Of Islands and Archipelagos

On a recent podcast I did with Rollo Tomassi and Rian Stone, hosted by Anthony Johnson from the 21 Convention, I found myself annoyed at having my perspective called out as being one of nihilism. As I reflected on why this was, I found myself returning to the definition of nihilism, which is the philosophical position that life lacks inherent meaning. Calling someone a nihilist seems to be the insult de jour as of late, I won’t pretend to understand why, but it’s on the surface a very effective rhetorical gambit while engaged in a debate concerning ethics or morality. After all, what someone considers meaningful is often tied to higher aspirations and lofty ideals such as morality, creating a better world or the likes.

However, in general it seems to rear its ugly head when one’s analysis of a prescribed course of action is a negative one. For instance, if one calls an approach mired in idealism as being idealistic given the present climate, one is likely to be called a nihilist due to one’s perceived denigration of aspirational ideas, when in reality if one aspires to something unrealistic, it is a dream not a plan of action.

As people have argued, there are many things that give people meaning in their life, there are men who find meaning through working 80 – 100 hours a week, day in and day out in a specialized area attempting to climb the dominance hierarchy. There are men who reject this pursuit in favor of more time with family, their interests or many other things. Continue reading

Advertisements

Of Lobsters and Serial Murder

In last week’s essay, I began an analysis of dominance hierarchies, that I will continue in this essay. I recommend reading last week’s first.

Humans have many explanatory frameworks, we use physics to explain the natural world, at the most base level these are explanations of what caused an observation to happen. A research framework comes in one out of two broad categories. It can try to explain the “What” of something, or the “Why” of something. In the case of the red pill, the old seduction community was very much focused on what, “What makes that guy more successful with women”, “What do women want” and “What do women actually behave like”.

In the red pill, most of the “research” as of late has been focused on the “why”, “Why do women pick the mates they do”, “Why do women prefer these characteristics in mates”, “Why do women require higher investment from these men before they’ll have sex, but less investment from this other group of men.”

As the observations were made, theories invented, and experiments conducted, many men came to the conclusion that the old framework (the blue pill) was flawed as an explanatory framework for intersexual dynamics. If one were to look at the blue pill illusion as an explanatory framework that seeks to explain intersexual dynamics and the human mating dance, there are simply too many observations that it does not explain.

  • Why do women divorce men who are loyal, conscientious, predictable, loving, high earners and intelligent?
  • Why are women “not happy” when they find themselves married to the type of man the traditional view would define as a catch?
  • Why do women prefer bad boys?
  • Why did this guy have to take her on four dates and didn’t even get laid, when she hooked up with that guy after knowing him for 5 minutes?

This means that there are observations for which the explanatory framework has no real explanation. Continue reading

Office Supplies and Dominance Hierarchies

When I started my first corporate job, two of my mentors who had a tendency to contradict each other, gave me the same piece of advice “Don’t dip your pen in the company ink”. This is a piece of very simple advice that helps protect a man who is about to enter a corporate environment for the first time. Back when I finished college prior to the Victorian Moral Panic that has swept across Universities in the last few years, you got used to mixing business with pleasure on a near constant basis. This is actually a major difference between school and work, as throughout your schooling there is really no clear-cut distinction between work-life (school) and private life (outside of school).

The distinction between work-life (corporate) and home life (outside of corporate) was a very clear-cut distinction for many years, that grew from the industrial revolution. Back when most people worked in agriculture, or hunting/gathering prior to that, there was no real split between “work” and “leisure”, because most days would be a mixture of both. With the industrial revolution came the factories, you came in the morning, left when the bell rang and came back the next morning. This was also the structure of more “white collar” professions, you came in at a set time in the morning, left at a set time in the afternoon or evening.

However, with the advent of the computer age, this has gradually changed. As constant connectivity has become ubiquitous, the line between work and not-work has been slowly worn down. Most modern corporations expect the employees to go the extra mile, for instance coming in on weekends, evenings and even to pull all-nighters in order to make deadlines. When you add in events such as Christmas parties, team-building events, conferences, travel schedules, and various other things, many employees may spend 50 – 70 hours a week in the office in some capacity, plus work from home, spend time together outside of normal work hours and normal work environments, therefore its unsurprising that the personal and business bleed together over time.

It’s also no great surprise that 38% of workers who were surveyed admitted to dating someone they worked with at some point of their career. 28% dated someone further up in the company hierarchy, and a whopping 18% admitted to dating their boss [1]. Women were more likely to date their boss with 35% of women who had dated someone at work (compared to 23% of men), dating up in the hierarchy. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Differentiation and Features

I had another essay building on last weeks essay on responsibility and accountability planned this week, but I saw a tweet that caught my interest and started me down the rabbit hole of sexual market value again. More specifically, how what constitutes a high quality product in the sexual market place.

Christian McQueen (@TheCadClub on twitter) recently tweeted out the following:

If this trend continues it’ll be very easy for pretty girls world-wide:

1. Be in shape

2. Don’t have grey hair (dye it if need be)

3. Don’t be a hateful feminist

You’ll have your pick of great men.

I’ve touched on this idea before in Gendernomics and previous essays, most particularly in Female Sexual Strategies Part 2. The gist of my argument was that if one has a market, where a need exists and the only options to satisfy that need are poor ones, then those poor solutions can still do remarkably well. This is a function of the contrast effect more than anything, in that if you’re 6 ft 1, and go out with a group of men who are 6 ft 3 and taller, you look short by comparison.

