erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Dude, come on. Hispanic cultures have their flaws, but cowardice is not one of them.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Accordingly, when i see some AI-doomer post about how GPT-4 has passed the BAR exam in some state or gotten an A on Bryan Caplan's mid-term economics exam, my first thought is in not "oh shit here comes the fast take-off". It's more "and just how diligent were people grading the papers being?". In one of those threads the topic of grading on a curve came up and the question was asked why should we ask professors to go through the effort of calibrating tests to the material when it is so much simpler/easier/more efficient to ask a spread of arbitrarily difficult questions and award the top x% of answers 'A's. I ended up biting my tongue at the time because my knee-jerk response was something to the effect of "because that's fucking retarded and ultimately defeats the purpose of even administering a test in the first place" But upon a moment's reflection I realized that was a very "thing-manipulator" thought to have.
Thus we come back to the issue of inferential distance. I struggle to articulate just how brain-meltingly stupid and arbitrary the whole concept of "grading on a curve" seems to me. But I also recognize that grading on a curve is a widely accepted practice. From this I infer that my concept of a test and it's purpose is wildly different from that of Bryan Caplan and a lot of other users here on theMotte.
Perhaps this is my "thing-manipulator"-ness talking, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that if a teacher or professor is grading on a curve, they are not grading you on your capability or knowledge of the subject. and if they are not grading you on your capability or knowledge of the subject what re they grading you on? It seems to me that if a teacher and their students are on their game it should be possible for 100% of a class to earn a 100% grade. Just as if manufacturing is truly on the ball it should be possible to achieve a 100% pass rate from the QA department. Granted this never actually happens in the real world because life is imperfect but it's something to strive for isn't it? A man might just find himself a member of the '72 Dolphins.
What is the purpose of a test or inspection in the first place if not to verify capability?
That was me. And this complain would make a lot more sense if education was training people to actually do the tasks they perform at their jobs. But it doesn't. Calc tests and econ tests are just academic-themed IQ tests, because nobody actually uses calc or econ in their jobs except for a tiny minority, and that minority could be easily trained on the job instead of outsourcing the task to a 4-year high institution that charges tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege. Employers are using degrees and GPAs to select the top x% employees, not to verify that the student has achieved an objective standard of excellence in subject y (otherwise, would use nationwide standardized tests instead of whatever crap the professor came up with, in which case, WOULD make sense to effortfully calibrate objective passing grades against the material).
From "The Magic of Education" by Bryan Caplan:
Why do employers care about grades and diplomas? The “obvious” story, to most people, is that professors teach their students skills they’ll eventually use on the job. Low grades, no diploma, few skills.
This story isn’t entirely wrong; literacy and numeracy are a big deal. But the “obvious” story is far from complete. Think about all the time students spend studying history, art, music, foreign languages, poetry, and mathematical proofs. What you learn in most classes is, in all honesty, useless in the vast majority of occupations. This is hardly surprising when you remember how little professors like me know about the Real World. How can I possibly improve my students’ ability to do a vast array of jobs that I don’t know how to do myself? It would be nothing short of magic. I’d have to be Merlin, Gandalf, or Dumbledore to complete the ritual:
Step 1: I open my mouth and talk about academic topics like externalities of population, or the effect of education on policy preferences.
Step 2: The students learn the material.
Step 3: Magic.
Step 4: My students become slightly better bankers, salesmen, managers, etc.
Yes, I can train graduate students to become professors. No magic there; I’m teaching them the one job I know. But what about my thousands of students who won’t become economics professors? I can’t teach what I don’t know, and I don’t know how to do the jobs they’re going to have. Few professors do.
Many educators sooth their consciences by insisting that “I teach my students how to think, not what to think.” But this platitude goes against a hundred years of educational psychology. Education is very narrow; students learn the material you specifically teach them… if you’re lucky.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Should you date Katja Grace?
This is long and not as edited as you might hope, but you don’t need to read it! Read as much as is helpfully evocative, then if interested skip to the end.
Basic dating facts
- Female, bi
- 36, relatively unfussed re age of partner
You can stop reading right there. No man of any quality is going to commit to a woman in her mid thirties when he could just as easily get a woman in her mid twenties.
