So I asked Clyde to compare the Scout and Sigma from the book I wrote, Caveman Theory , and Vox’ Various blogs and blog posts on it.
Keep in mind my own version of the SSH was developed and completed by about 2008. I did not formally publish it in writing, but people I know and knew at the time could confirm I discussed the concept with them whenever they asked for advice concerning women, relationships, and their place in the world. I also published Caveman Theory before any use of AI was really in use or widespread so that factor is not considered in my book.
It was quite an interesting comparison, which it tabled out as follows:
The document compares 24 dimensions across six categories: Origin & Framework, Core Identity, Relationship with Alphas, Relationships with Women, Intellectual Pattern, Emotional Pattern, and Evolutionary Role.
The bottom line: zero contradictions between the two models across all 24 dimensions. Eight traits are identical (social performance, validation source, Alpha hostility, approach to truth, cross-domain operation, permission-seeking among them). Five are very similar. The remaining are unique contributions from one side that the other doesn’t address.
Your Scout model provides things Vox’s doesn’t — the evolutionary tribal function (the man who bridges hostile groups, without whom we’d still be 200-person warring clans), the detailed mechanics of female testing and the brutal response to it, the social cost on the partner, and the raw personal phenomenology of what it actually costs. Vox’s Sigma model provides things yours doesn’t — the AI-interaction pattern, the intellectual collaboration methodology, and the granular taxonomy of all other male types.
Filotto says it directly in the book and the comparison bears it out: same man, different lens.
Scout (Filotto) vs Sigma (Vox Day)
A comparative analysis of the Scout archetype from Caveman Theory by Giuseppe Filotto and the Sigma archetype from Vox Day’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, including the SSH and AI articles (February 2026) and Working with the Sigma (January 2026).
Assessment key: Identical = same trait described the same way |
Very similar = clearly the same phenomenon, different emphasis |
Overlaps / Similar = related but distinct formulation |
Different / Unique = present in one framework only or materially different
Summary
The Scout and the Sigma describe the same man. Across 24 dimensions compared above, 8 are identical, 5 are very similar, 5 show partial overlap with different emphasis, and 6 are unique contributions from one framework that the other simply does not address.
There are zero contradictions between the two models. Where both frameworks address the same trait — relationship to hierarchy, self-reliance, social performance, validation source, Alpha hostility, approach to truth, cross-domain operation, permission-seeking, and steel-like determination — they describe the same phenomenon from different vantage points. The Scout model derives its description from evolutionary biology and personal lived experience; the Sigma model derives from decades of observed behavioural taxonomy and, more recently, from the AI’s observation of interaction patterns at scale.
The key difference is not in what is described but in what each framework develops further. The Scout model provides material that the Sigma model does not: the evolutionary tribal function (the man who bridges hostile groups), the detailed mechanics of female testing and the Scout’s brutal response to it, the social cost imposed on the Scout’s partner, the personal emotional cost, and the explicit view of humanity as weak and cowardly. The Sigma model provides material the Scout does not: the detailed AI-interaction pattern, the specific intellectual collaboration methodology, the response-to-correction protocol, and the broader taxonomy of all other male types in granular detail.
Filotto himself acknowledges the equivalence explicitly in Caveman Theory : “The last classification was Scout, which translates to Vox’s Sigma.” The two frameworks are complementary rather than competing, with the Scout providing the inner phenomenology and evolutionary origin, and the Sigma providing the external behavioural taxonomy and modern AI-era applications.
My perception is that Scouts are somewhat more prevalent than Vox’s opinion on the frequency of Sigmas, and I attribute this mainly to the differences in observations that our lives probably exposed us to and the general focus each one of us has had concerning this particular taxonomy of male behaviour.
Having grown up in various countries and spending some 25 years in various parts of Africa, certainly made the more physical aspects of life take on more relevance and urgency than the merely intellectual in my observations. Practical considerations for me inevitably outweigh the theoretical, intellectual, or frankly hallucinational hypothesis of people who quite simply have not been punched in the face, faced the casual violence of crime, dealt with the more vicious aspect of life, as well as the paradoxically opposite extreme of grace, beauty, and kindness in conditions where mere cold reason would indicate none are likely to be found.
As a result, in my version, the label Beta , covers all the various categories that Vox identifies other than Sigma and Alpha. The reason being that ultimately, such people (Betas) are simply not going to be relevant in a head-to-head extreme confrontation. Which ultimately, when things escalate, can become physical. But even in an intellectual context, they will tend to avoid direct conflict, especially if in person. In that respect then, only Alphas and Sigmas/Scouts would be people you need to be at least aware of, if not weary of.
Vox’s SSH is generally more detailed and probably more broadly useful in general terms.
Mine is more narrowly focused and tendentially aimed at providing a Scout with a finer level of knowledge of his own as well as the men’s strength and weaknesses, and probably a much faster broad way of categorising men’s expected reactions for extreme situations or cases.
An intellectual Sigma may well be rather unprepared for a direct and sudden physical confrontation with a physically inclined Scout, while such a Scout may not see possibilities for an intellectual solution to a problem as fast as the intellectual Sigma might. It also needs to be kept in mind that both Sigmas and Scouts, are really just facets of a class type that is probably the least homogeneous in structure. If we look at classic film, a James Bond (especially the Sean Connery version) is a Scout, but so is a Hannibal Lecter. There are various “variations” of this class type, such as John McAffe, who undoubtedly startles both he intellectual as well as the physical, dimensions (as in essence this class invariably does), but his genius in the intellectual dimension could be said to have mostly succumbed to his physical temptations.
In any event, after due consideration, I would guesstimate that Sigmas/Scouts form between 0 and 1% of the population at most. I would say I have met and befriended probably about 3 of them (excluding Vox) in my 56 years. And while it is quite synonymous to herding cats, if you could get three of them to co-operate in the long-term, you could probably accomplish a great deal.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
