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.

The End Justifies The Criteria

If asked, what is the point behind intersexual dynamics, or to put in a less academic term the human mating rituals? I’m sure that many would answer “To find a mate that one can have children with”, if the only acceptable configuration that one can think of for such a relationship is a long-term pair-bonded and state sanctioned union, then it follows that the criteria of for a “good mate” would follow this end goal. If one were to spend the rest of one’s natural life with someone and raise children as part of a team, one would want that person to be loyal, devoted, self-sacrificing, conscientious, loving, and stable, among a myriad of traits.

In fact, the traits that make a good long-term partner are most likely many of the traits that make a person a good employee or citizen as well. I mean, you want someone who is honest, follows the law, do their best to improve their little piece of the world and is loyal, in short, someone who has “grown the hell up” and “sorted themselves out”.

The characteristics that Dr. Peterson often mentions in his work, on how men need to “grow up”, “stand up straight”, and become pro-social, virtuous men so that they may climb the dominance hierarchy and thus become the type of men women choose as their husbands and to father their children. Is the same explanatory framework I was presented with throughout most of my childhood. Boy meets girl, boy is nice to girl, girl and boy live happily ever after. One can break this down into signal interest through asking her out, demonstrate provider capabilities, pro-social characteristics, and virtue, then be rewarded by the female’s appreciation.

This model goes a long way towards explaining dating and relationships within the traditional model of long-term monogamous relationships. However, there is much data that it does not explain. For instance, one could argue that men may be putting all their pro-social characteristics that have been central in the old dating model into their OKcupid and Match.com data, and thus the selection criteria on these platforms reflect the old model of women looking for pro-social boyfriends and husbands. However, it does not explain Tinder, which reduces the selection criteria purely to appearance, and has a Gini coefficient rating worse than 95% of countries. [1]

Thus, just like “discrimination” is perhaps one variable in soup of variables when it comes to explaining the earnings gap, the characteristics identified by traditional models, only explain part of the equation, not the whole.

It explains why women seek out husbands that are more put together than them, who earn more than them, who are smarter than them and stronger than them. It does not explain why they in Rollo’s favorite example bang some guy 5 minutes after meeting him in the foam party in Cancun on spring break, while making another man wait 5 dates for sex.

This is the problem with the model, it presupposes that the only valid configuration for a sexual relationship is within a long-term relationship. Thus it can only be used as a model if the goal is to follow the blue pill illusion.

The Anti-Social Model

Recently I tweeted out that the most successful man in terms of gene pool impact was Genghis Khan, a man who by most codes of morality would be anything but a symbol of virtue and moral good. In Peterson terms, he would be an agent of chaos more than a disciple of order. This was both an interesting fact I found, but also a tongue-in-cheek joke aimed at those who insist on including various moral dimensions a central variables when dealing with reproductive fitness.

I can see the motivation in doing so, because if one were to view humanity as a whole, along a series of dimensions, such as sustainability, technological development, peace, health and many others, it is an inevitable conclusion that it requires men who are inherently pro-social in their behavior. A society filled with anti-social men is likely to devolve into chaos in short order, because they are acting out of self-interest and self-gratification, without considering the consequences to anyone except themselves.

One can see why a society with many men like Genghis would often fail to reach or even aspire to the levels of civilization and cooperation required to maximize such variables. Naturally the means by which conflict is negotiated matters, in a society where words are used to engage in- and resolve conflict, the consequences are not as severe as one in which actual violence is accepted, or in fact encouraged.

One of the bigger surprises for my relatively young self at the time, still believing that women wanted a nice, polite, generous, selfless, dutiful and thoughtful man, was that men such as Richard Ramirez (The Night Stalker), Charles Manson and Ted Bundy received hundreds of love letters from women of all ages and variations. These 3 men all got married while either on trial or after being convicted of over 50 murders between them. (14 Ramirez, 30+ for Bundy, 7 for Manson).

These men were hardly the type of men that any man should aspire to, but their appeal to large numbers of women dwarfs what most men experience in their life. If the criteria for intersexual success was being pro-social and serial killers get hundreds if not thousands of women writing them love letters, then your average worker ant, 5 ft 10, 25 – 30% body fat, making $50k – $60k a year, at a normal white or blue collar job, dressed in cargo shorts and a sportsball jersey should have to beat women off with a stick. This is clearly not the case.