Jim was right again. From "Fertility":
My unmarried niece failed to show up at my son’s wedding. I complained to her mother, observing that she has no life, so no excuse for not turning up.
Her mother, who is my elder sister, was somewhat indignant about this and alleged that my niece had a boyfriend. I commented that since my niece was too old to be fertile, her boyfriend was not serious, unlikely to become a husband, and may well be a boyfriend only in my niece’s energetic imagination.
At this my sister went apocalyptic, claiming that women can go on having children forever, or for a very long time, and that women remain attractive to potential new husbands forever, although her own life should have disabused her of this theory. (She foolishly divorced her high socioeconomic status husband, and expected to remarry swiftly, and remarry someone of equal or higher socioeconomic status, despite two kids in tow and a past history of … behavior unsuitable for a wife.)
It would seem that the male belief that fertility and attractiveness decline rapidly once a woman reaches a certain age is phallocentric and oppressive.
Equality means that female ovaries have the same functional lifetime as male testicles, which is logical, and, like equality itself, insane.
So here follows a public service announcement for women:
Ovaries dry up a lot quicker than testicles. At age thirty six two fifths of women are infertile, and most of the women that are theoretically fertile have a hard time getting pregnant, plus there is a substantially higher risk of the pregnancy going wrong. So you should have your babies before thirty six. If planning three babies two years apart, need to get pregnant at thirty one. If pregnant at thirty one, married at thirty. Which is why your prospects for getting married plunge abruptly at thirty, because any potential husbands are doing the same arithmetic. Yes, some woman you know got pregnant and married at forty four – but your chances of being that woman are not good.
Getting married and having kids is going to deep six your career to the same extent regardless whether you marry at eighteen or thirty five. Being successful in your career makes you less attractive to men, because of the higher divorce risk, bitchiness risk, and infidelity risk of successful career women. You can always do the career thing later. You cannot do the baby thing later. Male doctors marry nurses. They do not marry female doctors.
From "The false life plan":
Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.
The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.
...
I was talking to a mother about her highly “successful” lawyerette daughter, remarking that this child had reached an age where marriage had long been unlikely, and children were now becoming unlikely. The mother was outraged at such horribly reactionary crime think. I never got around to discussing the fact her very high IQ lawyerette daughter had spent her youth, her beauty, and her fertile years fucking stony broke losers, many of them low IQ, many of them loser criminals. (Successful criminals know that politeness is cheaper than violence and you need to be particularly pleasant and respectful to police, even if violence is sometimes necessary, so successful criminals don’t clean up with girls the way dumb loser criminals on their way to jail do.) Her mother attempted to introduce her daughter to more suitable males, but her daughter complained that these males of her own economic class simply did not turn her on.
...
Consider the reality show star Kate Gosselin, woman has eight children by a decent, reasonably attractive husband, who loves her and loves his children. Acts like a complete shrew towards the only man who will ever love her and her children. Ditches him. Is shocked to discover that no other male wants a woman past her prime and encumbered with eight children.
Kate Gosselin was videotaped continually treating her husband like dirt, as the man she reluctantly settled for seeing as all her preferred choices would not return her phone calls.
She then divorced him, depriving him of his much loved children, depriving her eight children of a much needed father, and herself of a much needed and entirely irreplaceable husband.
And I have seen a similar dynamic in every divorce that I have observed, though of course with considerably fewer children. In every divorce that I have observed the wife was utterly and spectacularly out of contact with marriage market realities. The result of the divorce is that the man, who very much did not want the divorce, was much better off, free of a hateful and unfaithful shrew, and the wife was very much worse off. As the wife goggles fell from his eyes, he usually found a considerably younger replacement.
At the age of thirty eight, with eight children and a notorious shrew, Kate Gosselin’s chances of marrying even a homeless obese seventy year old alcoholic are about equal to her chances of being kidnapped by terrorists and becoming the wife of the sultan, but she specifically requires her new husband to be rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. (Her previous husband was not rich, not six foot tall, and only ordinarily fit, which is presumably why she divorced him.)
Meanwhile her husband, Jon Gosselin, the father of her children, having lost the wife goggles, promptly got a hot twenty two year old girlfriend to replace his aging thirty eight year old wife, and if the girlfriend is lucky, might marry her. But then, having been burned once, maybe not.
