Rise Above

I received this comment on my January 29, 2020 livestream of Rational Male 101:

I think Rollo is talking about an idea that I’ve read about before in Thomas Sowell’s famous book Conflict of Visions. One side of the spectrum says that humans are very animalistic despite their capability of rationalizing otherwise, and human nature must be constrained by laws and social processes (such as constraining hypergamy). The other side of the spectrum says that humans are entirely capable of overcoming their Darwinian natures through intentional decisionmaking and must be unconstrained in order to flourish. Everyone lies somewhere between the two. I assume most men here lean more toward a constrained vision.

Nature vs. Nurture is a constant theme in the Manosphere. Yes, it’s a constant theme throughout most natural sciences, but it’s a paradox that’s going to always pervade intersexual dynamics. And mostly because people’s belief sets are rooted more in one or the other. Personal responsibility versus biological determinism is an issue that defines what our perspectives are on a great many things; not just intersexual dynamics. This isn’t an issue of politics or even worldview. There are plenty of believers in our human capacity to rise above our personal circumstances and evolutionary dictates on both sides of the political spectrum. For every hardline Trad-Con espousing the virtues of the human spirit and freewill superseding our physical conditions there is a left-leaning humanist who’ll conveniently agree that humans aren’t beholden to what some inconvenient science says if it aligns with their belief set.

Most “old order” ideologies today are struggling with relevancy in what I called the age of “new order” thinking or our New Age of Enlightenment. This new order understanding is the result of the unprecedented deluge of information we now have access to in this millennium. Not only is it this new influx of data that’s challenging the old order ideologies, but also the accessibility to it that old order thinkers can no longer keep pace with.

The response to this influx of information requires us to parse it out like never before. In predictable human fashion most people will make a hard turn towards the old order dictates that used to be able to explain harsh truths to us adequately enough for us to move on to other things. Thus, we see the global Village return to an interest in old religions, shamanism, metaphysics and tribal superstitions (and a lot of Chick Crack) today. That’s not to say that some of these old order institutions never had merit. A lot of what new order data presents to us can be confirmed by old order beliefs and wisdom. What we used to take on faith can now be confirmed by new order information. But this is also problematic for old order believers. It’s never a comforting thought to be confronted with what you had thought was sublimely metaphysical actually being something that can, in fact, be quantified. Yes, your religion was correct about some things, but those things are no longer the magical articles of faith they once were.

But We’re Better Than That, Right?

The Nature vs. Nurture debate is really a polite proxy for the war between two perspectives – Determinism vs. Freewill. While questions of consciousness and personal philosophies are outside the scope of this blog, what is in scope is how these perspectives define the way we approach our understanding of innate mating strategies, long term relationships, forming families and raising children.

As I mentioned early, determinism feels wrong to both kinds of believers. When ever I debate the harsh realities of how Hypergamy works, not just for our species, but most of the animal kingdom, I’m invariably met with the question of whether or not Hypergamy is ‘Good or Evil’. There’s always a want to qualify what’s really a natural dynamic. Is a pack of wolves evil for bringing down a caribou to feed the pack in the dead of winter? It all depends on who you’re rooting for I guess.

The ‘sphere’s contemplating these scenarios are nothing new. Considering the moral implications of the uglier aspects of Hypergamy is just one easy example among many other naturalism vs. moralism dilemmas in Red Pill praxeology. Empiricists will explain the dynamic in the hope that knowing about it, and how it works, will lead to better predictive outcomes. Hypergamy works thusly X-Y-Z; now plan accordingly and build a better life upon that predictive model. Believers on the other hand will absorb this data and look for moral equivocation:

They believe that the goal of debate is to establish what is morally better, and what everyone should do. They argue about what is right.

The Believers vs. The Empiricists

On a recent video I did with Rich Cooper and Dr. Shawn Smith one point of debate was whether or not the idea of Hypergamy should be used as a “predictive framework” for understanding intersexual relationships. The topic of our discussion was the merits of Hypergamy in its expanded, robust, definition and whether it’s a reliable metric to compare people’s relationships (married and dating) against. As you might guess a lot of Red Pill awareness centers on Hypergamy; it’s why I continue to stress it even when my detractors lie about my interests. It’s really that important.

But as we we’re debating the ins and outs I posed another question to Dr. Smith, “If Hypergamy is not a reliable predictive framework for understanding intersexual relationships, then what is a better one?”

I wasn’t being facetious, nor was I trying to hit Shawn with a gotcha question; I genuinely wrote this question down in my preparatory notes for the show. If not Hypergamy, in its expanded definition, (that describes women’s innate mating strategy) then what is a good outline by which we might judge women’s (and men’s) motives, incentives and behaviors with respect to their mating strategies.

Do women even have mating strategies defined by their innate, evolved, natures? Or are their sexual, reproductive decisions purely an act of cognitive will, as defined by their socialization? If 100,000 years of human evolution didn’t shape women’s reproductive strategies, then what are we left with that explains the commonalities we see women using (with our new order data gathering) in their mate selection and breeding (or aborting) habits? Is it entirely freewill and personal choice? We’re certainly meant to believe it’s “her body, her choice” and the decisions are an extension of her cognitive will.

Yes, I get that it doesn’t have to be one or the other. The possibility exists that it’s both nature and nurture affecting women and men’s mating strategies – and certainly choice is involved in the outcome of those strategies. I’m more inclined to believe it’s both, or at least we want to believe our conscious decisions are what’s pulling the strings. I’ve been in all the livestream debates when we asked the question, “Do women have agency?” and if not then are we our Sister’s Keeper? The more moralistic a guy is usually the more he’s likely he is to include women’s lives to his list of masculine duties and personal responsibilities.

The underlying assumptions in all these accounts is “Aren’t we better than this?”

As reasonably rational, self-aware creatures, with what we presume is freewill and a liability of personal responsibility for the choices we make when exercising that freewill, then haven’t we evolved above all our base impulse? If not, then shouldn’t we have by now?

Every day I harp on about the fallacy of the Blank Slate that most old order thinkers can’t seem to disabuse themselves, but if we are in fact “above it all” then the fallacy of the Blank Slate, as well as the notion that we might ever be influenced by our evolved natures is all a moot point. If our conscious selves are in fact better than our evolved natures then the variables of evolution are rendered meaningless. All that matters is the self and developing our consciousness to rise above our conditions.

Our conscious minds are capable of overriding our innate natures. We can, sometimes do, kill ourselves by not eating. A fast or a hunger strike is something we can consciously do as an act of will. A sense of righteousness and virtue can get mixed into that conscious and our will supersedes our innate nature (we get hungry and need to eat or we die). It doesn’t change the operative physical state that our bodies need certain things. We often commit suicide as an act of will or the conscious act of our depressive emotional state. Again, will (however it’s defined) overrides our physical conditions, but how much of what we believe is our willpower is uninfluenced by the same physical conditions, environment, upbringing, socialization and personal circumstance that we hope to rise above?

Very soon, perhaps within my own lifetime, we will be able to genetically engineer humans. In 2018 a Chinese scientist broke codes of ethics to create the first gene-edited baby. The science, if not the technology, is already here. The possibility exists that human beings, through sheer force of will, can custom engineer our physical states to conform to what our ideologies would tell us is preferable. If you’ve ever seen the movie Gattaca you’ll understand the implications of this technology. It’s this author’s opinion that we are living in a time when the ideologies we subscribe to today will affect the ethics of what we engineer into the humanity of tomorrow.

Gattaca is science fiction, but the philosophical questions it poses are very real now. From a objective, humanist perspective this raises a lot of interesting questions. Should we engineer-out of humanity “diseases” like Down’s Syndrome? What about sickle cell anemia? If a gay gene is ever discovered (I don’t believe homosexuality is genetic), should we edit it out of humanity to ensure “normal” heterosexual human beings in future generations?