What dawned on me was that understanding Dr. Peterson’s perspective on intersexual dynamics and thus the traditional perspective, is quite easy. Based on a discussion between Dr. Peterson and Sam Harris on truth, Dr. Peterson verbalized his definition of “Truth” as nestled within an evolutionary moral imperative, whereby anything that leads to the destruction of the human species, could not be true by his definition. This obviously departs quite radically from the normal definition of truth but gives a very good insight into the blue pill framework, morality comes first and everything is subservient to ethics.

If one nestles intersexual dynamics within a moral framework, where the ultimate goal is the survival of the human species and the means by which one does so is to maintain order. Then “Alpha fucks” can obviously not be true, because “Alpha fucks” is chaos, “Beta Bucks” is order. If women select men from a pro-social dominance hierarchy, meaning those men who are high IQ, high in conscientiousness, agreeableness and virtuous, then this creates order.

However, if women select their mates based on an anti-social dominance hierarchy, meaning those men who are low in agreeableness, low in conscientiousness, low in neuroticism, high in extroversion and not necessarily high in IQ, then it that creates chaos. Assume for a minute that what made a Bundy, Manson or Ramirez were 100% heritable traits, as I mentioned in biology this means that within a few generations every man will have those traits.

How long does the human species survive? Well, it may survive for a long time, but how long does civilization last? It falls into the type of Mad Max inspired wasteland dominated by violent warlords within a generation or two.

Summary and Conclusions

The most memorable quote I ever heard in the soon to be 15 or so years where I’ve read manosphere literature was the introduction to an early David DeAngelo seminar, “Attraction isn’t a choice”, this was later complimented by Roissy and Rollo almost a decade later, with the puzzle piece of “negotiated attraction.

To draw on my understanding of Freud, “Alpha Fucks” is ID driven, “Beta Bucks” is super-ego driven. Put in different terms, with “Alpha fucks” the sex is an end in itself, with beta bucks, sex is a means to an end. A woman fucks Alpha because she wants to fuck Alpha, she fucks Beta because she wants something from Beta.

However, as Freud very accurately pointed out living in larger social groups, having civilizations and a modern economy dependent on specialization and trade, requires that the super-ego and ego are in control of the ID. Women are just as, if not more prone to fall in line with what they are told from the greater group, so women know that the group wants them to desire and reproduce with the man who is conscientious, agreeable loyal, humble, maybe a bit anxious, has sorted himself out and is a virtuous pillar of the community.

This benefits society on many levels, it maintains order, the economy, peace and prosperity. However, what would happen in nature if a man who is conscientious, agreeable, anxious, not extremely extroverted, runs into a man who is carefree, confident bordering on narcissistic, disagreeable and extroverted? The former man loses, because his value to a woman comes from the context of the society in which they live. The latter man wins because his value to a woman is part of who he is, it has not been bestowed upon him by the world, but taken from the world by strength of will.

Sources

[1] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

Advertisements

6 comments on “Of Lobsters and Serial Murder

  1. hanfengzi says:

    An observation on Genghis Khan: he was only “anti-social” from the point of view of peoples other than his own. To his own people, he was a pro-social genius who epitomized the values of his culture, organized and led them to astounding wealth and success (albeit not for that long historically).

    Food for thought on how AF/BB might be resolved and unified in evolutionary context.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Rebel Yells says:

    It very much is a matter of perspective of the times. We live in a human zoo of our own making these days and we like to think that because we have cell phones and computers that we have always lived this way but we haven’t. Modern man, as we see ourselves today, is the evolutionary equivalent of an eye blink. In reality, 99.9999% of total human history was lived under a completely different set of rules and circumstances.

    I submit to you Carl that it is not Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson, or Ted Bundy that are the anomalies here but Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos. As your post notes, women instinctively know this. They may play all day on their Twitter accounts and iPhone 20s but on a limbic, genetic level they know what’s really what. Your mass murderers are only anomalies in the human zoo. After all, it is difficult to sleep at night if the guy in the pen beside you is trying to kill you.

