Psychology

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000&cpage=1#comment-394194

JustSaying (Shelby) wrote:

@esr

> at least so far as I’ve yet seen, have a generative explanation for why women friend-zone nice guys and fuck bad boys

> the only plausible explanation I can come up with is that in the EEA, when early humans
> lived in small hunting bands, the behaviors modern assholes now use to fake alpha must
> have been reliable indicators of superior status

Another possible explanation which I find more plausible is negs may place females in the emotional state of being dominated by an alpha. A bitchy female is projecting that she views herself as worthy of only an alpha male, the bitchiness is to chase away the lesser males, so as to not clutter her limited time window for reproduction.

Temporal social status or raw IQ alone may not be a reliable enough indicator of the dominant or successful genetics over the long-term. Evolution may have evolved the alpha females to be seek other cues of competitiveness. And/or given the emotional lean of females which I suppose is necessary for child rearing, combined with the inexact means which a female can readily measure genetic fitness, the feeling of being dominated and mating with a potential alpha may be one possible strategy. We are not observing that all females pursue this "negs" metric strategy, though nearly all will chose to be dominated (in their "instinctive hindbrain") by the metric or strategy they have chosen to determine alpha genetics:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393982

@JB

> The neg must be seen as fundamentally an equalizer of relative status in field, and, arguably,
> what a woman has done to deserve it is to think she’s “too good for you”. It is intended to
> puncture bloated egos, especially of highly attractive women with “bitch shields” who will
> literally not give you the time of day unless you deploy it.

@Ken Burnside

> I have used ‘negs’ – Eric does misunderstand them; they’re meant to be a signal for “I see
> through your bullshit, but understand why you have to do it.”

Both comments are congruent with my theory above.

@DJMoore

> To tie it all up: Statism, whether you call it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, whatever, is
> essentially about turning everyone into betas or herbs. Individualism, in all its forms, is about
> turning everyone into alphas or sigmas.

The alphas need the social control system. The sigmas can compete with alphas yet don't crave control because they win without social control:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/05/explaining-sigma-again.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

@M. Simon

> comfortable with the ins and outs of the nasty alpha – she knows I have a roving eye
>
> My favorite “line”? “Sleep with me naked. No sex.” You could see the wheels turning. She
> thinks, “If I get naked there WILL be sex.” And then I would sleep with her naked. No sex. In
> about 3/4s of the cases she would come back gagging for it... Her thinking? “Is there
> something wrong with me? Is he gay? I have to find out.” And in the other 1/4 of the cases?
> I got to sleep with a naked woman.

Clever but probably a beta prop. Alphas and sigmas have more important things to do in developing and maintaining their USPs and more open crotches to choose from than free time.

@lalalady

> It seems like guys are either too beta or too alpha, and so as a girl you need to choose between
> having a boyfriend you’re not attracted to or a fuck-buddy whom you are. If you’re like me, and
> choose neither, it can get kind of lonely.

The only way to pass on your genetics is to mate. Many females apparently choose a strategy that balances mating as high up genetically as they can, while not destroying the rearing potential of the offspring. One strategy is using betas for rearing assistance while mating with alphas. Others such as Marie advocate the more conservative strategy of mating and rearing with a beta (or perhaps a perceived "alpha" per my theory above). There are numerous possible strategies. Shenpen pointed out that older females are nearer to the end of their reproductive window and are more likely to prioritize a perceived beta for the rearing stage.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4773&cpage=1#comment-394344

JustSaying (Shelby) wrote:

@TomA

> A group with a charismatic leader might do better yet, as synergy and innovation
> might allow them to bring down a mammoth and eat for a month.
>
> In this sense, the charismatic leader arises as a mutation in society and either helps
> (leading to enhanced survival/prosperity) or hurts (leading to an evolutionary dead-end).
> Either way, the social propensity to “follow the leader” is an evolutionary trait.
>
> As a side note, humor as a charismatic skill may be a way of implying that you are
> neither a threat nor an enemy. Weirdness goes hand-in-hand with mutation.

Attraction to weirdness (as a signal of uniqueness) could plausibly populate diversity in the gene pool enabling adaption to unknown future challenges to survival.

Evolution rewarding individuality (regardless of a priori judgments of value) is a cool theory for anarchist, in light of the discussion (in the prior blog #4757) debating whether equality and social justice may lead to dystopian political correctness a.k.a. Doublethink.

Regarding your "either way"...

