate people tend to gravitate toward a rationalistic and analytic mode of though; they're not apt to easily take offense to verbal quips thrown their way. Generally good at keeping a cool head during a conflict or dispute; can make shrewd negotiators and level-headed mediators. On the flipside they can be cold and insensitive, (sometimes even callous and abrasive) especially in the eyes of more emotional and sentimental types of people.

Emotive people are pretty self-explanatory; they are rather emotion-drive and sentimental, generally have good interpersonal skills and are well-suited for helping occupations, certain types of counseling; also they can be quite passion-driven and creative. Emotive people thrive on maintain close/intimate relationships with the people they love and cherish the most.

Driven is self-explanatory too. These people are naturally ambitious and "ready to go." They are good at being both assertive and decisive. On the flip side they may struggle with anger and rage issues and can be prone to workaholism. They can become quite aggressive and end up bullying those they sense at being weak or pathetic. These tendencies can lead to a sort of tunnel vision where all they see is the task at hand, regardless of the inherits merits of the task in question, and thus they can become blind to all other concerns at the time.

Bountiful people feel an innate urge to help others around them. They are the stereotypical selfless "give the shirt off my back" kind of person. They love to share their gifts, talents, knowledge, strengths, and wisdom with others. Healthy bountiful people make both ideal leaders and teachers. However when unhealthy they can end up neglecting their own needs and even fall into their delusion that they are selfless helping others, when in fact they make me making matters worse, due to their own deficiencies or ignorance being projected outward.

Disciplinary people are natural conservatives (not to be confused with conservative political ideologies); they are cautious, disciplined and usually reluctant to dive into or commit to something that hasn't yet been prove to yield repeatable positive or productive results. Disciplinary people are good at taming their own base instincts (sometimes to a fault) and masters at delayed gratification. Disciplinary people are the most suited to jobs/occupations that involve protecting and stewarding scarce resources. They are the least likely people to act on a whim and can be the hardest people to corrupt. But when they do become corrupted they will pour all of their energy into protecting and sustaining the corrupt system they are tasked with stewarding.

Here's my long summary loosely based on Vox Day's (VD) take on the whole Alpha/Beta male dominance schema that's quite popular in the redpill/manosphere corner of the internet. I added in the "Sigma Male" category that he did not include in his list. I also broke the whole thing up into three dominance tiers. On top of that I added in my own nicknamed subtypes under each main type.

Before proceeding, I should state that I don't necessarily endorse every truth claim made in the Manosphere (many are quite hyperbolic and over-generalized), nor am I really on board with much of their collective ethos. But I do find the general patterns Manosphere participants observe in regards to gendered human mating patterns to be quite astute and accurate. I've divided VD's scheme up into three main tiers, based on dominance levels that these types have in common. Secondly, I need to mention that there is a major difference in the terminology I employ below with that of the everyday colloquial use of the terms "Alpha" and "Beta" when relating to male dominance hierarchies. In this schema, Beta is actually a higher-status type, whereas the colloquial "Beta Male" refers to Tier-2 men and below in the system I'm explaining in this article.

Tier 1 - Confident and dominant men

Alpha - These are the men we know and love (or hate) as a group's natural leaders, dominant personalities and walking symbols of masculinity. These men tend to exude dominance and competence with little effort in most social settings. At a young age, natural Alphas are the stereotypical "jocks" who sometimes bully, tease, torment and exclude the nerd, geek, and misfit boys. As a general rule, Alphas very attractive to most women they cross paths with; if necessary, the average woman will compete and fight with one another over these men. The woman's hard-wired goal is to get high status men to exclusively commit to them (which often fails in today's totally deregulated sexual marketplace). Most other men in the group will naturally orbit the Alpha and each try their best to gain the Alpha's approval.

The two main subtypes of Alpha are: Chiefs and Chads. Chiefs are the classical leader type; they crave approval from the group and can be quite obsessed with self-image. Chiefs are the very dominant "team player" types and later in life they might be drawn toward public service and politics. Chads on the other hand are more individualistic and often don't show any strong loyalty to a particular group; their allegiance and affiliation to a group is contingent and situational (see: fair weather fans) Owing to their natural charm, charisma and good looks, Chads are adept womanizers and if their "player" tendencies are not kept in check they can become quite disruptive to whatever groups they associate with; i.e., they might try and seduce another Alpha's girlfriend or wife. The worst of the Chads are "Melvins." These are men of very low repute who are often thieves, low-lives, druggies, drug pushers, booze hounds and other types of seedy undesirables. These crude and boorish Melvins are full of machismo and embody the "toxic masculinity" archetype contemporary leftists love to harp on about ad infinitum. All female hindbrains find Chad and Melvin behaviors to be quite sexy, though most intelligent and dignified women will use their rational mind and easily quash that primal urge to mate with those brutes. It's women of low socioecnomic status that usually end up breeding with Chads and Melvins and those men very seldom stick around to help raise the kids that result these relations, much less marry the dumb girls they knock up.

