A reader wrote in and wanted my take on the differences between a gamma and a sigma. The reader postulated that since both live much of their lives outside the regular social circles, they would be difficult to differentiate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In popular culture: picture Clint Eastwood and Michael Moore. If you really have to ask which one is which, then just stop reading now, none of the rest will make sense.
But let's put some meat on the topic. Let's examine further. Let's assign tangible, measurable qualities to the differences.
Secret King. Somehow, he is better than everybody, but nobody can see it. Delusions of grandeur.
Overly emotional. Let's emotion dictate his actions.
Solipsistic. Things only happen to affect him.
Feminized thinking. Thinks as a woman would on most, if not all, things.
Refusal to accept his role.
Some more from this link:
* Gammas will actively pick fights they can’t win against higher-ranking men. This is because the Secret King can’t accept that nobody appreciates his value but being feminised they don’t really understand how men handle conflict. Their risk assessment is faulty, like a belligerent woman screaming “you can’t hit me I’m a girl” before she’s decked on WorldStarHipHop.
* Gammas can’t back down from these fights because that means admitting defeat, which goes against the Secret King belief. Also, everything is too personal, being feminised. So rather than slink away from a beating they have to keep running their mouth and keep getting beaten up.
* Gammas will lie, spin, and employ sophistry to maintain the illusion of winning when obviously losing. The evidence doesn’t actually support the winning, so it’s avoided, but they don’t realise how transparent their defeat is.
* Gammas use the feminised debating tactic of tackle the man not the ball. They will directly insult in order to create badfeelz, because they project their own fear of badfeelz and assume their opponent is similarly wounded by it.
The lone wolf.
Reluctant king. People often beg for the sigma's leadership, but the sigma doesn't want to.
Devoid of emotion. Whether by training, scarring, or natural disinclination to be emotional, the sigma doesn't show emotion unless doing so suits his desires.
Manipulative. Not only do others exist, they exist to serve the purpose of the sigma.
Pragmatic thinking. To the point of not taking other people's feelz into consideration.
Able to adopt any role, depending on his objective. But realizing that roles are simplistic games.
And maybe that last one is the chief differentiator. The gamma wishes he were in charge. The sigma realizes that even if he were in charge, there is little worth to being in charge.
* A sigma will not fight unless there's something to be gained by winning and losing. Whether the sigma wins depends on what he wants, and whether winning will provide that. Of note, this is the only heirarchy rank that the alpha will not immediately challenge... as he knows destruction likely will follow.
* A sigma will gladly "back down" or "admit defeat," if that will serve his purposes. Doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it just matters what is gained. If it is a real fight, the sigma will overwhelm and destroy.
* A sigma will employ sophisticated attacks, counters, and such, bred from a sole purpose of self improvement. To watch one fight is to watch poetry in motion. He understands the game so thoroughly that the other party lost the fight before it ever began.
* A sigma attacks only the opponent. However, in true sigma fashion, he does not care one bit about potential collateral damage... unless the appearance of caring for such will gain a strategic advantage.