Ever-changing Alpha – is it an illusion?

Inspired by http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-lost-boys-of-manosphere.html

The animal examples do not cross-apply to humans, for many reasons, including technological society and free will. However, just because they aren’t perfect doesn’t mean they’re useless as a metaphors. The constantly changing opinions on what constitutes Alpha is likely a wish-fulfilling escapism. These men dream of a better world, one they deserve, and to lighten the pain of this mess, they imagine an Idealized Masculine, who can be distilled into one word: potency. 

Our society shames male power, the label of Alpha is a convenient newspeak way of signalling pride in their own sex and its abilities. For this reason, I do not see the concept of an Alpha as shameful, excepting those who, cowardly, use it as an excuse to justify behaviours, as a poor Christian to God, or a feminist to “social justice.” I believe that is the dark pit the manosphere could fall into, they may become so set in their ways e.g. denying men have a Wall or declining quality of fertility, in spite of science, or that sleeping around reducing bonding capability applies to female and male brains, that they are the polar opposite, albeit just as bad and insufferable as the feminists. An Alpha needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle. 

There are social dominance hierarchies, and I see the Alpha-Omega listing as a rough attribution of particular behaviours along that line, so no man is Alpha, they’re chasing an impossible dream, and I believe they enjoy it that way.

It begs certain questions, which fall in line with a few feminist myths e.g. all men want the same thing, all men should follow the same path, the opposite/desired sex is always bad/this way, the use of emotions like shame to silence dissent, and a peculiar self-defensiveness which betrays the insecurities of the movement and its members.

In short, I think the concept of an Alpha (m/f) is a just one, in theory, but the term in practice has been corrupted by those who wish to soothe their guilty conscience and make idols of their poor impulse control. The mark of truth is the notable absence of prominent middle-aged Gamers and above. Players “age out” or burn out with drugs, alcohol, STDs, who knows what else. Games are for the young and anyone claiming to care about the wellbeing of men shouldn’t have a cutoff point in age. It is undeniably sad to see someone chasing their youth, m/f, and I hope the manosphere matures into a space where men can address the changing considerations brought about by aging, not least the loneliness and acute pain of no genuine, lasting human connection in one’s winter years. It is the feminists who denied male feeling. The manosphere should be the tactics and skillsets arming men to take personal control over their lives back, and how to manage the fruits of those powers. It shouldn’t be a blame-avoiding exercise, as feminism has become or an excuse to check out of any external responsibilities, where they exist. Being an adult confers certain expectations, and it is childish to throw tantrums at the downsides when you readily indulge in the upsides. The responsibilities are the price you pay and you know this, you know there is nothing for free (unlike the feminists). For this, I believe MGTOW are the future of the manosphere. Rather than blame women for being women, a futile exercise, they forgo women until they perceive a good deal, if ever. A healthier society would have been full of such prospects for these clear-minded men.

Fucking one hundred sluts who would have fucked someone anyway is not morally superior to raising one healthy son in this broken world who will care for you in old age. Do not lock yourself up in a closed option without knowing what you discard and certainly for something better than the lure of a sated ego (it is insatiable and begins to eat its host). Pretending you feel no pain, as a sociopath (or natural) will turn those damaging impulses inward.

Expecting Short Inferential Distances in STEM theoretical communications


In the ancestral environment there were no abstract disciplines with vast bodies of carefully gathered evidence generalized into elegant theories transmitted by written books whose conclusions are a hundred inferential steps removed from universally shared background premises.

In the ancestral environment, anyone who says something with no obvious support, is a liar or an idiot.  You’re not likely to think, “Hey, maybe this guy has well-supported background knowledge that no one in my band has even heard of,” because it was a reliable invariant of the ancestral environment that this didn’t happen.

Conversely, if you say something blatantly obvious and the other person doesn’t see it, they’re the idiot, or they’re being deliberately obstinate to annoy you.

And to top it off, if someone says something with no obvious support and expects you to believe it – acting all indignant when you don’t – then they must be crazy….

I have a tactic which has greatly increased my scientific eloquence professionally. Expect I’m speaking to someone with the intelligence of a rather dim child (about 10yo) and jazz up the vocabulary as they become accustomed to the concepts. Be heavy-handed with metaphor and make fun little anecdotes or examples, which tend to stick in lt memory.

A clear argument has to lay out an inferential pathway, starting from what the audience already knows or accepts.  If you don’t recurse far enough, you’re just talking to yourself.

If you dumb yourself down to begin with, human nature means the other person will show off (every single time) and you can see their intelligence level in what they think is The Best (in fact their personal best), and also what they value to leverage in persuasion e.g. pieces of paper/academia/authority figures, empirical truth/data, moral outcomes/personal feelings.

People (wrongly) think they are clever because they find no fault in their own reasoning

… as they don’t know how to do objective and bounce between the two. ~ pet theory



Answer the initial question before coming back.

Continue reading

Consensus reality is anti-science.

If you perceive two completely incompatible beliefs to be true, they aren’t both true. Their logical opposition renders both false. A world in which both are true is impossible, unless one belief is ill-defined and then the question voids itself. Post-modernism attempts to raise faith above proof. The potential for one singular truth is the preserve of science, which tirelessly re-examines evidence. This is why we call it research. We never stop looking for alternative explanations that better fit the world around us, which is by and large unchanging in the universal principles. It is our understanding that changes and develops over time thanks to the Scientific Method and its focus on reductionism. I know I criticize reductionism in its extreme forms yet the principle of order and organization of information is critical for coherent subject-building. In the future, I believe many boundaries to current subjects will be swept away for something better reflective of our combined existence but for now those divisions help us to get down and fixate on tiny question with big implications.