It's largely the job of the Chiefs and Carls (see below) to keep the Chad/Melvin problem within their social domain contained. In traditional societies, Chads get married at a young age and are thus removed from the courtship pool. And the most indiscreet Melvins find themselves having a hot date with the gallows in their town square; the more prudent of that lot might find themselves being sent off to war in some place away from home. Furthermore, women having illegitimate children (and thus single motherhood) is severely frowned upon by the Chief-Carl order. Regarding Carls, now we get to the Beta category.

In the Myers-Briggs personality system, Alpha Males are usually extroverted types, though of course there are many exceptions to this. Typical types are ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP, and ESFP.

Beta - Betas are the affable and well-adjusted men who loyally support their group's natural Alphas. They are usually quite confident and personable and average women (7s and below) generally find them to be attractive, given the right boxes are checked. Women who can't (or won't) land the Alphas will easily settle for Betas. Many Betas possess Alpha traits and within their own group are simply Alphas-in-waiting; I term these Betas as "Carls." When an Alpha leaves a group, the most dominant Carl will take over that role. We can generally Betas as the "Lieutenants" of the group's Alpha. For every Chief there's a small circle of Carl lackeys orbiting him.

Betas in general are often quite "other-directed." This means they are image-conscious, strongly crave approval from others and will thus mold their own behavior to fit group norms and expectations. Betas are "team players" and will subconsciously go along to get along. Betas are the most well-adjusted and popular of what we can term "normies."

Despite all the stereotypes and misunderstandings of Betas all over the internet, Betas usually don't have too many problems finding a girlfriend or wife, especially if they keep their standards realistic and settle for what they can get. Alphas and Betas (and Sigmas) together comprise that upper 20% of men the average woman finds desirable enough to sexually associate with when left to their own devices.

Betas run the fully gamut of the Myers-Briggs personality types for the most part, though the introverted intuitive (INxx) types are probably scarcely found among them.

Sigma - These are the confident and dominant "lone wolves" of society. Sigmas are usually quite intelligent and are the ultimate free-agents. Sigmas are inner-directed and feel very little pressure to conform to groupthink and societal expectations in general. Sigmas possess many natural Alpha qualities but lack the Alpha's need for social approval and status-recognition. Sigmas could care less about what others think about them and thus exude a kind of "badass" IDGAF (I don't give a fuck) attitude. Many women find Sigmas to be irresistible and a fascinating mystery to crack. Women who are more intelligent and creatively-inclined than the average "basic bitch" will often prefer Sigmas over the stereotypical Alpha jock. In the Myers-Briggs personality system, Sigmas tend to descriptively fall in line with the INTP, ISTP, INTJ and ENTJ personality types.

When the need to get along with others arises, the Sigma can easily play the chameleon game and weave their way in and out of different groups at-will. But they probably won't want to hang around too long, as most Sigmas are natural introverts (as opposed to classic Alpha extroverts) and thus group conformity and cliquishness is quite boring and stifling to them. VD purposefully excluded Sigmas from his schema as, (a) he believes they are statistically irrelevant, (b) they don't really fit into dominance hierarchies (well, duh), and (c) he thinks most self-identified Sigmas are merely Gamma snowflakes who play up their own eccentricities as being desirable qualities. I'd argue that Sigmas, while still a sheer minority, are probably a lot more common than he wants to believe; and that the mere existence of them is disruptive to VD's antiquarian conception on what society should look like; thus his need to downplay Sigma existence.

Overall, Sigmas aren't usually preoccupied with getting laid for its own sake (or at least they don't go out of their way to display this desire) or gaining the approval of women in general; they will get lots of tail when the stars happen to be aligned; otherwise they will be fine with enduring long dry spells without too much emotional disturbance. The Sigma archetype is what many MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) types aspire to be, though of course most will totally fail at this, as they tend to mostly be Gammas and Omegas with a vast assortment of unaddressed emotional issues. Many of the most dominant manosphere voices are in fact Sigmas. It's usually not Alphas who write long intellectual screeds about how alpha they are.

Tier 2 - Men with average social competence and status.

Delta - is the archetypal "average guy" or "average Joe" or "Joe Sixpack" who typically devotes his life to becoming competent in one particular trade, craft, skill specialization or profession. The colloquial "beta male" actually refers to Deltas in most cases. Successful Deltas are competent and well-adjusted, but otherwise unambitious and unremarkable; these days, unsuccessful Deltas may run the risk of sinking down into the third tier. Most Deltas are other-directed "normie" men who do just enough to eek out a comfortable existence and generally go along with whatever the prevailing cultural consensus deems to be desirable and preferable at the moment.

