People are People

One of the most predictably common responses I get when I read comments on other blogs or forums linking back to one of my own articles goes something like this:

“He’s a great writer, but it’s all such bullshit because people are people, everyone is different. We’re all individuals, there is no universal ‘human nature’.”

I will admit there was once a time when I would’ve had the same response. An integral part of our feminized, equalist conditioning teaches us to reject propositions of ‘human nature’ – really even venturing to guess about it – in favor of a blank slate philosophy. Equalism, the religion of feminism, cannot exist in a world predicated upon even a margin of common influence determined by our biology’s, our evolved psychology, or even evidence of the mechanics which account for that collective influence on human beings.

It’s not that most people subscribing to this wont admit to extrinsic influences on the individual when pressed, it’s just that they believe that freewill, conscious effort and determined conviction will lift the individual above their biological limitations and therefore the greater collective. And, in focussed concentration, on a by-person basis they’d probably be right. What they don’t account for is acknowledging the subconscious influence of extrinsic and intrinsic prompts that motivate human beings to hold those convictions in the first place. The evolutionary, innately biological limitations they wish to rise above aren’t “bugs” they’re “features”

The standard rationale fallback of the feminine mindset, NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) finds its roots in the individuated, experiential reasoning of the blank slate, “people are people” equalist reasoning. While I think that a wholesale rejection of individual personality development is an extreme, it’s merely the other side of the extreme coin compared to a wholesale rejection of environmental and biological influences on personal development – then extrapolated to social and cultural extremes. This is where the “people are individuals” mindset flourishes.

Peripheries

When I was in college I was a competitive fencer (Epée and Sabre if you must know), and it was from my fencing coach that I learned a very valuable lesson in psychology. He told me, “When you are facing your opponent, concentrate your vision directly at where his eyes would be behind his face mask. You cannot possibly track the tip of his weapon with your eyes, and neither can you focus enough attention to follow all of his body movements.”  What I learned was that when you apply focus to that central point, your peripheral vision aids your subconscious understanding of what your opponent is doing. It’s in the uniting of this gestalt, peripheral awareness and a focused awareness that makes for the best competitors.

Human beings have an amazing capacity to multi-task, but a real trained focus on multiple sources of stimuli was problematic for us in our evolutionary past. Too much constant stimuli leads to sensory overload and a breakdown in functionality, which then proves fatal if we’re distracted from reacting to a lethal threat. Thus we evolved psychological mechanisms to push less (though still) important information to the peripheries of our conscious awareness, to afford us a mental acuity on information of more importance.

An entire world goes on around us that we are only peripherally aware of, and in some senese only exists in our peripheral consciousness. For instance, at this moment you’re probably focusing your attention on this text on a computer monitor or maybe a mobile device, but in your peripheral vision you interpret and understand that there are other things in the environment with you, pictures on the wall, a cabinet, maybe a nearby printer, etc. You’re reading this text, but you know they’re there. If someone threw a ball at your head right now you’d reflexively react to it by focusing your awareness on the incoming projectile.

Our conscious awareness works much in the same way. We push less pressing information and conditional awarenesses to the peripheries of our awareness and concentrate on more pressing information until such time (if ever) that we choose to adress those issues. Sometimes we call this insight, but it’s really the focused effort of applying our consciousness to conditions, thoughts and self-acknowledgements that we have pushed to our peripheral awareness. For instance, I’m typing and concentrating on what I’m writing here, but in my peripheral awareness I know I have a meeting to attend in a few hours, and deeper than that I know I’m a 44 year old married father and how am I going to make a significant impact on the world in my next 10 years?

One of my personal, foundational theories about psychology is that people are intimately aware of their own conditions.

On some level of consciousness people understand what has influenced them, what has motivated or demotivated them. They may only be peripherally aware of those conditions, they may be more introspective of them, but they understand that those influences exist for them. For as much as a single mother may say she’s not looking for a supportive father figure for her child, she still knows, if only peripherally, the reality of her condition as a single mother. A post-Wall, childless never-married woman of 38 is intimately aware of her condition and the reality that comes from that.

