She's spitting a lot of truth...

Post Reply New Topic

Threw this on while I was coding and was pretty impressed.

Sometimes a big part of being of benefit to society on this topics is helping people clear out the gas-lighting. She goes on for a good fifteen minutes or so speaking of her grandfathers and their character, then discusses some of the lack of character with her uncles, the stark difference between kindness and 'niceness' (she gives a couple girls she went to school with as an example of niceness gone wrong and her emphasis is that niceness is more of a chameleon behavior, kindness self-sacrifices to see the right thing done in the world).

Overall though we're in a very competitive culture, the more it's gone utterly materialistic and shallow the reason people care so much about what petty tyrants think is that the world is getting rebuilt in their image so that really awful men and women are pushing everyone else off the stage and, like with international battles for military and economic supremacy, it's a place where if you don't bring Darwinian evolution and game theory to the fight and don't weaponize everything you can get your hands on you end up getting walked on by the people who would. You also have Sam Vaknin saying some terrifying things about what kinds of unreality a lot of people are carrying around with them (many on the cluster B spectrum) and it almost seems like they're hitting a big enough mass to be a danger to the going concern of civilization.

I think one of the more difficult things to manage is for decent people to actually find each other, and hopefully find each other before they get so cynical and disappointed by what they find that they've taken on the patina of what's around them and can't even recognize one another or what they used to be.

This is quite long (3:30:00'ish) but one of the best things she said is that 'nice guys' and 'bad boys' are really different sides of the same coin of weakness. Good on her for untangling that one and throwing it out there.

I see nobody has commented on this video so I might throw some observations here.
Very few of us are going to sit through 3 hrs 31 min to watch her basically (according to some commentators) say what she could have summarised in about 10 min.

Her interpretations about masculinity and the propensity of men to fall into a spectrum somewhere between nice/decent guys who will never get a date in their lives all the way up to bad/user/manipulative alpha males who will have slept with several thousand "willing" women in their lives. But ultimately men who fall toward the tail of these two poles are not living up to being socially responsible men and not being masculine.

What she is saying (whether you agree with her or not) is that a lot men take the easy way out not living up to "her expectations of masculinity", But here's the thing, the fact is women do the same thing in not living up to "men's expectations of femininity". This is after all a two-way street.

I am respectful not to shoot the messenger but is her message really not much different from the equivalent male red-pill/blue-pill podcasters?

Speaking for myself, no amount of red pill "mind opening" information would have changed how I approached women. The fact is young men have hormones pumping through them and when you are 20 something life is unfair when you can't get a date no matter who has spoken to you, how many therapists you've seen or how many gurus you have listened to on podcasts.

It's literally a mix of self-help (only I could help myself) and sheer luck when I found my wife. No amount of repackaging I did to myself was going to change how materialistic and shallow women were. I know I will be shot down for saying this but women like this podcaster never really practice what they preach. They are driven by the same marketplace that other materialistic, judgey, discerning women are driven by. In my old age I realise that a lot of the projections I had over women were distorted by some "pollyana" notion that there are women out there who will see me for whom I really am
Of course I was living in a fantasy.

If her video does help then by all means watch the full 3 hrs 31 min but I fear its some type of placebo effect.

The first part, which is the only part I watched and got bored, is basically Holding out for a Hero song.

Standards need to be mutual. A genuine 3 out of 10 who's list of achievements can't fill a postage stamp can't insist on a 8 of 10.

Man or woman, it doesn't matter. I look down on people who insist a potential partner needs to be twice the person they themselves can ever hope to become.

TBH it's probably better if it just falls off the front page with no replies than saying 'TL:DW lets talk about it', because we get this ^^.

The problem with discussions of any kind when they're relayed in this manner is one can talk about overtures and themes but the structure and framing gets ripped out - and so even the paraphrasing could mean anything.

Also - as far as videos between us - I'd way rather you just forget this one exists or that I ever mentioned it and look at the Karl Friston discussion.

That's probably why I can relate to her, ie. that I'm waiting for a mutual gain win-win relationship rather than a 'what can I extract' or 'how can I control' and that's what she beats on for most of the discussion while edifying higher human values and beating on social Darwinism.

This confuses me a bit.... isn't your wife the woman who finally saw you for who you really are?

Not necessarily. While I can't speak for cyberdad and his wife I have seen men who are married that when they aren't with their wives they become an entirely different person. Heck, I'm different with women than I am when I'm with men and I'm not even dating the woman! Even in marriage you can't be completely yourself around your significant other(or shall I say for most people that's the case). There are many stories across the internet of men saying they revealed who they really are and the woman left them soon after. Now it happens to women too don't get me wrong but, men experience it much more than women do because by societies standards we are suppose to be "strong", "calm and collected", "nothing should phase us", [insert stereotypical masculine trait here]. Basically any emotional or difficult stuff happening to men most of us have to hide from our wives or girlfriends.

Something else I'm going to extract from her lecture that I think was valuable about 'nice'.

She talked about a couple friends where she went to school - the one girl was absolutely nice to everyone all the time, the other was so mean that (the presenter) really had to ask herself repeatedly 'Is this even real?', ie. that both of these girls were insane stereotypes of certain things.

She was saying that she had little respect for either of them but if she had to pick between the lesser of the two evils she'd go with the mean girl because there was at least some fixed identity and you had some idea of what you were dealing with whereas the other girl had her entire identity devoted to being liked and it sounds like these two girls together (bringing all my hours of listening to Sam Vaknin to the fore) were something like a narcissist / borderline pair.

What the presenter was getting at - kindness in the actual sense, in the sense that it's worth being, has structure. It has limits. It'll be downright mean if it's seeing actual evil and defend the weak against it. Technically limitless nonoffensiveness can't be 'good' because it'll server whatever master is pushing on it without discrimination.

