Who are alpha, omega and sigma and why you shouldn't label people with these labels
The terms “alpha male,” “sigma male,” and “omega” are increasingly being thrown around on the internet, especially on social media. Borrowed from biology, psychology, and pop culture, these words attempt to describe personality types or social roles. But what do they mean? And why might their use be less than harmless? Let’s figure out who alpha, omega, and sigma are, and why you shouldn’t call people that.
The concept of alpha-omega hierarchies originally emerged from observations of wolf behavior. Research in the 1940s, especially the work of Rudolf Schenkel, claimed that wolves had a strict hierarchy: the alpha was the leader of the pack, and the omega was the outsider. This approach was later revised, and it turned out that a wolf pack is usually just a family: parents and their offspring, with no “battles for dominance.” But the myth had already taken root.
Then the model migrated to pop culture and everyday "psychology": people began to be labeled as alpha, that is, a leader, dominant, beta or second in rank, omega - a loser. Later, the definition of sigma appeared, denoting a person outside the system, a "lone wolf".
The letter "alpha" is at the beginning of the Greek alphabet, so it began to denote leaders. Usually, these are charismatic, masculine, strong-willed and powerful natures. In the minds of most, the image of an alpha is a man with developed muscles, masculine facial features and an independent character. He does not hide his superiority over others, so women like him very much.
Such people are successful in all aspects of life - career, personal life, business, relationships with friends. Even if something doesn't work out for the alpha, it doesn't become a life drama for him. Such a person faces problems courageously and still continues to bend his line until he gets what he wants.
But in reality, there are no alphas. This is just a collective image born of stereotypes about "real" male qualities. It is possible to get closer to the standard of such a man, but it is definitely not possible to match him in everything. Outwardly, a person may look like an alpha, but inside he does not always feel like such a superman.
The image of the alpha male was foisted upon us by popular culture, especially Hollywood. Since the dawn of cinema, such extreme men have become beloved screen heroes: Rhett Butler, Zorro, James Bond, Rambo - the list goes on and on. Many men would like to be like these guys, but attempts to get closer to them are fraught with the loss of their own "I". And such attempts often look comical.
Since "omega" is the last letter of the Greek alphabet, it is easy to guess that people who are called this way are the complete opposite of alphas. This is an exaggerated image of a person who has been haunted by failures all his life. It cannot be said that omegas have a full set of negative qualities for men. Rather, their character is simply dominated by features that prevent them from achieving success.
The stereotype gives us the image of an omega as a thin person in glasses, a typical "nerd". Often he has defects in appearance: acne, thin hair, protruding ears. The character of omegas is insecure, withdrawn. Such people rarely achieve success in all areas of life, although they can be quite good in some, for example, in work, family life, hobbies. But even this does not prevent everyone around them from considering them losers.
Once again, the image of omega was given birth to by cinema. True, the plots of such films are special. They are built on the transformation of omega into alpha, under the influence of external, often unfavorable factors. One can also recall all sorts of fantastic transformations, as in the films about Superman or Spider-Man. As in the case of alpha, omega is an overly simplified and exaggerated version of a person.
The term "sigma" appeared the latest, in 2010. It was coined by American activist Robert Beall. He decided that two types of male character were not enough. In addition to sigma, he used other letters of the Greek alphabet: beta, delta, gamma, and even lambda. According to Beall, sigma is the most important term, as it represents the golden mean between alpha and omega.
Compared to the alpha male, the sigma may not be the most attractive in appearance and not as masculine. He may not have the relief of muscles and a chiseled profile. But he is a very charismatic and independent person, a loner, sometimes even an outcast. He goes against the flow, but not in order to stand out. He is driven forward by goals and beliefs, and he does not care about the opinions of others.
This type is also widely represented in modern cinema. This includes Thomas Shelby from Peaky Blinders, Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, and Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network. But why do psychologists not recommend applying such “letter” labels to people?
Psychologists are sure that people are much more complex than they may seem at first glance. They rarely fit into the framework that society tries to create for them, thinking in stereotypes and patterns. When we define a person through a letter, we subconsciously limit their personality. At the same time, we do not strive to discern their true individuality and hidden qualities.
Also, do not forget that a person is an inconstant creature, constantly changing. And these metamorphoses are not always visible to others. An omega can become an alpha not in the movies, but in real life. It also happens the other way around - circumstances break the alpha, depriving him of self-confidence and male charisma. Therefore, there is no need to label people. It is better to try to understand him and accept him as he is.
Stereotypes are convenient, but they distort reality and prevent us from seeing people as individuals rather than labels. Maybe it's time to give up trying to "categorize" men and just start listening to and understanding each other? What do you think - is there any benefit in such classifications, or is it a harmful template that hinders development?