To tell the truth, I'm not actually that interested in the Dominiqe Strauss-Kahn controversy. High powered officials have a long history of being stupid, especially when it comes to sexual matters. However what really struck me as absurd, is that the head of the IMF is a Socialist. In fact; a former communist.
It would be like putting Trotsky in charge of the Fed.
Life is stranger than fiction.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Engine Design.
Modern auto engines are marvelously complex pieces of machinery. Over a century of improvement has resulted in engines that are lighter, more powerful, more fuel efficient and more reliable than their original predecessors.
The engine designer has a hard task. He is usually given a design brief which on closer inspection is contradictory. For a given engine capacity, his engine must produce maximal power and yet he is also told to minimise fuel consumption, which is directly related to power output. He is told that the engine must be light and reliable, but in order to improve reliability he must make some of the parts heavier than what is needed. The engine must be cheap and simple to manufacture, but the high temperatures and pressure needed to achieve fuel efficiency mean more expensive alloys and cooling. And so on.
In the end, engine design like most other mutiparametric design, is an exercise in compromise amongst competing independent parameters. Things are a trade off.
Once a multiparametric system has been optimised for a certain state, system integrity is dependent upon the system operating within certain design parameters. Operating mulitparametric systems outside their design parameters may result in loss of system integrity, reduced system life or suboptimal system performance. Now most robust systems usually allow for some minor variation outside design criteria, but this becomes harder the more complex the system is.
For example and engine may have the following design criteria. (I've made these up)
1) Fuel consumption of 20mls @ minute at idle.
2) Cylinder head temperature not to exceed 160 degrees Centigrade.
3) Coolant flow at 10 liters a minute.
4) Oil temperature not to exceed 90 degrees Centigrade.
5) Maximum 9:1 fuel compression
6) Oil change every 200 hours of operation.and so on.
The system, in order to be viable, has to stick to its rules of operation.
Car engines, for a given class of car, are more similar than different since the parametric constraints placed by by materials science and thermodynamics mean that there are only a limited number of compatible mutiparametric solutions to the engine design problem.
This does not apply just to cars. Cake mixers, bicycles, pens, passenger aircraft, etc. are more alike than different, its because as the state of the art improves and matures, it becomes apparent that there are only a limited number of viable solutions to the design problem. Initial ideas which were promising are found to be impractical from a variety of perspectives.
(There is rumour that the Volkswagen 1.4 TSI engine, a novel solution to engine design requirements, is going to be discontinued because it is too expensive to make. )
Now the point about all this is that society can be considered a multiparametric system, being composed of multiple competing and interacting elements, and as such, society can be looked at from a systems engineering perspective.
It was Jim Kalb's writings that got me thinking about looking at society this way. His battle against modernism is based upon a traditionalist perspective. The argument, as I see it, being that traditional cultures such as Islam and Chinese Confucianism have lasted because they cater towards human beings better than modernism does. After reading this, I asked myself the question, given the stability of Confucian and Islamic society, what sort of rules of operation produce a systemically stable society?
When you look at it from a systems engineering point of view you see that stable and relatively advanced societies seem to operate under a relatively narrow systems of rules; what C.S. Lewis called the "Tao of Life." In fact these rules can be don't actually have to be divinely inspired, rather they are relatively self evident to any man of moderate reflection. Christian writers would have called these operating parameters Natural Law. Anyone who is really interested should have a read of C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man, where he quotes similar passages from Hindu, Norse, Egyptian, Roman, Jewish, Greek and Chinese texts.
Some of these rules of system operation can be summed up as follows:
The existence of a morality which is independent of the individual.
A belief in objective truth.
Censure of some kind for transgression of the rules.
Benefit of some kind for concordance with them.
Just and fair dealings with others
Consideration of others in our actions.
Preference for our own kind.
Sexual restraint.
Magnanimity.
The fact that these cultures, which lasted for centuries, separated both temporally and spatially should have broad common approaches to their operation suggests that stable complex societies may only be possible if run according to these broad principles. The fact that large scale promiscuity, institutionalised lying and moral relativism have not stood out as organising principles amongst surviving cultures suggest that from a systems perspective, these operating rules may be inimical to system stability. Relatively advanced stable societies may only be possible under a narrow set of system parameters.
The engine designer has a hard task. He is usually given a design brief which on closer inspection is contradictory. For a given engine capacity, his engine must produce maximal power and yet he is also told to minimise fuel consumption, which is directly related to power output. He is told that the engine must be light and reliable, but in order to improve reliability he must make some of the parts heavier than what is needed. The engine must be cheap and simple to manufacture, but the high temperatures and pressure needed to achieve fuel efficiency mean more expensive alloys and cooling. And so on.
In the end, engine design like most other mutiparametric design, is an exercise in compromise amongst competing independent parameters. Things are a trade off.
Once a multiparametric system has been optimised for a certain state, system integrity is dependent upon the system operating within certain design parameters. Operating mulitparametric systems outside their design parameters may result in loss of system integrity, reduced system life or suboptimal system performance. Now most robust systems usually allow for some minor variation outside design criteria, but this becomes harder the more complex the system is.
For example and engine may have the following design criteria. (I've made these up)
1) Fuel consumption of 20mls @ minute at idle.
2) Cylinder head temperature not to exceed 160 degrees Centigrade.
3) Coolant flow at 10 liters a minute.
4) Oil temperature not to exceed 90 degrees Centigrade.
5) Maximum 9:1 fuel compression
6) Oil change every 200 hours of operation.and so on.
The system, in order to be viable, has to stick to its rules of operation.
Car engines, for a given class of car, are more similar than different since the parametric constraints placed by by materials science and thermodynamics mean that there are only a limited number of compatible mutiparametric solutions to the engine design problem.
This does not apply just to cars. Cake mixers, bicycles, pens, passenger aircraft, etc. are more alike than different, its because as the state of the art improves and matures, it becomes apparent that there are only a limited number of viable solutions to the design problem. Initial ideas which were promising are found to be impractical from a variety of perspectives.
(There is rumour that the Volkswagen 1.4 TSI engine, a novel solution to engine design requirements, is going to be discontinued because it is too expensive to make. )
Now the point about all this is that society can be considered a multiparametric system, being composed of multiple competing and interacting elements, and as such, society can be looked at from a systems engineering perspective.
It was Jim Kalb's writings that got me thinking about looking at society this way. His battle against modernism is based upon a traditionalist perspective. The argument, as I see it, being that traditional cultures such as Islam and Chinese Confucianism have lasted because they cater towards human beings better than modernism does. After reading this, I asked myself the question, given the stability of Confucian and Islamic society, what sort of rules of operation produce a systemically stable society?
When you look at it from a systems engineering point of view you see that stable and relatively advanced societies seem to operate under a relatively narrow systems of rules; what C.S. Lewis called the "Tao of Life." In fact these rules can be don't actually have to be divinely inspired, rather they are relatively self evident to any man of moderate reflection. Christian writers would have called these operating parameters Natural Law. Anyone who is really interested should have a read of C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man, where he quotes similar passages from Hindu, Norse, Egyptian, Roman, Jewish, Greek and Chinese texts.
Some of these rules of system operation can be summed up as follows:
The existence of a morality which is independent of the individual.
A belief in objective truth.
Censure of some kind for transgression of the rules.
Benefit of some kind for concordance with them.
Just and fair dealings with others
Consideration of others in our actions.
Preference for our own kind.
Sexual restraint.
Magnanimity.
The fact that these cultures, which lasted for centuries, separated both temporally and spatially should have broad common approaches to their operation suggests that stable complex societies may only be possible if run according to these broad principles. The fact that large scale promiscuity, institutionalised lying and moral relativism have not stood out as organising principles amongst surviving cultures suggest that from a systems perspective, these operating rules may be inimical to system stability. Relatively advanced stable societies may only be possible under a narrow set of system parameters.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Engine Failure.
In the previous post, I tried to illustrate, using the engine example, of how optimising for one paramenter in a multiparametric system, may result in a deterioration of the the system itself. The question is, why does this occur?
Most stable systems have negative feedback loops, in that any perturbation from the designed state is met with immediate corrective action by the system itself to ensure its stability. The real danger arises when there is no negative feedback system, here the system progressively deviates from the desired state to a point of self destruction.
Now an engine motor, like society, is a human designed thing, and its operation is effectively under supervision. It follows then that the human operator is part of the system itself and being a intelligent and sentient being, why doesn't the human recognise the dangers beforehand and take corrective action?
In the first instance, the human operator may not care about the system integrity at all, and may actually wish the system to fail. Marxists, for instance, pursued active policies to destroy traditional bourgeoisie society which were wildly successful. The Marxists believed they could build a better engine.
In the second instance, the operator of the system may be operating it under ignorance, either deliberate or innocent, and does not recognise that the system is in dangerous territory. Perturbations from the desired state which are obviously malignant are easily recognised and corrected, but perturbations which in the short term appear benign, or positively beneficial, are the most dangerous. Here the danger is not recognised, and in instances where there is apparent positive benefit, actually encouraged, accelerating the system decline.
All societies recognise the socially destructive effect of murder and make prohibitions against it. Very few societies see the socially corrosive effects of inflation and sexual liberation, seeing them as a benign or even positive perturbations of the system. Improvements in the same way that "chipping the engine" improves system performance. Its all win-win until it isn't.
Here in Australia, we are very sexually liberated. Our statisticians tell us that only 75% of people will marry, and of those that do 50% will divorce. That's a lot of emotional pain, loneliness, disrupted childhoods, domestic violence, etc. Most people cannot see the link between "bonding failure" and sexual liberation, but it's there. Great party, hell of a hangover.
Sexual repression was in many ways a bad thing, but sexual liberation, may in the long run, turn out to be a very, very bad thing. The problem with long run damage is that it is not noticed by short term minds. Especially whilst the corrosion is "pleasant".