Joss Whedon is into femme BDSM and other Issues

Every project includes a minimum of one female of precise Type, shoehorned in no matter how much it jars. Preferably, the entire project and plot is shaped around them and their humiliation (physical and verbal) of the men. Let’s go through a few character profiles and see if you spot a pattern. Or skip to the bolded conclusion at the end.

Yes, that is a whip.

Yes, that is a whip.

spoilers ahoy, duh

Buffy – the prototype plot

virginal schoolgirl (alarm bells should be ringing) develops special powers and uses them to beat up men (evil vampires) every night

She sLAYS them

She sLAYS them

She has a gang of orbiters including a lesbian and a sexy father figure character whose title is Watcher. For her. Out of every girl in the world. She defends her lovers when she acquires them as if she were a jock with ‘roid rage.

You don't own him, he isn't a puppy.

You don’t own him, he isn’t a puppy.

She discovers some vampires can be good (in bed) and spares them until she finds something better and they leave town on her orders. She saves the world multiple times despite being a complete ditz with emotional instability issues and has a literal death wish. She chooses to die to protect the world and runs her mouth for entire episodes on how she wished she had stayed dead. This happens twice.

Zombie Jesus: Feminist Edition.

Zombie Jesus: Feminist Edition.

There’s even an entire musical number on it. It is psychologically disturbed. Naturally, she beats up demonic entities, who all happen to be male. All the evil guys are male, ever. Spoiler: Any female evil isn’t really evil, she was forced or misled or is doing it for a secretly noble reason. I’m being serious, those are the plots of Whedon stories. He can’t even get Monster of the Week right.

It’s times like this I feel the Borderline Personality criteria were based on this type of crazy bitch. One episode, she’s in an asylum. Prima role model.

Sure, great characters.

Sure, he’s a ‘genius’.

Now you have the gist plot-wise and the appeal to loser men and feminists, his female characters and co. display…


And the fans wonder why Firefly was cancelled.

And the fans wonder why Firefly was cancelled with hipster dialogue like that.

Superhuman Power

TK is sexy now. As are death threats?

TK is sexy now. As are death threats?

Sexualized Baby Talk

And she's one of the best characters, trust.

And she’s one of the best characters, trust.

Leader, minus the dirty work

You can tell she's cool because she's got kooky hair.

You can tell she’s cool because she’s got kooky hair.

Sexually dominant female

Notice she's of questionable race, vaguely Asian for the fetishist in the target male demo!

Notice she’s of questionable race, vaguely Asian for the hentai fetishist in the target male demo! Plus spaceships!

Body part humour

This is where hipsters picked up their ironic sense of humour.

Is this musical intended for adults? This is where hipsters picked up their ironic sense of humour.

Disrespectful Attitude towards men, as a good thing

Why did no one slap her in this scene? Just tying her to a chair. No actual beating, like every male counterpart?

Why did no one torture her in this scene? Just tying her to a chair. No actual beating, like every male counterpart in an interrogation ?

Never gets hurt

This scene made no sense.

This scene made no sense.

Of course, search all you please for other examples of Girl Power in Whedon’s work (i.e. women fucking over/fighting men and always metaphorically winning) but you’ll notice the Strong Female Character wins in the literal sense too. Black Widow closed the portal in Avengers preventing further invasion (Freudian vagina joke?), Stark’s sacrifice meant nothing to the plot (one pump chump?). Snuck that one past the fanboys, didn’t he?

like I believe that tosh

Stop asking awkward questions.

Stop asking the awkward sex question.

I theorize this exertion of domination over men enjoyed by the beta/below demo of his works are a means of projecting the alpha qualities they subconsciously wish they had themselves and rationalizing them as a sexual release. Psychologically, it makes sense and explains why certain Modern Males like “bitches”. They’ve been trained to.

Virginity is like being a beautiful red sports car


Metaphor I had to come up with to explain ‘irrational’ female choices to a male friend.
Everyone wants you, and to ride you, but it’s in your best interest to hold out for the driver who’ll be considerate enough to give you good experiences and minimise damage. As soon as you leave the showroom, you lose value irretrievably. You cannot change models although you can patch up damage and hope no one notices. You might be at risk of theft or fraud because some drivers think they’re entitled to you. Which type of driver do you allow your keys? You remember past experiences, if any, and cannot wait around forever and run the risk of rusting. You see other cars out enjoying themselves and want to know their secret. You need to choose while you are desirable and hope you’ve chosen well.

This example, though hardly perfect, explains some female choices quite well.

Off the top of my head;

  • The ‘modern’ refusal that virginity exists (hymens are a social construct)
  • The issue with number versus quality of rides
  • Why the best women think being seen with them is enough reward for maintenance when some men believe there was a covert driver’s contract being fulfilled and paid
  • Why women tend to complain about the lack of good men because the value of rides are at odds with availability
  • What might seem like superficiality from one end (paint job) is rivalled by the superficiality (a car is a car) on the other
  • The popularity of red models and creamy soft seats
  • Disproportionate concern over the crime rates and avoiding the eye of bad drivers
  • Doubt over the value (positive or negative) of past experiences.