# 6 male personalities



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

The 6 Male Personalities: Alpha vs Beta vs Gamma vs Omega vs Delta vs Sigma


Every man has unique personality traits that make him who he is and define his actions. Despite seemingly random acts and ways of going about life being the norm for all men, there are ways




brandongaille.com





So reading this I found to be an excellent read, with the descriptions being accurate depictions of actual personality type styles that I've seen in men throughout my history of interacting with them. It doesn't have bullshit political agendas, it's just an informative read about how different men decide to go about being a man. 

I have seen each of these 6 personality types in men and recognize the information to be factual. I was able to identify myself as an omega male with ease of conviction. My question is, are there MORE than these 6? Is this incomplete information? Also I think it mentions that there is some sort of hierarchy? When reading these, I don't see one as particularly authoritive of any other. It seems like they just go about their own way of being male, depending on how they define what it means to be masculine. 

I don't want to hear any comments about Trans or gender topics. This is strictly about males who identify as males.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Purrfessor said:


> The 6 Male Personalities: Alpha vs Beta vs Gamma vs Omega vs Delta vs Sigma
> 
> 
> Every man has unique personality traits that make him who he is and define his actions. Despite seemingly random acts and ways of going about life being the norm for all men, there are ways
> ...


I fit Omega the best. Our society seems to put a premium on Alphas and see Betas as cucks. Most of them do not even recognize the existence of Omega, Gamma, Delta, or Sigma.

As for if there are more than 6, I suppose there could be hybrids. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Do you have some in mind? Do you think you could correlate MBTI or Enneagram to these 6 types?


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I fit Omega the best. Our society seems to put a premium on Alphas and see Betas as cucks. Most of them do not even recognize the existence of Omega, Gamma, Delta, or Sigma.
> 
> As for if there are more than 6, I suppose there could be hybrids. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Do you have some in mind? Do you think you could correlate MBTI or Enneagram to these 6 types?


Well the descriptions of the 6 types each had 4 bullet points, which made me wonder if there was somehow correlation with the 4 functions of a personality type. I thought about it a second and realized that actually there are alphas, betas, etc of each personality type and it doesn't correlate with the roles of the functions or the types of functions in a stack. This is something new. And I like that it's not the same thing I've been thinking about the past 10 years. 

Nor does it correlate with enneagram. The enneagram is not male or female based. Neither is MBTI, at least in definite terms. There may be certain traits that are more often seen in females versus males such as F vs T, but it entertains the notion that either male or female can for the most part be F or T. 

All I know is that in MATHEMATICS, there are lots of Greek alphabet symbols used and I might start there to figure out if there are any additional types to these 6. Theta maybe? 

It seems like there is a purpose for each of these 6 existing. Alphas exist to be competitive. Betas exist to bond. Gamma exists to encourage. Omega exists to empower. Delta exists to... complain? Sigma exists to charm. 

So what else do we need? These things exist because they are seen as valuable male traits. The competitiveness is necessary because it distinguishes us. The bonding is necessary because it nurtures us. The encouraging is necessary because it motivates us. The empowering is necessary because it strengthens us. The complaining is necessary because it changes us. The charm is necessary because it attracts us. 

Is there anything else that is necessary? And I mean necessary in the sense that these are males seeking females with whom to mate. 

And yes in this society there is a trend of eccentuating alpha mentality and insulting beta mentality. This is because the economy is more competitive than its ever been. Alphas may be able to get any girl but betas are the ones who KEEP their girl. This is not exactly conducive to an economy of trade. If the female is considered money, it doesn't stimulate the economy if she's never "spent" and only held onto in your bank account. So betas are simply threatening the alpha big businesses who want to slut her out for financial gain. They respond competitively. 

It's really unfortunate that women are being conditioned to go after only the best and highest quality of competitive males. It makes them extremely unattractive to me as an omega male to see them so easily drawn to something bigger, better, richer etc because my omega personality is to simply be self driven and above the influence. A female that would attract me is one who can say "no" to high quality competitive men. Someone who wants me for me. So yeah they'll have to be above the influence of main stream marketing techniques. 