"Pleasant" corrosion is perhaps the most dangerous corrosion at all. In democratic societies, the mob, fixated on the here and now, refuse to believe that what is pleasantly beneficial and without consequence currently, will turn out to be malignant.
America's economic golden age spanned from the beginning of the 50's to the end of the 60's. The chairman of the Fed at the time was William McChesney Martin, Jr. He was the man who saw the Fed's role as "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going". (Negative feedback against popular approval). He was your classic mulitparametric analyst. He did not believe that the Fed could simply base its policy on a single indicator, rather its policies should be based on a thorough analysis of the economy. He was big picture man of fierce independence. Check out the Wiki link. This point struck me as rather pertinent:
Most stable systems have negative feedback loops, in that any perturbation from the designed state is met with immediate corrective action by the system itself to ensure its stability. The real danger arises when there is no negative feedback system, here the system progressively deviates from the desired state to a point of self destruction.
Now an engine motor, like society, is a human designed thing, and its operation is effectively under supervision. It follows then that the human operator is part of the system itself and being a intelligent and sentient being, why doesn't the human recognise the dangers beforehand and take corrective action?
In the first instance, the human operator may not care about the system integrity at all, and may actually wish the system to fail. Marxists, for instance, pursued active policies to destroy traditional bourgeoisie society which were wildly successful. The Marxists believed they could build a better engine.
In the second instance, the operator of the system may be operating it under ignorance, either deliberate or innocent, and does not recognise that the system is in dangerous territory. Perturbations from the desired state which are obviously malignant are easily recognised and corrected, but perturbations which in the short term appear benign, or positively beneficial, are the most dangerous. Here the danger is not recognised, and in instances where there is apparent positive benefit, actually encouraged, accelerating the system decline.
All societies recognise the socially destructive effect of murder and make prohibitions against it. Very few societies see the socially corrosive effects of inflation and sexual liberation, seeing them as a benign or even positive perturbations of the system. Improvements in the same way that "chipping the engine" improves system performance. Its all win-win until it isn't.
Here in Australia, we are very sexually liberated. Our statisticians tell us that only 75% of people will marry, and of those that do 50% will divorce. That's a lot of emotional pain, loneliness, disrupted childhoods, domestic violence, etc. Most people cannot see the link between "bonding failure" and sexual liberation, but it's there. Great party, hell of a hangover.
Sexual repression was in many ways a bad thing, but sexual liberation, may in the long run, turn out to be a very, very bad thing. The problem with long run damage is that it is not noticed by short term minds. Especially whilst the corrosion is "pleasant".
"Pleasant" corrosion is perhaps the most dangerous corrosion at all. In democratic societies, the mob, fixated on the here and now, refuse to believe that what is pleasantly beneficial and without consequence currently, will turn out to be malignant.
America's economic golden age spanned from the beginning of the 50's to the end of the 60's. The chairman of the Fed at the time was William McChesney Martin, Jr. He was the man who saw the Fed's role as "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going". (Negative feedback against popular approval). He was your classic mulitparametric analyst. He did not believe that the Fed could simply base its policy on a single indicator, rather its policies should be based on a thorough analysis of the economy. He was big picture man of fierce independence. Check out the Wiki link. This point struck me as rather pertinent:
Martin was a graduate of Yale, where his formal education was in English and Latin rather than economics.Big picture long term man.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Chipping the Engine.
Modern passenger car engines, such as this one, are conservatively designed. Their components are not stressed to their limits in order to preserve engine life and reliability. The fact that components are not pushed to their limits gives after-market component manufactures the opportuinty to exploit this phenomena to change the parameters of the engine operation. By reprogramming the engine's computer management system, frequently large boosts in power can be achieved.
(notice the parabolic "return" curve)
An engine that has been "chipped" usually has it warranty voided. As the "boosting" of the engine usually comes at the expense of engine life and reliability.
A primitive form of "chipping" was used during WW2. Some military aircraft had War Emergency Power setting. This setting pushed the engine beyond its intended design parameters with the following results;
Now human society can be considered a multi-parametric system that only maintains its long term cohesion as long as its constituent parts operate within conservative limits. The conservative limits can be pushed for a time, and given the large degree of "conservatism"in the system, can appear "apparently stable", much like an engine that's been chipped. With the same consequences: the engine breaks down suddenly and without warning.
The intrinsic problem with systems with a large degree of component redundancy is that fatal changes in system operating parameters can occur and initially appear quite innocuous and beneficial, their true malignancy being manifest sometime later on. Intelligent men who understand the system will try to take corrective measures to restore it to its initial state. But to the man possessed of a short time horizon or inability to extrapolate in the future(most of humanity), the "boost in system power" is without consequence as he cannot see that the "engine" is rapidly wearing away. Likewise many social changes are accepted by the bovine masses because they are pleasant and unable to see how they can be harmful in any way. When the critics of the social changes point out that the system is going to fail, they look around them and see everything working perfectly and dismiss them. Until it doesn't
(notice the parabolic "return" curve)
An engine that has been "chipped" usually has it warranty voided. As the "boosting" of the engine usually comes at the expense of engine life and reliability.
A primitive form of "chipping" was used during WW2. Some military aircraft had War Emergency Power setting. This setting pushed the engine beyond its intended design parameters with the following results;
In normal service, the P-51H Mustang was rated at 1,380 hp, but WEP would deliver up to 2,218 hp.[3] The Vought F4U Corsair, not originally equipped for WEP, later boasted a power increase of up to 410 hp (17%) when WEP was engaged.[2] ............. All WEP methods result in greater-than-usual stresses on the engine, and correspond to a reduced engine lifetime. For some airplanes, such as the P-51, use of WEP required the plane to be grounded after landing and the engine torn down and inspected for damage before returning to the air. (My italics)The point about all this is that engines are mulitparametric systems and stability and long life expectancy is achieved by designing the engine within conservative parameters. The inbuilt "margin of saftey" in component design can allow at times for quite significant excursions from the usual design parameters but come at the expensive of system life and integrity.
Now human society can be considered a multi-parametric system that only maintains its long term cohesion as long as its constituent parts operate within conservative limits. The conservative limits can be pushed for a time, and given the large degree of "conservatism"in the system, can appear "apparently stable", much like an engine that's been chipped. With the same consequences: the engine breaks down suddenly and without warning.
The intrinsic problem with systems with a large degree of component redundancy is that fatal changes in system operating parameters can occur and initially appear quite innocuous and beneficial, their true malignancy being manifest sometime later on. Intelligent men who understand the system will try to take corrective measures to restore it to its initial state. But to the man possessed of a short time horizon or inability to extrapolate in the future(most of humanity), the "boost in system power" is without consequence as he cannot see that the "engine" is rapidly wearing away. Likewise many social changes are accepted by the bovine masses because they are pleasant and unable to see how they can be harmful in any way. When the critics of the social changes point out that the system is going to fail, they look around them and see everything working perfectly and dismiss them. Until it doesn't
Friday, May 06, 2011
The Law of Parabolic Returns.
There are several intellectual assumptions which I feel are at the root of many of society's maladies. One of the them is what I would call is the misattribution of linearity.
The erroneous logical process runs as follows. Let's say something called X is good, then even more by implication, is better. It's runs on the assumption that systems are linear and predictable. It's common error that's seen in many facets of life. Take for example vitamins. Small doses of vitamins are definitely beneficial to individuals who are vitamin deficient, but at ever greater doses, the effects become negligible and some instances harmful. Likewise with exercise, many people, especially sportsmen, are of the the opinion if a little bit of exercise is good for you even more is better and you can never really get too much of it. Public policy makers, who view education in the same light as motherhood, extrapolate its benefits in the same way.
It's a common intellectual pathology and it exists amongst both the left and right to varying degree.
Very few systems of any complexity are linear in their effect. In fact, most systems obey what I call the law of parabolic returns. Here, what happens initially, is there is a bit of a linear effect which after a while peters out and then finally becomes negative. The more you think about complex systems, the more you recognise the effect.
My interest is as to why this phenomenon exists in the fist place. After thinking about it for a while I believe that it is due to three things:
1) Limitations in intelligence. (That is the ability to process information)
2) Limitations in knowledge, which can either be from ignorance or from a lifetime of specialisation.
3) Superficial thinking. (Sentimental thought)
4) Ideological bias. (Thought-filtering)
Understanding multi-parametric systems is hard and therefore, given the relative scarcity of deep and broad thinkers in our community, linear thinking is more likely to be the predominant mode of thought. Hence, in community based decision systems, there will be a deep bias towards linear explanations of complex phenomena. The simple solution is more easily grasped than the complex one, especially when it needs to be explained by the moronic media to the bovine masses.
Ontologically, linear models frequently bear some relation to reality under some conditions, in other words, there usually is a degree of truth to them. This is why some of the claims of Marxists, Libertarians, Keynesian's etc have some validity; they are not outright fantasy. The problem is that their model is only valid under a limited set of conditions. Conservatives err when they dismiss leftist claims reflexively; sometimes there is a degree of truth to their claims. In doing so they make themselves look stupid.
The phenomenon of linearity also explains a lot of the idiotic polarisation in our society at the moment.
Take for example, the two extremes: Communists and Libertarians.
Both of them engage in a denial of reality. The communists fail to see that collectivisation has negative consequences just as much as the rabid libertarians can't see that individualisation is just as socially destructive. In many ways they are similar having the same cognitive blinders, just different cognitive models. As the general levels of intelligence decline and Facebook becomes the information source for the majority of the voting population, simplistic solutions to complex problems will assume greater political force.
Charles Munger, Warren Buffet's partner, was a meteorologist prior to him becoming a lawyer. Meteorology is hard probably the ultimate multi-parametric discipline He describes the problem of linearity as the problem of "the man with a hammer". To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail. He has written and excellent and easily readable essay on the importance of multi-parametric knowledge: Academic Economics: Strengths and Faults After Considering Interdisciplinary needs. It's well worth a read.