@JustSaying

> Lazarus posited that emotions result from first a conscious or hindbrain appraisal.
> Emotions apparently motivate humans to choose successful evolutionary strategies.

A mathematical theory of why we have fuzzy emotions.

Evolution may maximize diversity of trial balloons, thus exists our fuzzy emotional system to motivate us to make it so.

Given fuzzy metrics, this is a probabilistic outcome similar to esr's maximize breadth of options (see blog #4699) strategic insight. For example, I posited that 'negs' in PUA theory, may be triggering the emotional desire of a female to be dominated, as a signal of a potential alpha (respecting Occam's razor and orthogonal to any more difficult to falsify theory of why harsh dominance is an evolutionary signal of alpha-ness). There is a theory of how this relates to degrees-of-freedom in terms of solving for the dynamic local and global optimum pathway(s) to the dynamic, unknown future.

Our emotions help us to make decisions. Therefor they must have some evolutionary purpose.

I am positing that emotions are purposely inexact decision tools, so as to motivate us to try a wide range of options, in order to maximize the genetic pool.

The first and third links in my prior opening post, going into the advantage of why such a maximization of options, leads to the winning outcome (whether it be board games or I am positing also evolution and the game of life).

@peri1224 wrote:

... $7 and $7841 remain true and verifiable in the books ...

Incorrect. $100 and $7841 is the correct cherry-picked calculation. $7 is double-counting of inflation. If you want to discount the value of the 1930-issued $100 bill I am holding today, then you must also discount the $7841 of 1930 manufactured gold that I am holding today.

Thus you can either say $100 vs. $7841, or you can say $7 vs. $549, where $549 = $7841 x 7 ÷ 100.

@peri1224 wrote:

And surprisingly it even absolves the banks somewhat...

(gold standard)...That is free market in action without bankster manipulation...

...Why you would go and defend these !#*%@# banksters and their money printing is beyond me.

@silverFalcon wrote:

...Can you believe the scam the came up with years ago? "We will own this planet for little bit of paper" - and they will (having banks, US army to enforce their actions, media to brainwash sheeple) if we keep watching dancing with idiots shows.

@kscmac wrote:

if the sleeping majority just would wake up...

When you blame the bankers for that fact of nature that politics exist because the non-alpha and non-sigma males can not compete without politics, then you are identifying yourself as a beta, gamma, or omega male.

I am clearly a Sigma male.

Here is are some resources for you to begin your study and transform to a higher social status. If after careful and open-minded study of the following, a reader still does not understand how the following causes me not to blame the bankers for that which is a natural part of evolution, then I posit that reader doesn't have sufficient intellect to be Sigma (cum Alpha) in the social hierarchy.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394179

...political affiliation, which appears to be most importantly a selfish gene socioeconomic opportunity cost phenomenon, than the manipulative control that it also may be. As I see it, political affiliation is the complex positioning of alpha males (greed and control) combined with the complex manipulation of omega males. All perceive they are positioning themselves advantageously for gains in what they perceive to be important to their happiness and evolutionary relevance...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394196

Correction. That should be manipulative control of betas, gammas, and omegas. The sigmas can compete with alphas yet don’t crave control because they excel without it, outside of the mainstream social paradigm, or by empowering the individual:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/05/explaining-sigma-again.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394266

Politics legislates that which can not be controlled top-down, magically promising the people what they think should be but either can not or not sustainably. (For example, ) Equality and social justice means plunder and the redistribution of wealth...

...If I am correctly interpreting esr’s summary of Olson, it implies the special interests groups are a minority, however they comprise the entire population playing the political game.

Why do you protest against politics, given it is a natural form of human competition? Anarchism would unrealistically require that everyone is a pure sigma (the sigma in PUA theory a.k.a pickup artist theory)– not libertarians who think they can legislate liberty.

Sigmas are successful when they reject political capital (and money as much as practical) and make innovations or insights in the free market. When they drift to relying on the monetary or political capital they’ve earned from those innovations or insights, they are falling away from their optimum efficacy...

...Non-sigmas don’t think they can get all their desired results without some politics. The alphas serve their demand to be deluded on the efficacy of political action.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394267

...The unfitness of debt and political action is apparently evolutionary necessary or optimum, else it wouldn’t be natural and someone would devise a private sector solution...

The masses demand debt, because they demand more than what can be. They demand more than their true value in the social hierarchy. This creates a power vacuum, which the alpha-male banksters fulfill. It is as natural as the sun rising every day.