If you scroll to the bottom of that page I linked there is another link about the 6 female personality types. Of those I'm most attracted to Omega female, then Sigma female, then alpha female. The problem with alpha females is that they can do whatever they want so how can I trust them and the problem with sigma females is they would likely demand too much from me. The omega females however seem perfect.


----------



## 8080 (Oct 6, 2020)

“Purrfessor“ said:


> So reading this I found to be an excellent read, with the descriptions being accurate depictions of actual personality type styles that I've seen in men throughout my history of interacting with them


Grouping cases and creating taxonomies or types can be very useful, and I consider the ability to establish a comfortable place for oneself in a hierarchy to be extremely important, but I find Vox Day’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH) unconvincing.

The descriptions for the six types seem even more arbitrary than Enneagram descriptions, and the tests (idrlabs.com included) are as useless as there, which indicates that the profiles are mainly a matter of creative writing, without the recognition of important patterns. These types have rather arbitrary personality traits, Alphas, for example, are described as extraverts, but they can also be charismatic introverts.

You have to be given credit for choosing one of the least repellent profiles, and I (male ENTP) can easily identify with the _Sigma_ type description _in this profile_, though it is essentially limited to _manipulative/cunning + independent_. Obviously an extravert.



> *The Sigma Male*
> 
> *1. He Is Cunning*
> 
> ...


Others, however, describe the Sigma type quite differently: “1. He’s extremely *introverted*, 3. He’s the biggest overthinker, *introverts* are generally very picky with the people they surround themselves with.” Sigma Personality: 15 Traits And Why You Should Date A Sigma Male

Thus, a typology of _strategies + behaviours_ used in hierarchies should be developed, and in a second step personality types that tend to exhibit these behaviours could be identified. As a first step, we could describe our own behaviour in hierarchies.


*Vox Day’**s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH**)*





Optimal speed: 1.5 x

https://voxday.net

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day
Verified:Vox Day - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

*








Dominance hierarchy







incels.wiki




*

_The rest is also not particularly important:_

*Seeking Structure in Social Organization: Compensatory Control and the Psychological Advantages of Hierarchy* (2013)

Justin P. Friesen

As a general definition, a *hierarchy* is a tiered arrangement of objects where some entities are higher or lower than other entities on a particular dimension. A social hierarchy is a vertically stratified relationship between two or more people or groups in which those at higher levels of the hierarchy have greater power and status than those at lower levels of the hierarchy (see also Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

Those at higher levels of a hierarchy typically have greater decision-making authority, privileged access to material and symbolic resources, more rights and freedoms, and greater ability to make and enforce rules than those at lower levels of the hierarchy.

Like previous theorists (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt & Sibley, 2009; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), I also recognize that there are both individual- and group-based hierarchies. Individual-based hierarchies occur within groups, where one or more individuals are valued more highly on some dimension (e.g., status, power; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In contrast, group-based hierarchies occur between groups—such as men and women, or older and younger people— where one group is valued more highly than the other (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Moreover, in addition to these functional benefits for the group as a whole, it is also easy to understand why higher-ranked individuals prefer hierarchies: By definition, being at the top provides access to material resources that others lack, an ancestral and contemporary benefit. Beyond these pragmatic advantages, evidence suggests that hierarchies have become imbued with potent psychological significance as both those higher and lower in the hierarchy support its existence. Being at the top of a hierarchy satisfies a cluster of psychological needs related to power, status, dominance, and self-esteem (S. T. Fiske, 2011; Leary, Cottrell, & Phillips, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Taylor & Lobel, 1989; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Although higher-ranked individuals accrue the most obvious benefits from hierarchies (e.g., power, status, resources), lower-ranked individuals often demonstrate significant support for hierarchies (Anderson, Willer, Kilduff, & Brown, 2012; Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002; Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003; Levin, Frederico, Sidanius, & Rabinowitz, 2002; Sidanius,