The erroneous logical process runs as follows. Let's say something called X is good, then even more by implication, is better. It's runs on the assumption that systems are linear and predictable. It's common error that's seen in many facets of life. Take for example vitamins. Small doses of vitamins are definitely beneficial to individuals who are vitamin deficient, but at ever greater doses, the effects become negligible and some instances harmful. Likewise with exercise, many people, especially sportsmen, are of the the opinion if a little bit of exercise is good for you even more is better and you can never really get too much of it. Public policy makers, who view education in the same light as motherhood, extrapolate its benefits in the same way.
It's a common intellectual pathology and it exists amongst both the left and right to varying degree.
Very few systems of any complexity are linear in their effect. In fact, most systems obey what I call the law of parabolic returns. Here, what happens initially, is there is a bit of a linear effect which after a while peters out and then finally becomes negative. The more you think about complex systems, the more you recognise the effect.
1) Limitations in intelligence. (That is the ability to process information)
2) Limitations in knowledge, which can either be from ignorance or from a lifetime of specialisation.
3) Superficial thinking. (Sentimental thought)
4) Ideological bias. (Thought-filtering)
Understanding multi-parametric systems is hard and therefore, given the relative scarcity of deep and broad thinkers in our community, linear thinking is more likely to be the predominant mode of thought. Hence, in community based decision systems, there will be a deep bias towards linear explanations of complex phenomena. The simple solution is more easily grasped than the complex one, especially when it needs to be explained by the moronic media to the bovine masses.
Ontologically, linear models frequently bear some relation to reality under some conditions, in other words, there usually is a degree of truth to them. This is why some of the claims of Marxists, Libertarians, Keynesian's etc have some validity; they are not outright fantasy. The problem is that their model is only valid under a limited set of conditions. Conservatives err when they dismiss leftist claims reflexively; sometimes there is a degree of truth to their claims. In doing so they make themselves look stupid.
The phenomenon of linearity also explains a lot of the idiotic polarisation in our society at the moment.
Take for example, the two extremes: Communists and Libertarians.
Charles Munger, Warren Buffet's partner, was a meteorologist prior to him becoming a lawyer. Meteorology is hard probably the ultimate multi-parametric discipline He describes the problem of linearity as the problem of "the man with a hammer". To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail. He has written and excellent and easily readable essay on the importance of multi-parametric knowledge: Academic Economics: Strengths and Faults After Considering Interdisciplinary needs. It's well worth a read.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
An Interesting Article.
One of the reasons why I think the Modern West is in decline is because the political theory upon which it is premised is based on a misunderstanding of human nature. One of the great fallacies which is incorporated into western political and legal theory is the myth of the "rational man". By which I mean, the theory that the average man is a sober and reflective judge when it comes to political judgment. The myth is actually a composition of two fallacies:
1) The effective doctrine that each man's political deliberation is just as valid as another's. This denies the validity of experience, study and IQ.
2) The myth that men are impartial judges of data. Whereas in reality both conservatives and liberals "filter" away data that is inconvenient and effective have a rationalisation hamster that justifies their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.
One of the hardest things to do, when attempting to think, is to try and eliminate one's biases from one's reasoning. It is possible, but what it requires is a devotion to the totality of data present and not filtering data away which is inconvenient.
For example, I am an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. Not because I have some emotional agenda which I want to keep intact, rather its because the totality of the data that I have seen makes the CO2 argument appear a bit weak. Now the Medieval warm period had lower CO2 levels than today. This in itself does not invalidate the CO2 argument, since it is quite possible that there are several mechanisms of climate change, and good scientist trying to understand how climate actually works will acknowledge this. He will not try to deny data which is inconvenient to his preferred theory, rather he will modify his theory to incorporate the data. When a scientist tries to "hide the decline" I know that he is more committed to his ideology than to understanding the truth.
Its not a scientific paper but a good article (from the left wing perspective) of how a lot of people are "biased" when it comes to processing information.
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the population "feel-think" instead of "truth-think" and and any political theory or constitution which fails to take this into account is a bit like an civil engineering course which neglects soil mechanics: It's going to eventually fail.
Our political process has not been corrupted as a result of outright conspiracy, the problem is more fundamental. As political power is passes from the few to the many, the likelihood of policy being decided on sentiment instead of reason becomes greater. Feel good policies become predominant over are-good policies.
Perhaps the reasons why democracies eventually fail is because, by becoming every more inclusive, they become incapable of making the hard decisions that ensure their survival. Universal suffrage paves the way for political instability.
1) The effective doctrine that each man's political deliberation is just as valid as another's. This denies the validity of experience, study and IQ.
2) The myth that men are impartial judges of data. Whereas in reality both conservatives and liberals "filter" away data that is inconvenient and effective have a rationalisation hamster that justifies their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.
One of the hardest things to do, when attempting to think, is to try and eliminate one's biases from one's reasoning. It is possible, but what it requires is a devotion to the totality of data present and not filtering data away which is inconvenient.
For example, I am an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. Not because I have some emotional agenda which I want to keep intact, rather its because the totality of the data that I have seen makes the CO2 argument appear a bit weak. Now the Medieval warm period had lower CO2 levels than today. This in itself does not invalidate the CO2 argument, since it is quite possible that there are several mechanisms of climate change, and good scientist trying to understand how climate actually works will acknowledge this. He will not try to deny data which is inconvenient to his preferred theory, rather he will modify his theory to incorporate the data. When a scientist tries to "hide the decline" I know that he is more committed to his ideology than to understanding the truth.
Its not a scientific paper but a good article (from the left wing perspective) of how a lot of people are "biased" when it comes to processing information.
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the population "feel-think" instead of "truth-think" and and any political theory or constitution which fails to take this into account is a bit like an civil engineering course which neglects soil mechanics: It's going to eventually fail.
Our political process has not been corrupted as a result of outright conspiracy, the problem is more fundamental. As political power is passes from the few to the many, the likelihood of policy being decided on sentiment instead of reason becomes greater. Feel good policies become predominant over are-good policies.
Perhaps the reasons why democracies eventually fail is because, by becoming every more inclusive, they become incapable of making the hard decisions that ensure their survival. Universal suffrage paves the way for political instability.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Speculation on Beauty.
A week or so ago, Roissy linked to another series of female facial composites. Here, beautiful actresses were paired together over several iterations to produce a final result. ( See below)
Looking at the pictures, I get the impression that while the final facial composite is attractive, she is not as attractive as nearly all of the originals. I suppose what I'm getting at is that true beauty is perhaps some ideal proportion combined with some unique markers of identity. These unique markers i.e. shape of nose, eyes, lips etc may be the finishing touches which make a woman exceptionally beautiful rather than just pretty.
Looking at the pictures, I get the impression that while the final facial composite is attractive, she is not as attractive as nearly all of the originals. I suppose what I'm getting at is that true beauty is perhaps some ideal proportion combined with some unique markers of identity. These unique markers i.e. shape of nose, eyes, lips etc may be the finishing touches which make a woman exceptionally beautiful rather than just pretty.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Homophily and Psychological Entropy.
Following up on the previous post I thought I would link a few studies on the subject of homophily.
(I've decided not to provide an exhaustive list of references because this is a blog post and not a formal paper. People interested in pursuing the subject in more detail can try putting the term homophily into Google Scholar and more than enough references can be found)
Homophily is the preference for things which are similar to ourselves. Sociological studies looking at how humans form relationship networks show that humans, nearly always, prefer to associate with people who are similar to themselves. Be that in race, class or custom. Furthermore this preference is observed from a very early age and across all races, well before the affects of socialisation kick in.
An interesting review paper, Childrens Developemental Understanding of Ethnicity and Race is long but worthwhile reading. Paralleling their cognitive development from concrete to more abstract, it appears that children become aware of the differences between individuals from as young as three years of age, and as they mature they become more specific with their understanding of differences. With further cognitive maturity they are able to abstract and generalise these differences upon groups. It appears that this process is natural, in that it is not the result of parental education or socialisation but rather something that is innate. Attempts to try to thwart this process by trying to de-emphasise the differences only seems to exert a paradoxical effect, in that it results in a greater awareness of them.
McPherson et al, performed a rather large review of the subject, and their findings indicated that:
It appears that we are genetically biased to prefer "similars" overs "differents" and whatever the mechanism involved, there must be some form of cognitive/biochemical imperative that drives this: The selection is favoured by "psychological entropy", in other words, there is some psychological benefit for these choices.
This does not mean that this psychological imperative cannot be overcome. Other studies have demonstrated that in small groups, where there is limited choice in friendship formation, there is less homophily than in large groups. In other words, given a small group of people, a fellow similar person may possess traits which are in the net repulsive, and hence the individuals repulsion may overcome any homophillic tendency towards them, while a different may posses multiple attractive traits which overcomes the homophillic bias.
I'm white but Halle Berry possess more than enough positive traits for me to choose her over Meryl Streep: always.
However in large groups, where there are more homophillic "choices" available, statistical probability prevails and people tend to gravitate towards similar individuals
An anonymous commentator sent me a fascinating link to a "turtle and frog experiment";
It is a human tendency to extrapolate from the particular to the universal, thinking what works locally will work globally, and I think this is source of many of the problems in the West. Because Bill (the Black man) is very good friends with Peter (the Asian) whom he met at work( where there is a limited pool of homophilic choices), we generalise from this particular instance to assume that Asians and Blacks will naturally want to live together. But this generalisation is flawed because given more choices, Bill and Peter will as a group, chose similars over differents en masse. The natural psychic energy works towards differentiation, even though there may be local areas of mixing.
The minimisation of surface area is an attempt to minimise the "energy" of the system. Now I think that there is this analogous "psychological energy" in human beings and it affects human behaviour in such a way that humans drift towards the lowest energy state (Happiness, calmness, etc) I imagine that when people are grouped with other similars, it results in a low psychological energy state and are hence happy, while when grouped with differents (all other things being held constant) they exist at a higher energy state. There being a psychological imperative towards a lower state which results in happiness and less anxiety.
