Yes, most of psychology is empirically vague. Thanks ChatGPT!
Discussion
Dr. David buss, dr. gad Saad , dr. Steven Stewart Smith... Even Steven pinker to an extent have all discussed these in their books and/or podcasts.
The psychology isn't shaky, just your understanding of it is.
In your long response, you pointed out that it is poorly defined and not empirically proven. I agree
Alphas and betas are well documented by Evo psychs. Yet your description shows your lack of knowledge of the hiarchy. The psych of sigma is made up by psudo-intels online pointed out by experts in their own Feild ,that's the point. Though i suppose we can agree to disagree as I don't think you've made a post to have your mind changed.
Sigma's exist outside of the heirarchy. It is basically a term for people who seem to display success, yet do not appear to rely on a social structure the way alphas do. It is misused a lot online, but it is still a useful term.
My apologies with the long response but when discussing things in the sciences, especially with the amount I've read in the field of phych and Evo psych its best to be a bit consice. I can only dig in so much in a post.. I should really just let it die but hopefully this is enough of an awnser for you to see my point of view and i suppose we can agree to disagree.
evolutionary psychologists have discussed this idea and have debunked it in the sense that most have a very skewed view of what is alpha and beta based of personal experience and think it is also a solid description of a person in all things, such as the description op gave. Not to mention we are always in a hiarchy. We Dont have a choice, it's part of not only our unconcious but there's evidence within our collective unconscious in regards to the archytype we embody. This is a fundamental truth that i cannot stress enough but if we can't agree on it... I don't know what to tell you, can't really have a conversation. . Culture is downstream of biology and that is an important fact in how we became how we are . One can be an alpha in one aspect and a beta in another and it's rarely super static. Someone marching to the beat of their own drum. Is jsut another word for someone with a strong frame Wich is a hallmark of an alpha archytype. A beta is not even nessesarily a bad thing. It can be. For instance Bruce Lee was an alpha in the sense on martial arts, and women and some other things. But if put in a room full of physics professor and then the group is told to solve something, he is now the beta and must play the fool archytype and learn. That's not bad that he follows. Now you could argue that he is a sigma in a sense that he travelled to the west and did his own thing and carved his own path. However that is also what Evo psychs define as part of an alpha trait, also a hierarchy was immidiately formed around him with him at the top this naturally thrusting him into alpha role regardless. We can take many people throughout history who rose like guts in berserk, but in dissection, with even that arbitrary character himself, youl jsut find an alpha entering new environments.
I appreciate the discussion. In future discourses, it would be best to not start with the "you dont know what you are talking about" approach, then mentioning vague resources ( btw, Ive have hear a bit of the podcasts you mentioned). but yes, obviously, I'm not an expert. Never claimed to be. Thus the short note about my shallow perspective and worldview.
I would value specific links to educate me further.
If Nostr is to become the new marketplace of ideas, we need civil, constructive discourse (most of the time) to facilitate learning.
And psych archtypes are by nature, vague generalizations. Thus I made broad statements, didnt hate on anyone and kept in spirit of the general thesis.
Looking forward to learning more from you all.