This discussion is in the context of Alpha Games post, "The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy," here: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html

I believe that in any one social group there can be only one Alpha at a time, by definition. The Alpha is the social group's male leader. If there are "co-leaders" or co-equal guys in the group, none of them is the Alpha.

A man with no following is not an Alpha. A man who refuses to follow others, but lacking a following of his own, would be a Sigma at best, not an Alpha.

My observation is that most of us posting in the manosphere are not Alphas, never were Alphas, and most likely will never be Alphas if we continue doing as we have been doing all along. If we were Alphas, we would be too busy living life and maintaining our following to be bothered with participating in the solo activity of reading and posting manosphere blogs.

MGTOWs would be Gammas or Omegas by definition, even if they like to imagine themselves as Alphas or Sigmas. MGTOWs are insignificant and live in a solipsistic basement; they don't matter, and no one will care or notice when they die because MGTOWs are already dead in the social sense and willfully inconsequential in the economic sense.

It's okay to be a Sigma if that is what one wants, but it's not okay to be self-deluded by erroneously believing that one is an Alpha when one is not.

And what's so bad about being a Beta? I grow weary of seeing "Beta" misused as an epithet to describe people/behaviors that are actually Gamma or Omega. Actual Betas are high-functioning and are next in succession should the position of Alpha become vacant. Betas surround the current Alpha as the Alpha's personal circle. Betas give wedgies to Omegas while the Alpha laughs approvingly, if you may recall from high school.