Now while relationships with similars results in a lower energy state. a similar who has other disagreeable features may may result in a higher "psychological energy state" than a different with lots of agreeable features. In this instance, a relationship with a different is relatively favoured. But this relationship would be at a higher energy state than a relationship between two compatible similars and hence still more prone to separation. This is confirmed in the studies which show that mixed groups have higher rates of dissolution than similar groups. The worker and the capitalist may join forces against the Nazi, but once the Nazi threat disappears they separate into their " entropically favoured" groups.
Now dissimilar groups can be bought together, but it comes at a cost. Since the psychic energy required to live amongst similars is lower than with differents, there is a natural tendency of dissimilar groups of people to seperate and self-identify, the only way to bring differents together is by pushing them together. An overriding power has to push against their natural inclinations and furthermore, the greather the dissimilarity between the two groups, the greater the overriding power that needs to be applied. Take away that power and the groups will seperate again.
Contrary to popular belief, the Serbs and the Croats do not have a long history of bloodshed with each other. Nearly all of it happening in the 20th Century, when they were joined together as a result of a variety of cultural and political forces. Within the former Yugoslavia, the differences between the two groups became more marked as the result of a bloody history and it required the repressive communist state to keep the country together by the application of extremely harsh penalties. When the Communist Government failed and this force was removed, the society reverted to its "least psychic energy" state, it broke apart. Paradoxically, the "ethnic cleansing" may have contributed to some of the stability of the region by separating the dissimilar groups. The only area of the former Yugoslavia that is still relatively "tense" is Bosnia where the groups have been forced to live together.
A multicultural state will only survive as long as it is strong enough to overcome the natural tendency of its constituent members to seperate, the more diversity the stronger the government needs to be to "keep it all together". Should the government fail, the state fractures.
Conservative thinkers have for too long been looking at multiculturalism as a racial issue instead of a human nature one. Pitting race against race instead of the realities of human nature against the fantasy of Leftist thought. People are homophillc in the same way that women are hypergamic, it's a fact of life.
(I've decided not to provide an exhaustive list of references because this is a blog post and not a formal paper. People interested in pursuing the subject in more detail can try putting the term homophily into Google Scholar and more than enough references can be found)
Homophily is the preference for things which are similar to ourselves. Sociological studies looking at how humans form relationship networks show that humans, nearly always, prefer to associate with people who are similar to themselves. Be that in race, class or custom. Furthermore this preference is observed from a very early age and across all races, well before the affects of socialisation kick in.
An interesting review paper, Childrens Developemental Understanding of Ethnicity and Race is long but worthwhile reading. Paralleling their cognitive development from concrete to more abstract, it appears that children become aware of the differences between individuals from as young as three years of age, and as they mature they become more specific with their understanding of differences. With further cognitive maturity they are able to abstract and generalise these differences upon groups. It appears that this process is natural, in that it is not the result of parental education or socialisation but rather something that is innate. Attempts to try to thwart this process by trying to de-emphasise the differences only seems to exert a paradoxical effect, in that it results in a greater awareness of them.
McPherson et al, performed a rather large review of the subject, and their findings indicated that:
Homophily in race and ethnicity creates the strongest divides in our personal environments, with age, religion, education, occupation, and gender following in roughly that order.It therefore appears that when we compare other individuals to ourselves we compare them against some predetermined hierarchy of values. It seems that we seem more attuned to racial differences than we do to educational ones and the fact that differential traits can be stratified in their importance is intself an interesting fact. I imagine that evolutionary biologists would invent some explanation to account for the phenomenon. I myself, prefer to acknowledge its existence and leave unto others speculations as to why it exists.
It appears that we are genetically biased to prefer "similars" overs "differents" and whatever the mechanism involved, there must be some form of cognitive/biochemical imperative that drives this: The selection is favoured by "psychological entropy", in other words, there is some psychological benefit for these choices.
This does not mean that this psychological imperative cannot be overcome. Other studies have demonstrated that in small groups, where there is limited choice in friendship formation, there is less homophily than in large groups. In other words, given a small group of people, a fellow similar person may possess traits which are in the net repulsive, and hence the individuals repulsion may overcome any homophillic tendency towards them, while a different may posses multiple attractive traits which overcomes the homophillic bias.
However in large groups, where there are more homophillic "choices" available, statistical probability prevails and people tend to gravitate towards similar individuals
An anonymous commentator sent me a fascinating link to a "turtle and frog experiment";
The social implications of this model are easier to see than the zoological ones. And the most interesting observation to come out of it is that even a moderate preference for living among your own kind can give rise to a dramatic pattern of segregation. What starts out as a salt-and-pepper mixture gradually evolves, over a few hundred iterations, into large blobs of almost uniform composition. Even though none of the individuals insist on racial purity, most of them wind up living with a very high percentage of neighbors like themselves.
It is a human tendency to extrapolate from the particular to the universal, thinking what works locally will work globally, and I think this is source of many of the problems in the West. Because Bill (the Black man) is very good friends with Peter (the Asian) whom he met at work( where there is a limited pool of homophilic choices), we generalise from this particular instance to assume that Asians and Blacks will naturally want to live together. But this generalisation is flawed because given more choices, Bill and Peter will as a group, chose similars over differents en masse. The natural psychic energy works towards differentiation, even though there may be local areas of mixing.
What these latter processes have in common is that they tend to minimize surface area (or the area of interface between phases). It's not implausible that racial segregation also shares this tendency, and the discovery of a connection between a social process and certain physical systems would be illuminating.
The minimisation of surface area is an attempt to minimise the "energy" of the system. Now I think that there is this analogous "psychological energy" in human beings and it affects human behaviour in such a way that humans drift towards the lowest energy state (Happiness, calmness, etc) I imagine that when people are grouped with other similars, it results in a low psychological energy state and are hence happy, while when grouped with differents (all other things being held constant) they exist at a higher energy state. There being a psychological imperative towards a lower state which results in happiness and less anxiety.
Now while relationships with similars results in a lower energy state. a similar who has other disagreeable features may may result in a higher "psychological energy state" than a different with lots of agreeable features. In this instance, a relationship with a different is relatively favoured. But this relationship would be at a higher energy state than a relationship between two compatible similars and hence still more prone to separation. This is confirmed in the studies which show that mixed groups have higher rates of dissolution than similar groups. The worker and the capitalist may join forces against the Nazi, but once the Nazi threat disappears they separate into their " entropically favoured" groups.
Now dissimilar groups can be bought together, but it comes at a cost. Since the psychic energy required to live amongst similars is lower than with differents, there is a natural tendency of dissimilar groups of people to seperate and self-identify, the only way to bring differents together is by pushing them together. An overriding power has to push against their natural inclinations and furthermore, the greather the dissimilarity between the two groups, the greater the overriding power that needs to be applied. Take away that power and the groups will seperate again.
Contrary to popular belief, the Serbs and the Croats do not have a long history of bloodshed with each other. Nearly all of it happening in the 20th Century, when they were joined together as a result of a variety of cultural and political forces. Within the former Yugoslavia, the differences between the two groups became more marked as the result of a bloody history and it required the repressive communist state to keep the country together by the application of extremely harsh penalties. When the Communist Government failed and this force was removed, the society reverted to its "least psychic energy" state, it broke apart. Paradoxically, the "ethnic cleansing" may have contributed to some of the stability of the region by separating the dissimilar groups. The only area of the former Yugoslavia that is still relatively "tense" is Bosnia where the groups have been forced to live together.
A multicultural state will only survive as long as it is strong enough to overcome the natural tendency of its constituent members to seperate, the more diversity the stronger the government needs to be to "keep it all together". Should the government fail, the state fractures.
Conservative thinkers have for too long been looking at multiculturalism as a racial issue instead of a human nature one. Pitting race against race instead of the realities of human nature against the fantasy of Leftist thought. People are homophillc in the same way that women are hypergamic, it's a fact of life.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Apologies and Commentary.
Apologies to my readers in not getting back to you earlier. Let's just say its been an incredibly hectic few weeks and jet lag has not helped.
The first thing that I want to say is that after putting up the post I realised that I had made an error. As some of the commentators correctly pointed out, Sammy Davis Jr was sitting down when compared to the others, this therefore biased the experiment, as he is both black and sitting down, therefore he was more likely to be picked, biasing the result.
There was no correct answer for this experiment. The purpose of the experiment was to see who people identified as different when asked to make a choice. From the comments section, it appears that some individuals differentiated people by their prior knowledge of them. As some commentators mentioned, Peter Lawford was born in England and the rest of group were born in the U.S., and yet, there is no way you could tell that just by looking at the picture. In other words, people were differentiating on the basis of their pre-concieved knowledge of the subject material. They weren't differentiating on what they saw they were differentiating on what they knew.
What's interesting to see is who wasn't picked as different: Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Peter Lawford. Dean Martin appears the tallest standing member and yet he was least likely picked. Why?
Frank Sinatra is the shortest guy standing so one would suppose that at least a few votes would have gone his way.
Joey Bishop and Sammy Davis Jr were the most likely to be picked. Clearly Sammy Davis Jr. is black and the only guy sitting down. While Joey Bishop doesn't have a tie.
As I said, this experiment was biased and therefore it's difficult to draw many conclusions from it but perhaps we could say that stature is less of a discriminating factor than clothing and skin colour.
......................................
The reason I put this post up was because of reflection upon the events in the New Orleans Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. It was set up as a refugee center and it soon became apparent that people who were complete strangers associated on the basis of skin color. Colin Powell, who has probably been America's best and most dignified Secretary of State recalled that that during his time as a national security advisor:
What I'm getting at is that our brains may be wired to weight certain differences more than others and that there may be default associative behaviours based solely upon appearances. Racism may be more about appearances than genetics. In much the same way females are wired to respond sexually to alpha traits, perhaps people are wired to respond positively to people who appear similar to themselves and negatively to people who look different. That is not say that this attraction/repulsion cannot be overcome, rather it's a force that may be ever present in the human psyche that needs to be taken account of by any student of human nature.