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/09/16/by-2015-hard-commodity-prices-will-have-collapsed/#comment-16460

...Also there is the political power vacuum of a non-fractional reserve which can’t stand, because the people will always choose those who promise more than they can pay for, i.e. people will always choose excessive debt when it can be hidden in the collective...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394179

...Infinite degrees-of-freedom (perfect fitness) could not be observable in any reality. There are no absolutes. Contrast requires imperfection. Existence requires perception. Perception requires contrast. Full circle to my early comment...

Make sure you click the link in the prior quote to "my early comment", as it is key to understanding the universe. Stephen Hawking is wrong because he uses a circular illogic (i.e. if A then B because if B then A).

It is important you understand the theory of PUA, i.e. social status since it governs how the masses (the non-alpha and non-sigmas) behave politically:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4773&cpage=1#comment-394344

Given fuzzy metrics, this is a probabilistic outcome similar to esr’s maximize breadth of options (see blog #4699) strategic insight. For example, I posited that ‘negs’ in PUA theory, may be triggering the emotional desire of a female to be dominated, as a signal of a potential alpha (respecting Occam’s razor and orthogonal to any more difficult to falsify theory of why harsh dominance is an evolutionary signal of alpha-ness). There is a theory of how this relates to degrees-of-freedom in terms of solving for the dynamic local and global optimum pathway(s) to the dynamic, unknown future.

In short, if you don't understand the nature of politics, then you are just pissing into the wind about it being the fault of the bankers.

No malice intended. I am truly trying to help you become a sigma-male, but very few can make that transformation. You should know if you can, after reading this post.

@peri1224 wrote:

The fact that we have these parasite banksters around our necks and their talons on the money supply is the restricting factor, not that stupid old canard of gold coming out of the ground per year, (you also falling for this??) which is only 1 or 2% of total gold stocks above ground. All these stocks represents supply - at the right price. So if necessary, let the gold price rise slightly and some gold will come out. Money supply problem solved. That is free market in action without bankster manipulation.

You don't seem to appreciate that the political demand for pulling the future into the present is unlimited and insatiable (which only a paper lie can supply), because the beta, gamma, and omega males are never satisfied for as long as they are not alpha or sigma males on the totem-pole of evolutionary mating and social status.

An appreciating gold price would further suppress the lower social status males who have less gold. They will never agree. They would rather be deluded on their true social status.

The lower males think they address their inequity by allowing the collective to encourage debt and address all of their special interests and goals which they think will make them all equal. Equality and democracy are the lie fed by the alpha-males to the lower males. Debt is mathematically incompatible with a non-fractional reserve (e.g. gold) monetary system. This is why the insatiable social status demand of the lower males forces fiat and gold to compete in boom and bust cycles. You can not change this any more than you can stop the sun from rising.

The masses have always since recorded time demanded more from the system, than is sustainable.

Although 'lower' in the PUA theory of social status, from the evolutionary theory I proposed for explaining why our emotions must be fuzzy and which requires the diversity value of the individual, I am not and could not a priori assert that any person is irrelevant (or even lower) in evolutionary relevance.

What you fail to understand is that a physically impossible nirvana of infinite degrees-of-freedom where everyone was equal would be a system that mathematically can not exist. Because nothing could change, no knowledge could be generated, and nothing could be perceived because there would be no contrast.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393314

...Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible...

...Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

The order of social status which devalues the individual superficially (while the individual is still truly valued for diversity by evolution), is plausibly necessary to motivate and illuminate individual diversity. If everyone was a purely isolated individual, we would all be equal in a sense, but we wouldn't interact and compete. We have to place some value on others, to motivate us to interact with them. If every individual had unique knowledge, this would exist only for as long as they did not interact. If every individual had the same knowledge, there would be no reason to interact.

==============================================
***************FOLLOW UP**********************
==============================================

ShivaDestructor wrote:

It is a crowd that basically consists of discontent males using language patterns and subliminal cues to get laid

The taxonomy of male social order types (alpha, sigma, delta, gamma, and omega) is generally applicable to social structure, because woman go for hypergamy:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3000
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4773&cpage=1#comment-394344
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394196


ShivaDestructor wrote:

The PUA crowd principally aim to press certain buttons in the female psyche to turn them into mindless sex robots...

...Notice: both sides want to dominate and manipulate - there is no faith in and use of cooperation - it is sex warfare for animals.

