#nerdy sub boys are elite

[eichy815]

I’m Neither an ‘Alpha’ Nor a ‘Beta’...I’m a ‘Lambda’

Since the beginning of time, gatekeepers of “masculinity” (as a definition) have been delineating into two distinct categories:  Alphas and Betas.  Unfortunately, these definitions have been constructed along predominantly heteronormative terms.  Furthermore, they reduce the male psyche to a dichotomy that fails to account for the diversity inherent within the male gender itself.  In an ancillary manner, parallel categories may be ascribed to females.

In my view, we need to get past these rudimentary “Alpha male” and “Beta male” labels.  By doing so, our society can develop a much deeper appreciation for the intricacies of human psychology. 

Dan Bacon, writing for The Modern Man, classifies “Alpha males” as having strong self-confidence while commanding respect from the women whom they romantically pursue.  He holds that such masculine energy makes the women in these Alphas’  lives feel sexy and feminine, and (contrary to popular myth) Alphas are often “good guys” since their status isn’t necessarily synonymous with maliciousness or aggression.

By contrast, Bacon characterizes “Beta males” as being only mildly self-confident and prone to social anxiety.  Because they take a backseat to the domineering tendencies of Alphas, it’s common for Betas to miss out on opportunities to pick up women (more often finding themselves in the “friend-zone”).

Bacon summarizes a third group:  Omegas.  According to his analysis, the “Omega male” has very low self-confidence, and is inclined to be a follower of both Alphas and Betas.  Although they play up the “innocent nice guy” stereotype, Omegas find that their approach frequently backfires with women, who may end up having no respect nor physical attraction for them.

Furthermore, Bacon explains:

A lot of guys avoid expressing their inner alpha male because they are confused about the difference between a good guy alpha male and a bad boy, assuming that to “be alpha” means to be mean, selfish or bad to others.

Bacon clarifies that “good” Alphas master the skill of balancing confidence with compassion, whereas “bad” Alphas behave deviously and seek to cause harm.  He predicates this theorem on the scenario where a heterosexual woman wishes to be protected and have a man provide for her.

Writing for Elite Daily, Anna Madsen links anthropological history to the social constructs of Alphas and those beneath them.  She posits that Alpha males possess higher testosterone levels than Betas/Omegas, which harken back to the daily routines of Stone-Aged hunters.  In modern times, they are the ones who take it upon themselves to pick up the check, work out a lot at the gym, drive nice cars, excel at math, and put forth a charismatic and seductive persona.  However, she observes, Alphas largely lack creative “outside-the-box” thought processes, and are often deficient in empathy or emotional connections with others.  They can be very poor communicators, lack any astute sense of fashion, reject small talk, and struggle with reading facial cues.

Madsen theorizes that, because Alphas always have to gain the upper hand, they create stress for themselves due to their fears of getting usurped.  So, to compensate, Betas (and other “sub”-personality groups) end up filling that role of being led or given orders.

Betas harken back to the Stone-Aged artisans, Madsen purports, in that they are non-confrontational and risk-adverse.  Sometimes they can be followers, but at other times, they are complete loners.  They are often highly intellectual while having a knack for the mastery of diplomacy, sensitivity, and poetry.  They are likelier than Alphas to reject traditional gender roles, most likely because they possess lower amounts of testosterone.

As potential vulnerabilities:  Betas are generally more introverted, and can easily be picked on as “weak” during their formative years.  They are less likely to make the first move in a romance, and won’t be as likely as Alphas to pursue professional promotions.  They can be very suggestible, which makes them amenable to following orders (from Alphas).

Although these definitions have been predominantly described in male terms, a parallel can be drawn when dividing females into respective personality types – mirroring Alphas, Betas, and Omegas.  Madsen notes that “Alpha females” may be drawn to “Beta males” (rather than to “Alpha males”) for romantic relationships more consistently, since women tend to find the sensitivity, listening skills, and “puppy eyes” of “Beta males” to be quite attractive.