The Chinese scientist who broke the rules of ethics was reprimanded for his experimentation. “When the news broke, peers in China and abroad condemned him for manipulating life’s building blocks using a relatively untested gene-editing tool.” But why? Chinese official declared his experimentation illegal. It’s entirely possible that a new race of superior humans could be engineered to be better ‘adapted’ to live longer, be smarter, more immune to certain diseases, possibly eradicate some disease and make for a stronger human species. Why would it be wrong or unethical to strive for “perfection”?

Have we not elevated our will above our physical limitations? Or are we using our physical conditions as an implement of our will? We’ll find out soon, but our ideological bent and the ideas of what right and wrong is most certainly influenced and defined by the realities of our physical selves.

Rise of the New Order

This was a comment from Jack about the rise of the New Order:

Rollo, the digital age has ruined us. Culture and pop culture today move at an alarming rate, what was hip now won’t be in the next year or month, society has never moved this fast and as a result the new way is merely a day away from being the old way. The demon’s out of the ring now, no turning back, and there’s no real way to deal with the modern age.

If you are not born into greatness, or utilizing the vast knowledge of the net to surpass everyone and stay there, you get nothing. It’s now the same way with women, previously, our worlds were smaller and hypergamy wasn’t as out of control. There were checks and balances, God and church being two of them, shame was a motivator for keeping women in check as they don’t understand loyalty like men. Now, they have infinite access to all top men, with upwards access to all jobs, and no reprecussions for acting in their very best interests and base instincts at all times. This shrinks the dating pool dramatically to only a few desirable mates because they value themselves so highly. So, if you’re not a natural at flirting with women, or learned how to do it through you and the many other “red pill” men out there AND CAN KEEP THAT ON 24/7 WHILE DOING IT BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE, you will get nothing or lose what you have.

It’s almost all risk no reward for modern men unless you’re alpha”, and even then you’re not safe. Women will always want more and better, so if you’re not constantly 100% on at all times, you lose. If Jeff Bezos and Johnny Depp aren’t safe despite their fame and fortune, what does that say for everybody else? It’s exasperating as a modern man, you have to be and do too much to compete on the global market, as a man younger than you I don’t know if you can understand how daunting it is to have to be everything all at once and it STILL not being enough. You can’t even stay established anymore, if you’re not constantly putting out content, you fall to nothing again and have to start from scratch.

Your competition as a red pilled man, are other men armed with this knowledge, and it will get harder as time goes on with more men are forced to adapt this way of thinking or give up entirely. The new system forces you to constantly adapt faster, and better than all of your peers, or die instantly. There is no rest, no reprieve, no time to catch your breath, either you constantly innovate and improve on the new or you simply don’t eat. I cannot understand how this can keep up when this new “enlightened” era leaves the majority of the male sex in the dumpster.

That being said, without men such as you or Dalrock, established constant fonts of content for this, the kind of thing men need to hear, there will be no direction for men in the coming years. Yes, someone might come along eventually to replace you and the groups you represent, the thought even, but the men like you are very much buoys and lighthouses to keep those of us drifting in the digital age’s ocean from sinking. Without that, we’re all absolutely lost. Without guys like you, it’ll be even harder to aggregate that information and even try to compete or establish relevance. So the destruction of Dalrock’s work means setting those of us who wish to live and fight for a better life back several years, which none of us can afford. Many of us have learned partly, or greatly from you and men like you, whether that’s connecting the dots or having the entire mind opened. So wether or not he wants to delete everything, his work must press on for every one of us who wants a chance to survive in this.

While I’m flattered to be considered one of the pioneers of understanding intersexual dynamics from Red Pill perspective, I can entirely relate with the sentiment of perpetual vigilance. “If [insert male celebrity] can’t make it in today’s sexual marketplace with today’s women then what hope does the average guy have?” is a common MGTOW refrain. I understand men’s desire to just throw in the towel and accept one’s sexless fate. We now live in a Global Sexual Marketplace. The old order rules for the localized sexual marketplace that the last 3 generations of men still expect to work for them today are a thing of the past. And this is only one symptom of the rapid expansion of technology and its effect on our cultural narratives.

For all the alarms we’d like to raise about humans’ genetically engineering future generations of humans, the effects of the meta-scale social engineering experiment that is gynocentrism are already here. Men have always formed adaptations to the realities of solving their reproductive problems, but never have a generation of men had to adapt to so rapidly a changing environment. And it’s only going to get more complex as we move forward.

Today’s men have few options available to them in our present state. Most of us will continue to keep pace and attempt to see the signs of ways to best advantage what comes at us in the sexual marketplace, and really life in general, until we can no longer keep up. Evolve or die. Keep pace with the trends and stay sharp enough to look ahead and leverage what you can based on an objective assessment of what human beings really are. Stay sharp until you no longer can. Hopefully, if you’ve wisely conserved and protected your resources during that time you’ll have some security until you die. If not, then you can expect to fall prey to the next generation of vultures who see your nest egg as their source of revenue.

Or you can give up. You can do just what’s necessary to survive in a system that passed you by and console yourself with complaining about how degenerate and unfair it is. And you’ll be right on both counts because that’s where you are. Old order thinking is very comforting, and it will be until there are no more old order thinkers – replaced by a succeeding generation of new order thinkers who themselves will be swept aside by new order thinkers.

More and more we’re going to see a return to the old order religions, metaphysics and tribalism as the generations that cannot keep pace with human advancement seek meaning and consolation. As a result we’ll also see a new virtue signaling and ego-investments in the power of the self, freewill and mindful consciousness. The Trad-Cons of today are already here and the more ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ social justice adherents apply their own brand of magical thinking, but for the same reasons. The effect is the same – the retreat from competing in a globalizing system that, sooner or later, will outpace us all.

And like all other aspects of this rapid advancement, even this retreating demographic will be coopted and commercialized by savvy ‘players’ who are still keeping pace. Formalizing the retreaters, organizing them, catering to their idiosyncrasies, all will be big business for those who learn to sell consolation (if not hope) to those who think they’ll never keep up.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

210 comments on “Rise Above

  1. It’s entirely possible that a new race of superior humans could be engineered to be better ‘adapted’ to live longer, be smarter, more immune to certain diseases, possibly eradicate some disease and make for a stronger human species. Why would it be wrong or unethical to strive for “perfection”?

    I don’t know, maybe we can look at how well that went with the eugenics program that started here in the U.S. and was adopted uber extreme style by the Nazis. Sure, it’s an extreme example, but engineering the human species is extremely dangerous. Yet many are okay with those risks.

    One can find meaning in living as a human no matter what tech trends or social norms are the latest rage. By placing too much emphasis on mass consumption and technology it’s easy for some to lose their own path. After it began in the 1960s the “return” to “new age” trends in our culture has been ongoing since the late 80s. This is not new. The commercialization of it increased the pace when women took over yoga studios and it became easier to sell trinkets and baubles online. Then social media memes really ratcheted things up. Of course other things also influenced and help accelerate it.

    Finding real meaning as a human won’t come from new age baubles, crystals, astrology charts, faster cars, bioengineered prosthetics, gene therapy or the red pill.

  2. @ Sentient

    Interesting choice of songs from New Order. All that temptation to go after that new strange.

    Dang, used to listen to them a lot years ago. Did you know they used to be called Joy Division and their lead committed suicide?

  3. Roused

    The one tempted is Victoria. And she acts on it, consequences be damned.

    But yes well aware of Ian Curtis.

    “Love Will Tear Us Apart” is a song by English rock band Joy Division, released in June 1980. Its lyrics were inspired by lead singer Ian Curtis’ marriage problems and frame of mind before his suicide in May 1980.[6]

    How about them intersexual dynamics?

    Hit it!

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zuuObGsB0No

    [PS – JD was formed after watching a Sex Pistol’s show… Johnny Lydon of PIL was Johnny Rotten of the SP…]

  4. Ruh Rob

    “”You told the jury the threesome was horrifying because it was something you didn’t want to do,” Rotunno said. “I would like you to read the note from your phone to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.”