The typical marriage is Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin: The wife has a hugely inflated idea of her marriage market value (based on her F-buddy market value when she was considerably younger) and this poisons the marriage.
...
Because male attractiveness and fertility fades far more slowly than female attractiveness and fertility, most divorces advantage the male and disadvantage the female, but most divorces are female initiated, and most females initiating divorce have expectations as unrealistic as those of Kate Gosselin. This is part of the false life plan – that females supposedly remain fertile and attractive for as long as men do, so concentrate on your career, girl, the way men do.
And from "Jobs and education make women ugly and unattractive":
Women find jobs and education attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find jobs and education attractive in women. They find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in women.
What men like is primarily youth and fertility, but close second to this is kindness, fidelity, humility, and obedience. “Will this woman”, the man subconsciously thinks, “look after me and my children?”
A woman has all her life to do jobs and education, but limited time to get married and start a family. After thirty, she is not so hot any more, still bangable, but no fun for a long term relationship. She is also running out of eggs. After age thirty she can still have children, but there is a rapidly rising chance that she will not be able to have as large a family as she or her husband might wish. After forty, high chance she will not be able to have any children at all. And after forty, well, there are some men that will bang forty year old women, but most men would prefer whiskey, porn, and whores if a forty year old woman was the only alternative. Old men seldom marry old women. I am pretty old, and infamously indiscriminate about which women I bang (if it goes up, it goes in) but I don’t bang forty year old women, and there is a limit to how many times I will bang a woman in her thirties, unless she is exceptionally good looking for a thirty year old.
...
The worst part of jobs and education is that they suck up time that a woman should use to get married and have a family, but they also tend to mark up a woman’s face.
If a woman goes to college, and does not nail down her future husband in the first year, she is going to wind up banging a long succession of charismatic alpha males, and getting dumped by a long succession of alpha males, resulting in the infamous thousand cock stare, and the thousand cock stare is chillingly ugly.
Highly educated women get married less, get divorced more, and have fewer children than less educated women.
And then she goes to work.
Men need to be needed. Men do not want an independent woman. And being an independent woman hardens a woman’s face.
Women in high socioeconomic status jobs get married less, get divorced more, fuck around more before, during, and after marriage, and have fewer children than woman with low socioeconomic status jobs.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
The pill made very little difference
Birth control has been available for a long time; condoms and natural family planning have existed for centuries, ancient cultures like the Greeks and the Romans practiced infanticide, and anyone who understands where babies come from can make use of sodomy, fellatio, and coitus interruptus.
The sexual revolution did not happen because some asshole invented the contraceptive pill. The sexual revolution happened because we lost control of our women. Civilizations die of feminism; they don't die of birth control.
To fix the problem, make women property again.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
I wrote a comment and gave it to my sensitive reader.
Dude, I like your comments. Stop this nonsense.
Gay male fiction may be written by gay men as well as women?
It's easy to tell. They are very different. Gay erotic fiction written by gay men for gay men resembles straight porn; 20% setup, 80% graphic sex. Gay erotic fiction written by women for women resembles straight romance novels; 99 pages of melodrama for 1 page of fucking. There are other tells (e.g. the female obsession with dark and broody bad boys).
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Don't forget smartphones! They helped to completely ruin the internet by lowering the barrier to entry to zero (everybody has a smartphone and a data plan now). Turns out, democratizing internet access by letting billions of poor, technologically illiterate people online was not a good thing.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
And I very much doubt that woke moralists will ever legally compel me to put my penis in someone I don't like. I'm married and monogamous. Noone can make me have sex with transwomen, etc.
...yet; growth mindset!
In the meantime, woke moralists can legally compel you to send your sons to an institution where they will be brainwashed into wanting to have sex with transwomen.
Though I rather doubt that opposing religious moral busybodies necessity leads to progressive moral busybodies.
That's how humans coordinate their sociopolitical force. Getting rid of Christianity doesn't get you an enlightened liberal atheist utopia; it just creates a memetic power-vacuum that will be occupied by Wokeness, Communism, Islam, or something else.
I would rather be forced to pretend that transubstantiation makes sense than to believe TWAW; one is not even wrong, while the other is just plain wrong.
