I think this is the right place to post based on the General Board Rules, but please move if I've got it wrong.
I was reading Grouping and Group Herd Effects in Dating and Seduction article by Chase today (which is a great read by the way), and it got me thinking about social ranking/hierarchies.
When I first started reading about game/social dynamics in the early 2010s, discussions about alpha and beta and social positioning were all the rage, but unfortunately the discussions weren't that nuanced i.e you will only get laid if you are the alpha. I've since read Chase's articles on social dynamics, which are great, much more nuanced, and debunked a lot of the BS that used to float around.
When i was reading the linked article today, I was struck by the line 'Your odds of sexual success are about even as an alpha, beta, or gamma in a decent size group (using the ethological terms here, for the # 1, 2, and 3 roles in the group)' and it got me thinking about social rankings again.
I thought back through all the various social groups I've been part of, or met, in the past 10 years, and I can't honestly say that I've ever noticed an alpha, beta, or gamma in any of them. Even in my current group, there definitely isn't any one person that consistently leads (id say it depends on the context/situation) and I've never noticed significant status jockeying.
I wondered what other peoples experience is? I suspect its easier to see in cold approach, where you lack the context of each group you approach.
I was reading Grouping and Group Herd Effects in Dating and Seduction article by Chase today (which is a great read by the way), and it got me thinking about social ranking/hierarchies.
When I first started reading about game/social dynamics in the early 2010s, discussions about alpha and beta and social positioning were all the rage, but unfortunately the discussions weren't that nuanced i.e you will only get laid if you are the alpha. I've since read Chase's articles on social dynamics, which are great, much more nuanced, and debunked a lot of the BS that used to float around.
When i was reading the linked article today, I was struck by the line 'Your odds of sexual success are about even as an alpha, beta, or gamma in a decent size group (using the ethological terms here, for the # 1, 2, and 3 roles in the group)' and it got me thinking about social rankings again.
I thought back through all the various social groups I've been part of, or met, in the past 10 years, and I can't honestly say that I've ever noticed an alpha, beta, or gamma in any of them. Even in my current group, there definitely isn't any one person that consistently leads (id say it depends on the context/situation) and I've never noticed significant status jockeying.
I wondered what other peoples experience is? I suspect its easier to see in cold approach, where you lack the context of each group you approach.