This comes down to the fact that people would rather have a need fulfilled to a minimal degree as opposed to not having it covered at all. If you have to drive in a nail, and you can’t find a hammer at a good price, you may use a wrench or a rock. You have a need you have to fulfill, a preferred way to fulfill it (want) but you will compromise.

As I’ve mentioned, I travel a lot for work, and this means that I also end up talking to a lot of random people on various means of transport and in general. One of the most interesting groups to talk to are women in their 70s, 80s and 90s, who have daughters and granddaughters, as they tend to lament the lifestyle choices of their offspring. This is because back in their day, before egalitarian equalism, it was common knowledge what men wanted in a wife, often embodied in aphorisms like

The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” – Know how to cook and take care a man.

Behind every great man is a great woman” – Know how to support your man and help him succeed.

I could extrapolate much from these simple sentences, however our culture contains enough examples of what type of wife or husband is undesirable in comics, literature and culture. Personally my favorite examples in comics is from Andy Capp and Bringing up Father, both demonstrate the dynamic of hapless Beta male with the domineering, harridan of a wife. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, this was a funny caricature, these days such comics appear almost prescient in how gender relations have developed. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Illusions of Grandeur

This post went through multiple revisions when it came to the title. This is quite abnormal for me as I usually just title a post when I start writing it and leave it like that. It started off as “Delusions of Responsibility”, then it became “Illusions of Control” then it morphed into “Toxic Doses” and then it became Illusions of Grandeur.

A major cornerstone of life that many men are raised without these days is accountability. In fact, many problems in our modern world stems from risk being disconnect from reward, power from accountability, and actions from consequences. We saw this in 2008 in our financial system where those who had made millions and more, have yet to face any consequences for their role in what almost sank our financial system.

We see it in politics where the goldfish memory of the great majority of voters means that there is hardly ever a debate regarding “What has the incumbent accomplished?” but rather a series of sales pitches about what both candidates are promising that they will do. This is funnily enough a cluster-b seduction tactic as well, known as “future faking”.

It’s also quite present in intersexual dynamics, best summarized by Rollo Tomassi as “The goal of feminism is to maximally restrict male sexuality while removing all restrictions on female sexuality“. One of the core ideas of feminism is the “subject-object” dichotomy, wherein a subject can only act, and an object is acted upon. While I think this is very much flawed philosophy, in that every single human in all of history will have lived their life on varying and shifting degrees of the area in between. It does create an interesting perspective. In that it does in essence free women from the risk and consequences of the actions pertaining to intersexual dynamics, not in actuality but in social perception. However, as risk can never be eliminated, only managed or transferred, it means most of this risk has been placed on men.

Continue reading

Gendernomics: Bachelor Nation

I came across some interesting statistical observations recently regarding singles [6], that show that for the first time, the number of singles are outnumbering the people in relationships. While the decline in marriage can be explained through concepts such as risk. Meaning that in the current climate a man can be “zeroed out” as Rollo put it, quite easily if he makes a poor choice in mate, but largely I think it comes down to men intuitively avoiding marriage due to having seen their families, and friends go through bitter divorces. If one watches 9 people jump off a cliff, splat against the ground, and then is told “I’m sure you’re different”, a sensible person would step away from the edge.

From a needs-perspective this is very interesting though, because the needs that are satisfied by marriage, have to be sated somehow. The sexual need can be satisfied outside of marriage for both sexes, the same is true for the need for friendship and companionship to some extent. Even reproduction outside of marriage is possible through the use of surrogates and sperm donors. The one need that persists though, is the same that men have always provided for women, namely provision and protection. Likewise, it is probable that if women could be entirely provided and protected without having to contract a Beta male to do so, they would prefer to share Alpha males.

However, the need to consolidate comes when a women realize that they are no longer commanding the same market value as they did in their younger days, and feels that she must settle down now in order to avoid being left on the market.

The question is, how can women ensure provision without having to make the trade with men?

Continue reading

Gendernomics: Emergent Strategies

I use the concept of emergent strategy in the Gendernomics book when explaining and to some extent describing the various ways in which a strategy can form as a sum of individual actions.  “Strategy as a pattern” is perhaps the more interesting one, and the one that forms the foundation of the book, “The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning“. This book is a critique of strategic management literature, often based in Drucker, Taylor and Porter, the titans of planned strategy, where the chief argument presented by Henry Minzberg is that in a rapidly changing world, long-term strategic planning is destined to fail. Instead he argues that the interactions of the company with outside forces over time will form the company strategy.

The novel approach by Minzberg was a stark contrast to the top-down strategic planning literature in vogue at the time. In the planned strategy camp, retreats where executives buried themselves in a mixture of analytical work and creativity to determine Visions, Missions, SMART goals, KPIs and strategies for how to move the company to new heights were the prescription for how to build a great company. Minzberg’s position was much more simply that in a rapidly changing world, by the time the executives and strategy consultants emerged from their retreat, the data they based their decisions on may already be outdated. Thus, the only way to “do strategy” in a world marked by rapid change and innovation is to train your staff well, set goals and assume that the parts will form a coherent whole.

I’ve on occasion referred to this as “Chaos theory strategy” in that order is expected to arise from chaos, and the actions, choices and thoughts of potentially thousands of people must align in order for the strategy to be coherent. A key factor of emergent strategy is that it can only be identified when one looks at the development of the company over time, historically speaking. This is a much more fluid way to think about human behavior if one takes the vantage point of extreme macro. Our cultures and societies are shaped by billions of individual decisions, chains of reasoning, emotional reactions and actions taken. Continue reading