    “Do I have to?” Mann asked, turning her head toward Justice James Burke.

    “Yes,” Rotunno said.

    After a long pause, Mann began reading the years-old post, describing a threesome with an unnamed “older man” and an Italian woman, seemingly the same one she mentioned in her testimony.

    Loaded with jokes, expletives, and erotic descriptions of the woman’s body, the written version characterized the encounter as exciting, not upsetting. At one point it compared Mann to a “14-year-old boy about to lose his virginity.”

    “This is what really happened,” Rotunno said after Mann read.”

    https://www.insider.com/donna-rotunno-harvey-weinstein-lawyer-profile-feminism-2020-2

  5. The commenter in the essay is correct, it’s getting out of hand. I’m of the belief that men will run out of tricks and exhaust self improvement to get women and we will fall backwards. Backwards as in using religion to shame woman. A middle-aged man with a thyroid problem isnt gonna wait 5 yrs to be his best self. He’s gonna take the short cut and tell her she will burn in hell if she posts another booty pic.

  6. I will always find it fascinating that some believe that ” superior ” people can be made/designed/brought about. This is an old argument. It hinges on a belief that there are ” inferior ” people to begin with.

    Evidently as long as there are men, this idea won’t die, no matter how misguided it is in it’s face.

    Hypergamy shouldn’t be as confusing as it seems. Look at it like this: do you still have the first job you ever had? Your first bike as your mode of transportation? Still place cookies and milk out on Christmas eve? Do you believe that you evolved away from these things? Seriously?

    If your job have you diminished returns, or your salary was cut by 5% a year, would it make you an asshole if you even contemplated leaving for a better position? Even if it wasn’t 100% guaranteed to actually be better? Would you settle for a permanent salary that was just adequate, in perpetuity? At a job that was offering less in a pleasant environment, or at least a stale environment that wasn’t as exciting and promising as it was when you were hired?

    If headhunters contacted you day and night, non stop, for years, would you not even listen and consider?

    Would you take your bosses feelings in higher regard than your own?

    Never considering a better deal? A more complete deal? A deal that offered something more?

    It’s nature and nurture.
    True story, I never thought of the church and society constraining or restraining women. Never looked outside of myself for help with ” her “. The concept is totally alien. How’s that working out? Serious question?

    Nature and nurture, adapt or die or go insane. Your ” genetics ” only work in certain conditions. You gotta be just smart enough to adapt so that you can think your way through.

    But that argument will go on as long as there are men breathing air, 😂 so fuck it…lol.

    Personally, I believe a lot of ” people shit ” was figured out many many millennia ago. Humans tend to wander away from what they’ve known and proven, and wind up searching all over again from scratch. It’s a pattern. It’s nature. 42 admonitions of Maat? Forgot them, but here’s 10 commandments. It’s just as good….but shorter.

    Gather 10 random people at the mall and ask them to recite the commandments.

    Old(er) wisdom hard earned is cast off in the comfort it provides. Always.

    So humans tend to have shittier behavior and attitudes and knowledge base. Then we must ” rise above ” without grasping fully what you’re actually supposed to be rising above. So someone will write something. And a piece may or may not be revealed. Usually the something written won’t evoke elation and joy because it’s been so far removed from current life. Woo much time spent trying to evolve into….whatever, then feeling the urge to rise above stuff.

    Evolved people can be like a deadly virus that will wind up taking us all out ( or most anyway ). What’s the oldest surviving ” civilization “? How long has it been around? In it’s current configuration?

    Steel changed the game.

    Bullets and guns changed the game.

    Bombs changed the game.

    Nukes changed the game.

    The sexual revolution changed the game.

    The internet changed the game.

    Gender fluidity is changing the game.

    See the pattern? Downward spiral of destruction.

    It’s in our nature, informed by nurture. We can do great shit, or really dumb self defeating shit.

    So fear not hypergamy. There are timeless ways to thwart it. Unless you’re hell bent on making things complicated and ” new “.

    /end rant.

    😁

    Luv y’all, lol.

  7. ” . . . are their sexual, reproductive decisions purely an act of cognitive will . . .”

    I’d like to see one to decide to lay eggs that hatch trilobites by parthenogenesis.

  8. @Blaximus

    That was a well written comment with important ideas. Thumbs up.

    It is pretty much a synopsis of the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Harari.

    Biology sets the limits of possibility for human activity, and culture shapes what happens within those bounds. And then history tells about cultural change.

    And humans are going in the direction of being their own mini/moderate/major gods.

    And that leads to the devolution of us. In other words human evolution leads to Idiocracy.

    So why is Rollo picking a bone with the Old Order? I know why.

    I agree that the question for readers here is: what are you going to do about it?

  9. The only reason gender fluidity is changing the game is because eastern hypocrisy is a poorly understood secret weapon against western hubris.

  10. When you understand it, you can go back to being happy with yourselves despite their quacking. Much to their dismay. Much to their mutual benefit.

  11. Yollo

    There’s not really any such thing as gender fluidity in humans, no matter how much media and professors profess .

    Since hearing about gender fluidity, I looked at my dick and balls in the mirror every day, and nothing changed or morphed.

    Nurture. Notice the explosion of ” gay ” people since a subset of people have taken to every available outlet with giant megaphones daily pronouncing that ” the gay is normal “, even when nobody even asked?

    It’s been around forever, but now it’s becoming almost compulsory. Was it Plato or Socrates that said a young boy is better suited for a man than a woman ( paraphrasing like a motherfucker)? Aristotle? …. One of them Greek dudes.

    Gender fluid.

    No shit?

    I thought that was what was in the bed sheets after sex. Shows what I know.

  12. Of, course the movie Gattaca shows a guy who breaks out of the oppressive genetics based/fatalist system despite having a 99% of fail heart failure before 30.

    In the end, he should have been caught, but it is the Gattaca company doctor who looks away at the moment when he was about to be stopped, enabling him to board the rocket and realize his dream.

    So, the point of the story is unclear. Is Vincent an exception? An outlier who triumphs over his destiny? Or is the point that int he end, we all need a helping hand from one another to achieve our highest potential.

    The old order types, as I see it, are the ones who are desperately clinging to a behaviorist mindset. They just cannot believe the impact of genetics and biology on human behavior. They really want to think that given the right information, the right external environment, and conditions that anyone can break out of their funk.

    Its that the data is proving it to not be true, almost daily.

  13. @Scott

    They make that judgement from the comforting assumption of an available standing army that is happy to shoot people to death for daring to deny little ‘ol THEM of whatever the FUCK they want.

    I hope they DO make a super being. So he’ll fucking nuke them all.

    You like Video Games?

    Even in the East, there’s people ready to remind us that our minds and hearts are partners.

  14. ” The old order types, as I see it, are the ones who are desperately clinging to a behaviorist mindset. They just cannot believe the impact of genetics and biology on human behavior. They really want to think that given the right information, the right external environment, and conditions that anyone can break out of their funk.”

    Prove it.

    Prove the impact of ” genetics “.

    We witness behaviors every single day. Forever. History is rife with behaviors. Show me an example of genetics sans behavior.

    I’ll wait.

    Sounds like your talking about humans in some sort of vegetative state, just breathing, comatose with only their genetics. Getting out of that veggie bed would require a behavior, learned or observed.

    I get it though. People that fully believe in ” muh genes ” are like a religion. Your genes vary very little from anyone else’s, barring proclivity towards disease and mutations, good and bad.

  15. Silly.

    Read every single article and book on this page, then write a nuanced, academic quality critique of each one. Include references, studious observations about the methods of each, alternative hypotheses, and then have a bunch of experts in the fields of genetics and behavior peer review your work for quality control.

