A recent argument with /u/Frensel and /u/Buartha :

We have two different beta-status males: Bob and Joe.

Bob is naturally a helpful busy-body. His wife doesn't tell him to do anything, but he goes and does all the chores himself.

Joe is naturally a lazy person. Hates the idea of doing pointless chores. His wife bitches at him and intimidates him, so he does them. He may submit, but his lazy, unhelpful spirit is indominatable. He'll be stubborn about this He'll never enjoy doing chores and never enjoy being helpful to his wife. He needs to be cowed into it.

IMO, both of these two are submissive types. The question was, who is MORE submissive?

I argued that the Joe is more submissive. Joe is forced into doing something he does not want to do and self-inhibited (by fear, shame, etc) from doing what he wants, which is just lazing around. Bob is completely uninhibited. He doesn't fear his wife leaving him. He's doing exactly what he wants.

They argued that Bob is more submissive. I reasoned with them that he's submissive in character. As in, he has a naturally people-pleasing personality. A very "pure" high beta characteristic. It's uninhibited beta.

Having realized we were coming from different models, our differences stopped mattering to me much. We're all reasonable enough individuals and can save ourselves from pointless semantics.

We can spare ourselves from a lot of semantic disputes by realizing that a lot of misunderstandings/arguments come from conflating the different normative models for aspirational labels like alpha/beta -- masc/fem -- dom/sub.

The normative models I present below as a foundation are inspired by normative ethics (also used to judge people):

  • Status (consequentialist, results-oriented, state-based - could be economic, physical, political or any kind of status)
  • Behaviour (deontological, action-based, duty-based)
  • Character (virtue, mentality, "feelings")

Strong and popularly used normative models don't have to contradict. In fact, they probably don't most of the time. Someone with dominant character will behave in ways that are visibly dominant to others. If he's unchallenged, he'd even take a dominant position and get dominant status. However, when they do contradict, that's when we have dilemmas or interest, and that's when we get arguments like the one I had with Frensel and buartha, and other ppd arguments.

I'm going to use notations A and B to describe dominant/alpha (leading/indominatability) and submissive/beta (following/serving) respectively for the below examples. The order will be Status-Behaviour-Character. Thus ABA would be A-Status, B-Behaviour, A-Character.

B-Status = Not a leader (depends on standard/hierarchy). B-Status financially = not wealthy. B-Status physically = not one of the strongest or more athletic people around.

B-Behaviour = Self-inhibited. Seen by others as being easily stopped from doing what he wants to do.

B-Character = Naturally giving. Other-oriented.

Examples:

  • AAA: E.g. a stubborn warlord and heartless tyrant. Selfish and indominatable in spirit. Sauron, Megatron, etc.
  • AAB: E.g. A crusader general/king. He leads armies. Conquers nations. He appears ruthless to people. But he's not selfish. He doesn't believe he's selfish. He doesn't relax for his own sake. He truly believes that he is serving/submitting to God and saving people's souls. Milder examples: superior betas/patriarchs
  • ABA: It's hard to give obvious examples for this group, because if you have power/status and you're dom/alpha in spirit, then there's often not as much inhibiting your behaviour. Examples would be celebs that rely on positive PR but have degenerate hidden lifestyles. Their agents will tell them to be on good behaviour for their own good. They'll listen. They'll behave well and control themselves well enough, just to keep their power. But you know they have a wild personality when a scandal breaks out.
  • ABB: E.g. Carter and many other lame US Presidents. Kind rulers, celebs, socialites. Another example is the "gentle giant". He has dominant/alpha physical status. He can certainly win physical competitions/altercations if he tried. He just doesn't have the personality for it.
  • BAA: E.g. Knights who Say Ni The black knight (thanks /u/figthief). Angry knights who acted tough and thought they were tough as well. They had indominatable spirit and fought to the last limb. No one can claim they didn't try and didn't have the spirit. They just didn't have the power and ability to get a winning result. Milder examples: criminals.
  • BAB: "Enforcers." E.g. the finest soldiers and lawyers. Extreme examples of the B-A-B might not have top status in society, and they have "follower's mentality"/"helper's mentality" but they follow/help people in a way that seems ruthless. ESTJs exemplify this. Bob in the earlier example mildly fits into this category. He might lack status, and he's servile in character, but he does what he wants to do. He doesn't appear inhibited in behaviour at all.
  • BBA: E.g. The more selfish anger-phasers and/or incels; they rant online and are indominatable in spirit, want normie couples to suffer, but behave normally (in a typical, inhibited, law-abiding way) offline. Joe in the above example fits more closely here.
  • BBB: A regular, well-behaved goody two-shoes.

Of course, these are relative descriptions. I consider myself BBB over all. I make decent income, but I'm not top 0.01% or anything. I don't have political power over 99.9% of the population. I'm well-behaved most of the time. I also default to being generous towards others.

If I stepped into a third world city, I'm going to be Axx, likely AbB. If it's among ppl I know to be ignorant, I'm going to be AaB. If these are people whom I hate (maybe they murdered my family), well then fuck them, I'm gonna AAA.

Also, relativity can apply on smaller scales. In most relationships I've been in, I'm AAB relative to the girl. I'm righteous and have more power than the girls.

Discuss your own ideas of what might fit the different categories above, and/or how you might improve the model (e.g. what additional factors I might be missing).