Levin, & Pratto, 1996). This suggests the possibility that hierarchies may provide some type of psychological benefit for individuals of all ranks, not just for those at the top. The hypothesis that lower status individuals also benefit psychologically from being in a hierarchy is consistent with research under the umbrella of system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004), which holds that individuals are motivated to view their sociopolitical systems as legitimate. To the extent that hierarchies are commonly the way in which systems are organized, defending the status quo often entails defending hierarchies (Gaucher, Kay, & Laurin, 2010; Kaiser et al., 2013). For example, system justification research demonstrates that even disadvantaged individuals who live in socially-stratified systems will bolster and defend a variety of hierarchies including stratification systems based on gender (Glick & S. T. Fiske, 2001; Jost & Kay, 2005; Kay, Gaucher, et al., 2009; Laurin, Shepherd, & Kay, 2010), race (Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002), and economic circumstance (Kay, Czaplinski, & Jost, 2009; Kay & Jost, 2003; Malahy, Rubinlicht, & Kaiser, 2009). From a system justification perspective, therefore, support for hierarchies is often a means of fulfilling the broader motivation to believe that one’s social systems are legitimate. From this past research it is clear that hierarchies have functional benefits and can serve needs for system justification, power, and status.

In addition to these advantages, however, I propose that hierarchies, regardless of whether or not they represent the current status quo, may also be well-suited to satisfying the specific psychological need to perceive one’s existence as structured. By structured, I mean orderly, non-random, and predictable. That is, the structured nature of hierarchies may give them a type of psychological advantage over more equal forms of social organization, especially in circumstances when people lack personal control and needs for external structure are therefore especially salient.

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/7889/Friesen_Justin.pdf


*The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females* (2007)

Patricia H. Hawley, Todd D. Little and Noel A. Card

Evolutionary and biological approaches tend to suggest that social dominance is predominately an aspect of male social organization. Furthermore, when females behave non-normatively, they are less positively evaluated than males engaging in the same behavior. Alternate, less familiar models of females and dominance/aggression underlie the present study which proposes that dominant males and females are more similar in both behavioral proﬁle and social reception than commonly believed. Participants (N = 1723; grades 5–10) self-rated their aggression, social motivations, and strategies and beliefs associated with interpersonal inﬂuence. Peer ratings of strategies of inﬂuence, aggression, and the degree to which peers were liked and disliked were also obtained. Results demonstrated that socially dominant males and females balance prosocial and coercive strategies and win positive peer regard, their aggressiveness notwithstanding. These ﬁndings highlight competitiveness in females and provide insights into the paradoxical relationship between positive peer regard and aggression (the peer regard–aggression paradox).

Keywords: aggression; gender; peer relations; social dominance

*Conclusions* With our calling attention to “the myth of the alpha male,” we mean to point out – theoretically (including biological models) and empirically – that (a) the most dominant members of a social group are both male and female, (b) means other than overt aggression are employed to attain and defend these posi- tions (i.e., relational aggression and prosocial behavior), and (c) both high dominance males and females attract similar social attention and draw others’ social aspirations (especially females). Traditional work in social dominance typically deﬁned dominance in terms of physical aggression (but see Pellegrini et al., in press). It thus comes as no surprise that the questions posed and methods employed centered on male superiority. Furthermore, females’ social strengths (e.g., focus on relationships) are often construed as impediments to domi- nance attainment or at least mitigators of “real” (i.e., physical) aggression. In contrast, we see these social strengths as true social assets in hierarchical groups. Both dominant males and females enjoy these skills and orientations, and beneﬁt from the social attention they attract.

DOI: 10.1177/0165025407084054

Sci-Hub | The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females | 10.1177/0165025407084054

A. J. Drenth: Dominance as a Personality Trait: Sex, Gender & Myers-Briggs Type
Dominance as a Personality Trait: Sex, Gender & Myers-Briggs Type | Personality Junkie

DISC "Dominant" behavioral dimension - What characterizes it?


----------



## Iced_Mocha (11 mo ago)

Personally, I disagree with this theory. I don't think it sums up complexity as well as, say, the Enneagram, for example. It'd be fun to analyze this more, but I don't think we should use it for a major discussion.

As an example - - the idea of dominance would easily create a need for validation among all "ranks," especially the lower ones. Even if all would get benefits, some would be unfulfilled with the positive feedback their peers get from being 'aggressive' and encourage negative behavior among everyone. 

Humans have spent a long time trying to craft a fair society and one that doesn't involve things such as 'alphas.' I feel like instead of letting men be men, it encourages competition.