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/

  16. I’m not tracking “rejection?”

    It’s not like I am sitting here with a razor to my wrists because of something someone said online. I just think the evidence for the biological bases for behavior is pretty overwhelming. And I can read.

  17. Blaximus
    I will always find it fascinating that some believe that ” superior ” people can be made/designed/brought about. This is an old argument. It hinges on a belief that there are ” inferior ” people to begin with.

    Depends on whose criteria are used for “superior”, doesn’t it? Some form of eugenics has been going on for millennia.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133079

    https://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6925

  18. Blaximus
    There’s not really any such thing as gender fluidity in humans, no matter how much media and professors profess .

    Hmm. Sure about that? I know of some women who don’t seem to fit your opinion.

    Since hearing about gender fluidity, I looked at my dick and balls in the mirror every day, and nothing changed or morphed.

    Lol! You stand in for 100% of the human race? For sure?

    See what we get when a linguistic term, “gender”, is used in place of a biological term, “sex”?
    That’s not an accident.

  19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10%2C000_Year_Explosion

    The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution is a 2009 book by anthropologists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. Starting with their own take on the conventional wisdom that the evolutionary process stopped when modern humans appeared, the authors explain the genetic basis of their view that human evolution is accelerating, illustrating it with some examples.[1]

  20. ” Read every single article and book on this page, then write a nuanced, academic quality critique of each one. Include references, studious observations about the methods of each, alternative hypotheses, and then have a bunch of experts in the fields of genetics and behavior peer review your work for quality control. “

    😂

    Nope.

    Go to a star wars fan site and argue with them.

    They argue all the live long day because ” right “.

  21. The whole nature v nurture thing has always brought out the most intense reactions in people. I have my own theories about why.

    But it is a false dichotomy and therefore all the bickering about it is unnecessary. The literature continues to pile up linking all kinds of behavior and psychological issues to specific genes and combinations of them.

    There are two, extreme positions that are both irrational and competing with each other for what look like ideological reasons, which is not rational.

    The idea that there are no biological bases (the plural of basis) for behavior. (Or that they are irrelevant). While pioneers in behavioral observation and conditioning like Pavlov, Watson and Skinner made some profound discoveries about external stimuli they ultimately led to people (like Skinner) saying he could take any baby and turn it into a Hitler or Mother Theresa with the right conditioning.
    The opposing idea that genes (or any biological component) is the 100% determining factor in who you will become, how you will behave, etc.

    Psychologist Donald Hebb was once asked “which–nature or nurture contributes more to personality?” To which he replied “Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?”

    There are clearly several biological bases for behavior. Everything from simple brain chemistry to entire systems like the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, to sex, genes, and everything in between. But peoples biology is interacting and developing and interacting with the environment all the time.

    To argue that ZERO of the variance in human behavior is biological is an ideology. Just like arguing that 100% of it is.

  22. Its an interesting phenomenon to observe. I’ve been visiting here more lately in the wake of Dalrocks departure–thinking I might get some of my fix for interesting, stimulating outside-the-overton window discussion satiated. But even before that, the comments were starting to stagnate, as if everything had already been said or explored. Maybe the reason he quit is as simple as that–he wanted to exit while he was ahead.

    This conversation feels a lot like that. In the glory days of blogs like this one and Dalrock, the comments sections would regularly go 300, 500, 600 + comments with so many unique perspectives and points of view it was like heaven for those who desired that kind of depth.

    But if it has devolved into comparing the study of all the different confounds and variables that account for human behavior to flat-earthers and star wars fans, then it may be time to say goodbye to this venue.

    All good things come to an end, I suppose.

    And maybe that is (part of) the point Rollo is making with this post. The pace of change is so fast that it is truly very difficult to keep up, let alone stay ahead of it. Where did that level of conversation move to? You tube? Some other platform? Does it even matter now?

  23. Echo chambers are falling out of fashion.

    The last one is that way

    <——————

    Maybe genetically you lack proper skin thickness.

    I’m sure somebody must’ve written volumes about that.

    Out.

  24. @Sentient

    Time to DJ….and go back in time with the Ultimate Red Pill back-track:

    It’s got everything, hypergamy, epiphany, that beta to alpha transition….all summed up in one line:

    “The girl that wants to run away, discovers that she’s had her day, it’s no good you’re thinking that you’re still mine.”

  25. By the way, Jordan Peterson spent some time in a dryout clinic to get all the way off of his pain killers and mood adjusters. His daughter tweeted out some things recently about it.

    I was tolerant of Peterson because in his lectures he actually attempted to encourage young men, unlike far too many other public figures who just grind men down to bits. However I lost interest in his writings because they were pretty shallow, and that whole lobster thing is a little wack.

    To find out that he’s been seriously habituated to some of these drugs confirms that he’s never been that stable, and his Rules for Living didn’t come from mental strength but from weakness with a touch of desperation and even fear.

    I wish the man well in his recovery, but i’ll be steering young men away from him. Along this line, I won’t link but I did examine the promo web page for the 22 convention, and it is set up to self-fail. How the various feminists will react surely will provide some comedy time.

    It is a real shame that 21 mutated to 22. But it’s a lot like Peterson’s drug problem: wrong mindset leads to wrong thinking leads to real world mistakes.

    Now, if only there was an American writer who had crafted books designed to help men of varying ages….oh wait, there is? There is.

    Thanks again, Rollo.

  26. The question is, how do we build a civilization that is stable? While it’s certainly true that “we cannot back into the future”, the current times smack of decline. There are numerous correlations to the fall of the Roman empire.

    Ethnic tensions, religious tensions, gender tensions. The state of politics in the West today. More polarized than ever: gone are the days of centrists and swing voters. With the feminization of politics, sexual strategies clash, mixed in with race-based tribal politics.

    If you accept there are certain immutable traits of human beings, then you accept there are certain fundamentals of a successful civilization. This is reflected in the history of successful civilizations: they share similar fundamentals about marriage, nationalism, and morals. You could say that religion itself is simply a mechanism that helps certain tribes outlive less optimized ones in the battle of natural selection within religions. This explains the similarity of many of the core concepts.

    I’m not writing this as a “low value” beta who wishes to fulfill my sexual strategy by enforcing monogamy. I’m genuinely concerned about the direction that our civilization is headed and its sustainability. The internet is exposing the lies of the village but it seems that the direction we are headed is increased censorship in order to keep the lid on things. What happens next?

    There is more to this than simply “how can I succeed”. I think we’re heading for a big reset. Or, at the very least, some form of civil war. How long can governments keep the lid on populism? More censorship? Do we go down as individualists right down to the bitter end?

  27. “How long can governments keep the lid on populism?”

    As long as they can keep the populace voiceless and powerless.

  28. We can override certain things, but for some reason or other most of us don’t have that much willpower.

    A good example is how tough it is to do a cold approach for the majority of guys.

  29. NAS

    More polarized than ever

    Really? Ever? So far folks aren’t being dragged out I to the street and killed.

    Give it some more time.

  30. Scott

    I’ve been visiting here more lately in the wake of Dalrocks departure–thinking I might get some of my fix for interesting, stimulating outside-the-overton window discussion satiated.

    And your contribution to this is what?

    The fact is most contrary views don’t have the chops to keep up their end. So it’s hit and run and move on.

    Frankly the bots have done the best job as critics.

    And they dont shit themselves and flame out like Ya…

    Bots are going to replace you.

  31. Palma

    That’s not me being funny by the way, apparently the brain really does dissolve and it grows a new one.

    Lots of posts about Ego recently. This fits.

  32. Most of you people – (emphasis on the word “Most”) – are still on here – (some of you for years) – complaining about the same old shit – (over and over and over again).

    Get up off your asses and go do something with yourselves.

    Stop operating in the world of “Should Be” – and start operating in the world of “How It Is”.

    You’ll get better results – and you’ll have more fun than sitting around complaining your life away.

  33. Most of you people – (emphasis on the word “Most”) – are still on here – (some of you for years) – complaining about the same old shit – (over and over and over again).