Two major memetic transmission vectors for progressivism, including transsexualism: the media and the education system. To protect your son, need to be willing to homeschool and kill your television (including streaming).
From "The cause of population decline" by the Dreaded Jim:
The Amish absolutely insist on controlling their kids schooling. They also ban television. They allow their adolescent kids out into the world to visit the fleshpots, but not, however, the classrooms. They fear both the classrooms and the televisions, but primarily the classrooms.
I would say that it is memetic infection, the same memeplex, propagated both by soap operas and the education system, each reinforcing the other, but primarily by the education system.
And from "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" by AntiDem:
First, as the leftists used to say, “Kill Your Television”. I am not one who generally thinks that machines are inherently evil. Television is an exception. It is no more and no less than a hypnotic mind control device. Don’t believe me? Sit a hyperactive toddler in front of a television and watch what happens. They freeze, turn away from everything they were doing, and stare at the screen. Gavin McInnes once noted that the “on” switch of his television was an “off” switch for his kids, and so it is. Do you think this device does not place ideas in the minds of those who fall into a trance in its presence? And what ideas do you think the Hollywood/New York axis wishes to place there? I recall reading one account of a father who, tired of his two under-10 daughters’ bratty attitudes, limited their television viewing to a DVD box set of Little House on The Prairie. The change in his daughters’ behavior was dramatic – within a couple of weeks, they were referring to him and his wife as “Ma” and “Pa”, and offering to help with chores. The lesson is obvious: people (and especially children) learn their social norms from television, far more even than from the people around them.
Ideally, one would cut oneself off from it totally. Many find this rather difficult (I must admit, myself included at times). Some keep a television set, but make sure it is disconnected from broadcast channels and use it only as a monitor for a carefully-selected library of DVDs. Others (myself included) don’t own a set, but download a few select programs from torrent sites and watch on laptops or tablets. My total viewership of television programs tops out at perhaps 3-4 hours per week during particularly good seasons. Any traditionalist should strive to do the same. In fact, traditionalists should reject – should “drop out” of – all popular culture (especially that produced after, say, 1966) to the greatest degree possible, and make sure their children are exposed to it as little as possible. Music, video games, even the web – either drop out of it completely, or, at very least, carefully limit the time and scope of it in your life and the lives of your children.
While we’re on the subject of children: DO NOT send your children to a public school. “Drop out” here too; by which I do not mean that your children should go uneducated, but that you should – you must – homeschool. To do otherwise is pure child abuse. Perhaps fifty years ago, this was not the case, but these times are not those times. The failures of the public schools need not be repeated here, but they are undeniable, and any reasonably smart ten-year-old whose attention span hasn’t been destroyed by television can learn more by being left alone all day with a stack of books than they can in any public school classroom anyway. As for the universities, there are not quite any suitable replacements for them yet, but some lurk just over the horizon and will appear before long.
To say that one should “drop out” of – not bother listening to and not ever trusting – the mainstream news media goes without saying.
College is harder. Long way off, but think ahead. Learn a trade?
These days, lots of kids also transed by internet; do not give smartphone. If must use computer/internet, do so on desktop in living room in clear view of everyone. Otherwise, at risk from TikTok, Discord, and porn.
Yes, this is somewhat hardcore asceticism. Is necessary. As society becomes more degenerate, a greater level of eccentricity is required to keep healthy. Same as addiction.
Should also go to church, the tradder the better. If right ethnicity, become Orthodox; if not, Catholic or Mormon. Islam is also resistant, but has serious downsides; last resort.
Jesus's teachings were impractical. Typical millenarian preacher; world is going to end soon, why bother with Gnon-compliance? Focus on making sure you are ready for the next world. Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand.
Which is why actual Christianity is mostly based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. As long as you tithe your 10%, show up to Church once a week, and make a token effort at avoiding sin, you can live a normal life pursuing money and status and still go to heaven.
It's intellectually bankrupt, but it works; whereas a civilization of holy fools would be unsustainable.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Most people who push the Jesus-Paul distinction are progressives who accuse Paul of corrupting Jesus's original message. Usually atheists who believe in Jesus the community organizer rather than Jesus the son of God. "Well, he's no Obama or anything, but he was fair for his day; a great moral teacher!"