Sonya Rhodes and Susan Schneider, writing for Psychology Today, observe how female Alphas differ from their male counterparts by being more likely to use fashion for combining professionalism with sexiness.  They are also likelier than “Beta females” to desire leadership positions or exert control when compared with their Beta sister counterparts.  By contrast, “Beta females” tend to be better at listening and carrying out tasks; but, because they are less confrontational than “Alpha females,” the Betas are more prone to dealing with financial management or child-rearing.

Rhodes and Schneider make it a point to hold that there is a spectrum in terms of personality types, whereupon some individuals combine different traits of each prototype within their psyches.  They give validity to the “Opposites Attract” philosophy, holding that “Alpha females” might be drawn to “Beta males” (due to decreased likelihood of butting heads), whereas “Beta females” can be attracted to “Alpha males” (out of a desire to follow the lead of somebody who wants to “take charge”).  “Alpha females,” they specify, can sometimes have a lingering self-consciousness in the bedroom (unlike their “Alpha male” counterparts) – which can seem paradoxical to an observer.  In a way, though, it makes sense; “Alpha females” don’t have to pretend to be “demure” amidst a sexual conquest when they are seeking sexual compatibility with a “Beta male” partner...in fact, they might get insulted when someone else characterizes their male significant other as a Beta, even if it’s intended as a compliment.  By this token, “the Alpha woman-Beta man partnership” is something that defies many cultural traditions.

When deciphering these gender roles, it’s always paramount to distinguish fantasy from reality; as Vinita Mehta writes, most scientists would maintain that the James Dean and James Bond archetypes of “Alpha males” are more of the former than the latter.  Human males, Mehta reminds us, enjoy overlapping social circles – unlike species such as dogs, wolves, or baboons.  She quotes neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky as reaching the conclusion that men are far more complex than they (not to mention the rest of society) give themselves credit for.

Why do men strive to be Alphas so fervently?  In modern history, posits Mehta, social dominance has become the new standard that elicits deference from some women and resentment from other men.  This ideal undoubtedly feeds copious male egos.  That perception of dominance is magnified by taller height and deeper voices; these traits intimidate rivals and attract heterosexual women, via what Mehta calls “the Barry White effect.”  Rugged faces have traditionally been viewed as genetically-desirable...plus, they are theorized to be associated with healthier immune systems.  A common standard appears to have become how a higher “ratio of facial width to upper facial height” will fuel perceptions of wealth, durability, and power.

Then we have “sub-categories” that may transcend the reductionist definitions of Alphas or Betas.   Helen Noronha of The Mind’s Control believes that men and women from the same personality category often clash romantically, so they should seek partners of corresponding personality types to minimize conflict.  Seeing how these personality types can evolve over time, or become hybridized, Noronha identifies a third and fourth set of categories:  “Gamma males” and “Omega males.”  She defines a Gamma as a man who is a variation of the “Beta male,” being “prepared to take the back seat or even be a stay-at-home dad in her castle.”

As an even more specific archetype, Noronha describes “Omega males” in the following manner:

An Omega guy has nerdy habits, like collecting comic books or being a Trekkie, and lives blissfully in his own world.  He is immature, irresponsible, lacks ambition, and is easily picked on.  In high school movies, he always lusts after an Alpha female and ends up getting her (they’re movies after all), only to reject her for his Beta best friend whom he hadn’t previously noticed.  Among a group, the Omega guy is the least likely to take an initiative and is generally the lowest on the chain-of-command.  Exaggerated metrosexuals and effete intellectuals may be Omegas too.  Women generally find Omegas unattractive.  As husbands, they are often happily reliant on their wife’s incomes and don’t help much around the house either.

Strangely enough, Noronha doesn’t offer any definition for an “Omega female” – meaning that either they are a rare breed (which would suggest that females aren’t as diverse as males), or, more likely, “Omega females” and “Gamma females” are usually grouped in with “Beta females” by default.  This supposition lends itself to the feminist critique that society denies women the opportunity to be as multifaceted as males are allowed to be...which, ironically, runs counter to the neofeminist fallacy that “Men are simple creatures.”   As an anecdotal example:  it took four seasons before The Big Bang Theory added two female “nerds” to its main cast.