    Any evidence? Or just a drive by BS generalization?

    Put up or shut up.

  34. Yer funny Coolio

    I’ve been here awhile.

    And I did a lot with myself.

    And I don’t ever remember complaining about anything here.

    And you’ve never mentioned a damn thing about yourself.

    Why are you complaining about being here?

  35. Sentiment(al). You’re one of the idiots.

    Evidence. Plenty. You’re a fool.

    Start going backwards with these articles as far as you want – and you’ll see the pattern.

    You’re doing the same thing.

  36. SJF.

    I said “Most”. I didn’t specifically mention “You”. (Focus more on reading the statements).

    And I’m not complaining. I’m stating factual information. Go backwards through these articles and see for yourself.

  37. Coolio

    Look fag. You’ve been called out. Evidence to back up your statement or STFU.

    You say I’m one of the idiots. So it should be easy to chronicle my repetitive complaints.

    Go ahead. Prove it.

    Fag.

  38. Sentient-

    Its a link to my own blog post about the topic of the interaction between biology and environmental bases for behavior. (Instead of a giant wall of text comment)

    You don’t have to read it, its a “free” country.

  39. You should note that then upfront.

    I did read it. So you are kinda sorta nature. OK. Easy enought to say without 1000 words.

  40. I’m not sure I can meet your standards for brevity v verbosity.

    On the one hand, my link was characterized as being essentially intellectually lazy and too short. But then upon reading the link (which I wrote) it was seen as long winded and verbose.

    Perhaps you could give me a precise word limit for expressing the content I meant to convey?

  41. Scott

    Perhaps you could like just say what’s on your mind instead of a) complaining about the level of discourse and b) shilling your blog on the sly?

    How about that?

  42. Sentient
    I did read it. So you are kinda sorta nature

    You’re being obnoxious and dumb.
    Scott’s walked a lot of walk. Look further at his site and you can see some of it.

    Cool down your jets.

  43. Sentient
    Perhaps you could like just say what’s on your mind instead of a) complaining about the level of discourse

    Maybe he’s got cabin fever.

    and b) shilling your blog on the sly

    You ask him a question, he answers by pointing to an essay he already wrote, rather than putting a wall of text. Now you complain because “shilling blog”.

    What do you want from the man…fried ice?
    lol.

    All of this makes me miss Ton, his contributions were short and to the point.

  44. AR

    maybe he’s got cabin fever

    Who cares

    Re shiiling – if you are touting your prior effort, say so up front.

    Not hard.

    ” as I outlined in my post” will suffice.

  45. Sentient

    Who made you mod?

    Same question back atcha. Well?

    Scott can speak for himself.

    Lol, butthurt much? Too proud to learn from anyone else now?

  46. Well, I am not sure I am tracking “shilling” for my blog. I guess readers can gauge that for themselves. Theres a lot of crossover between readers here and at Dalrock, so I assume many are aware of what I am all about.

    On the matter of my observations re: discourse. My sense is there are quite a few manospherians/red pill regular commenters who conflate telling difficult truths with being obtuse for the sake of shock. I think I understand where it comes from, but it is off putting.

    Its this sort of “we’re men so we don’t hold any punches so you if you can’t take the heat you should leave” thing. Those of us who read and comment around here are already in a tiny, low influence position and engaging here can ruin your life personally and professionally. Why not try to figure out ways to engage in these conversations, which are already pretty difficult civilly?

  47. Scott

    Why not try to figure out ways to engage in these conversations, which are already pretty difficult civilly?

    Ah yes… “Give me exactly what I want exactly how I want it or I’m going to leave”…

    Seen it before.

    Look Scott – if you think your reputation precedes you, you may want to rethink that.

    If you have something you want to convey, convey it. And we can get to it.

    Blind posting a link to your blog… Very ASD of you…

  48. One of the immutable truths about commenting on internet blogs is, even if you “win” by being the most obnoxious writer while shitting on someone who is generally trying to be polite, you are still retarded.

    The comments section here has become 5 guys (assuming they are male) thumping their chests and chasing off anyone they think is a beta chump who can’t keep up with the gay smack talking. And they can apparently diagnose ASD with just a tiny but of non-clinical information!

    It kind of makes sense to me why Rollo has basically abandoned the blog to a wild west style circle jerk in favor of other venues. Truly one of the weirdest online conversations I have ever had.

    Take care. I am sure you are making a huge difference in the lives of many hurting men.

  49. Oh for the love of xrist.

    D alrock please stay online so I won’t have to read anymore ” over at dalrock’s blog… “.

    Imo, hard to ” have discussion ” when being told to research what other people you don’t agree with have written.

    Scott wants agreement, not discussions. Please, no wall of text.

    People have different skilksets. If you’re a reader mostly, stick to that. Other people’s theories can be interesting up to a point, and someone else, having witnessed where these dumb fucking discussions usually head would rather skip it.

    So you win, we’re idiots.

    K?

    Night.

  50. Sentiment(al).

    You are a complete and total blockhead.

    It’s not required for me to prove anything.

    You are providing your own proof for yourself.

    Every time you open your mouth – you make yourself out to be more of a complete and total idiot.

    Please continue.

  51. @Coolio

    You are a dick.

    And your comments are worthless.

    Never have you commented anything of value. If you think you have, you only relied on your grandiosity. Which is a fiction.

    Can you whine more please?

    Prove yourself wrong.

    Go ahead and post something of value.

    I dare you. But won’t wait.

    You got nothing.

    And I agree with Scott. Rollo has been neglecting his blog.

    And it is a free-for-all.

    All those promises to turn it into a forum. (which are super hard to maintain…)

    And this? Devolution?

    1. “Rollo is neglecting this blog! The comments are all cluttered up with bots, spam and sock puppet trolls. He should really clean this place up.”

      drops the hammer on bots, spam, sock puppet trolls and 21 Con proxy accounts of now-proven liars

      “WTF Rollo! I’m not a troll! Cantcha take some constructive criticism? Boy, this place is really turning into an echo chamber. Fuck you Rollo!”

      literally unbans everyone so even trolls, grifters and 21 Con liars can post again

      “Sheesh! Rollo’s really neglects this blog doesn’t he? He should really clean this place up,…”

  52. SJF.

    I previously hailed you as one of the few people on here that looked like they had their shit together.

    Maybe I need to reconsider that.

    It doesn’t happen very often – but I do make a mistake every now and then.

  53. Long time lurker, first time poster.

    @ Rollo

    Your fantastic work has been invaluable to me for the process of rebuilding myself after two traumatic relationships. Reading TRM, your books, as well as other red pill material connected so many dots for me, helped me tremendously in my understanding of intersexual dynamics, rediscovering my MPO, recovering from a severe depression and / or PTSD induced by a relationship with a heavily disordered cluster B woman, and the imprinting resulting from being raised by a narcistic single mother. Thank you so much for your work.

    So please do not take the following remarks the wrong way.

    @ all

    This thank you! also goes to many of you regular commenters, whose experiences, insights, stories of life etc. very extremely helpful.

    I fully agree on the underlying gist of the matter, but, in my opinion, some points of this otherwise very interesting current essay are somewhat unprecise or conflate / confound different scientific concepts / terms in a manner that is not scientifically appropriate / too simplistic.

    As Rollo is dealing here with some of the most deep and fundamental scientific and philosophical questions (free will, nature vs nurture, etc.), this is not surprising – no one can be an expert in every field touched. I do by no way claim to be that (my formal training is in molecular and evolutionary biology, followed by a PhD in Immunology and finally a psychology and pedagogy degree), but in my opinion, some points should be addressed in order to allow for a more coherent bigger picture. As mentioned, I agree with basically all of the outcomes and the underlying message, it’s just about some terminology and confusion of different concepts. I’ll just pick a few:

    “The Nature vs. Nurture debate is really a polite proxy for the war between two perspectives – Determinism vs. Freewill”

    This is, in my opinion, a false dichotomy in at least two ways.