In today deregulated sexual marketplace, Deltas are not particularly attractive to the average woman by default. As we have learned from research studies done on internet dating web sites, Deltas make up the largest portion of that unattractive 80% of men; the men which average women tend to pass right over when shown a random sampling of men. However, I need to reiterate that this massive devaluing of Delta men is largely a modern phenomenon; the product of the so-called "Sexual Revolution" which ushered in the anarcho-tyranny of the aforementioned deregulated sexual marketplace that necessitates articles like this even needing to be written in the first place. In all other times throughout civilized history (in societies defined by monogamous marriage), Deltas were usually able to find wives at a relatively young age. Today, Deltas have become an increasingly-shafted group due to a troubling series of modern trends I'll provide more details about in a blurb at the bottom of this article. Many Delta men today will spend their younger adult years struggling to find a woman, much less being able to hold onto the ones they do manage to snag.

Deltas have less problems getting hitched as they mature. At some point they will likely encounter a sizable amount of women who spent their 20s jumping from one capricious Tier-1 man to another (i.e. men who have a lot of choice) and are now ready to settle down with a reliable provider, i.e. a Delta with a steady income and some nice stuff to feather a nest with. "Blue-pilled" Deltas will enthusiastically welcome these fickle, high-baggage women into their lives, only later to see these women totally screw them over (see: divorce rape, cheating, cucking, ect.) due to those those baggage issues. This pattern is largely a product of how most Western women today have been culturally programmed to see sub-Tier-1 men as little more than walking utilities to milk for material benefits, i.e. the "Walking ATM" trope. However, being a conformist normie by nature, it will take a large backlog of negative experience with damaged women to get the Delta's resentment juices flowing in any effective manner. Deltas will often endure this abuse repeatedly until they finally wake up and realizing what exactly is going on.

Two coping strategies for the Delta are (a) getting out of the dating/marriage market completely and thus going MGTOW, and (b) learning "Game"... which is, the techniques of the hedonistic Pick-up Artist (PUA). There is a subtype of Delta that probably won't even think of doing either of the above. This subtype is called the Soyboy. The Soyboy is a low-testosterone, but otherwise heterosexual male, who does everything he can to "go along to get along" and seek social approval from the hyper-PC mainstream corporatized culture. These are the feminized, cowardly "bugmen" which propaganda news sites like Buzzfeed and VICE so eagerly cater to. They make the perfect docile corporate cogs who eagerly submit to gynocentric narratives. Some Soyboys become SJWs and male feminists and are under the ridiculous delusion that by simply nodding along and agreeing with leftist women, they will somehow earn their way into their good (i.e. intimate) graces. It will take the Soyboy many crash-and-burn experiences to realize this tactic is nothing more than a recipe for failure and misery. The conservative counterpart to the leftist/PC Soyboy is the church-going bugman. This is a submissive male who buys into outdated notions of chivalry and thus being a "nice guy" in a meek Christian kind of way. Since genuine Christian religiosity is rapidly evaporating (as opposed to mere cultural observance), this subtype is becoming increasingly less common.

In Short, Deltas are the engine that runs civilization. Without them, specialized labor becomes impossible. When Deltas can't find wives, we know we are in big trouble. Monogamous marriage was the tried-and-true trick used to ensure Delta men had a steady supply of marriage partners. In the old days (i.e. more than 50 years ago), women were trained to be perfectly content marrying Deltas. Before the deregulation of the sexual marketplace, most women didn't really have the opportunity to sample different men during their most fertile years, thus there was no "greener grass" or even "other side" to taint their overall perceptions of men; much less, a noxious pop culture propaganda machine that encourages young impressionable women to give into their base sexual urges without restraint. Today, Deltas are getting the short end of the sexual stick. Bigly! In reality, the average Delta is fine for the average woman. Obviously, the average woman isn't all that; it's only when we collectively put women up on pedestals, that the average woman can significantly bid up the price for what she's selling. We won't get back to anything resembling a sane cultural situation until Natural Law is reestablished and women's egos are once again humbled. Natural Law dictates that the perfect suitable marriage partner for Joe Six Pack Delta is Basic Bitch Jenny.