Additional subcategories abound.  Naija Takeover magazine defines a “Zeta male” as a man who has rejected the traditional expectations associated with masculinity – anachronisms such as being a provider, a defender, and a protector.  “Zeta males” reject stereotypes and don’t conform to traditional beliefs.  They march to the beat of their own drum, refusing to be seduced or shamed by anyone.  The “Zeta male” archetype arose in 2010 with the tutelage of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement; this subset of the men’s movement values self-sovereignty while rejecting traditional interpretations of masculinity as well as liberal interpretations of feminism.

Remy Oryan’s self-help/philosophy site lists an entire hierarchy of categories positioned above and below Alphas and Betas.  

“SIGMA MALES”

The Sigma male is the outsider or lone wolf who doesn’t care for the rules of society and won’t play by them (unless it suits his objectives) but still seems to win the popularity game without trying.  He doesn’t seek approval from anyone which makes him the master of his own destiny.

This would be the topmost rung of the male dominance ladder, in the mold of James Bond or James Bourne.  It’s positioned even higher than an “Alpha male” in the respect that “Sigma males” are diplomatic, highly-successful with women while being respectful toward them, and talented when it comes to manipulating other “Alpha males.”

“DELTA MALES”

The Delta male is one rung down the social ladder from a Beta but not part of the same social circles (he wants to be).  They don’t understand the social construct and don’t know how to play the game.  The Delta fails to realize he is not a Beta, hence he is given very little social status by the alpha/beta women.  A Delta may still be good-looking and quite capable on the sporting field but doesn’t meet the social expectations required to make it into the alpha/beta social circle.

He adds that the “Delta male” is less concerned about his appearance than other men, largely because he often feels “invisible” amid the social hierarchy. Deltas can sometimes have a “White Knight” syndrome to overcompensate for their inability to approach women.

“GAMMA MALES”

The Gamma males are a bit confused by the whole social structure and struggle to understand it.  They will not be part of the same social circles as the alpha and beta.  They avoid the pack mentality and don’t conform to the social rules.  Gammas are overly self-confident to the point that they are inflexible and hate being wrong or are uncomfortable in a good solid two-way conversation.  This can make them argumentative and defensive if ever caught out saying something wrong.  They have no sense of self-ownership, [are] arrogant, and will not accept someone else’s opinions/facts.  Their problems are always someone else’s fault, not theirs.

Oryan describes Gammas as sharing the desire of Deltas at being manipulative, but Gammas are slightly more successful with women (only “slightly invisible”).  They also have a short fuse and can exhibit overly-entitled behavior since their egos won’t let them compromise.

“ZETA MALES”

The Zeta male is again a lone-wolf who walks his own path.  This path is always directly away from the social pyramid conformists.  He fully understands the social hierarchy and the social rules but rejects them as childish games.  They can see through the social construct and believe it serves only as a means of control and segregation.  These men are celibate by choice and don’t see that any value can be gained from playing a woman’s social games.  Usually these men are old enough to master their biological urges or have been in enough bad relationships to want to break free of them.

Oryan concurs that Zetas fit the MGTOW mold, often being of the “red pill” variety (freethinkers who practice blunt honesty).  A “Zeta male,” he believes, has lots of energy because women and social hierarchies aren’t holding them back.  Zetas don’t allow themselves to be distracted.

“LAMBDA MALES”

This final category is one that Oryan views as a variation of the “Zeta male”...

...who isn’t [psychologically] old enough to overcome him biological urges towards women.  He will understand female nature and dates women just long enough to pump and dump them.  Will travel in the social circle as a covert Beta and keep his personal philosophy about women under wraps.

Lambdas are the “purple pill” crop of MGTOW – sometimes being “pick-up artists” (PUA) or sometimes idealizing fantasy components of this experience.  A “Lambda male” can relate to the psychedelic mindset of hippies...hoping to minimize pain and anger.

When looking at these categories, I see shards of myself in all of them. However, none of them describes me in a well-rounded, easily pigeonholed manner.

