It makes sense that the normal rungs, delta to alpha, along with the dysfunctional omega and gamma overlap with the center of the bell curve, while sigam is off beyond the normal distribution.
Not sure if it's helpful, but family & friends have insisted that I'm a Sigma and MENSA tell me my IQ is 160. I'm going to insist that I'm a retarded Delta just 'cos F it.
I thought about sigmas and IQ since Vox posted it. High IQ can certainly make an alpha a sigma, but I don't think it's the only and most common factor. In combat sports crowds there is a specific breed of alpha who's just too unhinged to be part of any hierarchy. I can't put them as anything other than sigmas, because that's effectively what they are. As far as IQ, they are generally the average of what alphas are. You can see them even in high level competitive figting. Pariahs, constantly in low-key shitstorms, running from coach to coach and gym to gym.
Those are not Sigmas. That sort of incessantly chaotic behaviour is simply not what Sigmas do. They MAY upset the whole applecart of a sport for a reason or other but getting into constant low-key shitstorms is anathema to Sigmas.
If what Vox said is accurate, namely that Sigmas most likely are a sort of somewhat damaged/inconsistent Alphas, then I doubt "IQ" will "make" an Alpha into a Sigma Male. This is so because I would currently disagree that IQ, in and of itself, can be considered to be damaging. Or can it?
I am not even fully firm on this opinion: Given the SSH classifies male behaviour relative to both social and sexual success, and thinking back to Heartiste's old blog, the argument that "high" IQ can be considered damaging specifically in those two (S&S) dimensions -- that probably does have some merit.
The trauma explanation is just a rationalization of an observational fact. High IQ is not damaging by itself but it would definitely render an Alpha incapable of communicating with bravos of average IQ, thus disloging him from the hierarchy. As far as women I don't see how it can be harmful to an otherwise good looking and athletic man. Maybe for midwit gammas, because of the rationalization potential, but they are not that smart and none of the above anyway.
Considering they form probably 80% of the population, their average number will approximately average the human average. You are making the error of another reader, of ignoring that I specified these are generic averages. Obviously outliers will exist.
He is splitting the male sub-categories into their respective distributions. "Most will be less 130" is generally true for any category, anyway, but his language explicitly doesn't exclude the occurrence of examples above or beyond that (or any) threshold. This statistical rather than absolute language is pervasive throughout his whole blog post.
Now, each such sub-distribution will still be a "normal" (aka Gauss) distribution (more or less) with an average, a standard deviation, and some slim but possibly long tails. All that Kurgan did here was having a stab at estimating the rough average and likely standard deviation (how broad or narrow that sub-distribution is) for each sub-population of men.
The sum total of all such sub-category distributions (Alpha Bravo etc) will add up again to the (roughly) normal distribution of IQ across the entire male population.
Based on Western European ethnic whites, I think you are pretty accurate. Based on other races probably shift all your IQs to the left about 20 points. Also I live in Europe, so do not have so much to do with black people, ( unfortunately it is increasing ), but how they behave here, I don´t even know what they are on the SSH most of the time, I usually get out of there before I can find out, or if a new category needs to be invented for them... Also the way Yugos behave, it is soo different. It is like they all want to be "hard arses" with their adidas tracksuits and pretending to be tough.. But I don´t think they´re textbook gammas...
I do think there can be lower-IQ Gammas in the 80-90 IQ range with delusion bubbles, considering how black people behave and believe the most ridiculous things, at least here in the USA, and how Vox has said at least twice that Indians are typically Gamma. And in both cases it’s to guard their egos — i.e. pride.
At the upper end, Vox has ruled Chris Langan a Delta, so there’s that data point. I do wonder, however, if there’s a significant difference between VHIQ/upper-end midwits and UHIQ/geniuses in SSH distribution. Midwits are strongly associated with Gammas, and so is the Mensa Club for that matter. But do they drop off at all among UHIQ?
Omegas being average to low IQ and Sigmas being high IQ also tracks.