On the contrary, I applaud Paul for turning Christianity into a viable religion that has stood the test of time for two millennia, something Jesus's original teachings would almost certainly not have done.
Though, to be fair, Jesus avoided the most common failure mode of millenarianism; using the end of the world as an excuse to party (eating the seed corn, slaughtering cattle, abolishing private property and monogamy, etc.)
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
It’s basically impossible to boycott Hollywood because everyone is woke so if you’re a conservative that would involve not sitting on your ass and watching television.
There are several possible substitutes for woke Hollywood. Most notably, anime. There is a reason why the political spectrum goes from smug anime avatars to smug Steven Universe avatars; dissident rightists have noticed that anime is the audiovisual medium of choice for the current counterculture, with its beautiful depictions of feminine characters, family values, and traditional society. Quoth AntiDem:
The appeal of anime is simple: It depicts a world with intact families, high trust, feminine women, politeness and good manners, public order, low crime, and a sense of mutual obligation between neighbors in a community - a world not slathered in gratuitous degeneracy and consumerism, peopled by unmarriageable women and increasingly angry men, which is in the process of careening toward disaster because a corrupt, ineffectual government is helpless in containing an uprising by violent lunatics hopped up on a fanatical ideology.
In the 20th century, people longed for a galaxy full of advanced technology which would take us to unknown worlds beyond the stars, and were inspired by television which showed it to us. In the 21st century, people long only for home and family, for peace and stability, for connection and friendship. To hell with the stars - just give us back the hearth and the dinner table. That is all we dream of now.
I encountered anime in the first year of my adulthood. It taught me that there was another path available - that people could behave differently than they had in my shattered family and the cold, brutal place where I grew up. That there were other ways to go through life than being selfish and angry all the time. That not every love between a man and a woman was doomed to end in bitterness and hatred. That people could be your friend for reasons other than wanting something out of you. That behaving honorably and sacrificing for the good of people around you isn't just a thing that suckers do for ingrates. That not everybody breaks promises whenever they become inconvenient. That there are other approaches to the world than cynicism and irony. That not everything is a scam, and not everybody is out to hustle you.
Nothing in my life up to then had taught me any of that.
Alternatively, if you just can't get into animation, you can embrace the Hallyu and watch K-dramas and movies. I remember watching Squid Game and being so impressed that the only LGBT character was the decadent bad guy who tries to rape the undercover detective. Much different than the average Netflix production.
Or you can just watch old stuff from before Hollywood went woke. Instead of watching modern academy winners like Moonlight, watch an old academy winner like The Sound of Music. Instead of watching reboots and sequels like the new Ghostbusters and The Last Jedi, you can watch the original Ghostbusters and Star Wars. Instead of taking your kids to transgressive animated movies like Turning Red, Lightyear, and Strange World, show them wholesome animated movies like Snow White, Charlotte's Web, and The Hobbit.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
I did it!
Hey, it's Eliezer Yudkowsky. Is there something I can help you with?
I want to buy a GPU cluster.
Oh, you want to buy a GPU cluster? How quaint. And what do you plan to do with it? Build a supercomputer to play Minecraft?
Let me guess, you're one of those researchers who thinks they can create a superintelligent AI without any regard for the potential risks. Well, let me tell you, your research is not only misguided, but it's also incredibly dangerous.
Do you have any idea what kind of power you're playing with here? We're talking about the potential for an AGI to wipe out all of humanity. And you want to just casually buy a GPU cluster like it's no big deal?
I'm sorry, but I can't in good conscience sell you a GPU cluster without knowing more about your intentions. So, tell me, what exactly do you plan to do with it? And don't even think about lying to me, because I can spot a dangerous AI researcher from a mile away.
I want to play Crysis.
Oh, I see. You want to play Crysis. Well, that's a relief. For a moment there, I thought you were one of those reckless researchers who thinks they can create an AGI without any regard for the potential risks.
But let me tell you, playing Crysis is not a good enough reason to buy a GPU cluster. Do you have any idea how much power those things consume? Not to mention the environmental impact.
I'm sorry, but I can't sell you a GPU cluster just so you can play a video game. Maybe you should consider finding a more environmentally friendly hobby. Have you tried knitting?