(I am not a man).


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Iced_Mocha said:


> Personally, I disagree with this theory. I don't think it sums up complexity as well as, say, the Enneagram, for example. It'd be fun to analyze this more, but I don't think we should use it for a major discussion.
> 
> As an example - - the idea of dominance would easily create a need for validation among all "ranks," especially the lower ones. Even if all would get benefits, some would be unfulfilled with the positive feedback their peers get from being 'aggressive' and encourage negative behavior among everyone.
> 
> ...


Actually society isn't getting rid of alphas to create a fair society, it's adapting to their existence by throwing them in prison if they don't do what we want them to do. How is that fair? That's simply an ultimatum response to their existence in order to create more dominance amongst lower ranked members of society due to them having a democratic leverage system. 

If you compare to other countries who haven't adapted a modern democratic system, the alphas are actually ruling them. Which is what comes most naturally to them. Is it unfair to the majority that they are subject to the whims of higher position? Yeah. But it doesn't make anything more fair to simply retaliate to their supremacy with strict adherence to a structure specifically designed to undermine them and reestablish order amongst another kind. 

If you want FAIR, trust me we will need to further adapt. I think it is incredibly morally wrong to stop alphas from establishing order. 

I propose an alternative. Instead of a hierarchy, there could be tiers of which you participate solely in where you belong. The alphas will coexist amongst themselves in an upper class, the deltas in a lower class, the betas in a middle class, etc. The upper class will not seek to rule over the middle class, but simply have its own agendas and so on. With a hierarchy of sorts it forces people to climb the ladder to get to where they belong. Wouldn't it be better to just... place them where they belong to begin with?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

I find these theories a bit on the nose considering it comes from the theory of wolves. For a while it's been asserted that wolves don't have alphas, they have parents and their young being incorporated into the pack and the idea of alphas and betas etc are outdated to the point they are no longer used. https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/#:~:text=One of the outdated pieces,which then became their pack.

When you are looking at men, it doesn't really match up either. Some of their standing in society can come from their being born into wealth, having an amount of natural charm, or their height, looks, personality as well as a whole other number of variables that aren't dependent on skill. Being of top standing ie "alpha" implies there is a skill, and tenacity involved in getting there. Most of the time you can almost count on CEOs and world leaders either being a bit of a sociopath and climbing over the bodies of others on their way up or being supported by many on the way up as a collective.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

beth x said:


> I find these theories a bit on the nose considering it comes from the theory of wolves. For a while it's been asserted that wolves don't have alphas, they have parents and their young being incorporated into the pack and the idea of alphas and betas etc are outdated to the point they are no longer used. https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/#:~:text=One of the outdated pieces,which then became their pack.
> 
> When you are looking at men, it doesn't really match up either. Some of their standing in society can come from their being born into wealth, having an amount of natural charm, or their height, looks, personality as well as a whole other number of variables that aren't dependent on skill. Being of top standing ie "alpha" implies there is a skill, and tenacity involved in getting there. Most of the time you can almost count on CEOs and world leaders either being a bit of a sociopath and climbing over the bodies of others on their way up or being supported by many on the way up as a collective.


The theory about the wolves may be "outdated" but it's still true. I've seen footage of a wolf challenging the alpha wolf in the pack to a fight and overtaking him and becoming alpha himself. When they travel the alpha is in front and then the 2ndary alpha is in back. 

The thing about humans is that we are influenced by the alphas to be competitive. This means even when you aren't alpha you are trying your best to be alpha. So that's why we are leveraging things like looks, wealth, charm etc as if it was warfare amongst each other. 

However I think there is too much influence by the alphas to be alpha and people who have other roles themselves which are important are trying to be someone they are not... 

As an Omega, I'm the type that specifically doesn't listen to the alpha. So I see when it's better to listen and when it's better to challenge. If for example we have a president named Donald Trump who is our declared alpha and influencing many many people to be more like him, and its turning out to be a very very bad thing - people MUST look to the omega for guidance instead. The omega will then inspire the people to not listen to the alpha. 

