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 du 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