What she's trying to say is being jelly and lacking any structure isn't attractive and she noticed that when she was with someone like that she almost felt like she was doling out traumatic abuse on the guy for having any opinion at all because it felt like she was rewriting his brain, and it also felt infantilizing. I have to relate to Eddie Murphy in 'Coming to America' when his dad offered him a wife and she was like that, it switched him off bad enough to drag Arsenio across continents.

I think what's really bothers me, and I'm really glad she's speaking openly, lucidly, and clearly about this - the degree to which personality pathologies have framed the dating market. It's a bit like we opened the world to freedom and just said 'Everyone - you've got a blank space, fill it with what you like within the lines of the law' and what that sort of fully open liberalism gave us was a demonstration that cluster B personality disorders eat everything and remake it all in their image. They chase everyone else to the boundaries to where sane people stay home and they dominate the public space attacking anything that might present a power-challenge to their perch. I hate to say it, what's worse, I think you could call that 'Darwinian evolution' in the 'nature red in tooth and nail' sense - where clever fakes scalp the real because the clever fakes are purely algorithmic players (like some of her uncles).

So yeah, the core reason I really loved her discussion was that she was calling out the whole cluster B shaping of everything from the dating market to what western civilization is becoming. It's a world that isn't hell only if you've got a solipsistic personality disorder of some kind and even then - I believe their own inner worlds are hell so it's not worth it to even join them. Its miserable people pulling on multipolar traps to make a miserable world.

I said there was some element of luck as well. My wife chose to marry me because she has good family values and felt after a short space of time I shared similar traditional family values. It was fortunate. There was no dating me for several years and then deciding she didn't like the way I dressed or some other superficial reason to break up.

She's also got a lovely accent.

Yorkshire I guess.

She reminds me of Fergie.

This point is interesting and it tells me a lot about her.

Where there is a disparate power differential between one partner and another there will be a sense that one partner is at risk of exploitation or one partner feels they have to make all the hard decisions or do all the work.

For men this is not that important where the man wants to control the relationship, Indeed many men prefer this power difference (for example where they are the sole breadwinner in the family).

But for many women there is a biological urge to want a strong male figure. They don't want a man who they have to push or nurture to succeed. Of course there are exceptions but I feel the woman is able to see positive attributes that make up for the man's weaknesses (there is always some compensation point) and see's the potential in the man to do better and are willing (based on the positives) to work with him. And in some cases they might see a project.

I'm fairly certain the woman in the podcast is not one of those women and found the experience of having a larger power differential over her partner not satisfying.

This is also interesting. But I might throw a fly in the ointment here. What if these Cluster B people have always been setting the agenda in western culture? I have been through many organisational planning days where people who are in leadership roles have clearly low levels of empathy and high levels of narcissism and sociopathological tendencies. The patterns seem to repeat whether in private sector or in government.

Social media has magnified the influence of this group in the dating market because they are the alphas and they set the trends, So on this basis I am not sure what new information this lady brings to the table?

I'm actually not sure that this changes things much. That it's a recurrent historical problem shows that each generation has had to deal with it. Cycle after cycle of human life grows up relatively gas-lit on what's true about the world and then struggles as adults trying to make sense of the world just to find out how many people are devoutly anti-sense and demand things be just the way they are or worse. The experience of running into that realization, for each person and how it reflects against who they are, how they grew up, and the aspirations, hopes, and dreams of consciousness itself within them, will always be deeply private in its construction and implications and it's likely to feel like your own private Armageddon if that showdown is sufficiently intense.

I think for a lot of us there's a deep sense that we're dealing with a landscape where truth really falls on barren soil, it's a place where for a lot of people any sort of facts or elements of reality are - and forever will be - used algorithmically for social climbing and domination. It ends up being a place where knowledge is almost useless outside of war with others over social positioning. Some people, like the decent or 'kind' men she described in her life, for what I can tell, were men who were lucky to have enough decency and alpha characteristics put together where they didn't get mugged for their decency. What I've had to learn the hard way, on repeat, through the course of my life is if you have the facts together, are going to try and take a serious go at integrity, but don't look 'alpha' to other people, is that reality will be perpetually attacking you in order to try and subjugate everything from your sense that you have the right to dignity and belief in yourself if you're doing things right all the way down to really any sense of a right that you have for any inner peace or freedom - a bit like the only unforgivable sins in existence are (perception of) weakness and 'difference', and self-esteem not earned through violence and/or domination also seems like it falls in close behind that. It's a bit like where or when you can't be gas-lit under about your own failings in a more formal sense society's mask just slips off completely and you get to see what things are really about, ie. pure sociopathic / psychopathic manipulation.

There's a deep sense that if we can't get this sorted at some level there's no future for humanity, ie. algorithmic social climbers are so much like Dawkins' pure replicators that the only distinction I can see is they aren't copulating like rabbits or mosquitos but the rest of it pretty much holds constant - ie. that no one's allowed to be 'human', or that if you show any signs of being 'human' or worse yet... having a 'soul' of any kind.... that you have no right to eat or pay bills because 'f--- you die!! !!'. They have a knack for turning what could be a livable, even potentially enjoyable world if one plays their cards right, into being a purgatory for all involved. If I understand why that is, when I really think about it, it points to a worse suggestion - that life isn't something to be enjoyed, rather it's a pure survival game (whoever can grab the ring of power takes all), and Noam Chomsky's 'masters of mankind' seem to know that better than anyone whose just trying to live a good life and get by in the world. If they do win they'd most likely just curl out a massive log on the cumulative history and achievements of humanity - they're not really fit for leadership or much of anything else.