Gamma - The Gamma is the more neurotic and less confident version of the Sigma male. The Gamma male is usually quite intelligent and sometimes possessed of notable creative and/or artistic abilities. But he often lets these gifts, paired with his latent insecurity issues, to get to his head and puff up his ego. As VD pointed out, this ends up manifesting as abrasive arrogance and an inflated sense of intellectual superiority. This mentality can make the Gamma a potentially-disruptive element in many organizational environments. That annoying "know it all" guy at work who acts like he's more intelligent and knowledgeable than all his coworkers and bosses, just might be a Gamma. When in fact, the Gamma probably knows a whole lot less than he thinks he does and thus could stand to adopt a much more humble and student-like attitude toward life. Fundamentally, the arrogant Gamma earnestly believes that he deserves to be atop the dominance hierarchy, despite the fact he probably does not have the requisite skills, charm, prestige and acquired experience to rightfully earn his aspired station. Gammas hate traditional social hierarchies with a seething passion and (if determined enough) will do whatever they can to circumvent the series of steps normal men take to climb these hierarchies. Gammas often feel they are too smart/special/good to earn their keep the old fashioned way. In a way, Gammas embody the Promethean archetype; they use their cunning and wit to steal "the fire of the gods" and then, owing to their own ignorance and hubris, run around torching everything in sight. Gammas will ally with other disaffected misfit types for the mutual mission of wreaking havoc upon the traditional social hierarchy and getting revenge on the Alpha jocks who oppressed them during their youth.

Gammas were often nerds and geeks in high school and harbor a lot of pent-up resentment from those days of being near the bottom of the social hierarchy among the other kids; he's now spending his adult years trying to overcompensate for his early-life deficiencies.

Gammas aren't necessarily unattractive to women or totally lacking in charm. In fact, many are good looking, have stable incomes and are quite socially competent. They will eventually find a female partner after many frustrating attempts. There is always some combination of insecurity, neuroticism and social awkwardness that stymies the Gamma from being too successful in any given social hierarchy. As alluded to above, the Gamma will always feel like he's an outsider or marginalized in one way or another. As a result, it's not uncommon for the Gamma to gravitate toward any number resentment-fueled ideologies, causes and movements; such belief structures fit nicely with the Gamma's own persecution complex. The neurotic mental state of the Gamma can wreak havoc upon an organization he works for if the bosses aren't hip to this type of man and how to effectively deal with them. Gammas WILL gossip, stir up discontent, lie and scheme behind the backs of his coworkers, work to undermine his bosses, ect. They essentially adopt many negative female behaviors and behave in a clandestine manner when up to no good. And of course they will team up with female coworkers in order to get what they want.

Occupationally, notable Gammas probably fall into three main subtypes: (1) the Hipster, (2) the Egghead, and (3) the Muckraker. I'm not going to get into the details associated with those at this time. But we do now have a good idea how Gammas might seek out professional success. In terms of personality types, they will often identify as INTP, INTJ, ENTP, INFP and INFJ. The eggheads especially will fall into the INTP, INTJ and ENTP brackets; the Hipsters and Muckrakers will be heavier on INFP and INFJ typings.

Tier 3 - Men with low social competence, low dominance

Omega - The "classic omega" is socially inept, reclusive and generally repulsive or simply invisible to to most new people he comes across. Omega accounts for the vast majority of men who self-identify as "incels." Many Omegas might find themselves diagnosed somewhere on the autism spectrum.

The hyper-frustrated Omega will tend to be rather angry and resentful toward the world for dealing them such a crappy hand when it comes to anything social. This group is largely where lunatics like mass shooters come from. Eliot Rodger is a classic case of a disgruntled Omega who reached his boiling point and acted out.

There is a more benign subtype of Omegas who aren't particularity resentful or negative; they're just loners and have poor social skills but otherwise go about their lives normally without too much internal or external disturbance; they're happy specializing in some career field or discipline and easily pass their sexless free time enjoying various hobbies and distractions.

All in all, the Omega male is the quintessential social reject. He is at the absolute bottom of the male dominance hierarchy. He is the invisible man in the dating pool. He is a zero when it comes to male Sexual Market Value (SMV). Women will feel nothing but contempt for the Omega; some men too, though others will feel genuine sympathy for the Omega. The most destitute Omegas will harbor a super-massive chip on their shoulder and end up hating the entire word. Or at least, he'll end up hating all women for the capital crime of cruelly rejecting him over and over and over again.


**** FINAL NOTES ****

On alienation of the lower tier men:

First, Western women have become accustomed to putting off marriage and family and instead opting to spend their most fertile years "dating" an assortment of Tier-1 men. These women are essentially sampling as much of the male buffet as they can. (In Manosphere parlance this is called "riding the cock carousel") What happens today is that 80% of the women are trying to get with the top 20% of men (see: the Pareto Principle). The lower 80% of men, mostly Deltas, are left fighting over the leftover scraps; many now end up totally empty-handed and increasingly more frustrated and resentful. Natural Deltas are being made Gammas and Omegas. Secondly, Online dating (especially Tinder, yuck) and photo-whoring apps like Instagram enable the mass of average and less attractive women doll themselves up for the camera (deceptively-posed selfies)and artificially inflate their perceived attractiveness, with the intention of capitalizing on the ever-growing thirst of men from the lower ranks of the upper 20% category.