    First, determinism. You probably mean something in the vein of “can be explained with scientific concepts/rules”. But this does in no way equate to determinism (which means that predictions on a future state of a system can be made if one knows the current state and the underlying natural laws / equations).

    Most systems in nature outside of classical mechanics are not deterministic, but non-linear dynamic systems. This means that they may still be governed by natural laws that may be expressed in mathematical rules / equations, but the concrete future development can not be predicted. Even on a trivial level, we are dealing with chaos theory, broken symmetries, the phenomenon of emergence, etc. If, at all, the term deterministic chaos would be more appropriate.

    So, in short, human behavior is in no way deterministic; but there are still rules and laws that can be applied (see below).

    Second, free will. Although I completely get the gist of your argument and fully agree with it, the concept of free will is not really the other end of the same spectrum or the polar “opposite” of determinism, but stems from completely different areas of research (actually the interplay of many) and, mainly, from philosophy rather than natural science. It’s extremely complicated and not really possible to measure and quantify free will. A growing and large body of neurobiological evidence suggests that free will is largely an illusion, but in the end, this question can not be answered with scientific approaches but belongs to metaphysics.

    Nearly impossible to explore the concept of free will with all its relevant tangents in a short post, it’s so multifaceted and touches on so many different subjects. But we should be very careful when using such concepts and taking them for granted.

    «Do women even have mating strategies defined by their innate, evolved, natures? Or are their sexual, reproductive decisions purely an act of cognitive will, as defined by their socialization?»

    Again, this for me are wrong dichotomies on different levels.

    First, conscious decisions do not necessarily have to be acts of free will (if such a thing even exists in scientific terms) and vice versa. This is way too simplistic. Things that seem “conscious” to us are often not much more than an “after the fact rationalization” of our brain, there is a plethora of neurobiological studies showing this.

    Second, cognitive will / conscious decisions, if they exist, do not at all have to be the results of socialization / learning, they could in some cases very well just be the result of evolved brain or whatever structures. And, in terms of feedback loops, it can also go the other way around – socialization biologically rewires the brain, which, as a consequence, then again has social outcomes / impacts, for example. And this is not even considering the impact of epigenetics etc. (see below).

    Wouldn’t the more fundamental dichotomy simply be: socialization / learning (nurture) vs inborn / genetically determined behavior (nature)?

    It’s such a deep field with so many areas of study and perspectives.

    With regard to this question and generally the nature vs nurture debate, I find e.g. the book Blank slate from Steven Pinker to be a good starting point to read if someone should be interested in a nice “birds view summary” – although not touching on every aspect, it nicely integrates different viewpoints / fields of study.

    «If 100,000 years of human evolution…»

    It’s very hard and probably impossible to define what “human” evolution precisely means, but a good proxy would probably be to look at our most common ancestor with the chimpanzees and / or bonobos. And these lived, depending on which estimate / study one takes, maybe. 5 – 7 million years ago. So “human evolution” is taking place for much, much longer than 100’000 years. This is important, because 100’000 years is a very short time period when compared to the much longer periods in which evolution usually takes place and when comparing our evolution and behavioral adaptations to those of e.g. other primates.

    Furthermore, it does not really make sense to generally speak of “human” evolution, as our geno- and phenotypes are also the result of every evolutionary step in our phylogeny before the homo line split from the other apes / our most recent common ancestors.

    Speaking of human evolution; when trying to learn about human behavior and sexual strategies, it is extremely worthwhile and instructing to look at our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and the bonobos. Genetically, we differ approximately the same amount from both, but their social structures, behaviors, and specifically their sexual strategies are tremendously different. Worth reading in this context are e.g. the books of Frans de Waal, also with regard to the questions of how and why phenomena like morality, altruism, etc. evolved.

    Also, the question of what drives / is responsible for a current, actual behavior is a highly complex one. An attempt to answer it has to go much beyond the way too simplistic reduction of nature / genetics vs nurture / socialization and has to consider various different mechanisms (that are investigated in different scientific fields) that are in play at different time scales.

    For example, take the seemingly simple question “why am I horny?” (or you can also take the core topic of this blog – why do woman behave as they do in a concrete situation etc.). What are the driving forces?

    Robert Sapolsky provides the most readable and holistic approach / summary that I am aware of in his fantastic book Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst. One has to consider different timeframes preceding the behavior in questions (and, accordingly, all the different involved mechanisms at the different complexity levels)

    o One second before –> neurobiology (brain states, active neuronal webs etc.)
    o Seconds to minutes before –> which environmental factors / sensory stimuli triggered the nervous system? Balances of neurotransmitters, etc.
    o Hours to days before –> which hormones are in the bloodstream, making the nervous system sensitive, and which environmental or endogen factors triggered them?
    o Days to months before –> which environmental factors were involved in shaping the current brain structure / function (neuroplasticity etc.)
    o Adolescence –> complicated mixture of brain development and the environmental factors shaping it etc.
    o Embryonal development –> complicated mixture of development and the environmental factors shaping it etc., also epigenetics (e.g. stuff that happened to your mother, whether she smoked or not, what she ate, her stress level, etc. that may turn on or off certain of your genes)
    o Back to when you were just a fertilized egg –> see above
    o Centuries or millennia before –> e.g. influences of culture on the behavior of your ancestors etc.
    o Evolution (thousands to millions of years before) –> classical biological evolution

    Now reconsider topics like free will, the nature vs nurture debate, etc. in the light of the complex interplay of these various mechanisms / complexity levels / time frames or whatever one could name this “categorization”, and one starts to realize that things are actually a fair bit more complicated and can not be reduced to simple dichotomies. E.g. how does one account for the influence of all the earlier / underlying mechanisms that influence an actual momentary decision (brain state) that seems to be one of free will?

    For the sake of brevity, I will stop here. Just one more general point that I find to be of uttermost importance in the discussion of human sexual strategies:

    Different fields of biology have contributed tremendous amounts of insights into how complex the interplay of genetics and culture / socialization are. I mean no offense, but regular psychology textbooks do not grasp / reveal the depth in which this has been researched. One really has to study and understand e.g. the molecular mechanisms of how genes are expressed and regulated and how these processes can be influenced and regulated by a plethora of environmental factors.

    Also, when trying to understand human sexual strategies, it pays off to have a look at the bigger picture that is delivered by behavioral ecology, evolutionary biology, etc. instead of focusing too much on the “individual case” homo sapiens (a trap that the whole social sciences and, to a large degree, also psychology is still trapped in).

    There is a very consistent framework of different phenomena / mechanisms that turn out to be highly intertwined and yield highly predictable results across almost all species of living beings.

    Anisogamy of the sex cells (eggs are huge and very “expensive” to produce, sperm cells are very small and cheap), parental investment, sexual dimorphism (differences in the looks, appearances, behaviors of the sexes), mating systems, social hierarchies, intra- and inter-sexual competition, many other phenomena and, finally, the optimal sexual strategies for each sex are highly correlated. Often, if you know one, you can predict the others and vice versa.

    Hypergamy, Briffaults law, etc. in my view can be deduced from these underlying mechanisms / principles in a very coherent manner. The Red Pill touches on many of these aspects, but as far as I have read has not yet fully integrated them.

    Also, the mathematical discipline of game theory and its concrete applications in fields like behavioral economics, behavioral biology, computational modeling etc. is, in my estimation, of highest relevance to the discussed topic and could contribute massively to our understanding of intersexual dynamics (although from an angle that is completely different from this essays one).

    So, from my life experience and gained knowledge, I would clearly vote for an even tighter integration of biological principles and perspectives when trying to get to the root of Red Pill principles and their integration into a holistic, consistent scientific framework.