Although some users of PUA may be obnoxious, the theory is playing into the way evolution optimizes our survival, as I had begun to string together as a coherent theory at the above links.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

The absolute majority of those PUA sigmoids are nowhere close to being a sigma. Why? Because they are being jerked around by their fear of pain and their dicks

My assertion is that politics exists because of the hypergamy and the social order of males. Thus everyone who plays politics is not sigma either (although they might be closer in some cases). Thus any one who blames the banksters for their own or for society's problems, is playing politics and not yet a sigma.

The sigma recognizes the natural order and the reason evolution requires this social order and requires the politcs and thus requires the banksters.

The sigma can create new innovations that increase individual liberty in the private sector, even befuddling and rendering the political sector impotent, e.g. peer-to-peer networking. I actually have some long-held plans to destroy much of the political system with my programming.

Just Do It! (Nike commercial)

Whining is for politicians and their minions of slaves.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

A true sigma would be like a Zen buddhist in mind frame. No buttons in themselves to push, no need for pushing buttons in others. Compassion and love and truth.

Very much agreed. Well stated.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

This was one of the most to-the-point statements regarding economy I've seen for a long while. Our basic problem in society is that we are un-ecological. We consume more than our natural resources can provide

Thank you. But I disagree we are un-ecological. The inexorable trend is always increasing resources per-capita since beginning of recorded history. Nature has this system for us as the way it optimizes evolution. We can't overconsume resources. We boom and bust. And this boom and bust cycle is absolutely necessary to motivate the individual diversity that we need to optimally anneal to the unknown future. I linked to that math here:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4773&cpage=1#comment-394344

That link posits that the fuzzy emotions of hypergamy is absolutely necessary for optimal annealing of evolution. Follow the second link on that page linked above, to dig into the math of simulated annealing.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

the credit affliction is a disease that started in the US

Credit disease originated at the start of the agricultural age when we could invest and produce excess savings, in some form or another.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

Either you just created a chasm between you and peri1224 or you pushed him into enlightenment

I should clarify that I was responding to 3 people who felt a gold standard perfection would be a cure, not just peri1224.

Also I think my edit of my original comments, makes it clear that being a non-sigma is also important for evolutionary success of human species. So if peri1224 wants to become an alpha (a leader of social structure) and thinks he can do a better job of educating the lower orders (betas, gammas, and omegas), then he can play that role in evolution. In fact, Carroll Quigley was arguing for this to be done. But in any case, he will never eliminate borrowing from the future, and the power vacuum it creates, because that is part of the way evolution maximizes competition and fitness.

Carol Quigley wrote in Tragedy & Hope, "I know of the operations of this network [the Round Table Groups] because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

I've known him for years and we have met in person twice, and he knows I like (or even love) him as a person and enjoy talking with him. I have met his family, etc.. So I hope my rushed writing did not come across in a way that I am not intending.

He feels very strongly that if we could eliminate the banksters, then we could protect the future of our children and our way of life. Although I share the discontent with some of the outcomes from the evil, I am coming to realization that it has been this way since the beginning of mankind and it is up to each individual to become a sigma and rise above it all.

I don't want to grow up being angry and bitter. I like to win!

Fighting against evolution and what nature wants is failure. I don't want to spend my life pissed off at the banksters, when the masses are chosing to be locked into the social structure which makes debt and banksters necessary.

Being idealistic and saying we can educate them is like wishing for equality of sexes, equality of people, and social justice. I am realizing after several years of study. And these things are all lies, because SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS says the universe is always trending to maximum entropy, which means maximum diversity (a.k.a. independent possibilities in a probablistic sense).

That might sound like mumbo-jumbo, but it is a fact that if everyone was the same, we would have no reason to be alive.

It really is a simple concept. Nature is always increasing the diversity of situations and outcomes. In order to match up to that (so we can survive), we evolve to maximum diversity too.

Basically eliminating the banksters, is nearly synonymous with saying we will eliminate the bottom half of the bell curve of IQ. It ain't going to happen, because nature needs all that diversity.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

It can be read "generously" as coming from a position of truth (where the recipient either gets it or is willing to work with it)

I am confident that is the case.

I understand the simple answer of "eliminate the banksters" and implement a "gold standard" is very alluring. But when you really think about the way evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.

Nature operates with opposing contrasting diversity-- not with perfection.

