All this alpha/beta/sigma/doofus stuff is just a load of malarkey. Utter nonsense.
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
Sigma males & females
- Thread starter Jonn
- Start date
Over the years here I've seen any number of members who seem to reject whatever designation medicine or society has given them. Opting to seek another description that better suits them in their own opinion.
It doesn't really matter.
Medicine and/or society will always call us whatever they want and it will likely stick. Don't take my word though. Just ask Donald Duck.
I just keep perspective and hum the Mickey Mouse Club March in my head:
"DSM - ICD......M - O - U - S - E E E E E E E E E E E."
It doesn't really matter.
Medicine and/or society will always call us whatever they want and it will likely stick. Don't take my word though. Just ask Donald Duck.
I just keep perspective and hum the Mickey Mouse Club March in my head:
"DSM - ICD......M - O - U - S - E E E E E E E E E E E."
Sorry to get off topic here but I always chuckle a the fact that the lead singer for XTC was hired for his looks. They didn't even know if he could sing when they hired him, just liked the look of him.I always thought this song sounded a lot like early XTC, specifically Drums and Wires. They both played some shows together early in their careers.
(well, enough derailing from me)
So, in your opinion, there is no such thing as a "personality profile"?
Traits seem to be real.
But how many distinct standard profiles would it take to cover 80% of adult humans with an accuracy of 80%?
5? 500? "A lot"?
Myers-Briggs has 16. (I'm not a fan BTW, but it's popular). It follows that a system with 5 or 6 profiles is probably not sufficiently specific to be generally useful.
Clustering? We'd bump into the "Big Five" immediately - and it has the advantage of having reasonably good statistical support.
Traits don't exclude the possibility of useful archetypes, but then we have to go back to coverage: what proportion of mankind can be usefully categorized that way? Literary archetypes might cover 10% Societal archetypes (like "parent" are good for coverage, but not for precision.
I'm with DrBadStrings on this, pending some convincing statistics.
In the meantime these low-frequency profiles of people who are comfortable and effective in society could be used to set aspirational goals. Traits and e.g. Meyers Briggs are descriptive, and there's an implication that they can't be changed, so perhaps not a good basis for setting objectives.
But people can change if they work at it. Not in every respect, and it won't necessarily be easy, but it's possible.
And IMO there are some benefits of using examples when setting personal goals. I think it's a natural approach, well suited to the way humans think.
So as I said above, I agree with @DrBadStrings ... but I'm not against synthetic profiles where they can help people with their lives.
But how many distinct standard profiles would it take to cover 80% of adult humans with an accuracy of 80%?
5? 500? "A lot"?
Myers-Briggs has 16. (I'm not a fan BTW, but it's popular). It follows that a system with 5 or 6 profiles is probably not sufficiently specific to be generally useful.
Clustering? We'd bump into the "Big Five" immediately - and it has the advantage of having reasonably good statistical support.
Traits don't exclude the possibility of useful archetypes, but then we have to go back to coverage: what proportion of mankind can be usefully categorized that way? Literary archetypes might cover 10% Societal archetypes (like "parent" are good for coverage, but not for precision.
I'm with DrBadStrings on this, pending some convincing statistics.
In the meantime these low-frequency profiles of people who are comfortable and effective in society could be used to set aspirational goals. Traits and e.g. Meyers Briggs are descriptive, and there's an implication that they can't be changed, so perhaps not a good basis for setting objectives.
But people can change if they work at it. Not in every respect, and it won't necessarily be easy, but it's possible.
And IMO there are some benefits of using examples when setting personal goals. I think it's a natural approach, well suited to the way humans think.
So as I said above, I agree with @DrBadStrings ... but I'm not against synthetic profiles where they can help people with their lives.
Last edited:
So knowing it is not completely accurate, which mbti type describes me best?
You may leave the lecture room at your convenience. 
Agreed, I think...
Why wouldn't there be personality patterns?
If you ever meet a honey-badger, I strongly suggest you get the hell out of dodge, quick smart.
Perhaps not the best of example due to them all not having a Micky Mouse personality.
Even within the same dog breeds, you can see different personality types.
Each of my three "dragons" aren't the same.
However, gathering a large bunch of dragons together, you would see some commonalities, no doubt.
Also:
Consider the personality tests available.
Do ppl really have a problem with Myers-Briggs Personality assessments?
BTW, I was high on caffeine, yesterday.
You can tell by the number of typo's I made.
I still might be. 
Well, I am not taking all this too seriously.
It is a little akin to looking at astrology personality types that most ppl can relate to no matter what sign they are reading, but with greater rationality.
The other thing to consider is that some ppl may mould themselves consciously, or unconsciously to these man-made constructs.
Most ppl, these days, would have a broad understanding of what an Alpha male would be.
There are certain individuals more suitable to leadership roles, and then there are other's like me that actively shun positions of authority.
However:
To call me a Beta male is laughable.
So, "Sigma" is the go to for moi.
Plz keep in mind, that I am not using a clinical context.
The usage of these terms are for general social consumption.
It is allowable to go off topic in this thread.
But if anyone wants to debate in this thread, plz do so.
Just leave me out of it.
One is a way of interacting with people, presenting yourself as a type to gain approval or validation. It has everything to do with how others see you.
The other is looking at the whole of life and doing what is most healthy.
v
As far as distinction, I can't say they really have anything in common.
I see your point.
However:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/character
Character Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary
I guess I was seeing it from a different perspective/context.
Last edited:
It's a fair point. I think the so-called Western view is to see personality as fixed and related to character. But, even Hamlet is full of personality, though "no one" is there. And by holding onto a sense of himself, he creates a lot of death.
Top G Andrew Tate!
I don't take lessons from questionable personalities.Top G Andrew Tate!
I am no expert here.
In a nutshell:
Yes.
Alphas are leaders...
Betas are followers...
Sigmas do their own thang.
New Threads
-
A rough realization I had today, would love any thoughts you might have
- Started by Misery
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
-
Oops, l think our roofer decided to take the money and split
- Started by Aspychata
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
-