    Personal note:

    When I learnt about some of these topics at a younger age at university, I suspected that some of it might be translated into the human context, but blue pilled to the bones as I was, I did not dare to really do it. I was so convinced that we are more than our genes etc., that mankind can and must transcend its biology and “rise above it”, “aren’t we better than this?” to say it with Rollos words. So, I continued to write love poems and love ballads, to promise my eternal fealty, loyalty and undying love to my “soulmate”, and so on, despite noticing some severe glitches in the matrix / conventional social narrative in my personal and in the life of friends etc.

    Now, after I was forced to wake up from my Disney dream and to take the red pill (also to say bye bye to the whole social constructivism bullshit etc.) in order to cure possibly one of the most severe cases of Oneitis ever known to the medical / psychiatric profession 😉 I feel like most of the puzzle pieces are falling into place. At least, I do realize this cognitively – the process of internalizing these rational insights and rewiring my emotions / deeper brain structures is still going on and is still hard and emotionally painful, even after two to three years.

    But as I try to align my real life with the theoretical insights of the Red Pill, there are very positive changes taking place in my life. TRM had and continues to have a significant impact on this, so let me express again my eternal gratitude for your work!

    This thank you! also goes to many of you regular commenters, whose experiences, insights, stories of life etc. very extremely helpful.

  54. shit, I apologize for the unreadable wall of text – all the formatting has gone after hitting the “post comment” button, and I seem not to be able to edit the post

  55. Women join the “winning tribe” but women also join the tribe that treats them best.

    When queefs feel like “their” women are looking at greener pastures, they don’t beat them up, they go cold and distant.

    That’s another way to get women to leave you. When women think nothing they do works, they get sick of trying.

    So it doesn’t matter how much you tell yourself that being aloof makes you “alpha”.

    The person doing it is both what they look like AND their mindset.

    Also the people that keep dreading being abandoned by “their” women are usually self-defeaters anyway. And they usually get into relationships with women that like inflicting pain upon them.

    “Gawddammit she just wont staaaaayyyyy puuuuuuut. Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaahahaha!!!

    WAAAAAHAHAHHAHAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!”

    The “winning” tribe basically has to kill everyone, including family and friends in order to get to the tasty Stockholm pussy candy center.

    And what do women do until then? They kick and scream.

    Why expect women to do all the fucking work?

    Please believe in yourselves??? please?? Please believe in the women you managed to grab up???

    The people that want you dead gave up a straight fight long ago. That should be a sobering call to action.

  56. Yes Goddammit! Yes!

    @Scott

    I haven’t called you a fag…

    @Sentient

    You already have all your shit. Let him have his. He’s gonna have it anyway.

  57. There will never be a utopian civilization.

    I love history. Real history ( not that pablum fed to people in schools).

    One recurring theme over millennia is descending societies oft become blinded by their own success. They begin to believe they are infallible and always right. Otherwise how could we have been this strong and successful?

    So when they become corrupted ( many start as corrupted ), they cannot course correct. The telltale sign of the oncoming collapse is usually violent rebellion or revolution, but sometimes that society/culture/civilization just fades into relative obscurity.

    Lol, then successive societies will rise up and follow the same pattern without fail.

    Men mostly lack foresight. They will doggedly follow destructive paths to the ultimate conclusion. Humans are the most destructive force on earth, even destroying each other.

    That’s never going to change as long as humans try to congregate in ” states/country ” and give their sovereignty to strangers.

    But they’ll have comfort and smartphones.😁

    but people can out crab any crab in the bucket, and are willing to blow the entire bucket to smithereens.

    We’re too stupid to do otherwise.

  58. Scott

    “while shitting on someone who is generally trying to be polite, ”

    Aww. Your feels are hurt? Because I point out you bleating about discourse and then provide a link to what turns out to be your own blog and when that is pointed out as being wishy washy you get the sads?

    OK. Snowflake.

    “chasing off anyone they think is a beta chump who can’t keep up with the gay smack talking.”

    This is fascinating. As a psych person you would agree. Is it that you truly believe that you ARE a beta chump? That’s my bet. But my feels don’t get hurt in anonymous forums… The record clearly reflects no such claims made by me. So that must be it. Your actions – I’m taking my toys – point to this as well. 😆

    “And they can apparently diagnose ASD with just a tiny but of non-clinical information!”

    See, you’ve not been here so you don’t get this as a reference to a longtime forum poaster ASDgamer… Lol. It was made to remind YOU that your “reputation” at other forums is equally opaque here. So if you want to tout, you’ll need to up the disclosure chief.

    But you handled it perfectly. All about you.

    “It kind of makes sense to me why Rollo has basically abandoned the blog to a wild west style circle jerk in favor of other venues.”

    So you came to jerk? Lol. Rollo has “abandoned” the blog – while continuously making new posts week after week? OK. RT’s comments were always brief and infrequent. And that was before all the fags from ADJ started trolling.

    “Truly one of the weirdest online conversations I have ever had.”

    Really? You should get out more. Pussy.

  59. Blax

    Sbowflake cleanup in aisle 7…

    Seriously how do NuMales function in the real world? Can you imagine these guys working 8 hours on a loading doc, a framing crew, a trading floor – let alone a Boardroom.

    ⛄😛

    Yollo

    “You already have all your shit. Let him have his. ”

    Still waiting to find out if you are the olde Yollo or an impoaster…

    But you know how this goes. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.

  60. Sentient

    😂

    I’m all for ” higher edumacation ” and whatnot, but weaker men isn’t supposed to be the outcome.

    Yesterday I had a guy come by to replace roof shingles that had blown off during one of the dozen wind and rainstorms we’ve had lately. I wasn’t going up there at my age, as my home is 3 stories tall.

    This guy showed up by himself. It was 33 degrees with a light persistent wind. He got his ladder, scaled it, gave me an estimate, and got to work. Alone, no gloves even. He replaced 20 shingles as he said a few were lose because they were improperly nailed down. Then he cleaned the gutter and tightened some loose soffets.

    All that in less than an hour.

    Then he loaded up his ladder on his pickup and went on to his next job.

    When young cats act like old cats, we have a problem that notifying Houston will not help.

    There’s no real way around the fact that men must remain ” men ” if there’s any hope. Debates are great. Reading is fundamental and all that, but that’s a fraction of what’s required.

    In weakness is death. I’d write that in Latin for emphasis, but I’m too busy to look it up.

  61. @Palma

    …..Oh shit. Yeah you’re right. But right in a way I simply didn’t prioritize. Thank you I have more to look at now.

  62. From the OP

    “More and more we’re going to see a return to the old order religions, metaphysics and tribalism as the generations that cannot keep pace with human advancement seek meaning and consolation.”

    True enough,the constant reeducation to keep pace with high tech greed is annoying. They are also joining to keep pace with the social unrest for strength in numbers of “like minded individuals”.

    “As a result we’ll also see a new virtue signaling and ego-investments in the power of the self, freewill and mindful consciousness.”

    This virtue signaling is very annoying as well even to their women.

    “The Trad-Cons of today are already here and the more ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ social justice adherents apply their own brand of magical thinking, but for the same reasons. The effect is the same – the retreat from competing in a globalizing system that, sooner or later, will outpace us all.”

    These things you point out are partly the result of the globalizing system that has already outpaced itself. 1984 will never fully happen as the corporate collective is another brand of socialism that defeats productivity.

  63. @Palma

    “I’m talking about a position where the state and law has degenerated and is impotent in the face of the physical threats.”

    They are out of fly-swatters but still have axes aplenty.

    “In most of Europe, Mathematically, if things escalated that’s probably now. I don’t know about the US.”

    It is the same here with different threats,the civil solution is segregation with martial law and communication infrastructure “failure”.

    “In this instance women will need the protection of the surviving tribe (the one that is still alive).”

    I believe we are edging into this territory and this is driving Hypergamy to new levels.

  64. “You’re implying that women are recognising a threat either consciously or subconsciously and are self preserving by clicking up the Hypergamy?”