If alphas are influencing people to STAY HOME and watch porn and play video games and stream on social media, then the omega needs to step up and show them the value of hard work, getting out of the house, and disconnecting from technology.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

I think I'm a mixture of beta and omega. More of an omega in my personal time, and more of a beta out in public (in the workplace, for example). I can see some of all of them in me except maybe the alpha.

I'm having trouble fitting both myself and the other men in my life into this system. For example, the men I think of (perhaps wrongly?) as "alphas" don't strike me as charismatic at all. They're grumpy and bark orders and people resent them because of their bossiness.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Mizmar said:


> I think I'm a mixture of beta and omega. More of an omega in my personal time, and more of a beta out in public (in the workplace, for example). I can see some of all of them in me except maybe the alpha.
> 
> I'm having trouble fitting both myself and the other men in my life into this system. For example, the men I think of (perhaps wrongly?) as "alphas" don't strike me as charismatic at all. They're grumpy and bark orders and people resent them because of their bossiness.


I've seen so many different definitions of what alpha is but I like this particularly description on this website, along with the other 5 descriptions. 

I'm wondering how you mix beta and omega because betas are supposed to praise alphas the most while omegas give credit to alphas the least. Maybe you're bipolar?  jk 

Yeah my personal definition of Alpha would probably be something like: focuses on other people, leads others, stays competitive, hides true self. 

Barking orders could be a tactic to take the attention away from the self. One of the reasons I, as an omega, don't respect the alpha. I understand why they hide their true self... they need to protect themselves from others in order to remain powerful. But as an Omega I just can't afford to give them any praise because what the omega truly is concerned with is people doing what they ACTUALLY want to do and not listening to any authority. The alpha is just so concerned with making people listen to authority that I really can't get behind their agenda personally. Even if they were doing something profound like instructing others to rise up and fight for their freedom, I just think its better if they fought for that freedom on their own. Why listen to someone like Trump tell you what to do when you can just do whatever the fuck you want instead, you know? I liked Patrick Henry's quote "give me liberty or give me death" because it shows that he'd rather die than do something he doesn't want to do. That's omega. 

The problem comes when you do something like mandatory vaccinations or mask wearing. The omega in me says you should NEVER EVER force that decision on anyone (and giving them ultimatum is force). But I get that they are trying to do something that REQUIRES cooperation by everybody to work. Still I think it's safe to say that it's too idealistic and not realistic to expect everybody to listen to authority. Knowing that, any effort to legislate a forced vaccination like that will not result in actually effectively fighting the virus because not enough people will follow. Therefore it should be known even BEFORE it happened that the plan will fail and still mandating anything anyway is either stupid or intentional in order to serve a separate agenda that is not fighting the virus. I refuse to believe that they made such a powerful decision stupidly so I can only assume that their plans to force vaccinations are nefarious. 

However, I still complied because I was given an ultimatum. I was homeless at the time see, and I needed a job. The only way I could find employment and get off the streets was to vaccinate. I compromised my personal values and i regret that. I did some "essential worker" work that was difficult and survived. But hey "give me liberty or give me death" still rings in my ears and honestly I don't want to be a survivor if it means compromising my values as an omega male to promote the ideals of people being able to make their own choices for themselves. 

I really don't know how an omega can also be a beta. I think you're just acting and not really being a beta, in order to pretend like you respect the rules, but are actually just being machiavellian about it and choosing to follow your own path in secret. 

Either that or you're just not really an omega but actually just a beta who is fooling himself thinking he's free when in reality you're chained up in a life you can't escape from. Omega would literally rather die than live a life where they are dependent on others. Alphas can't touch me unless they are dangerously manipulative. I'm talking ultimatums, blackmail, bribery (to a degree... I'm hard to bribe), lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc ALL in order to get ME to do what THEY want. And yes, they have done this to me. Apparently they were that desperate for me that they'd go to such lengths just to get me to take orders from them. I DO NOT RESPECT them at all for this. Impressed, sure? But I don't want to serve them. At. All. I want my independence and I hate that no matter how much I fight for it, they fight harder just so I don't have it. I cannot suck their dicks and declare them the winners even IF they are better than me, even IF they deserve it. Because that's not what I am. I'm one of those dogs who is not easily domesticated, and will Bite my owner for telling me "sit". Betas will smile and laugh and and ask if there is anything else their owner wants them to do. 

