Tuesday, August 9, 2016

You can't sperg on this

To misquote the Beastie Boys, you really have to learn not to sperg on it. Tom Arrow is flirting with doing so:
The question is whether these behaviors actually are as distinctive as the system makes them out to be. If you say they are crude waypoints, I am willing to say "cool, that's not bad!". If you say that these categories actually exist in reality exactly like that and with no abberations, then I must conclude you are unrealistic. After all, if those categories were that fixed, transition between them would be impossible, which indicates, to me, a fluid shade of greys.

Also, a particular person may exhibit behaviors of various categories at the same time, depending on their individual psychological set up.

Also, you have to consider confirmation bias. When you go out with this categorization in mind and look at people, your mind will automatically categorize them and look for the described traits. This observation will seem to confirm your theory while blending out everything that is more faceted or doesn't quite fit or defies categorization.

But yeah, I guess it's a cool thing to have as crude pointers. Cause it's fun to be thinking about that.
It's always easy to spot the spergs and gammas whenever the topic of the socio-sexual hierarchy comes up. They inevitably try to take a practical system that is dynamic, relative, and fractal, and turn it into something immutable and inflexible that they can understand.

But you can't do that. Circumstances change. People change. Any one individual can be a member of a dozen different hierarchies at the same time. My role is very different as Supreme Dark Lord with 525 VFM and tens of thousands of readers than it is as the old guy nobody knows who is an extra practice body for a 5th division soccer team, and both are different than my role as the Lead Editor of Castalia House.

The way that women are going to perceive me, and the way they are going to behave around me will entirely differ depending upon whether they encounter me as a) spectators at a soccer game at which I'm sitting on the bench until the last 15 minutes, b) attendees at a public event at which I am the featured speaker, or c) wannabe writers at the London Book Fair. My status, and my perceived attractiveness, will vary greatly, depending on the situation. And yet, I am precisely the same individual.

The socio-sexual ranks are not "crude waypoints". They are descriptors and conceptual models that are usefully predictive of human behavior, both male and female.

8 comments:

Eincrou said...

Tom Arrow is a known quantity, an insufferable anklebiter who inhabits that terrible Bermuda Triangle of aspergers, midwittery and tediousness.

Aeoli Pera said...

Sperging is like video games, a pleasurable masculine pastime to be indulged in moderation.

Autiste voice: That is what I believe.

Ceerilan said...

I remember trying to say something similar to Bob Wallace. He countered by saying that since no real world person is exactly like the archetypes, the archetypes were completely invalid.

The guy always wanted things framed his way. I'm not sure if it was his domineering personality or fear of being tainted with the old PUA community, but it prevented substantive discussion by causing needless debates over terminology.

Mooga Booga said...

That's an excellent point re: the fluidity of these positions. Believe it or not, I've been in situations where I was the dominant male. My status depended on rarefied circumstances, e.g., I was the only American handy in a poor-ish country, so I made a point of reminding myself, "Memento, homo, quia high gamma-low delta est, et in high gamma-low delta reverteris. Don't let this temporary promotion go to your head, Sonny Jim."

Mooga Booga said...

But I've noticed -- sorry, still thinking this through -- how naturally the behavior comes once the status is gained. If you're top dog, then women really aren't scarce, their constant attention does get a little tiresome, and their ulterior motives do become obvious. Once those conditions are met, being a charming, insouciant jerkboy isn't something you have to practice in the bathroom mirror; it's a reflex.

That's the fun part. The not-so-fun part is coming back down to earth. Once your halo fades, and you notice the women around you behaving with that familiar sullen bitchiness, the natural response is to cringe and try to please -- or to try bitching back.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

SPERGOTRON 9000

SirHamster said...

But I've noticed -- sorry, still thinking this through -- how naturally the behavior comes once the status is gained. If you're top dog, then women really aren't scarce, their constant attention does get a little tiresome, and their ulterior motives do become obvious. Once those conditions are met, being a charming, insouciant jerkboy isn't something you have to practice in the bathroom mirror; it's a reflex.

The power of culture to make men better men. Fathers not teaching us game; community not teaching us game; popular entertainment not teaching us game ... Thank God for the Internet and for blogs like these.

Unknown said...

It's clear that any sort of socio-sexual ranking system is constructive if it helps to classify behavior for the purpose of self-improvement, but it's also pretty clear that it's destructive when used to describe a whole person and their character. As others have noted, an individual can be ranked in different ways depending on the circumstances and the relative rank of the ranker.

It's certainly useful as a conceptual model to describe and (to a lesser extent) predict certain behaviors, but it's also very useful as a sceptre by the dark lords of the world to order their domains, and as a weapon by discontented women who are easily seduced by its worldly power.

There's a line there that shouldn't be crossed if you value your soul, obviously.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.