This isn’t to say that people are all-knowing about what creates these conditions, but it is to say that we are aware of them. In fact I’d argue that for the better part most people are unaware of the origins of their conditions until someone or something with a broader perspective can bring them into an awareness of their origins, but they realize the conditions that contribute to their present state.

The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

Presently we have an active debate on SoSuave all sparked by a woman decrying the evils of ‘men behaving badly’ (i.e. not in accordance with the feminine imperative), and her presumption that those men find a convenient absolution for that behavior in blaming how nature has made men ‘the way they are.’ This of course is the inconvenient flip side to the War Brides phenomenon, but the basis of her argument is rooted blank slate individuated equalism.

Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is.  So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.

People don’t like the idea of not being in control of their lives and themselves, and they certainly wont tolerate the uncontrollable extrinsic reasons for other’s behaviors. We like the idea of personal responsibility, because it implies order in an otherwise chaotic world. In fact, due to this, people are far more likely to attribute their failings to their own personal decisions. It may be a confession of a lack of their own control, but it still implies that they once had that same control to lose and can again regain it.

I’ve written in the past that nature trumps conviction, and I still hold to that estimation. People have called me to the carpet over that assertion, but I don’t think they really understand what I mean by it. The nature is the environment in which we live in, the nature is the condition. Conviction, freewill or even notions of morality cannot exist if ‘nature’ isn’t the dominant, operative environment we exist in. It’s not that we can’t rise above our natures, it’s that we should have to in the first place.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
kleyau
Guest

“Nature trumps conviction.” That sums up the sexual marketplace better than anything I’ve read.

muscleman
Guest

‘People are people’, just like NAWALT, is just a get out of jail free card. It’s unassailable. What I learned through my own decision to take the red pill and that of others throughout the years, is that there’s a series of chronological events that take place: 1) Vehemently deny what you’re reading. It can’t possibly be true. It would be too big of a blow to one’s ego to admit otherwise. Sadly this is where most people live (blue pill). 2) Sense cognitive dissonance, but still deny deny deny. Not quite ready to wake up, but noticing one’s own… Read more »

Coy
Guest
Coy

Brilliant write up. “When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.” Reminds me of the first time I pulled Roissy’s venerability game on a chick. I couldnt believe the way her eyes widened. As amazing as I felt, it hit me afterwards how I will never be “appreciated”… Read more »

YaReally
Guest
YaReally

“People don’t like the idea of not being in control of their lives and themselves, and they certainly wont tolerate the uncontrollable extrinsic reasons for other’s behaviors.” When you get really deep into pickup, you realize that people are generally like really intricate AI programs. You can boil most people’s behavior down to a series of predictable IF…THEN type situations. If I do this, in this circumstance, given their particular make-up, they will react like such and such. Combine that with a ton of field experience so that your analysis of these situations is instant and your reflexes to them… Read more »

Myxomatosis
Guest
Myxomatosis

Good last paragraph, ya really. There are many advantages to life once you fully realizize you’re going to die one day. Urgency of any kind is positive.

YOHAMI
Guest

Im curious if the same people arguing against the generalizations of human nature would object against the generalizations of the nature of dogs, cats, other animals, or the generalizations about our own bodies, hormones, etc.

The few times someone has argued that we can rise above our natures I’ve asked for examples. There arent any.

Stingray
Guest

Im curious if the same people arguing against the generalizations of human nature would object against the generalizations of the nature of dogs, cats, other animals,

Or their opposing political party. . . .

YOHAMI
Guest

😉

Dillon
Guest
Dillon

Nature trumps free will because it is not separate from it. Free will is a subset of nature.

Just like waves are part of the ocean, our consciousness is part of the nature.