These maps of U.S. cities are stark illustration of how racially divided the country is, and yet I image many people have friends from different races. Here is an interesting map of London. These maps may not necessarily be reflections of a deliberate policy of racial segregation, rather they may be the natural effect of human beings wanting to associate with similar individuals because it is psychically beneficial. Prolonged personal contact with individuals of different races may be able to overcome our wired genetic bias, but it is a bias that remains each time we are confronted with an unknown individual/s. What this means is that while we may like and feel comfortable around a particular example of a people who look different, we may still be uncomfortable with the rest.
The first thing that I want to say is that after putting up the post I realised that I had made an error. As some of the commentators correctly pointed out, Sammy Davis Jr was sitting down when compared to the others, this therefore biased the experiment, as he is both black and sitting down, therefore he was more likely to be picked, biasing the result.
There was no correct answer for this experiment. The purpose of the experiment was to see who people identified as different when asked to make a choice. From the comments section, it appears that some individuals differentiated people by their prior knowledge of them. As some commentators mentioned, Peter Lawford was born in England and the rest of group were born in the U.S., and yet, there is no way you could tell that just by looking at the picture. In other words, people were differentiating on the basis of their pre-concieved knowledge of the subject material. They weren't differentiating on what they saw they were differentiating on what they knew.
What's interesting to see is who wasn't picked as different: Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Peter Lawford. Dean Martin appears the tallest standing member and yet he was least likely picked. Why?
Frank Sinatra is the shortest guy standing so one would suppose that at least a few votes would have gone his way.
Joey Bishop and Sammy Davis Jr were the most likely to be picked. Clearly Sammy Davis Jr. is black and the only guy sitting down. While Joey Bishop doesn't have a tie.
As I said, this experiment was biased and therefore it's difficult to draw many conclusions from it but perhaps we could say that stature is less of a discriminating factor than clothing and skin colour.
......................................
The reason I put this post up was because of reflection upon the events in the New Orleans Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. It was set up as a refugee center and it soon became apparent that people who were complete strangers associated on the basis of skin color. Colin Powell, who has probably been America's best and most dignified Secretary of State recalled that that during his time as a national security advisor:
KING: Were you ever racially profiled?My point here is not to get into the rights or wrongs of racism but to try and understand the phenomenon. It would appear that tallness and shortness is less of a discriminating factor than clothing or skin colour. And why, in the Superdome, where people were complete strangers, did people divide themselves spontaneously according to skin colour? I have difficulty believing that all the Blacks in the Superdome were bad and that all the Whites good.
POWELL: Yes, many times.
KING: And didn't you ever bring anger to it?
POWELL: Of course. But, you know, anger is best controlled. And sure I got mad.
I got mad when I, as a national security adviser to the president of the United States, I went down to meet somebody at Reagan National Airport and nobody recognized -- nobody thought I could possibly be the national security adviser to the president. I was just a black guy at Reagan National Airport.
And it was only when I went up to the counter and said, "Is my guest here who's waiting for me?" did somebody say, "Oh, you're General Powell." It was inconceivable to him that a black guy could be the national security adviser.
KING: How do you deal with things like that?
POWELL: You just suck it up. What are you going to do? It was a teaching point for him. Yes, I'm the national security adviser, I'm black. And watch, I can do the job. So, you have this kind of -- there is no African-American in this country who has not been exposed to this kind of situation.
Do you get angry? Yes. Do you manifest that anger? You protest, you try to get things fixed, but it's kind of a better course of action to take it easy and don't let your anger make the current situation worse.
What I'm getting at is that our brains may be wired to weight certain differences more than others and that there may be default associative behaviours based solely upon appearances. Racism may be more about appearances than genetics. In much the same way females are wired to respond sexually to alpha traits, perhaps people are wired to respond positively to people who appear similar to themselves and negatively to people who look different. That is not say that this attraction/repulsion cannot be overcome, rather it's a force that may be ever present in the human psyche that needs to be taken account of by any student of human nature.
These maps of U.S. cities are stark illustration of how racially divided the country is, and yet I image many people have friends from different races. Here is an interesting map of London. These maps may not necessarily be reflections of a deliberate policy of racial segregation, rather they may be the natural effect of human beings wanting to associate with similar individuals because it is psychically beneficial. Prolonged personal contact with individuals of different races may be able to overcome our wired genetic bias, but it is a bias that remains each time we are confronted with an unknown individual/s. What this means is that while we may like and feel comfortable around a particular example of a people who look different, we may still be uncomfortable with the rest.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Experiment.
I want to perform a little experiment.
Pick the odd man out from the picture below. It's not meant to be a trick question and spend less than 20 seconds on your answer. (Click on the polling widget in the right sidebar)
Commentary in two days.
Pick the odd man out from the picture below. It's not meant to be a trick question and spend less than 20 seconds on your answer. (Click on the polling widget in the right sidebar)
Commentary in two days.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Housekeeping.
Just want to let my readers know that I will be away for the next two and half weeks. Will resume blogging after then.
Kamikaze
Many Australians don't like the Japanese for what did to our Servicemen and their behaviour towards our allies. Still the generation that wrought those atrocities is nearly dead and guiltless generation has taken its place.
Whilst I have my reservations about Japanese culture, I've been quite impressed by the way in which the Japanese have handled the disaster. Where's the looting? Instead, the images that keep coming back are that of dignified people taking it on the chin.
I'm quite the proponent of nuclear power, especially of this form, and I don't suffer from the anti-nuclear hysteria that the majority of the population seem to possess. Still, it's one thing to overplay dangers and yet another to minimise them, and facts are facts, being around the Fukushima's nuclear plants at the moment is not likely to be conducive to one's health.
The Daily Mail reports on the Fukushima Fifty, a group of men who've stayed at their posts, at real danger to themselves, to try and limit the damage at the nuclear power plant. Officially they are being exposed to "regulated" amounts of radiation, but in reality, the doses they are being exposed to are probably much higher. What will happen to them, who knows for certain, but I image there will be a lot of early deaths from cancer.
I can express nothing but admiration for these men, most of whom it would appear, are volunteers. Tonight before I go to bed, I face towards Japan and raise my glass to them.
I can recognise courage when I see it.
Whilst I have my reservations about Japanese culture, I've been quite impressed by the way in which the Japanese have handled the disaster. Where's the looting? Instead, the images that keep coming back are that of dignified people taking it on the chin.
I'm quite the proponent of nuclear power, especially of this form, and I don't suffer from the anti-nuclear hysteria that the majority of the population seem to possess. Still, it's one thing to overplay dangers and yet another to minimise them, and facts are facts, being around the Fukushima's nuclear plants at the moment is not likely to be conducive to one's health.
The Daily Mail reports on the Fukushima Fifty, a group of men who've stayed at their posts, at real danger to themselves, to try and limit the damage at the nuclear power plant. Officially they are being exposed to "regulated" amounts of radiation, but in reality, the doses they are being exposed to are probably much higher. What will happen to them, who knows for certain, but I image there will be a lot of early deaths from cancer.
I can express nothing but admiration for these men, most of whom it would appear, are volunteers. Tonight before I go to bed, I face towards Japan and raise my glass to them.
I can recognise courage when I see it.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Caveman Love: Some Interesting Papers.
It been a rather busy few weeks and so I have not been able to blog as much as I would like. But I found a few papers that are quite interesting and might be worth a few comments.
The first article I quickly want to look it as by Roy Baumeister and Jean Twenge,
The Cultural Supression of Female Sexuality.
Interesting paper from the evo bio point of view. I'm not a fan of this approach to psychology and the frame of reference from which it approaches things. Still Baumeister and Twenge put forward a good case that it is other women who have the strongest influence on female sexual behaviour. An interesting quote
Another interesting paper is by Critelli and Bivona;
Women's Erotic Rape Fantasies: An Evaluation of Theory and Research.
Rape fantasies tend to be surprisingly common by Women. Just in case there are any Aspergoids reading this, This does not mean women want to be raped. A fantasy is a controlled mental excursion, not an uncontrolled physical act. For the retards out there, there is a difference. Still, what the rape fantasy implies that female sexual pleasure is in someway stimulated by loss of control, compulsion and and a sense of being dominated. Now it needs to also be understood that in the fantasy the woman is raped by a man of her choosing, in other words, she gets to vet the "rapist". Still what the fantasy shows is domination by a desired man.
Following this theme is another interesting paper based on a small sample of women;
Turning on and Turning Off: A Focus Group Study of the Factors That Affect Women's Sexual Arousal
Some interesting comments were made in this study, particularly the following:
Finally, another interesting paper (which I couldn't get the PDF link to) by DeMaris,
Elevated sexual activity in violent marriages: hypersexuality or sexual extortion?
This is a fascinating paper with several interesting links. DeMaris basically notes that couples in abusive marriages have intercourse approximately 4.33 times a month more than non-abusive couples. It would appear that DeMaris explains this discrepancy by postulating that this increased frequency is due to male coercion of the women.
The first article I quickly want to look it as by Roy Baumeister and Jean Twenge,
The Cultural Supression of Female Sexuality.
Interesting paper from the evo bio point of view. I'm not a fan of this approach to psychology and the frame of reference from which it approaches things. Still Baumeister and Twenge put forward a good case that it is other women who have the strongest influence on female sexual behaviour. An interesting quote
The researchers reported that women cited external pressures of gossip and reputation as forces that pushed women to hold back sexually.and
The crucial items, however, concerned where the support for the double standard was perceived to reside. Millhausen and Herold (1999) asked their respondents “Who judges women who have had sex with many partners more harshly?” (p. 363). The answers reflected a strong perception that women enforce the double standard. The most anti-sexual of women’s groups advocated the single standard of sexual purity for both genders. Thus, support for the double standard is not a matter of anti-sexual feeling or an instance of the general pattern of lower female permissiveness.