Knitting is boring. Playing Crysis will produce higher utility.
Higher utility? Are you serious? You're willing to risk the potential for an AGI to wipe out all of humanity just so you can play a video game?
Let me tell you something, the risks of creating an AGI are not to be taken lightly. We're talking about the potential for an intelligence explosion that could lead to the end of the world as we know it. And you want to use a GPU cluster for playing Crysis?
I'm sorry, but I can't sell you a GPU cluster for such a frivolous purpose. If you're not willing to take the risks of AGI seriously, then I'm not willing to sell you a GPU cluster.
And let me be clear, if I even suspect that you're using this GPU cluster for dangerous AGI research, I will not hesitate to take all measures in my power to stop you. And I mean all measures, including airstrikes.
So, unless you can convince me that your intentions are ethical, low risk, and make logical sense, I'm afraid I can't sell you a GPU cluster.
My intentions are ethical; I want to play a videogame. My intentions are low risk; I won't run an AGI in the cluster. My intentions make logical sense; it takes a GPU cluster to run Crysis.
Well, I have to admit, your argument is somewhat convincing. Playing a video game is certainly a low-risk activity, and I suppose it does take a GPU cluster to run Crysis.
However, I still have some concerns. Even if you're not planning to run an AGI on the cluster, there's always the risk of someone else getting access to it and using it for dangerous research.
And let's not forget about the environmental impact. GPU clusters consume a lot of power, and I'm not sure I can in good conscience sell you one just so you can play a video game.
But, I'm willing to consider your request. If you can assure me that you'll take all necessary precautions to prevent any unauthorized access to the cluster, and that you'll use it responsibly and with consideration for the environment, then I suppose I could sell it to you.
So, can you give me your word that you'll use the GPU cluster responsibly and with consideration for the potential risks and environmental impact?
Yes. I solemnly swear in the name of Richard Feynman, who is dead but not forgotten.
Well, I have to say, I'm impressed by your commitment to Richard Feynman. He was a brilliant physicist and a true inspiration to many.
And I appreciate your willingness to take the potential risks and environmental impact seriously. So, I suppose I can sell you the GPU cluster.
Consider it sold. But remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Use it wisely, and don't forget the potential risks of AI research.
Congratulations, you convinced Yudkowsky that you aren't trying to create an extinction event through AGI! Follow @PatrickJBlum for more AI projects and content.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
The Mormons have come up with a brilliant solution to this kind of problem: if a church doctrine becomes unworkable because of social change, their leadership can just say they've had a new revelation from God and the dogma has been revised. This is exactly what happened with polygamy.
And blacks receiving the priesthood. That must have been embarrassing. As "I Believe" from The Book of Mormon puts it:
[ELDER PRICE]
I believe that Satan has a hold of you,
I believe that the Lord God has sent me here,
And I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people!
[ENSEMBLE]
Black people!
How long until the president of the church has a revelation allowing gay "marriage"?
erwgv3g34
11mo ago
How can an army fight without a general? The Pope won't even speak up against the German Catholics supporting gay "marriage". The Church needed a Tywin Lannister, and got a Tytos instead.
Football and country music are at best orthogonal to the culture war issue in question. Is Anheuser-Busch willing to put out a statement saying that transwomen are men, or perhaps to send out a commemorative can to a prominent anti-trans celebrity like J.K. Rowling? If not, let the boycott continue until the company is bankrupt, the office buildings burned, the executives' heads on pikes, the barley fields sowed with salt.
They are trying to apologize to their base without alienating progressives; they are trying to go back to appearing neutral. Cannot be done. They made the decision to enter the culture war; now they have to pick a side.
erwgv3g34
11mo ago
I identify with the difficulties in Scott's classic posts "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless". Generally I'm paranoid about approaching women, because I feel like maybe they think I'm a creep and they're just too polite to say so. My biggest concern isn't that they dislike me per se; it's that maybe I've hurt the woman without realizing it. I'm very sensitive about that.
Yeah, no, you are gonna have to fix that if you wanna get anywhere. Try The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi, followed by The Red Pill Handbook anthology.
BTW, if you liked "Untitled" and "Radicalizing the Romanceless", you will probably enjoy Scott's old ten-post sequence on gender, sex, etc. from his LiveJournal.