Choice is an illusion because the choice you make is in perfect balance with who you are. Who you are is a product and part of nature which includes those choices.

Just like my hand thinking it has the free will to pick any finger from the other hand.

jimmy
Guest
jimmy

Does it also come down to a person’s mind make up and thinking ability and adjustable focus so to speak (zoom in, zoom out or total lack of the ability to do so). Being able to swallow the pill might be finding the zoom function within your mind and being able to zoom out to see more of the picture. The details of the wider shot (that was the peripheral or outside the view finder) now changes the information within the previous limited focal point. Those that reject it don’t have the capacity within their thinking to change focus. They… Read more »

Jacob Ian Stalk
Guest
Jacob Ian Stalk

“Nature trumps conviction” – aka “the Devil has dominion on Earth”. Not much use writing this if all you’re concluding is that these statements are true. Most people know in their hearts this is true, but what can we do about it? This is the very purpose of the Bible. It contains precisely the message conveyed in those words “Nature trumps conviction” but goes much further by teaching the winning strategy. We have known this stuff for centuries but we fastidiously ignore it, seeking to know in scientific detail our precise nature. The conclusion is always the same – Man… Read more »

MNL
Guest
MNL

“He’s a great writer, but it’s all such bullshit because people are people, everyone is different. We’re all individuals, there is no universal ‘human nature’.” If seen this type of response and interpreted it as a type of cognitive bias. it’s as if people have a hard time understanding the properties of a central tendency–the difference between a statistical MEAN and statistical VARIANCE. A person looks at a given generalization (the mean) about human nature–be it about game, gender differences, or anything else–and also observes (sometimes erroneously) that they themselves or someone they know doesn’t perfectly fit that generalization. Therefore,… Read more »

xsplat
Guest

@Jimmy, Dillon, MNL: You are using the mathematical and logical intuitions that are innate functions to some of us. I believe that some people are born with the capacity to develop an organ of perception; the perception of ideas fitting together congruently; the perception of a logical arrangement of thought. And some are not. Some people think emotionally. Women are known to “think” emotionally, and can at times be incapable of following a logical train of thought or seeing where the logical steps break down. Men also can be that way, but women tend to be that way more so… Read more »

Mr. C
Guest
Mr. C

Very few people that can even come close to rising above their innate natures.

Some Buddhist monks and the monks of Mount Athos in Greece can; after a lifetime of concentrated efforts.

krauserpua
Guest

“They may only be peripherally aware of those conditions, they may be more introspective of them, but they understand that those influences exist for them” Back when I tried reading Noam Chomsky he made an interesting statement “we live in webs of self-deceit”. I think this is true. We weave our own reality and create our own prison with it. Much of the value of this blog is directing the conscious mind to individual strands of the web. Anything that causes a tremor (the “glitch in the matrix”) lets you glimpse it but only sustained concentrated effort lets you unpick… Read more »

taterearl
Guest

You and I should get along so awfully.

Johnycomelately
Guest
Johnycomelately

Great post.

This line from the forum had me stitchers.

“How about women just sucuumb to their nature and only date men with resources? This would result in 20% of the male population getting sex with tons of partners and the other 80% of you rarely getting it.”

Pretty much sums it up.

Johnycomelately
Guest
Johnycomelately

Holy solipsism batman!

Just read the rest of the forum and I hope the girl posting wasn’t you Rollo as she just about validated every single principle you have been writing about.

taterearl
Guest

“I’ve written in the past that nature trumps conviction”

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Alpha Mission
Guest

The sad thing is that sometimes when conviction and morality overcomes nature its often disturbing. Like the eunuch state of the beta orbiter, for example. Although the phenomenon itself is just an expression of badly indoctrinated males trying to mate, while following the rules of what women say they want in spite of what women’s actions betray about what they really want

jimmy
Guest
jimmy

@xsplat. …We wonder why others can’t see them, and so helpfully point them out…. Yes I also find its a fools errand to point out such details to people – especially when the motivation for doing so comes from a well intentioned place. I gave up on trying to understand why the reaction these are met with is so negative. Its best just to use this skill for your own benefit. The ability to notice and piece together these observations and thoughts I put down to a having a mind that thinks in a lateral way (most people think in… Read more »

Mr. C
Guest
Mr. C
BC
Guest
BC

“they believe that freewill, conscious effort and determined conviction will lift the individual above their biological limitations and therefore the greater collective.”