Only 12% of the women responding to the survey stated that men were the harsher judges, whereas 46% identified women as harsher. (The rest reported that men and women judged equally harshly.) The authors seem to have concurred that their findings pose a challenge to the theory that men stifle female sexuality: “Why is there a belief that men are controlling women’s sexuality, yet women perceive other women to be the harshest judges of their own behavior?” (p. 367).Women's social psychology can best be understood from the dynamics of the herd. The alpha females of the pack set the rules and "inclusion" in the group is dependent upon adopting their norms. The pressure to conform it just a woman's natural tendency to belong to the group.
Another interesting paper is by Critelli and Bivona;
Women's Erotic Rape Fantasies: An Evaluation of Theory and Research.
Rape fantasies tend to be surprisingly common by Women. Just in case there are any Aspergoids reading this, This does not mean women want to be raped. A fantasy is a controlled mental excursion, not an uncontrolled physical act. For the retards out there, there is a difference. Still, what the rape fantasy implies that female sexual pleasure is in someway stimulated by loss of control, compulsion and and a sense of being dominated. Now it needs to also be understood that in the fantasy the woman is raped by a man of her choosing, in other words, she gets to vet the "rapist". Still what the fantasy shows is domination by a desired man.
Following this theme is another interesting paper based on a small sample of women;
Turning on and Turning Off: A Focus Group Study of the Factors That Affect Women's Sexual Arousal
Some interesting comments were made in this study, particularly the following:
Style of Approach/Initiation and TimingI this age of equality, when it comes to life's more primitive functions a man's gotta lead.
Women described various styles of approach/ initiation
as potential turn-ons or turn-offs but the importance
to their own arousal of how a partner approached them
was a key theme:
P: I want to say his “game” . . . you know, how the man
approached you, how did he get me to talk to him
longer than like, five minutes? How did he get me to
be interested in him and the ways he went about it.
[African American group]
Being “surprised” or “overpowered” by a partner was
described as arousing by a number of women:
P-1: It could be because I was raised Catholic and
everybody jokes to me, comes up behind me, you
know “I’m not responsible” then, and he comes up
behind me and puts his arms around my waist and it’s
like, well “it’s not my fault.” If they’re going to take
me from behind, it’s not my fault.
P-2: I’m not Catholic and that is very sexually arousing.
P-3: I totally agree. [46+ group]
A potential turn-off was a partner who was too “polite” or
who asked for sex:
P: If somebody askedme to do something. I hate that. Like,
“will you go down on me?” and stuff and like blatantly
ask me . . . It will eventually get there, they don’t have
to ask me, but like the asking is . . . the biggest turn-off
ever. [18–24 group]
Although being able to communicate about sex with a
partner was often seen as positive, particularly in the older
age groups, a partner verbally “asking” for sex was widely
regarded as a turn-off:
P-1: My husband, as long as we’ve met . . . he’s just a very
polite young man and he just would, you know, while
we are in the throes of sexual passion, he would just
say “May I have sex?” or something like that, and I
wish [he] wouldn’t ask. That’s a turn-off.
P-2: It’s like, just do it.
P-3: Even now. . . he’ll say something like . . . “Well,
tonight can we have sex?” or something like that, and
I’m like “Why don’t you just come and you know,
kiss me and like that.”
P-4: Make love to me.
P-5: Exactly.
P-6: Seduce me.
P-7: Don’t make me say okay.
P-8: It’s not something that’s a turn-on. [25–45 group]
were less aroused
Finally, another interesting paper (which I couldn't get the PDF link to) by DeMaris,
Elevated sexual activity in violent marriages: hypersexuality or sexual extortion?
This is a fascinating paper with several interesting links. DeMaris basically notes that couples in abusive marriages have intercourse approximately 4.33 times a month more than non-abusive couples. It would appear that DeMaris explains this discrepancy by postulating that this increased frequency is due to male coercion of the women.
Although conflict and violence are positively correlated (DeMaris, 1993), conflict per se diminished sexual activity. Nevertheless, at a given level of conflict, the use of violence by husbands served to elevate sexual frequency. This appears to make most sense only when one assumes that a husband's violence has a coercive effect. Otherwise, if conflict generally "turns partners off" to sex, it would not be reasonable to assume that violence--often the result of conflict--turns them back on
He does however issue this caveat,
Another limitation of the study is that sexual coercion has only been inferred but not measured directly. Essentially, the analyses have relied on sociological "detective work" to build a case based on circumstantial evidence alone. I have argued, based on theoretical reasoning, that sexual coercion, or extortion, should be revealed by an interaction between sexual frequency and violence (including injury) in their effects on wives' depressive symptomatology. To the extent that this was found, that reasoning is supported. However, without wives indeed acknowledging that they were coerced into having sex, that inference remains somewhat speculative.
Personally, I think DeMaris's theory needs some more work. Arguing, which is a rational phenomena seems to turn women off sex, where as violence and agression operates on a more "primitive" level seems from the data available. DeMaris assumes a cognitive model of aggression where it is the end point of a series of deliberately escalating chosen activities. Information is interpreted through one channel. Perhaps a better understanding of this phenomena is made by considering a two channel (I'd say three) model of female cognition. Here women filter information through rational and primitive channels where on the rational level women are repulsed by violent men but on the other more primitive channel women are aroused by overt machismo. This approach easily explains how a woman can be both repulsed and yet attracted to a man. It also explains why the "nice guy" is percieved as "rationally good" but the primitive channel is not stimulated by his actions and as such the relationship is viewed as asexual. Another interesting paper, looking at sexually inactive marriages,
Sexually Inactive Marriages, by Denise Donelly (Sorry could only get the abstract) noted that low sexual activity was correlated with low violence . Now it is possible that all the increased coital frequency is a product of coercion, but interesting paper posits and alternative hypothesis. Shitty marriages may be kept together with good sex. In other words, a woman may not like her marriage but the sex may be good.
Exploring Relationships Among Communication, Sexual Satisfaction, and Marital Satisfaction, by Litzinger and Gordon seems to suggest so.
Now there are other studies which show that women are sexually unhappy in abusive relationships but one of the fundamental problems with abused women is getting them to separate from the abuser. They quite frequently go back. I my limited experience, women have no trouble leaving a nice beta but seem to have a hard time leaving an abusive bad boy. Perhaps the "psychic benefit" that keeps women in abusive relationships comes about from stimulation of primitive centers of the brain by alpha behaviour.
Now I'm not suggesting that the way to fire up a flagging marriage is for a man to beat his wife, rather displays of over displays of traditional masculinity and some playful physicality, (throwing her over your shoulder etc) may help.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Good Post by Roosh V.
I think Roosh V gives the definitive account of why some men are refusing to "grow up". I think there's more to life than screwing in Dad's basement, but if I had his philosophy..........
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Hymonwitz's snowflakes.
Much to the disgust of some of the men in the manosphere, I have lent some support to Hymnowitz's assertion that some men are stuck in permanent adolescence. I suppose where I and Hymnowitz differ is that I also assert that the the standards of women have also fallen and that many of them are stuck in a permanent adolescence as well.
Psychologically, adult maturity can be thought of the completion of a process starting in childhood, when the individual is solely focused on his self and finishing in late adolescence when the the just mature adult is able to engage in society as a socially conscious member. The narcissist can then be thought of as someone who is stuck in adolescence, someone who has not matured.
Apparently my town is hosting a conference on Personality Disorders. One of the main speakers will be Dr Jean Twenge, a psychologist with an interest in Narcissism. According to Dr Twenge Narcissism is on the increase and compared to generations before, much more prevalent now. Some people might assume that this is simply the old just whining away as the old are prone to do, but Dr Twenge has studies which go back to the 30's which show a definite change in the prevalence of this anti social vice. The changes are objective. To quote Dr Twenge.
The Narcissist is self absorbed and frequently overrates their own self worth and achievements. Being so focused on themselves ,they lack empathy towards others, especially when their actions hurt them. It's a profoundly solipsistic vice, turning the individual in on themselves to the exclusion others. When a Narcissist loves, it's the love of percieved benefits from the other, not the love of the other.
What Dr Twenge has also noted that combined with an increase in narcissism has also been loss of sense of control, the modern narcissist loves themselves and their achievements but feels not in control of their lives. In other words, when something bad happens to them its someone else's fault.
To quote Twenge,
In the space of two generations women, Hymnowitz's "mature women" have become as narcissistic as men.
Twenge, in her papers, goes on to speculate about what has caused this rise in narcissism. She is more nuanced than most and recognises that it is multifactoral but puts a good deal of blame on modern psychology, with its emphasis on self-esteem, especially the unearned variety. Twenge also notes that narcissism seems to vary amongst races and cultures. With Blacks having the highest rates, followed by whites and then Asians. Interestingly she blames a lot of the current financial troubles, not just on the banks, but on a narcissistic society that feels it was owed more than it made and is unable to see its own complicity in its misfortune, preferring to blame the "Bankers" for everything. Once again the avoidance of responsibility.
Personally, I think the Modern Anglo culture of individualism(which is malignantly creeping throughout most of the West) is probably to blame a lot for this phenomena. The endless emphasis on personal rights instead of community obligations tends to reinforce the idea of being a "special snowflake" to whom everyone owes a living. Not having a community also enforces the ideal, multiculturalism, creating societies devoid of a common identity, tends to reinforce the notion of everyman for himself.
What really interests me is the rapid female "advancement" in narcissism to which feminism must be given its rightful due. It's continual emphasis on right's without responsibilities I think, is the prime accelerent in this case. Mark Richardson recently put up a post which illustrated this quite nicely, it's also why the Modern U.S/Canada/UK/Australian girl is such a risky bet. Hymnowitz's female maturity seems elusive.
The political implications of this rise in narcissism are troubling and I really don't want to go into them further now, but just how considered is a vote by man who refuses to acknowledge that he is responsible for anything and yet is "owed something". The future is going to be ugly.