    Prior to the agricultural age, you would not have seen these numbers of betas versus alphas (the famous 80/20 split). There wouldn’t have been the time for it. A man would have been too busy hunting, fishing, gathering, competing sexually, and quite frankly, man killing, to have time for all this thinking. Your Gates’, Zuckerbergs’ and Bezos’ would have been extinct or rendered extinct shortly thereafter for lack of a willing mate. Serial killer alphas versus brainy billionaire betas would more likely have looked like the 80/20 split in reverse. It is only with the age of agriculture and especially industrialization that brought on our modern age of the beta. They are essentially much-needed cogs in the wheel for a post-industrial society.

    At the end of the day, when a Viking long boat shows up on your shoreline do you want Bill Gates manning the wall or Richard Ramirez? If the Barbarians are sacking Rome, whom do you want on your shield line, Mark Zuckerberg or Charlie Manson? If Attila comes a knocking with his horde at your gate, you better have some Ted Bundy guys in your tribe because your Jeff Bezos guys will get you slaughtered.

    It was the guys that could kill… swiftly, brutally and effectively… that protected the tribe and lived long enough to sow their seed and that seed is still there just beneath the surface. You don’t even need to scratch that deep. We try to channel the urge these days into positive social structures…civilian police forces, the military, even sports but it is still there.

    The colonization of the Americas was only a few hundred years ago and millions of indigenous peoples swiftly became a footnote in history. They were less efficient killers, even the Aztecs that were feared particularly for their brutality. Three quarters of a century ago, millions were being murdered in Europe during WWII. Heck, look at how things quickly go to pot when civilization is temporarily removed like during Hurricane Katrina. The mass murderers are here to stay and on a genetic level it probably is a good thing for the species or it would have been rooted out of us a long time ago. Somehow, I don’t think these ladies will let that happen as illustrated with your serial killer groupies.

    Like

    • I agree with your analysis. Warren Buffett perhaps put it best when in his analysis of his own success pointed out that he is successful because he was lucky enough to be born in a country, at a time where his skill of allocating capital is highly valued. Had he been born 10000 years ago on the African plains his best hope would be to serve as a means for others to get away from predators. Very good analysis on your end.

      Like

    • PatrickSMcNally says:

      That’s an absurd comment. Charles Manson was 5-2 and even Ted Bundy was average at 5-10. Manson was not the type to be fighting against any army that is not made of Charlie Chaplin types. Actually Mark Zuckerberg is probably a lot closer to a great many fellows who signed up at the recruiting office on December 8, 1941, than either Manson or Bundy.

      Manson & Bundy were more like the types who would evade a draft and stay on the homefront banging chicks while someone like Bill Gates would have been drafted. This is wishful thinking on your part to imagine that what draws women to these types of serial killers is a picture of them as a warrior. A much better comparison is if you imagine a short stocky figure of Joseph Stalin (similar build to Manson actually) who has a political knack for playing his rivals off against each other while presenting himself as the party-moderate and consolidating power in his hands. The traits which make fellows like Manson & Bundy appealing to many women are quite different from what you’re imagining with talk about a siege of Rome.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. […] theme of my past two essays “Office Supplies and Dominance Hierarchies” and “Of Lobsters and Serial Murder“. The individual as an individual and as part of a group. This is always going to be a […]

    Like

  4. anonymous says:

    w/r/t to JBP, be very interesting to see if any #metoo skeletons pop out of his closets. I believe he had/has the ego and drive that likely imply an amount of testosterone and certainly as a professor ha/has access to impressionable co-eds. On the other hand, if he really did catch oneitis in elementary school and all that, mebbe he kept his dick outta crazy all this time, for whatever righteousness about the one true path he may have been carrying water for the whole time. He definitely has blind spots about female behavior, especially as it has been unleashed these past few decades. Maybe his daughter’s health situation was consuming enough that his gonads never got a chance to express themselves in ways others’ may have. Given what is known about the rise in testosterone with significant social success and popularity, it will be interesting to see how he behaves going forward. Especially since, as I’m sure he would point out, its the unacknowledged/unintegrated aspects of ourselves that most often pull us out of bounds. The iconoclast in me would love to see his response to a post-lecture Q something along the lines of “Are there any potential #metoo issues that you need to get in front of?”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s