Perfection has no opposing contrast, thus it doesn't exist, because it can't be perceived. For example, how do you perceive color when all color is perfectly the same?

ShivaDestructor wrote:

You don't seem to appreciate that the political demand for pulling the future into the present is unlimited and insatiable (which only a paper lie can supply), because the beta, gamma, and omega males are
never satisfied for as long as they are not alpha or sigma males on the totem-pole of evolutionary mating and social status.

An alpha male is also never satisfied, it is just that he has hit a local maxima in his hierarchy.

Agreed but he has not hit a maxima.

The alpha craves more control over the lower ranks to raise his relative position.

The lower ranks crave to move up the ranking, but instead of gaining freedom, they fall in the political trap set by the alphas in symbiosis with their fellow lower members.

Even the sigma is never satisfied, the sigma wants more freedom and empowerment of the individual, so the sigma seeks more knowledge and truth.

Alphas don't trust sigmas, because sigmas innovate away some of their control.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

Equality and democracy are the lie fed by the alpha-males to the lower males.

This can be read in at least two ways, and both can be true at the same time.
1. Equality and democracy does not exist in reality and hidden forces pull all the strings.
2. Equality and democracy IS NOT TRUE/DOES NOT WORK.
I can prove point 2.

Both are true. The hidden force is nature and evolution. The banksters don't pull all the strings, neither collectively nor individually for themselves. They don't get everything they want obviously.

It is a big game. A big competition, called EVOLUTION.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

Debt is mathematically incompatible with a non-fractional reserve (e.g. gold) monetary system.

How/why? I lend you a gold coin, you pay me back later? Or is it the interest that you are thinking about (interest creating "money" out of nothing)? We could pay interest in apples though.

Compounded interest is one problem, for if you compounded 3% for a few hundred years it would be more atoms on earth. Either the economy does not run on debt or it must be eventually fractional based or there must be a bust because the activity did not expand enough to compound the interest.

The other problem is that demand for debt is insatiable, because the alpha and the lower ranks are never contented and the only way they know how to win is via the political process, e.g. chopping off the heads of the banksters is a form of political action. It does not change the paradigm. Where there is a demand for debt, new banksters will appear, just as sure as new weeds sprout in the garden because the environment is still conducive.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

The masses have always since recorded time demanded more from the system, than is sustainable.

Hunter/gather societies are/were self-regulating - when there is nothing left, move on (the problem with current society and technology is that we have nowhere to go - we cannot yet hop into a nice rocket and land on a luscious green planet next doors).

So is our current credit mess. I edited my prior post, you can find a link there to a chart that shows that despite booms and busts, resources per-capital have been inexorably increasing since 323 B.C.. Btw, iron was a precious metal at that time.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

Or maybe you were pointing to "demanded" not as in "overtaxing" but rather as "needing/wanting" - then I agree.

You are missing the mathematical point, which is fitness. It is all about what evolution wants, which is maximum fitness. See the link below. Also go to my prior posts and find where I linked to the math of why simulated annealing must be optimized for evolution.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394266

It is all about resiliency and being able to survive the long-tail events that are unexpected. Fitness is how nature is always optimally prepared to solve the dynamic annealing.

ShivaDestructor wrote:

What you fail to understand is that a physically impossible nirvana of infinite degrees-of-freedom where everyone was equal would be a system that mathematically can not exist. Because nothing could change, no knowledge could be generated, and nothing could be perceived because there would be no contrast.

If you remove "physically" then you are describing G-d and why we cannot understand G-d, regardless of tradition

Please see how I differentiated between insane and sane faith:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393293 (this is difficult if you don't know induction and co-induction)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393314 (the layman's version, but read the others too)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393338 (induction and co-induction explained, plus clarifying my point)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394189 (arguing against Hawking, that sane faith is rational)

Fake (insane) faith:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394128
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394177
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-394183

Note I tried to post this on Esr's blog as follows, but he has banned me. Thought you might be interested in my logic.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4994&cpage=1#comment-405779

That is the most convoluted way of stating simply that racism is profiling based on race (due to a race possessing a higher mean propensity) instead of the actual measured value of an individual's propensity.

Racism is not stupid and rather quite rational when the individual measures of propensity are not available, such as when I venture into the hood. And if you are truly concerned about individual freedom, then you must recognize that even if the probability of an individual measure points to a higher propensity, it doesn't insure it is independent of another measure of dis-propensity which an individual might posses. The myopia of statistics is what was not sampled.