Psychologically, adult maturity can be thought of the completion of a process starting in childhood, when the individual is solely focused on his self and finishing in late adolescence when the the just mature adult is able to engage in society as a socially conscious member. The narcissist can then be thought of as someone who is stuck in adolescence, someone who has not matured.
Apparently my town is hosting a conference on Personality Disorders. One of the main speakers will be Dr Jean Twenge, a psychologist with an interest in Narcissism. According to Dr Twenge Narcissism is on the increase and compared to generations before, much more prevalent now. Some people might assume that this is simply the old just whining away as the old are prone to do, but Dr Twenge has studies which go back to the 30's which show a definite change in the prevalence of this anti social vice. The changes are objective. To quote Dr Twenge.
If we assume that the NPI still has a normal distribution, this shift in the mean score means that there are now more college students at the top end of the original distribution. For example, 24% of 2006 college students score 1 SD above the 1979–1985 narcissism mean, compared to 15% during that original data collection. (One SD above the 1979–1985 is a score of 22, representing someone who answers the clear majority of items—22 out of 40—in a narcissistic direction.) It is also interesting to note how recent means compare to data collected on a sample of celebrities such as movie stars,
reality TV winners, and famous musicians (Young & Pinsky, 2006). This celebrity sample had a mean NPI score of 17.84, not much higher than the 2006 regression equation mean of 17.29. Thus, recent college students approach celebrities in their levels of narcissism.
(Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory )
The Narcissist is self absorbed and frequently overrates their own self worth and achievements. Being so focused on themselves ,they lack empathy towards others, especially when their actions hurt them. It's a profoundly solipsistic vice, turning the individual in on themselves to the exclusion others. When a Narcissist loves, it's the love of percieved benefits from the other, not the love of the other.
What Dr Twenge has also noted that combined with an increase in narcissism has also been loss of sense of control, the modern narcissist loves themselves and their achievements but feels not in control of their lives. In other words, when something bad happens to them its someone else's fault.
To quote Twenge,
Two meta-analyses found that young Americans increasingly believe their lives are controlled by outside forces rather than their own efforts. Locus of control scores became substantially more external (about .80 standard deviations) in college student and child samples between 1960 and 2002. The average college student in 2002 had a more external locus of control than 80% of college students in the early 1960s. Birth cohort/time period explains 14% of the variance in locus of control scores. The data included 97 samples of college students (n = 18,310) and 41 samples of children ages 9 to 14 (n = 6,554) gathered from dissertation research. The results are consistent with an alienation model positing increases in cynicism, individualism, and the self-serving bias. The implications are almost uniformly negative, as externality is correlated with poor school achievement, helplessness, ineffective stress management, decreased self-control, and depression.and,
The results clearly support the alienation model outlined in the introduction. As individualism has increased, locus of control has become more external. These data cannot determine the exact origins of the increase in externality; however, several trends seem relevant. Greater cynicism and alienation leads people to believe that their personal actions mean little. Blaming others for negative events has also become more popular, and people are less likely to believe that anyone can be a success despite obstacles in the way. Rather than leading to independence, the increasing individualism of American culture has led people to believe that there is little they can do to change the larger world.Twenge has noted that the level of narcissism has risen for both sexes but to quote Twenge again,
These data also suggest that the outside environment has a strong effect on children. This is contrary to the usual view of children as isolated within their homes and influenced primarily by their families. Children as young as age 9 demonstrate change over time in locus of control, probably because of changes n the larger social environment. Of course, the effect of the larger environment might be mediated by the children’s parents; if parents become more external over time, they may pass these attitudes along to their children. The cynical cultural lesson that one’s fate is determined by outside forces apparently reaches children at an early age
(It’s Beyond My Control: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Increasing Externality in Locus of Control, 1960–2002)
We also analyzed single-sex means when they were reported. Because not all studies reported means broken down by gender and some unpublished single-sex means were obtained directly from authors, these analyses represent a subsample of the data that may
not be representative. Thus, these analyses should be interpreted with caution. College men’s NPI scores are not significantly correlated with year (b5.16, ns; k544, d50.12), but college women’s scores are (b5.46, po.002, k544, d50.28). The sex difference in
NPI scores has also declined, b5 .46, po.001; k543 (we conducted this analysis by computing the effect size d for sex differences and weighting the regression by w, the standard weight for d). In 1992 (the first year for which sex difference data were available), men scored 0.45 standard deviation higher than women on the NPI, but
by 2006, men scored just 0.15 SD higher. Thus the sex difference in narcissism has declined from half a standard deviation (a medium effect size) to one-seventh of a SD (a small effect size)
and
The most recent college students score about the same on the NPI as a sample of celebrities (Young & Pinsky, 2006). The change is linear and steady, with the correlation significant when the analysis is limited to certain years only. It also appears that women are driving the increase in narcissism, consistent with the finding that the generational
increase in agentic traits and assertiveness was stronger for women
(Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory )
In the space of two generations women, Hymnowitz's "mature women" have become as narcissistic as men.
Twenge, in her papers, goes on to speculate about what has caused this rise in narcissism. She is more nuanced than most and recognises that it is multifactoral but puts a good deal of blame on modern psychology, with its emphasis on self-esteem, especially the unearned variety. Twenge also notes that narcissism seems to vary amongst races and cultures. With Blacks having the highest rates, followed by whites and then Asians. Interestingly she blames a lot of the current financial troubles, not just on the banks, but on a narcissistic society that feels it was owed more than it made and is unable to see its own complicity in its misfortune, preferring to blame the "Bankers" for everything. Once again the avoidance of responsibility.
Personally, I think the Modern Anglo culture of individualism(which is malignantly creeping throughout most of the West) is probably to blame a lot for this phenomena. The endless emphasis on personal rights instead of community obligations tends to reinforce the idea of being a "special snowflake" to whom everyone owes a living. Not having a community also enforces the ideal, multiculturalism, creating societies devoid of a common identity, tends to reinforce the notion of everyman for himself.
What really interests me is the rapid female "advancement" in narcissism to which feminism must be given its rightful due. It's continual emphasis on right's without responsibilities I think, is the prime accelerent in this case. Mark Richardson recently put up a post which illustrated this quite nicely, it's also why the Modern U.S/Canada/UK/Australian girl is such a risky bet. Hymnowitz's female maturity seems elusive.
The political implications of this rise in narcissism are troubling and I really don't want to go into them further now, but just how considered is a vote by man who refuses to acknowledge that he is responsible for anything and yet is "owed something". The future is going to be ugly.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Hymnowitz Interview
Kay Hymnowitz was involved in a live chat over at the Wall Street Journal. I've excerpted some of the comments and for those who are interested, added some commentary.
Ms. Hymowitz, Your essay draws a number of generalizations from anecdotal evidence, and while it may not be far from the mark, let me respond with an anecdote of my own. I'm a 20-something guy with a bachelors from Harvard and (soon) a law degree from Columbia. I eat healthy, work out, am reasonably good-looking; I have a job lined up at one of the top firms paying $160,000 per year; and I'll be clerking for a federal judge. And after spending years looking for the classy, ambitious, and charming gal that your essay proclaims to be the norm, I've all but given up the hunt. I've met girls at bars and parties, through blind dates and friendly set-ups, and here are the results of my own informal survey. At least two-thirds are far more interested in the "hookup scene" than I am, and couldn't care less about "sensitivity" or "smarts." The other third is either looking to be a Stepford wife, or is so inflated by her own sense of accomplishment that the only suitable match would be a billionare financier or a royal prince. So to put the question back at you: where have the good women gone? [SP: This was my experience as well when I was dating. Lot's of girls acted cheap, but what used to disgust me the most were the women who would not give me the time of day before I was a doctor but were fawning over me after I became one. I suppose they saw me as a potential income stream. In order to "screen" for this type, when people asked me what I used to do, I'd reply "Human Resources".]
2:05 |
|
2:07 |
|
2:08 |
|
2:09 |
|
2:11 |
|
2:12 |
|
2:14 |
|
2:15 |
|
2:17 |
|
2:18 |
|
2:20 |
|
2:31 |
|
2:32 |
|
2:33 |
|
2:33 |
|
2:33 |
|
2:33 |
|
2:35 |
|
2:35 |
|
2:37 |
|
2:38 |
|
2:39 |
|
2:39 |
|
2:41 |
|
2:42 |
|
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thoughts on Kay Hymowitz's Immature Men and Good Women.
The two articles (Link 1, Link 2) penned by Kay Hymowitz have certainly generated a lot of comment in the manosphere, most of it being idiotic. Hymowtiz's assertion, that men are stuck in pre-adolescence, in my eyes at least, certainly has some truth to it. The Western Male today seems a pale counterpart of his father.
The vigorous response by the manosphere to Hymowitz's article seem to follow several common themes. Namely:
1) Hymowitz is a feminist.
2) Hymowitz is correct in that men are pre-adolescent but they have become that way because of women's behaviour. (In other words, male culture is the product of female punishment and rewards.)
3) Wanting to get married is not a determinant of maturity.
4) Marriage is a bum deal for men and that's why men are opting out.
While some of these points certainly have a small degree of truth to them none of them really counter her claim that lots of men are stuck in an extended adolescence and are therefore unattractive to women who want to get married.
Many of the manosphere totally missed the point of her article. Nowhere did Hymnowitz say that men should be forced to marry, her lament was that the pool of marriageable men from which women could choose from was so small. At the heart of her article is the claim that many of today's Western males are unattractive as long term mates, in other words, there are few marriageable alpha's. Hymowitz did not say that the older frat boy should marry, in fact she clearly saw that such a man was a poor long term mate, it just that men who are "beta providers" and who live in star wars inspired decor are also sexually unappealing.
The prime cultural exemplar of Hymowitz's contention was George Sodini. Here was a man with a responsible job, house, normal BMI and with a desire to find a permanent mate; all features which Hymowitz ostensibly mentions as the traits of an ideal man, yet was completely invisible to women.
He ticked all the right boxes with regard to "responsibility" yet is still considered a loser by women, and therefore unmarriageable, because he had no alpha features.