Outliers are not the point of the post. And obviously lower and higher IQ of each archetype are possible. As stated, these are my best guesses for the most common generic expectations.
Langan is also at least partially a fraud who took multiple tests under various fake names, and he is not as smart as he (and others) pretends he is.
BTW, that's interesting about Langan. There was something about him at this VP post that doesn't quite pass the smell test, but I still can't quite figure out what. My initial impression in fact was that he sounded like a Gamma midwit / Mensa type.
Langan blocked me on Gab for simply asking a straight forward question without any duplicity behind it. I was in fact simply trying to see if his conclusion was different from mine because I missed something, so I just asked basically if x then why y?
The reason was because it was not me who had missed something. Answering would have shown him up. Same thing when I checked the Tex Arcana guy on bullshit he just made up and was proven wrong. Blocked me.
These are not the actions of confident smart men. I don’t rate Langan and his theory of the Universe is nothing new either, in fact others got there before him and better and all he’s doing is adding in his own neologisms to unnecessarily complicate something and reword it so it’s not recognised as a poor copy of the German guy’s theory.
I forget his name right now something-hardt I think. He invented the fuel air bomb and lost hand fingers and eyesight to an explosion. His theory of physics included for consciousness.
There's a lot of circuitous argument in his theories: "You need to believe my hypotheses because of the authority of the smartest man on the planet (until very recently). And the reason I am proven so smart is that all my theories are observed to be accurate."
And then he is puzzled why no woman wants to have his "great jeans" on her or in her, and he will die childless.
As for the SSH, I think Vox is probably right. Delta. They can be incessantly whiny when they feel simply not recognised for their “obvious” greatness.
It makes sense that the normal rungs, delta to alpha, along with the dysfunctional omega and gamma overlap with the center of the bell curve, while sigam is off beyond the normal distribution.
Not sure if it's helpful, but family & friends have insisted that I'm a Sigma and MENSA tell me my IQ is 160. I'm going to insist that I'm a retarded Delta just 'cos F it.
I thought about sigmas and IQ since Vox posted it. High IQ can certainly make an alpha a sigma, but I don't think it's the only and most common factor. In combat sports crowds there is a specific breed of alpha who's just too unhinged to be part of any hierarchy. I can't put them as anything other than sigmas, because that's effectively what they are. As far as IQ, they are generally the average of what alphas are. You can see them even in high level competitive figting. Pariahs, constantly in low-key shitstorms, running from coach to coach and gym to gym.
Those are not Sigmas. That sort of incessantly chaotic behaviour is simply not what Sigmas do. They MAY upset the whole applecart of a sport for a reason or other but getting into constant low-key shitstorms is anathema to Sigmas.
If what Vox said is accurate, namely that Sigmas most likely are a sort of somewhat damaged/inconsistent Alphas, then I doubt "IQ" will "make" an Alpha into a Sigma Male. This is so because I would currently disagree that IQ, in and of itself, can be considered to be damaging. Or can it?
I am not even fully firm on this opinion: Given the SSH classifies male behaviour relative to both social and sexual success, and thinking back to Heartiste's old blog, the argument that "high" IQ can be considered damaging specifically in those two (S&S) dimensions -- that probably does have some merit.
Hm. I'm undecided.
The trauma explanation is just a rationalization of an observational fact. High IQ is not damaging by itself but it would definitely render an Alpha incapable of communicating with bravos of average IQ, thus disloging him from the hierarchy. As far as women I don't see how it can be harmful to an otherwise good looking and athletic man. Maybe for midwit gammas, because of the rationalization potential, but they are not that smart and none of the above anyway.
Everything seems reasonable but I am surprised you gave the Deltas such a narrow IQ range. I would have figured 90 - 120.
Considering they form probably 80% of the population, their average number will approximately average the human average. You are making the error of another reader, of ignoring that I specified these are generic averages. Obviously outliers will exist.
Except Gamma. Gamma has a hard boundary of 130. No Gamma can be above 130. "Period."