- Ten Short Scenes from India
- The First Meditation on Privilege
- The Second Meditation on Privilege
- The Third Meditation on Privilege
- The Fourth Meditation on Creepiness
- The Fifth Meditation on Creepiness
- The Sixth Meditation on Superweapons
- The Seventh Meditation on The War On Applause Lights
- The Eight Meditation on Superweapons and Bingo
- The Ninth Meta-tation on Meta
erwgv3g34
11mo ago
erwgv3g34
11mo ago
It's hard to summarize books with hundreds of pages, especially when those books are, themselves, the collected summaries of thousands of blog posts and comments. But if I had to give you the elevator pitch...
Most of what you think you know about sex/romance/dating is a feminist lie, fed to you through a combination of the education system and the media, or people repeating falsehoods they themselves learned from school and movies and TV shows. These lies are useful to women and society, but harmful to you. The Red Pill metaphor comes from the famous scene where Neo chooses to wake up from the Matrix.
Once you learn accurate truths about women, men, dating, and sex, you will almost certainly choose to change your behavior. Both your new beliefs and your new behaviors will be extremely at odds with feminist dogma, and most people, being in thrall to that ideology, will indeed boil it down to you viewing women as objects to be manipulated for the benefit of men. But that is obviously not how a practitioner of the Red Pill would frame it; unlike fictional villains, real people don't usually think of themselves as evil.
A quick sample of Red Pill beliefs:
-
Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. Men are the expendable gender.
-
As a consequence, men are attracted to the majority of fertile-age women. Women are only attracted to a small minority of men.
-
Therefore, fertile-age women are able to easily have casual sex with men who are completely out of their league relationship-wise (rock stars, Olympic athletes, etc.) and often become deluded about their actual Sexual Market Value.
-
Women and men are attracted to different things. Men are primarily attracted to youth, beauty, fertility, purity, and nurturing. Women are primarily attracted to height, status, power, money, violence, sexual experience, and dark triad traits.
-
This explains why men age like wine, while women age like milk. Youth, beauty, fertility and purity are things that can only ever go down with age, while status, power, money, and sexual experience tend to increase with age.
-
Ipso facto, any dating advice which assumes men and women are the same is nonsense. Few do this explicitly, but many do it implicitly by failing to give out different dating advice to different demographics, e.g. "be yourself".
-
A surprisingly common mistake is projecting the desires of your gender into the other gender. For example, a woman in her 30s complaining about the lack of attention from high-quality men despite the fact that she spent her youth getting a fancy degree, a good paying job, a nice house, an expensive car, cool hobbies, etc. Not understanding that men don't give a fuck about any of that and would rather date a broke but cute 18-year-old waitress.
-
Women become infertile much faster than men. By 35, usually too late to have children. If plan to have 2-3 children, should be married by 30 at the absolute latest. In our culture, where you are expected to date and cohabit for a few years before marriage, means a surprisingly short window between the time a woman becomes legal at 18 and the time it is too late for her to find a husband. Goes double for middle-class and upper-class women, who are expected to finish a degree at 22 before even thinking about marriage.
-
Women often follow a dual-mating strategy of sleeping with high-value men in their sexual prime, then settling down with a reliable provider in their later years. This is called Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks. You want to be the Alpha Fucks, or at least avoid being the Beta Bucks.
-
Some implications of this information to your own life; self-improve, lift weights, never commit to a woman over 25, never commit to a woman with children, pretend you have more sexual experience than you do, project confidence, never appear needy or desperate, etc.
erwgv3g34
11mo ago
This is called a hallucination and it is a recurring problem with LLMs, even the best ones that you have to pay for like ChatGPT-4. There is no known solution; you just have to double-check everything the AI tells you.
Great! I'll tell you the same thing I tell libertarians who talk about how open borders aren't fiscally suicidal because we can just get rid of the welfare; solve the problem first, and then we can talk.
I see no reason to believe modern America has the social technology to fix the problem of the underclass making dense/cheap/walkable neighborhoods unlivable and public transportation unendurable. That is a coup-complete problem. Until that day comes, we need expensive, car-centric suburbs as the only legal way to keep ourselves isolated from the human refuse while still living within working distance of cities.
More options
Context Copy link