This view of course syncs with the Roissyite view that many men are beta's and therefore sexually unattractive to women. It's therefore a bit rich seeing Roissy's accolytes attack Hymnowitz when she states that beta males are unattractive whilst alpha men are. Her post essentially channels Roissy.
Where She and Roissy differ however is on the subject of Marriage of a marker of a responsible male. Personally, I think Roissy is perfectly correct in his position provided you're a hedonistic atheist. (Though that may be open to debate.) If you're a Christian male on the other hand, marriage is a desired state of affairs and a sign of adulthood.
A useful thought exercise would be to ponder what if Hymnowitz could get her dream and have all men alpha up. The results will probably be to her expectation. Roissy has written about this before:
No, what keeps the alive the hopes of today's modern women is a pool of supplicant betas who will do what it takes to secure thesexual love of a woman and will agree to any terms.
Where Hymowitz errs, is in the assertion that today's woman is in some way more "mature" than the pre-adolescent male upon which she rightly heaps her scorn. She labours under the illusion that the modern woman is some sort of prize that men will aspire to. Hymowitz has framed her argument in such a way that would be laughable to the good men of the past.
Men and women of the past would both agree that men today leave a lot to be desired, but the fall in quality has been most marked amongst women. From the vantage point of the past, the modern woman today is vapid, slutty, superficial, unfeminine and hence extremely poor quality material.
What marks the transition from adolescence to adulthood is the gradual assumption of responsibility, maturity and independence. What separates the child, the adolescent and the adult is the increasing influence of reason over emotion. The mature adult takes his emotions into account but is not ruled by them. Enter the concept of the Rationalisation Hamster. The concept needs to be understood as the cognitive mechanism by which thought is subordinated and aligned to emotion. The function of this "hamster" is to provide a superficially plausible (if not logically consistent) series of thoughts to align and justify whatever action is required by the emotional state. It is effectively the thought process of an immature adolescent.
The "triumph" of modern Feminism has been to culturally and legislatively legitimise this rationalisation hamster. Marriage is no longer seen as a reciprocal relationship amongst two people, but rather a flexible arrangement of convenience based on the emotive state of the parties. The logic of abortion as a woman's rights issue (ignoring the rights of the father) is another example. The furthering of women into fields that they are totally unsuited to, such as the military, police and firefighting services yet another. Feminism has also been able to reframe feminine identity; what previous generations would have thought trampy and flighty, modern feminism has been able to portray as mature.
When Hymnowitz points to the Star Wards nerds, all I can think of is the "mature" female SATC equivalents. I admit that men sitting in mom's basement jerking off to online porn are pretty shallow, but so are the women who spend their lives shopping for bags, clothes whilst riding the carosel waiting for the enabling supplicant whom will provide them with lifestyle to which they are accustomed. People from a less enlightened age would consider a person who endlessly obsesses about their looks, the latest pair of Jimmy Choo's and who Brad is dating now, pretty superficial. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
One of the recurring comments from the men that are "players" is how the experience of women leads to a contempt of them. It's an interesting phenomenon since wouldn't experience of these wonderful, empowered, educated SATC types at least lead to fond recollections and a overall impression of female goodness? The common explanation is that these men are unable to bond and are narcissistic. However another explanation is never considered: Perhaps these women aren't worth bonding to. Perhaps they are nothing more than an esotrogen toy and without their sexual potential would be ignored by men. Perhaps the reason they are dumped so often is that they have no qualities which lead men to love them. It's a thought.
The problem with Hymowitz's article is not its assertion, which I agree with, but its balance. The shortage of good men is portrayed against a surfeit of good women. But she should have asked around more. It's not just a problem of an abundance of loser men, as any committed male committed Christian who wants to get married will tell you, "Where have all the good women gone?"
(Another example of the "Mature and accomplished behaviour, check out Dalrock's Single in the Suburbs.)
The vigorous response by the manosphere to Hymowitz's article seem to follow several common themes. Namely:
1) Hymowitz is a feminist.
2) Hymowitz is correct in that men are pre-adolescent but they have become that way because of women's behaviour. (In other words, male culture is the product of female punishment and rewards.)
3) Wanting to get married is not a determinant of maturity.
4) Marriage is a bum deal for men and that's why men are opting out.
While some of these points certainly have a small degree of truth to them none of them really counter her claim that lots of men are stuck in an extended adolescence and are therefore unattractive to women who want to get married.
Many of the manosphere totally missed the point of her article. Nowhere did Hymnowitz say that men should be forced to marry, her lament was that the pool of marriageable men from which women could choose from was so small. At the heart of her article is the claim that many of today's Western males are unattractive as long term mates, in other words, there are few marriageable alpha's. Hymowitz did not say that the older frat boy should marry, in fact she clearly saw that such a man was a poor long term mate, it just that men who are "beta providers" and who live in star wars inspired decor are also sexually unappealing.
The prime cultural exemplar of Hymowitz's contention was George Sodini. Here was a man with a responsible job, house, normal BMI and with a desire to find a permanent mate; all features which Hymowitz ostensibly mentions as the traits of an ideal man, yet was completely invisible to women.
He ticked all the right boxes with regard to "responsibility" yet is still considered a loser by women, and therefore unmarriageable, because he had no alpha features.
This view of course syncs with the Roissyite view that many men are beta's and therefore sexually unattractive to women. It's therefore a bit rich seeing Roissy's accolytes attack Hymnowitz when she states that beta males are unattractive whilst alpha men are. Her post essentially channels Roissy.
Where She and Roissy differ however is on the subject of Marriage of a marker of a responsible male. Personally, I think Roissy is perfectly correct in his position provided you're a hedonistic atheist. (Though that may be open to debate.) If you're a Christian male on the other hand, marriage is a desired state of affairs and a sign of adulthood.
A useful thought exercise would be to ponder what if Hymnowitz could get her dream and have all men alpha up. The results will probably be to her expectation. Roissy has written about this before:
No, the solution is to give the New Girl Order *exactly* what it wants: Game, and an army of cads that practice it. Force feed the beast until it is choking on its own gluttony. The emissaries of the Great Lie must have the consequences of their ignorance and treachery shoved down their throats. In time, the unabashed pursuit of hedonism and the embrace of Darwinistic nihilism (two potent forces which, coincidentally, happen to have truth and pleasure on their side. Exhibit B: God is dead) will raze the neoliberal monolith to the ground, and from the ashes the eternal human cycle will begin anew, strengthened and revitalized. A complete reconciliation with our tragic destiny gives us the only chance to avoid it.On the other hand, what alpha Christian male wants to be sloppy sixth's to the modern shrew? The problem for this type of guy is the lack of quality women out there. He wants to get married but the pickings are so slim. Hymowitz thinks that today's average girl is "quality" product, however I think that there is a fair amount of legitimate disagreement as what constitutes quality No matter what her career achievements, a woman who has ridden the carousel and perhaps made a few trips to the abortuary is not quality material from a Christian point of view. A mature and responsible christian male would think such a woman is high risk material for infidelity and divorce and by-pass her. If there were an en masse movement to alpha up, the following would happen. The hedonists would pump and dump while the Christians would become more choosy; the pool of marriageable suitors for women would shrink.
No, what keeps the alive the hopes of today's modern women is a pool of supplicant betas who will do what it takes to secure the
(Something to aspire to long term?)
Men and women of the past would both agree that men today leave a lot to be desired, but the fall in quality has been most marked amongst women. From the vantage point of the past, the modern woman today is vapid, slutty, superficial, unfeminine and hence extremely poor quality material.
What marks the transition from adolescence to adulthood is the gradual assumption of responsibility, maturity and independence. What separates the child, the adolescent and the adult is the increasing influence of reason over emotion. The mature adult takes his emotions into account but is not ruled by them. Enter the concept of the Rationalisation Hamster. The concept needs to be understood as the cognitive mechanism by which thought is subordinated and aligned to emotion. The function of this "hamster" is to provide a superficially plausible (if not logically consistent) series of thoughts to align and justify whatever action is required by the emotional state. It is effectively the thought process of an immature adolescent.
The "triumph" of modern Feminism has been to culturally and legislatively legitimise this rationalisation hamster. Marriage is no longer seen as a reciprocal relationship amongst two people, but rather a flexible arrangement of convenience based on the emotive state of the parties. The logic of abortion as a woman's rights issue (ignoring the rights of the father) is another example. The furthering of women into fields that they are totally unsuited to, such as the military, police and firefighting services yet another. Feminism has also been able to reframe feminine identity; what previous generations would have thought trampy and flighty, modern feminism has been able to portray as mature.
When Hymnowitz points to the Star Wards nerds, all I can think of is the "mature" female SATC equivalents. I admit that men sitting in mom's basement jerking off to online porn are pretty shallow, but so are the women who spend their lives shopping for bags, clothes whilst riding the carosel waiting for the enabling supplicant whom will provide them with lifestyle to which they are accustomed. People from a less enlightened age would consider a person who endlessly obsesses about their looks, the latest pair of Jimmy Choo's and who Brad is dating now, pretty superficial. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
One of the recurring comments from the men that are "players" is how the experience of women leads to a contempt of them. It's an interesting phenomenon since wouldn't experience of these wonderful, empowered, educated SATC types at least lead to fond recollections and a overall impression of female goodness? The common explanation is that these men are unable to bond and are narcissistic. However another explanation is never considered: Perhaps these women aren't worth bonding to. Perhaps they are nothing more than an esotrogen toy and without their sexual potential would be ignored by men. Perhaps the reason they are dumped so often is that they have no qualities which lead men to love them. It's a thought.
The problem with Hymowitz's article is not its assertion, which I agree with, but its balance. The shortage of good men is portrayed against a surfeit of good women. But she should have asked around more. It's not just a problem of an abundance of loser men, as any committed male committed Christian who wants to get married will tell you, "Where have all the good women gone?"
(Another example of the "Mature and accomplished behaviour, check out Dalrock's Single in the Suburbs.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
