Or 18 letters lower. The start is usually "better", getting an A on a paper is better than C, or being 1st in the world, rather than 18th.
I guess alphanumerically, sigma corresponds to a higher number, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen things ordered like that before. You start a list a α, not σ.
In many Asian countries, 'S' is a grade higher than 'A'. The idea is that it should be given rarely, to those who are off the scales good. But due to inflation, now there can be SS / S+ and even SSS / S++.
You start a list however you need given the context. It's arbitrary.
As an example when doing time calculations in programming, UNIX time is the number of seconds that have passed since January 1st, 1970. If you needed a list ordered most recent to oldest, the highest number would be first.
To bring it back to you, a 100 is a better numerical grade than a 1. The alphabetical identifiers attached to grades are in reverse order to their numerical counterparts, which is even more fun because the person with the highest number and the earliest letter are considered "best." However, in some card games (Uno for example) having the lowest number is best when determining score.
I'm not sure, but these two things may be part of it:
They think being sigma means you're out of the whole hierarchy. You're a noble lone sole, above all this alpha and beta stuff (so just lone wolf renamed)
In Anime and some other similar media, including some games, the scale is S at top, then A, B, C, D, E, F, etc. S-rank is better than A, and is usually only surpassed by more Ss(SS rank, SSS Rank, etc). Sometimes there's stuff like U rank etc.
"Nah, Ive got too much Beta shit going on. Buying soy candles, yoga... tell him to find an Alpha way home. Tame a wild horse, Run with a wolf pack or some shit. NMFP."
"Yeah Ill get you where your mom asked me to get you, but you sit here in the car while I go grab some groceries I need. You can have the windows down a little if you like."
I'm not sure about the captivity thing, but I do know that what were originally asserted to be 'alphas' were the breeding pairs. They were parents leading their children.
There was a very flawed study years ago where a biologist observed wolves in captivity and determined that they fight for dominance within the pack. Later, he realized that in a natural setting, a pack is a breeding pair and their pups, as you stated. A natural pack is much more cohesive and doesn't have a strict hierarchy, but the ridiculous myth of "alpha wolves" won't go away completely, despite the same biologist's efforts.
I hear you, but you counter is a little disingenuous. A city isn't your pack, your social circle is. And that's probably smaller than 42. Just because you're in a city of millions doesn't mean you directly interact with them in a social way, we are still animals of small social groups, even if we live in a global space of billions. The alpha male stuff is still bunk science trash of course.
Aren’t Alpha males (and females) an actual thing in many species, like primates? I thought just the wolves one was disproven (not that it means anything for human dynamics of course).
As a European, I gotta tell you, it's super creepy seeing those half wolves walk around with their packs... You guys are lucky your wolves decided to split up in 8-packs instead.
Dunbar's number would suggest otherwise. Human "pack" size is closer to 150. Past that, you really don't recognize or interact with people to consider them peers.
But the rise of "Alpha Male" psychology seems to be paired with the gamification of dating, particularly via for-profit web apps. There's all this meta-psychology blossoming around a simple mathematical problem of too-many-dudes for too-few-women in a setting that rewards aggressiveness.
What we have is a totally artificial environment lauded by bunch of NEET libertarian techbros who are then forced to rationalize why they can't use it to get laid. In some sense, its like that scene from "A Beautiful Mind" except replace John Nash with Andrew Tate, and he's telling everyone at the table to fight to the death over the one blonde girl.
But the heart of the problem isn't simple that humans aren't wolves. It is that you have made of yourself a pack of caged animals and tried to explain the resulting social dysfunction by appealing to naturalism. Even if you were right and there was a chicken-like peaking order rather than a giant dog orgy instilled in the human psyche, you couldn't take advantage of it because you have become locked in a hen house overwhelmingly composed of roosters.
Incidentally, gay dating apps have an entirely different dynamic. There's no "gay alpha male" theory to contend with because they're all in the pile and having the time of their lives.
and he’s telling everyone at the table to fight to the death over the one blonde girl.
And to make it even worse, he thinks no man actually likes the girl, or would enjoy being intimate with her. In his mind, "the girl" is only an object of status, something you ought to get to place yourself above other men, either because he's always been a psychopath or because it's been so long since he ever experienced connection with another human being that he doesn't even remember what it is.
"...and then they start jumping up and down on the sofa yelling 'it's turbo time!' And then they start runnin' around the house? And when you try to join in they yell at you and say 'YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE TURBO TEAM! DON’T RUN! YOU DON’T RUN WITH US! WE’RE THE ONES THAT RUN! UNTIL YOU’RE PART OF THIS TURBO TEAM, WALK SLOWLY!' Has that ever happened to you?"
The wolves in the studies that produced an alpha were in captivity with foreign wolves. Meaning that their natural pack social hierarchies didn't exist. It's only when a bunch of random wolves are captured together that they act like this.
Which actually makes this a much better metaphor for people who identify themselves as "Alphas", feeling trapped, lashing out at your neighbours trying desperately to be the one who comes out on top.