    Yes^ mainly subconsciously.

    “My general thought process was that Hypergamy found its own level, at the peak it could achieve..”

    I think it is the level and frequency necessary to survival in current conditions,just as they do dualistic mating strategy based on menstrual phase.

    You even said it yourself, ” drawn to join the surviving tribe.”

  65. Alot has been said about open hypergamy or it being unleashed and we have all experienced this to a degree from one side or the other of a branch swinger. I am suggesting that a large part of this is instinctive and driven by civil and social unrest. This makes sense to me on the protection level and the provision level. I would also suggest that the same threats are responsible for some obeisity as well.

  66. The anxiety displayed by the commenter inserted into the article by Jack, I believe was his name is a bit extreme. Yes we can view the new order as a global marketplace on a macro scale, and certainly it is affecting change but we exist on a micro scale w/in our country/state/city. We are competing for and w/in a number of thousands if that. If you live in a major city of a million people one is likely never to meet all the prospects w/in that group.
    The focus should be to dial in on the fundamentals to become the best version of yourself (a High Value Man) and operate w/in your own micro environment.

  67. @ Sentient

    Thank you, Sentient – these words from you mean a lot to me.

    I am currently in the process of implementing both your DPA-triad as well as your platinum rule into my life, in terms of “integrating my shadows” in Jungian terms. It is not always easy, but it generally works 🙂

  68. Thank you for the welcome, Palma!

    I honestly don’t know enough about the neuroscience of free will and its philosophical implications to give a valuable summary and opinion. Although this topic intrigues me a lot (as ultimately, the question of whether we are rational agents that are able to govern our acts willingly is obviously of paramount relevance in our lives), I currently do not have the time to research it properly, but I will.

    From my limited knowledge, I find the corresponding Wikipedia article to be a good summary of the hot debate (there are different definitions of free will and very opposing interpretations of the available experimental results), and much of the original research that is also mentioned in other sources that my scattered memory remembers is linked there:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

    So I will not go into the studies, but just mention a few of my rather superficial thoughts on the matter from a “step back”, first on the (problems with the) experiments, and then what this might implicate for me in practical real-life terms.

    It seems to be extremely difficult to operationalize free will in such a manner that meaningful experiments and results that allow for broader conclusions are possible. In my view, the central obstacle is the one mentioned in my above posts Sapolsky reference: there are so many mechanisms / phenomena involved (each occurring on different, but overlapping time scales) that govern an actual behavioral act (that could possibly be attributed to free will) that it is simply not possible to test this. And if one just focuses on one of those mechanisms occurring at different “temporal resolutions” / “complexity levels”, the results are very limited in scope.

    E.g. Libet, in his famous first experiment (that was long considered to disprove the idea of free will), just measured the readiness potential and whether this pattern of neural activity is correlated with the “felt intention” of the person to move an experimental subject. Problem: we are in the realm of maybe a few seconds. So this type of experimental design just neglects all the “earlier” mechanisms that might have somehow influenced or culminated in the will / decision of that person at this precise moment (e.g. blood sugar or hormone levels, or all the factors that structured the relevant brain parts during the development and life time of that person, or its genes, or whatever).

    A trivial example: let’s say you know of yourself that you lose inhibition if you drink too much alcohol and maybe become aggressive. What is then the actual cause of your aggressive behavior? The environmental factors that triggered the aggression? Your lack of free will? The biochemical actions of the ethanol molecules? The parts of your prefrontal cortex that react to the alcohol? The ones that let you drink the alcohol despite you knowing how it ends? The factors that (re-)wired them in such a manner, like your difficult childhood? Or some susceptibility genes you inherited from your parents? Or maybe even the factors that led to the radiation of such genes much earlier in the phylogeny of humans or their ancestors? And so on. This is not trivial to answer but would be of highest importance when trying to analyze this phenomenon or even to design an experiment to test some hypotheses. In reality, it would probably be an extremely complex interplay of everything.
    And it gets even more complex if you add further variables. Let’s say again you know of yourself that you lose inhibition if you drink alcohol. You meet a young beauty that is so hot that it would be a sin against nature to not fuck her. You drink, and boom, it happens, despite your initial resistance due to the fact that she is in her ovulatory phase, you have no condoms at hand, and thus initially tried to resist. How to analyze such a scenario in the context of the discussion about free will? Who / what is “guilty”?

    Regardless of whether such a thing as free will exists in measurable terms, I think that the believe that it exists is an absolute psychological necessity. Our mind always has to construct the illusion that our acts are driven by our decisions, otherwise we would always feel like victims of our circumstances and / or end in serious depersonalization issues.

    Not to overstep the mark, but I think that precisely this loss of agency lies at the ground of many psychological instabilities, might be a fundamental difference between female and male worldview / cognition, and maybe is even reflected in one’s political attitudes. Personal responsibility as a concept is only possible if free will (or the belief in it) exists.

    Strongly simplified: the more conservative (or whatever the anglo-american equivalent of this is), the more one has to believe in free will, discipline, self-control and personal responsibility, whereas for the left it is obviously tendentially rather the opposite (thus the drive to “help” and regulate so much, to take it out of the responsibility of the individual and to delegate it to the state). This is a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis; I was just trying to draw an analogy.

    It has often been discussed on this blog whether females lack agency, as they tendentially seem to be more driven by momentary emotions rather than long-term rational cognition, and I think this is indeed a key differentiator between the sexes (in statistical average etc.).

    Probably also of interest for the discussion of free will is the concept of discipline (which is mandatory in order to exercise free will if I do not get this wrong?). The mainstream view on this is probably the one pushed by Roy Baumeister et al. which basically means that discipline is a limited resource and that, thus, one has to carefully “dose” it in order to not deplete this limited reservoir. Whereas this probably has some true aspects, this view in my estimation completely neglects the phenomena that discipline a) can and must be trained in order to grow (which is precisely prevented if one always thinks “ah, I should not overdo it”), and b) that an avalanche effect will take place – start small, growth might be exponential.

    My own view on free will / self-control on a practical real-life level is that even if it would not exist, one can still exert agency / self-regulation in its own life by increasing or decreasing possibilities / probability distributions. I think that one can enhance the probability that something does or does not happen in your life by nudging oneself into a certain direction / into certain environments. You can maybe not enforce everything with pure free will, but you can drastically improve the lucks that it does happen or not, by taking indirect measures and using various “self-control techniques” to manipulate probability distributions.

    But, can such indirect measures to achieve one’s will also be considered to be free will? I don’t know, in terms of a strict definition clearly not, but in another way clearly yes, since the outcome is the same.

  69. @ Scott

    “The whole nature v nurture thing has always brought out the most intense reactions in people. I have my own theories about why.

    But it is a false dichotomy and therefore all the bickering about it is unnecessary. The literature continues to pile up linking all kinds of behavior and psychological issues to specific genes and combinations of them.

    There are two, extreme positions that are both irrational and competing with each other for what look like ideological reasons, which is not rational.

    The idea that there are no biological bases (the plural of basis) for behavior. (Or that they are irrelevant). While pioneers in behavioral observation and conditioning like Pavlov, Watson and Skinner made some profound discoveries about external stimuli they ultimately led to people (like Skinner) saying he could take any baby and turn it into a Hitler or Mother Theresa with the right conditioning.
    The opposing idea that genes (or any biological component) is the 100% determining factor in who you will become, how you will behave, etc.

    Psychologist Donald Hebb was once asked “which–nature or nurture contributes more to personality?” To which he replied “Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?”

    There are clearly several biological bases for behavior. Everything from simple brain chemistry to entire systems like the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, to sex, genes, and everything in between. But peoples biology is interacting and developing and interacting with the environment all the time.

    To argue that ZERO of the variance in human behavior is biological is an ideology. Just like arguing that 100% of it is.”

    I find this to be very well considered and balanced position and fully agree.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: