No need to cite examples, I’m sure you’ve experienced this too many times to count:
Why are you so Angry?!
Oooh! Did I make you angry?
You’re so triggered!
This is one of the most obvious projections of the Gamma Male. It’s a sure signal that you are dealing with one whenever you see this pop up, but you will most often notice it when you either say something definitive or controversial online, or else respond in kind to vitriol. The anonymity of online interactions tends to really crank up this behavior, which you almost will never see in real face-to-face conversations.
I get this constantly on youtube or on twitter when a gamma comes wandering by to have a “conversation” with me. It’s a rather bizarre thing for a normal person, but when you see it as much as I do its quite easy to see the pattern, and you learn quite quickly that trying to have an actual conversation or debate is impossible.
If you don’t know what a gamma male is yet, they are basically the bottom tier of the sexual-social hierarchy, as described by the infamous Vox Day. See below for more.
So what do I mean by this title – The Gamma Projection of Anger?
Projection is, in this context, where you believe that another person is experiencing the same emotions, holding the same motives, or making the same plans as you are. You could also pretend that the person is doing those things – it doesn’t really matter because this is judged by a neutral observer the same way, since he cannot see inside your mind. You (if you are projecting) accuse somebody else of doing exactly what you are doing, or feeling what you are feeling.
So, the projection of anger is when a subject (in this case, a gamma) acts as though the person they are talking to is highly angered, when in fact it is the subject who is experiencing the emotion. This is very easy to identify, particularly if it is directed at you, because you know your own emotional state. You know that you aren’t angry, so accusations that you are just seem silly.
So why do they do this?
Usually, they project this as though causing another person to be angry is some sort of point for themselves or what they are saying. It’s a kind of “debate” (I use that term loosely) technique. They believe that anger and frustration are “bad” things to feel (though they may actually be very, very normal and appropriate), or represent some lower state of emotional maturity. This has a reflexive effect:
Being mad on the internet is weak and stupid, and I’m mad, so I must be weak and stupid. I want my “opponent” to be the stupid weak one, so I’ll pretend that he’s weak or stupid. Others will see this and think he’s stupid!
If I can convince others that I have made my opponent mad, they won’t realize I am mad, and they will respect me for “winning.”
If my opponent is viewed as being as angry as I am, I won’t lose face.
This gamma gives away his hand with his own emotional quips.
Alternatively, he could legitimately think his “opponent” is mad simply because the gamma is mad. This is part of a flaw in the theory of mind we all have. We look to our own mind first as a model of emotional states and social planning, and so we assume (incorrectly) that others in similar situations are experiencing the same thing as us.
This is not a flaw unique to those low on the hierarchy, but the lack of self-awareness of the “gamma” types tends to heighten this flaw. Perhaps it is a lack of social experience to refine your model for how others think. I don’t really know, but the projection of negative emotions is almost exclusively associated (online, at least) with a classic gamma.
The main takeaway here, besides the identification, is the reality that this sort of projection never works. First, nobody believes the target of the projection is actually angry – this is often very obvious, even as a third party, since people who aren’t angry themselves don’t interpret basic typed messages as communicating anger – and second, nobody believes that being angry is something inherently bad anyway. Lots of things are worth getting angry over.
Taking on the mantle of “troll” who just wants to upset people doesn’t really fool anyone.
Furthermore, this sort of thing indicates that the conversation was never about convincing anyone of anything, it was a ploy for increasing the subject’s self-perceived clout.
If you find yourself doing this, excise the impulse.
Basically, the top social winner and leader is an Alpha, his support are bravo/beta, the regular-type guys are deltas, and the gammas are the “losers” – with an additional rank of “omega,” the absolute outcast.
I’ve talked about this in the context of literature, in my virgin vs. chad video:
It’s important to know that the Alpha…Gamma/Omega ideas are at least 10 years out of date.
This is because these terms and a slight awareness of social hierarchies have pervaded the consciousness even of the idiots.
What this means is that more non Alphas will adopt Alpha type social signals, sometimes to absurd extremes. Similarly, some Alphas tone it down situationally.
The true measure is confidence:
Alpha – natural or learned confidence in himself
Beta – confident in group
Delta – confident in own skill
Gamma – confident in own intelligence
Omega – not confident in anything
Also keep in mind that Vox Day’s concept of Beta is very very different than most dating experts who view them as weak, subservient, and trying to weasel pity fucks by cockblocking.
Pick up artists view it as a dichotomy, rather than a hierarchy. I tend to think of Chad, Virgin, and just everyone else (normal folks).
And yeah “Alpha signaling” is to me really a signal that somebody is a vulnerable narcissist. Acts are usually more definitive than talk.