Those aren't ranges. They're distributions.
He is splitting the male sub-categories into their respective distributions. "Most will be less 130" is generally true for any category, anyway, but his language explicitly doesn't exclude the occurrence of examples above or beyond that (or any) threshold. This statistical rather than absolute language is pervasive throughout his whole blog post.
Now, each such sub-distribution will still be a "normal" (aka Gauss) distribution (more or less) with an average, a standard deviation, and some slim but possibly long tails. All that Kurgan did here was having a stab at estimating the rough average and likely standard deviation (how broad or narrow that sub-distribution is) for each sub-population of men.
The sum total of all such sub-category distributions (Alpha Bravo etc) will add up again to the (roughly) normal distribution of IQ across the entire male population.
Finally. Someone that understands basic statistics!
Based on Western European ethnic whites, I think you are pretty accurate. Based on other races probably shift all your IQs to the left about 20 points. Also I live in Europe, so do not have so much to do with black people, ( unfortunately it is increasing ), but how they behave here, I don´t even know what they are on the SSH most of the time, I usually get out of there before I can find out, or if a new category needs to be invented for them... Also the way Yugos behave, it is soo different. It is like they all want to be "hard arses" with their adidas tracksuits and pretending to be tough.. But I don´t think they´re textbook gammas...
Vox’s SSH is mostly modelled on white Euros. Some cultural differences can “mask” certain types at first impact.
I would be interested to think about the curry muncher social hierarchy etc.. The alpha is the one with the worst breath :)
I do think there can be lower-IQ Gammas in the 80-90 IQ range with delusion bubbles, considering how black people behave and believe the most ridiculous things, at least here in the USA, and how Vox has said at least twice that Indians are typically Gamma. And in both cases it’s to guard their egos — i.e. pride.
At the upper end, Vox has ruled Chris Langan a Delta, so there’s that data point. I do wonder, however, if there’s a significant difference between VHIQ/upper-end midwits and UHIQ/geniuses in SSH distribution. Midwits are strongly associated with Gammas, and so is the Mensa Club for that matter. But do they drop off at all among UHIQ?
Omegas being average to low IQ and Sigmas being high IQ also tracks.
Outliers are not the point of the post. And obviously lower and higher IQ of each archetype are possible. As stated, these are my best guesses for the most common generic expectations.
Langan is also at least partially a fraud who took multiple tests under various fake names, and he is not as smart as he (and others) pretends he is.
Ah. Okay.
BTW, that's interesting about Langan. There was something about him at this VP post that doesn't quite pass the smell test, but I still can't quite figure out what. My initial impression in fact was that he sounded like a Gamma midwit / Mensa type.
https://voxday.net/2024/08/11/a-backhanded-compliment/
Langan blocked me on Gab for simply asking a straight forward question without any duplicity behind it. I was in fact simply trying to see if his conclusion was different from mine because I missed something, so I just asked basically if x then why y?
The reason was because it was not me who had missed something. Answering would have shown him up. Same thing when I checked the Tex Arcana guy on bullshit he just made up and was proven wrong. Blocked me.
These are not the actions of confident smart men. I don’t rate Langan and his theory of the Universe is nothing new either, in fact others got there before him and better and all he’s doing is adding in his own neologisms to unnecessarily complicate something and reword it so it’s not recognised as a poor copy of the German guy’s theory.
I forget his name right now something-hardt I think. He invented the fuel air bomb and lost hand fingers and eyesight to an explosion. His theory of physics included for consciousness.
Thank you. Finally somebody said it.
There's a lot of circuitous argument in his theories: "You need to believe my hypotheses because of the authority of the smartest man on the planet (until very recently). And the reason I am proven so smart is that all my theories are observed to be accurate."
And then he is puzzled why no woman wants to have his "great jeans" on her or in her, and he will die childless.
As for the SSH, I think Vox is probably right. Delta. They can be incessantly whiny when they feel simply not recognised for their “obvious” greatness.