Maybe true for the one in 10,000+ people that actually have the determined conviction and make the conscious effort to not only understand their nature but override it, but most people are lazy, ignorant and more than willing to just go with the flow and enjoy the delusions that are their truths.

xsplat
Guest

Jimmy – ya, lateral thinking. Or massively parallel processing. Or Ken Wilbers “vision logic” stage of mental development. I think Ken has less than 2% of people stably at that stage. He describes it as seeing many perspectives at once, in a panoramic view, but not being blinded to value because of “aperspectival madness”. Even while having many perspectives available, we still value not giving a clitorectomy over giving one. I don’t recall if Piaget has an analogous vision logic stage, or if that is stage Wilber added. I think Piaget has it in his system. Developmental psychology is often… Read more »

Mark Minter
Guest

This is my analysis of the election. And this is my manifesto. Here you had a sitting president that had everything going against him in voter sentiment, ambivalent economic data, if not bad data, a general lack of confidence of his ability to be a significant leader, and still he could not be beaten by his opponent. This has been the on going theme of my comments. Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it. The reason Obama won this election… Read more »

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx

Rollo, you’re obviously interested in the question of Free Will … you MUST read this brief work, by the one and only MARK TWAIN:

What is Man?

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-whatisman.htm

Joe Blow
Guest
Joe Blow

People are not people. The effect of culture is enormous, and while some essentials can be extracted from all humans at an instinctual, elemental level, culture really matters and it shapes, marks and scars almost all of us. There’s not a tiny little American inside of every gook waiting to break out if only we apply enough military intervention; nor is there a good traditional woman inside of every Sex in the City chick, just waiting for the right man to come along.

Wilson
Guest
Wilson

Game is a limited to solution the problem you sketch, Mark Minter, because women and the power elite will make you cooperate through force.

MNL
Guest
MNL

@Mark Minter… You’re close but the issue is even more fine-grained than that. It’s not the gender gap per se that’s important but the marriage gap and, furthermore, the extreme views of UNMARRIED WOMEN. There’s an interesting collection of posts over at Steve Sailer’s blog that highlights all this. Sure, the gender gap in this election has indeed received a lot of media attention. But it’s a red herring. Whether one is married or not (rather than merely male or female) is a greater discriminant. And the gap is even greatest of all between UNMARRIED WOMEN vs. married women. More… Read more »

blackbird.young
Guest

Haven’t read all the comments yet, but this article is discussing an aspect of “reality” I’ve always found fascinating. YaReally said something interesting above, & I agree with him about being 50 steps ahead in any given social interaction – however that’s simply one’s perspective, as another may feel exactly the same way, & in being outcome independent by depending on one’s perceived created outcome may equally feel that they are ”in control” of the environment they are fabricating – however real it may seem at the time. Else, it really doesn’t matter what set of behaviors or beliefs one… Read more »

blackbird.young
Guest

Holy shit. Congrats to those who commented above. There is a wealth of fine-tuned peripheral understanding. Noumenal’s – that’s what I’ll call us. Third-Wave Men, thrice born, none’s all the same. Nominally Noumenal Gnostic’s of the Noetically Nuanced Nature’s Name-Naming Aeon. Really though, one comment above that’s really long (& his ‘manifesto’) is nothing new however holds far greater truths than many are wearily willing to admit knowing. Also the mention of men who are lonely islands is a good point too. So caught up in being afraid of the known possibility of being hurt by another that they avoid… Read more »

slqblindman
Guest
slqblindman

Equalism is not “the religion of feminism”.
Feminism is a women’s advocacy movement, and having successfully eliminated social and legal discrimination against women in Western society, it not seeks to maintain social and legal privileges enjoyed by women.
Equalism is, by definition, gender neutral.
Feminists are not Equalists.

