Not so much an essay as a brief description of my views on topics discussed on the androsphere.
My views on game, HBD, and all that other controversial stuff inside.
I mostly believe in Game as propounded by Roissy and others but I do not see it as a magic bullet. As with music, sport, or any other talent, seduction skills are not evenly distributed. All maestros needed training and practice but not everybody that trains and practices will become a maestro. Most, if lucky, will become “quite good.” Of course, “quite good” may be good enough.
If I have a problem with game teaching it is that some of the gurus (e.g., Mystery and Style) tend to focus on pretending to be an extroverted party guy in order to attract extroverted party girls. If you want high numbers this is your best bet, but it probably does not suit those who are introverted non-partiers. Not so much “just be yourself” as just be someone entirely different.
Nature versus Nurture.
This is not so much a battle but a cooperative venture. I believe there is a strong hereditary component to many individual traits: height, IQ, extra/introversion, aggression, levels of dominance, agreeableness, conscientiousness, etc. However, nurture can expand or depress these traits (e.g., illness or stress at crucial stages of development may stunt the growth of person whose genes would have made tall). Early success (by luck or inborn skill) may lead to greater development of certain skills while early failure (by luck or lack of inborn talent) may lead to the atrophy of certain skills. In each case, nurture may inhibit or enhance what nature provided. Early social shame may drive a naturally extroverted type into relative quietness but a talent for music might bring a naturally introverted type out of his shell.
Nature and nurture can be difficult to separate: Do jocks flunk out because they are dumb or because they spent too much time on the field? Do geeks do poorly at sport because they are clumsy or because they spent to little time on the field? I suspect it is a mixture: If you are coordinated but not particularly smart it makes sense to concentrate where your skills are. If you are uncoordinated but smart, the chess team may offer better chances of a win.
I believe that the arrival time of puberty is very important to a man’s development. Delayed puberty will likely hurt his confidence due to the years spent as the runt of the litter. Early puberty will likely give him confidence as his greater height, weight, deeper voice, and more adult look will raise his status amongst his peers. However a too early arrival of puberty may lead to problems as his physical maturity does not match his emotional maturity causing others to place responsibilities on him that he is not ready to bear.
A common them across may game related sites is HBD. HBD or Human Bio-Diversity is the theory that different groups (racial or ethnic) will have different talents and temperaments and thus different outcomes. If many traits are inherited then it should not be surprising that related individuals should tend to share those traits. Just as we are not surprised that the jock father has a jock son or the geek father has a geek son, we should not be surprised that ethnic and racial groups may share characteristics. The problem with accepting this is that most societies place more value on certain traits than others. In principle we acknowledge that “it takes all types” but in practice we favor certain traits. So while not every one needs to be super smart we do tend to revere the clever, after all dumb jock is not a form of praise. The result is that acknowledging differences tends to place groups on a hierarchy and nothing makes the public more uncomfortable than that.
[On the flip side, dorky academic is not praise either. While society in general tends to place a higher value on smarts, it may not feel that way to the geeky young man dismissed by young women.]
The Bell Curve
Murray and Herrnstein’s book created a firestorm becuase it discussed racial differences. The sad part is that such considerations are not much more than twenty percent of the book (perhaps two chapters of about 14 or 15). All the outrage missed most important points: half of us are below average, most things will be more difficult for the less intelligent, the world increasingly is structured towards and rewards those with high cognitive ability, the less intelligent will tend to make poorer decisions (especially under complexity and ambiguity).
The important point of the book is that the smart people who make policy need to consider that most of the people that live under such policies will lack their brains. Again, we need to understand that half the population is below average. We are not all going to become “knowledge workers,” symbolic analysts, or part of the “creative class.” At least half the population will be unable to make full use of a rigorous undergraduate degree. As in HBD, we value and reward smarts but feel uncomfortable that the distribution of such traits is uneven. Instead of worrying about unfairness, the “creative class” should worry about the effect of policies on the other half.
Diversity and multiculturalism
As Christianity died we needed a new religion. Diversity is that religion. As Robert Putnam described and many individual experiences testify, diversity is not a strength. It is true that project or corporate success can depend on different types (technocratic, diplomatic, charismatic, etc.) but that assumes a strong culture with clear common purpose. Society can tolerate, and may even need, the eccentrics and misfits. However, such oddballs must be a small part of the society. Society, however, needs some common purpose and shared identity. A society that shares no common mores is just a random collection of individuals. Any random collection of individuals will likely soon break down into arguments and in-fighting. In the analogy of the meting pot, spices are the seasoning not the dish. The chef will ruin the meal if he goes too heavy on the curry, salsa, or soy.
As Christianity died we needed a new religion. Environmentalism is that religion. It has much of the features of the old religion.
High priests: Climate scientists.
Mantras and dogmas: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
It is evangelical: All those school programs and public service advertisements.
It has its own Inquisition: The treatment of heretical climate “deniers.”
Selling Indulgences: just as the Catholic church sold indulgences, the new high priests sell carbon credits.
I am not even sure what this means other than a shaming insult to stop discussion. Any society, will have groups with shared interests and needs. In America, white Anglo/Europeans are one such group. We understand that rural and urban groups may have different interests. We are comfortable that workers and business may have different interests. We even celebrate that other ethnic groups may have separate interests. I see no problem in granting the same courtesy to white Americans.
Wave of the future I am told. However, I believe that the idea of information wanting to be free will become more like information wants to be paid. More and more information will move behind pay walls and register walls as corporations attempt to “monetise” their “online assets.”
Much of the free services will charge by intrusive collating of personal browsing habits. Companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress have (or could build) huge databases of personal connections. For example: if you have a gravatar then Automatic (owners of WordPress and gravatar maintainers) have knowledge of the sites you visit and comment on. They have a list for those that visit your blog. They have a complete picture of your interests and relationships.
As China has shown, the Internet is not censorship proof. As various DMCA and criminal investigations have shown it is not even anonymous. While corporate interests have provided much of the infrastructure and many useful sites (e.g., this free blog), they also bring a corporate ethos. The friendly, freewheeling days of the mid 1990s are over. The Internet may be a better place because of that (I hardly ever see blink text used any more) but is also more commercial.
[I am not opposed to commerce, but realize that it brings its own aesthetic and mores]
Obviously, this is not all that I believe but is all I could be bothered to write about.