When I'm at work I'm not a beta. If I don't get respect I'm out the fucking door. I don't care if I go homeless again. I literally cannot physically be a beta. They're asking too much from me if they expect me to be their bitch. I can't do it EVEN IF I WANTED TO. I'm an intp maybe My dominant Ti thinks it's a good idea to be someone's little underling and follow orders. I'll try. But there's something inside me that just won't let me. It's my masculinity. My manhood is TIED to being omega. And guess what, I'm a man. That's just who I am. A human man. Not a robot. So I can't reprogram myself to be somebody who I'm not even if my dominant Ti tries to. 

You ever see captain America with that one guy with the arm? Yeah they programmed him to be a bitch and listen to orders. But yeah it didn't last. He just couldn't do it anymore and he decided that he had the power independently to make choices. In order to brain wash an omega like him to follow orders like a bitch, when an omega would literally rather die, they had to REALLY manipulate him and make him WANT to live despite having no control. It's delicate work. I don't remember the movie but I think they manipulated his emotions and made him like super vengeful or something so he didn't choose death.

But yeah I'd be wary of any "hybridizing" of these male personalities. You're probably just in some sort of state of internal or external conflict. Like every good story/plot, there's a time for conflict then there's a time for resolution. You'll figure out who you are. 

Also I believe "charisma" was tied to sigma?


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Snow flake syndrome 
we are all unique
7+ billion people yet we ‘they think we are special
We label our selves to inflate our egos/self worth
yet in the end we all die 
leaving no impact on humanity


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

@Mizmar 

It's possible you are either a beta and merely attracted to omega or omega and attracted to beta. When people are attracted they tend to "mimic" who they are attracted to. For example your girlfriend goes to gym, goes on hikes, does yoga etc and since you're attracted to her you also do some fitness for yourself in order to tactically mimic your mate to get them to like you. Everybody does it. We want our interests to be interested in us back.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

VinnieBob said:


> Snow flake syndrome
> we are all unique
> 7+ billion people yet we ‘they think we are special
> We label our selves to inflate our egos/self worth
> ...


Actually in the mating game, the goal is for yourself as an individual to find a mate. This means your mate has to choose specifically you over any of the other 7 billion people to choose from. You have to be special. It's no syndrome. It's survival. You're not going to go on a date with someone and be like "I'm guessing you chose me at random from your pool of hundreds or thousands of people messaging you daily?" Nope you're going to have to show them why they should be with you and NOT anybody else.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Purrfessor said:


> I've seen so many different definitions of what alpha is but I like this particularly description on this website, along with the other 5 descriptions.


The ones I am thinking of definitely don't "act in a way that pleases others", to quote from the article.



> I'm wondering how you mix beta and omega because betas are supposed to praise alphas the most while omegas give credit to alphas the least. Maybe you're bipolar?  jk


I don't recall the article saying anything about this, but I don't praise alphas as a group. I might admire an individual alpha for his particular brand of leadership. I can't really see myself becoming close friends with most of them due to a lack of common interests.



> I really don't know how an omega can also be a beta. I think you're just acting and not really being a beta, in order to pretend like you respect the rules, but are actually just being machiavellian about it and *choosing to follow your own path in secret.*


I'm_ definitely_ following my own path in secret. But does that disqualify me from being a beta?



> When I'm at work I'm not a beta. If I don't get respect I'm out the fucking door.


I once left a job after just a few days because they didn't show me proper respect. But the article emphasized that betas are *not* pushovers.



> Also I believe "charisma" was tied to sigma?


It's the Alpha that the article describes as charismatic, but that doesn't fit most of the ones I'm thinking of.

I guess I see "alpha" not as a personality _type_, but rather a single personality trait. It just means those who seek leadership positions, in contrast to beta types who don't. I'd be a beta in that simple binary system. 

Then again, a lot of the alphas I know don't seem to particularly _seek _positions of leadership either. It's more like they just end up there because of their naturally bossy personalities. Perhaps this is another type that the article simply doesn't mention?


----------