For example, I feel that I have developed a lot of the confidence and compassion inherent in Alphas.  Yet, I reject the antiquated notions of chivalry that they so often espouse; I don’t have their unyielding desire to gain the upper hand over everyone whom I encounter.  I can show leadership and deviousness in select circumstances, when I feel that the occasion calls for it – but I don’t engage in such behavior to indiscriminately cause harm.

Within the Alpha-like subset of the “Sigma male,” I do indeed identify with his “renegade” style and rejection of trivial societal norms.  I differ from Sigmas in that I don’t readily command popularity wherever I go (largely because I’m not afraid to tell people off), and I only seek approval from others conditionally.

As far as Betas are concerned:  I find that I share their affinity for strong communication skills, intellectualism, outside-the-box thinking, and empathy.  I am prone to reject traditional gender roles in much the same way Betas are inclined to do.  On the other hand, my diplomacy only goes as far as my patience level.  I am as suggestible as my current safety level (e.g. fears over it) allows.  I used to be fully introverted, but in my adult years I have evolved from Beta-like introversion to Alpha-like extroversion.  I’ve also grown less shy, in my personal evolution, in pursuing romance or initiating relationships.

I share the traits of Omegas insofar as others perceive me to be “nerdy,” “innocent,” and “a nice guy.”  But, again, it depends on the Time/Manner/Place.  I’m not afraid to hold back and be a follower – but I will break out of that self-restraint if my passion takes over.  I also differ from many Omegas in that I’m totally willing to do housework plus I’m hardly metrosexual (seeing how I’m one of the lowest-fashion people you’ll ever meet – which, some people would claim, is paradoxical when juxtaposed alongside my homosexuality).

So, when it comes to my physical appearance, I’m more like a Delta than an Omega in that I don’t fuss over it a majority of the time.  I additionally share the Delta trait of feeling “invisible” quite often – but, unlike a lot of Deltas, I don’t pair those feelings of inadequacy with athleticism or a “White Knight” mentality.

Comparing myself with Gammas:  I share their inflexibility when it comes to how I’ll become hell-bent upon standing up for my convictions; on the flip side, I’m not inflexible about most things in a gratuitous manner.  I can be obstinate when I know I’m right about something (which is quite often), but I’m not so hardheaded that I reject all other new ideas...nor do I refuse to listen to the concerns of my peers.

That brings me to the Zeta/Lambda subcategories.  I very strongly relate to the Zeta (influenced by Beta) approach of REJECTING blanket gender roles imposed by society.  I’m so forward-thinking that I reject childish mentalities in both romance and civic life. 

At the same time, I dissent from much of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement in that I don’t subscribe to their categorical rejection of feminism.  I have much more of a sexual appetite than celibate Zetas do, but I have more control over my libido than many of them (and, their self-doubt about their own sexual control is what leads so many Zetas to consciously choose celibacy in the first place).

My approach is to redefine the obscure definition of a “Lambda male.”  I strongly share their affinity with hippie (or “psychedelic”) culture, but I don’t think that should be considered synonymous with the behavior of lotharios (because it isn’t – and I’m not one!).

In the 1984 film Revenge of the Nerds, the protagonist character of Gilbert (portrayed by ER’s Anthony Edwards) led his like-minded “nerdy” acolytes to prove they were equals with the Alpha-esque fraternities in the Greek system at Adams College.  The “nerds” of this classic film also happened to belong to the Lambda Lambda Lambda fraternity, which lends itself even more allegorically to such a categorical title.

That’s what I would encourage my brothers out there to do – redefine your personality-based category to achieve what is going to bring you a happy and productive life.  Yes, as “Lambdas” we are perceived as “nerdy” in our hobbies and interests that tend to lack athleticism or suaveness.  But we can elevate the sexual/gender equity promoted by Betas while channeling a 1970s-style “hippie” mentality so it will apply to the new millennium.

A final side-note:  all of the aforementioned categories have been defined along heterosexist terms.  As a gay male, I can recognize how this is clearly due to the heteronormative biases that still run rampant in society.  An enlightened “Lambda male” will be accepting of his brothers whether we are homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, or heterosexual.

What personality type do you gravitate toward?  And, more thoughtfully – how can you recognize the flaws in your own personality type, and reconstruct them to always strive to become a better version of yourself?