YOHAMI
Guest

Depends on if you want equal opportunities or equal outcome.

slqblindman
Guest
slqblindman

Not even that. Feminists want neither, though they use outcome-based measurements when it suits their purpose. They want to maintain the set of privileges they enjoy.
I guess I’m just trying to protect the term “Equalism” from being co-opted by feminists as the word “feminism” becomes more and more tarnished.

slqblindman
Guest
slqblindman

…and as an Equalist, I seek equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

3rd Millenium Men
Guest

“nature trumps conviction”. Awesome. Have a post coming up that I’m going to use this in.

trackback

[…] for emotions in the same way as women. This of course might give pause to the idea of a blank-slate people-are-people equalism so the imperative conditions those questions away from any critical […]

Sholosis
Guest

Genetic (and neural) manipulation will ‘raise’ us above our biological limitations.

I am all for becoming a walking, talking, ageless, information processing, euphoric, overachieving transhuman. With relaxed confidence, smart humour, 5-digit IQ and EQ, creativity and having a Greek-God body.

Living in a world with females engineered to be insatiably horny.

This might take 3000 years though, until then, all we got is Game.

trackback

[…] People are People […]

trackback

[…] of this presumption is due to social reinforcement, but that social presumption – essentially the equalist presumption – is rooted in women’s base indifference to anything external that doesn’t affect […]

John
Guest
John

I agree with you mostly but the thing I have trouble accepting with regards to the red pill or game is that the exact point you are making here applies to everyone, not just women. ‘People don’t like to think that they are not in control of their lives.’ Men who get laid less than others are no exception. In fact, game has arisen as an attempt to control this situation. You can change your habits and behaviors but you can’t fundamentally change your personality. So game can only ever be a facade. It can only ever be person A… Read more »

trackback

[…] is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, […]

trackback

[…] her own personal experiences and veers off into “ooh ooh, men do it too” and “people are all different, society sucks” tangents. Like most bad debaters, she flits from one issue to another when a […]

trackback

[…] The Devil Biology Made Me Do It […]

rugby11ljh
Guest
rugby11ljh

Trust me… I am human

trackback

[…] of Ovulatory Shift behaviors by these women there was always an obligatory, “yes, but, people are people, we’re above all that, it’s what’s on the inside that counts, NAWALT” […]

trackback

[…] on the “all is relative, all is subjective” mindset they’ve been conditioned to. People are People, there is no human “nature” so there is no male or female […]

trackback

[…] “People are People and everyone is special” or some variation of the nebulous individual’s uniqueness needing to be held as the benchmark for each case of ‘value’ are the common refrains. Even denying an observable, measurable marketplace altogether for fear of being ‘judgemental’ is part of the Red Pill critic’s predictable counter to the idea of a sexual marketplace. […]

rugby11
Guest
rugby11

“The standard rationale fallback of the feminine mindset, NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) finds its roots in the individuated, experiential reasoning of the blank slate, “people are people” equalist reasoning. While I think that a wholesale rejection of individual personality development is an extreme, it’s merely the other side of the extreme coin compared to a wholesale rejection of environmental and biological influences on personal development – then extrapolated to social and cultural extremes. This is where the “people are individuals” mindset flourishes.” https://twitter.com/CasualSexProj/status/739864822163099649 New age https://twitter.com/CasualSexProj/status/739925119414439936 “Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill… Read more »

trackback

[…] longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally […]

trackback

[…] From People are People: […]

%d bloggers like this: