site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   4033 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 19, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does Twitch's extremely strict policy surrounding slurs, hate speech, not having banned users on panel shows, the permanent ban on destiny, the policing of offline and off platform behaviour, etc, make economic sense? I don't understand how it could, as it seemingly significantly pushes people to Youtube and especially more recently Kick as competitors, which is insane considering that Twitch initially basically had a monopoly on this.

I don't think it does, given it's substantially stricter than every other platform, including Youtube, Tiktok, pre-musk Twitter, and similar. I think it's a combination of - economic incentives mean management has some pressure to censor, and then the people they give the 'trust and safety' or w/e authority to are very progressive.

Does Twitch's extremely strict policy surrounding slurs, hate speech, not having banned users on panel shows, the permanent ban on destiny, the policing of offline and off platform behaviour, etc, make economic sense? I don't understand how it could, as it seemingly significantly pushes people to Youtube and especially more recently Kick as competitors, which is insane considering that Twitch initially basically had a monopoly on this.

Sounds like a textbook principal-agent problem to me.

... depends on what you're asking. We don't have data, and such data's probably impossible to get, but there's some stuff you can reasonably guess.

Does the extent of the current policy put off more advertisers or watchers or creators than a milder one would? Probably! Does a content policy doing some of these rules probably make them more advertisers/watch/creators than having absolutely zero would? Also probably, given that above any natural economic motions it'd attract the same sort of 'oversight' that drove Media Matters to fuck with Twitter recently.

Does any of that matter, when we already know every payment processor outside of Russia will drop them like a sack of potatoes?

To what degree does Wikipedia call things "terrorism" in the encyclopedic voice rather than "according to..."? I'm trying to define the terms of a prediction / bet about the future.

7 July 2005 London bombings

four coordinated suicide attacks carried out by Islamist terrorists

2004 Madrid train bombings:

The bombings constituted the deadliest terrorist attack carried out in the history of Spain and the deadliest in Europe since 1988.

2011 Norway attacks:

The 2011 Norway attacks, referred to in Norway as 22 July (Norwegian: 22. juli)[12] or as 22/7,[13] were two domestic terrorist attacks by far right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik

Air India Flight 182:

on 23 June 1985, disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean as a result of an explosion from a bomb planted by Canadian Sikh terrorists. [...] The bombing of Air India Flight 182 is the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history,

Bologna massacre:

terrorist bombing of the Bologna Centrale railway station in Bologna, Italy, on the morning of 2 August 1980, which killed 85 people and wounded over 200.[1] Several members of the neo-fascist terrorist organization Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (NAR, Armed Revolutionary Nuclei) were sentenced for the bombing,[2] although the group denied involvement.

Pan Am Flight 103:

With a total of 270 fatalities, it is the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United Kingdom.

Ben Gurion Airport massacre:

was a terrorist attack that occurred on 30 May 1972.

Looks like those are all categorized as terrorism.

Does Tinder actually delete your data after three months? Seems unclear.

Yes unless you’ve been reported (very common and you’ll have no indication). Also, I know a group who has a bot screen cap all profiles for mining/analytics so you’re not escaping that one.

Which winter jacket should I ask Santa for?

What climate do you live in and what are your primary use cases?

I move often, but for example let's say going on a date near Atlanta.

Depends on your style. For casual and athletic wear, The Arc'teryx Atom is great for that light temperature range, adaptable and good looking in the non-hoodie version.

For preppy/dressier, a Barbour waxed cotton is a classic for a reason, expensive but can last. Strong responsible provider vibe.

If you're edgier at your date, hunt for a used schott perfecto. No jacket I've owned has gone over better on more dates than that one. It really does look that good.

The Carhartt winter jacket I received for Christmas 12 years ago remains my daily driver every winter. Maybe the best product I've been owned.

Thanks

What career should I pursue? I seem to lack the discipline or whatever for university or other such independant tasks. How much does having a good career matter for getting a good wife? I'm worried at the rate I'm going I'm running out of time.

What career should I pursue? I seem to lack the discipline or whatever for university or other such independant tasks.

Something where there is a shortage. Also, if you're autistic, get yourself tested for ADHD - a lot of us have the combo meal and medication can be very helpful.

I don't know if it's the same in the States, but in Canada I'm always telling guys in your position to do insurance. Typically it's a quick on the job training course (few weeks?) And then you're making 50-60k, often fully remote, busy and occasionally interesting work in adjusting, or later on fraud prevention. You could also take like a heavy equipment operator course or something along those lines.

Could you tell me more about insurance, if you don't mind? It's not just sales? That's more optimistic than I've heard from other people, but maybe that's just Canada.

I've got a friend who worked for Desjardins and Intact. His job was adjusting - aka evaluating the claims that came in. You get in an accident and want money to fix your car - was it your fault? What is your policy? Etc etc.

Eventually you can go into management, more corporate stuff, or I've heard a lot of people go into fraud detection, building cases against a lot of organized crime insurance fraud schemes and passing info off to police.

All with no degree? Just starting with nothing and accumulating job experience?

In Canada at least, I believe they have you take a course....I think your ceiling is limited somewhat without a degree, and in the hiring process if there is a lot of competition then you may find yourself overlooked, but it's at least worth looking into. Even a simple 2 year diploma from a community college probably wouldn't hurt.

Seems like it might be pretty uncommon, unfortunately. I've talked to others who have said they don't know anyone outside of sales without a degree. witheredwojak.jpg

I'm always telling guys in your position to do insurance. Typically it's a quick on the job training course (few weeks?) And then you're making 50-60k, often fully remote, busy and occasionally interesting work in adjusting, or later on fraud prevention.

Something like this seems like it might be the practical path for me.

Assortative mating is a real deal, so if you want to bag a wife you'll be proud of, then you need to work on yourself too, presuming your profile picture is you, unless you get really jacked you'll have to rely on something other than good looks carrying you (a problem I share, I'm just being honest here, not attempting to call you ugly, even just being plain means you need more in hand).

You're 26 years old, and don't have much in the way of qualifications. Well, I'm 26 years old, and despite "lacking the discipline" to pursue independent tasks, Ritalin proved to be a sufficient aid to get me through med school.

That is not a route I would recommend to anyone today (unless they're at just the right age to get in), because I think there's a very high chance you will be effectively obsolete and unemployable (for current wages) by the time you're done. This is true for most professions, not just medicine, not that you suggested you were inclined towards it.

IMO, you should aim for a career where minimal credentials and maximum selling your skills applies, programming is one that comes to mind, perhaps a trade if you're willing to go down that route. I would strongly advise against anything that needs a Bachelors, then a Masters and a PhD, you simply do not have the luxury of that much time (though being a student in a promising course is a good way to get a girl! At least you'll be in an environment where they're present, programming excepted).

You raised concerns of delaying having kids later being bad because of aging related degradation of your seminal genetic material, which honestly isn't that big a deal for men. The most pertinent reason to avoid delaying past your 40s is that you will likely just lack the energy to handle kids, even if that's not something that can't be overcome.

So my advise is, get into a Bachelors in whatever you think you have the aptitude for, perhaps consider a Masters if you don't find a well-paying job straight away, and use that time to expose yourself to women your age with the traits you desire.

You raised concerns of delaying having kids later being bad because of aging related degradation of your seminal genetic material, which honestly isn't that big a deal for men.

Any relationship between delayed paternity and having autistic children?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7396152/

Instead, increased odds of ASD were found with paternal age < 30 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.83 and 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.14–7.02). Likewise, younger age (<30 years) for both parents was associated with decreases in Mullen Scales of Early Learning early learning composite (MSEL-ELC) scores

It is indeed a risk factor, but as far as I'm aware, considering all congenital abnormalities and not just autism, maternal age is a bigger deal.

children born to fathers who were 45 years or older were at higher risk for developing autism than those born to fathers who were 25 years or younger.

Source: an observational study of five million children in five countries; an article which cites it also notes the issues with the study’s methodology.

Is it just a correlation or is it causal? Because I can think of lots of reasons autistic traits would be correlated with having kids later.

So my advise is, get into a Bachelors in whatever you think you have the aptitude for, perhaps consider a Masters if you don't find a well-paying job straight away, and use that time to expose yourself to women your age with the traits you desire.

That would be ideal, but like I said, I lack the discipline or whatever.

I offered you a solution, stimulants, as many as it takes to make you sit down and do what you're supposed to rather than what you feel like.

Speaking of that, I should get back to studying for yet more medical exams before mine wear off..

Do stimulants actually make you focus on work rather than play? I thought it just made you focus on whatever it is you're doing. I suppose of course it's worth trying anyway, but I'm not optimistic.

I can certainly game for hours and hours on it, but the primary issue I have is coaxing myself into sitting in front of an open textbook, and it augments my willpower to do that.

Then again, I'm Motte-posting before it's worn off, but I did solve 100+ MCQs today, and I'll do some more now.

Thanks for all the replies.

You're welcome! Get the bag, make sure it's Gucci, and you'll find someone to carry it on one arm with her other in yours.

You raised concerns of delaying having kids later being bad because of aging related degradation of your seminal genetic material, which honestly isn't that big a deal for men.

The primary concern is the age of the mother. Maybe I could marry someone much younger, but that comes with its own set of issues, and the vast majority of women marry someone within only a few years of them anyway.

You don’t need to worry about a thing lad; I’m in my 40s and my future wife hasn’t even been born yet.

You don’t need to worry about a thing lad; I’m in my 40s and my future wife hasn’t even been born yet.

How long are you expecting to live? Why? And where do you live to expect a relationship with such a large age gap to be tolerated? Plus, why do you expect her to go for such a relationship, given the aforementioned gap?

= \

An age-gap of even ten years is utterly unremarkable, especially when it's, say, a 40 year old guy marrying a 30 yo woman. It's far from an intractable issue.

An age-gap of even ten years is utterly unremarkable,

Maybe where you live, but it would be quite shocking in any of the social circles I'm familiar with.

What social circles are those?

Alaska.

Yes, to be clear, I'm not some turbo doomer about this. But dating is hard enough already without adding on even more filters.

Dating will get easier when you're either a student in a promising profession, or someone employed making decent dough. At that point, being the kind of guy who wants a significantly younger wife becomes a far more tractable problem, easier the more money you have really.

So being a recent graduate is a bad time to date?

Bad? Compared to your entire life? Not at all.

But compared to either:

  1. Being in schooling, where you have state-sanctioned proximity to young and attractive people of the other gender, very few people in your peer group having become so utterly superior to you in terms of credentials.

  2. Being well-established in a career where you're gaining points for being wealthy/successful/put-together, in other words having said credentials.

It's a bit worse.

1 happens to be the biggest hurdle for the average person asking for relationship advice here, they're usually nerdy, shy or introverted, and often are in a stream where women are rare. But they usually get a big benefit from 2, where being successful makes them attractive again.

Being a recent graduate who just got a decent job, still has an active friends circle from college or uni and hasn't aged out of hangouts or events where the denizens of the latter exist is far from the worst place to be.

I'm somehow in the worst of all worlds. I'm nerdy, shy, and introverted and did a degree where there were very few women and I had almost no free time, have had very little career success since graduating, and am now no longer part of a social circle that involves going to parties or meeting new people after moving back to my hometown and now only hanging out with friends from high school and having not succeeded at making friends in university.

More comments

Dating will get easier when you're either a student in a promising profession

I disagree, based on what I've seen happen with my classmates at a US medical school. And the residents. It only changes once you are an attending.

At that point, being the kind of guy who wants a significantly younger wife becomes a far more tractable problem

AFAICT, it's the only thing that makes it more tractable.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=f2gq66v-hik?si=qPf7eYgMSrUnHAu-

I saw this on Broadway when I was a kid, but I could only find this monologue on YouTube from a high school performance. And while in all honesty I do prefer Broadway, we'll make it to the point with Hunterdon High School. Other than the fact that somehow no one taught this pauvre fille how to say brooch.

I've not been married as long as, and surely not been as good of a husband as, other married Mottizens. But in our lives we've both been on top of the world and been derailed. We've been up and down and over and out and this has taught me that intelligence and talent will win in the end, and that the critical thing is that we've always had each other. We're the constants in each other's lives. Even when you fail professionally your spouse needs to be someone who has faith in your ability to get back on top. We're doing well now, but we could have made it on green glass. And that makes me feel confident and comfortable, because it'll happen again.

Having a job or an education or money will make you more attractive because it is strong evidence of intelligence and dilligence and ambition. But the woman you should marry is a woman who recognizes those things in you and has faith they will express themselves no matter what material circumstances you both face.

How old are you? Where are you based? What existing qualifications do you have? Without that information, you're not getting an informed answer.

  1. I'm in Lviv now, but I'm returning to the US soon. None.

And how old are you? Have you got any existing work experience?

(Oops, sorry, the website formatting messed up the number in my comment.)

Twenty six. Only a few odd jobs.

Bag yourself a wife before you leave.

I've been having no luck lately.

Is your profile picture actually a picture of you? If so, then luck has nothing to do with it.

Is your profile picture actually a picture of you?

Yes, but I shave now.

If so, then luck has nothing to do with it.

Of course, it's a figure of speech.

The website seems to have mangled my post a little lol. I meant to say I'm twenty six, not one.

Depends on what your goals are.

Consider whether you want your wife to be a career woman, whether you want to be very rich, whether you want to have 9 kids, etc. Those goals will probably narrow down which career tracks will allow you to achieve your goals. From there, pick something that you have at least a mild interest in so that youll be less likely to be miserable all day.

I wanted my wife to have the option of being a SAHM, for my family to live a middle class lifestyle, to work reasonable hours so that I could spend time with my future family, and to do work that wasn't soul crushingly boring (to me). So I went into tech, and it's worked out well so far.

If you're just trying to attract a good wife in the first place, then first off, all the usual dating advice that gets posted applies. As regards your job, I think it doesn't matter as much as how women perceive your character and your potential. Women want to feel secure. When I met my future wife, I was working a barely above minimum wage job (in my early 20s, before it became a red flag). But she said she could tell from the beginning that I was a guy with a life plan who was reliable and has his shit together, so she thought I was hot even though I was broke.

Anyway, could you give some examples?

I mean, of course nice things are nice, nobody wants to be poor. But I've always lived pretty frugally. But I assume a woman would probably not want to, so that maybe doesn't even matter anyway.

It completely depends on the woman.

Are you saying it can't be generalized?

Strong agree with all of this.

This is the point at which doing some ‘real world research’ would be useful. Chances are you know or regularly encounter dozens of older men, most of whom are married, most of whom are probably not particularly successful or attractive. But then that depends on your definition of a ‘good wife’.

What do the men married to the women you would consider suitable do? Who are they? This is the first consideration.

A variety of jobs, what's your point?

I have the whole rest of my life to do whatever, but I specifically need to start a family within the next decade or so if I'm to avoid the risks of geriatric pregnancy, unless I marry someone much younger.

Anyway, perhaps it could be somewhat of a tradeoff insofar as it's like, settling into a safe but suboptimal career earlier on as opposed to continuing to explore or trying harder things.

How hard would it be to marry someone much younger, anyway?

Given that you have US residency and spend time in Ukraine, not very.

I've had no luck lately.

I spoke to a friend earlier today. She could tell I was on the spectrum but found it hard to describe exactly what made it apparent to her. After talking a while, she said that I always paused before I said something, or before I smiled. It was probably that deliberateness that was a tell. She did make it clear that there was nothing I had done (or failed to do) that was offensive in any way, although I'm reasonably sure that there's proto-offensive shit that doesn't rise to the level of conscious thought and is difficult, but not impossible, to put into words. Ekman and his team might be able to do it.

I also don't think all that many people can put into words the things that I do or say that make people think I'm autistic, or that offend people. If I had to guess, maybe ten percent of psychiatrists or psychologists, and maybe one average person in a few hundred.

I still think that a true UMC gentleman - like aristocracy in ages past - has things that they are fundamentally willing to die over. Like, a lot of duels were fought over things like "honor". I'm well aware that there were plenty of off-ramps in the dueling process that allowed both participants to be satisfied gentlemen. In the case of pistol duels the duelists didn't always shoot straight, and dueling pistols weren't usually that accurate. Even so, quite a few promising young gentlemen met a premature end on the dueling ground.

As a Hockist: perhaps a decent ideal to strive for is better to die than do your utmost to be graceful. It seems fitting and proper for an awkward person to adopt this as an ideal...at least until he is no longer awkward. The Hock is an idiotic and meaningless way to prove that I've got a high level of grit and determination.

I'm also guessing that many of you would think that my view of the 'UMC gentleman' - or the 'petty aristocracy' he described of people with two college educated parents - is out of whack and some fever-dream cross between Japanese bushido and what we think Victorian-era gentlemanly conduct was. And that if pressed, maybe a couple of awkward UMC dudes in a hundred would go on the Hock even if they were guaranteed to not be awkward after.

What's your take?

I think you're violating the single-issue posting rule. You've made your point. The community has given its feedback. Kindly fuck off with your hock.

(1) I too think that "honour" is a meaningful concept and not a figleaf for hypocrisy or 'good is dumb' or the rest of it. Sometimes I find myself reacting like an 18th century novel about "this impugns my honour!!!" and have to cool my jets

(2) You're planning to do something very difficult and dangerous. I don't know your reasons, but if you're doing it to impress women - women aren't impressed by stupid, and women do tend to think "endangering my life for funsies" is stupid, and the kind of women who are impressed by that stuff aren't the kind of women you want to impress

(3) If you do go ahead and do this, be careful. There's nothing dishonorable in "planning not to get myself killed when five minutes thought would have saved me". I don't know how old you are, but just yesterday I read a news report about four young men who got themselves killed and who probably never expected anything could go wrong. Don't be an idiot, I guess, is what I'm trying to advise you (but depending on your age, young men are idiots)

women aren't impressed by stupid, and women do tend to think "endangering my life for funsies" is stupid

Can't speak for women but I imagine they're somewhat impressed by competency and leadership/status, and one route to that competency and status is to do things that no other man has been brave, foolish or pig-headed enough to do before and succeed*.

Once success is demonstrated the unorthodoxy cashes out among men as being a pioneer. And now hundreds of thousands (millions?) of men admire people like Rodney Mullen for something as pointless and trivial as mastering standing on the wrong side of a skateboard. It's the "people said it couldn't be done" factor. And that status among men is in turn what cashes out as making an impression on women.

In this case it would only work if Skookum can lever his expedition into the likelihood of consistently impressing men within the social awareness cone of women at a degree proportional to the risk of freezing to death. That's very dubious, and that's what really makes it stupid suboptimal. I mean, if he comes back with pics and maps to post and a gripping tale of high jeopardy that he pursued in spite of everyone here near unanimously telling him it was dangerously misguided, I think that counts as some variety of impressive. But that doesn't cash out easily oustide The Motte, and it all turns on a not inconsiderable "if".

* If they don't succeed they often fail catastrophically, which I think is something like Skookum is pointing at when he brings up the honour factor of how in his eyes it might be a better society if socially unsuccessful men died trying, because at least they're trying and if they die then they die with the honour of pursuing some variety of success (and society has relieved itself of something it didn't value anyway). Very Gattaca.

"And succeed" being the salient part here. "Do dumb thing that is 99% likely to end up with my corpse becoming bear food" is not that thing.

If only socially unsuccessful men do things that they will die doing, then it won't be perceived as "the honour of some variety of success" but rather something more like "annual pest control". Nobody is impressed by the nobility with which rats succumb to poison. If this kind of activity is one reserved for "socially unsuccessful men" then it will be as low status as the rest of the social lack of success.

I don't think elaborate suicide makes you look better than quiet suicide.

And now hundreds of thousands (millions?) of men admire people like Rodney Mullen for something as pointless and trivial as mastering standing on the wrong side of a skateboard.

And how many women?

For skateboarding? Or for being a figure of narrow but significant acclaim?

For the first, who knows. Roughly as many as there are women skateboarders. For the second, tautologically more than without the acclaim, and they don't have to be into skateboarding because the people who are will provide the information.

To offer a less niche example professional sportsmen aren't swimming in top tier fanny because they moved a ball into a net, it's because men want to associate with them, recruit them for their team, and use them to put a ball into a net more than the other team's men can.

There's a complex blend of prestige status and dominance status involved (you can't fail to be the best if you're the only one that does it, etc) but both of them reduce to status, and status rests on a foundation of external validation. That's the vital difference between a hypothetical woman who sees a bunch of men being impressed by the guy who stood on the wrong side of a skateboard (or hiked across Alaska) versus the guy who thinks he will impress women if he tells them about how he can use a skateboard wrong (or hiked across Alaska). Show don't tell, yes, but there's a third way by telling a third party and letting them do the showing.

How's your preparation coming along? How much cold weather backpacking have you done so far?

I may have missed some lore. Is the gist that you think being airdropped into the Alaskan wilderness will make you better with girls? And that you’ve become so obsessed with the idea that you’ve created your own term (“hock”)? My takes are:

  • This comes off as sufficiently delusional to warrant a trip to a psychiatrist.

  • Being airdropped into the Alaskan wilderness will guarantee that you come back less socialized than before, meaning you will be worse at picking up social cues. You will have higher stress than before, meaning you will lose hair and your testosterone levels will plummet. You might develop a stress disorder on top of this. This will not help you with girls.

  • There are a number of eminently feasible ways to develop more confidence around women. If you want a dramatic flare you can pick up MMA or boxing, which will decrease stress longterm and increase your testosterone and feeling of competency.

My take is that Skookum wants to rationalize avoiding human interaction. Despite absolutely everyone making the same point that isolating oneself will result in decreased social skills, he still somehow comes to the conclusion that this will help him with the ladies.

All I've been able to find on it in the history, for as much as I care to dig, is this small picture. No idea if it's some quest he made up or an actual thing. I can't find any reference to it anywhere else. Assuming Rov_Scam's description of Sagwon, the supposed destination, is correct (a quick glance at Google maps satellite view suggests that it is), it sounds more like something made up, and I don't have high hopes for it.

No idea if it's some quest he made up or an actual thing

The former.

Go down to the streets and talk to 10 women right now. It will be harder than the hock.

If you are gonna die anyways, might as well die after tryinf a few new things you havent before.

Has anyone here said anything positive about you doing the hock?

I am asking because if you die and they trace your online history to here, I want to be able to say that we unanimously said it was a stupid idea.

Autistic guys can slay. Get good at standup comedy instead. Some of the best comics in the business are at least a little autistic. They just focused their autistic powers on getting laughs, and their inability to pick up on social cues was an advantage cuz they could do horribly offensive jokes.

I'd side with Southkraut that it's not necessarily a terrible idea. I don't expect it will do anything at all for your social skills or success with women, but it could still be a cool accomplishment. It's at least as cool as climbing Mount Everest in my book, and less over-hyped. The big asterisk is your preparation, which I have no idea about and as far as I can tell you haven't posted much about.

If you're otherwise a generic suburbanite physically who occasionally runs a few blocks when the whether is nice, then you will definitely die doing this and you should abandon the idea if you have any brains at all. I hope you're not that unprepared, but that's one extreme.

If you're spending the 2 years leading up to it training hard at extreme cold weather wilderness survival, long-term hiking and survival, wilderness navigation, solo mountain climbing, and other related skills, then you might be able to do it. Have you at least accomplished something 5% as hard as that already? Hell, 5% as hard should feel so routine as to be boring before you think about trying this.

As someone who has been outside every day of his life and spent a lot of time with like-minded people, it's not really even that extreme of an accomplishment. It's basically just a backcountry ski trip with more complicated logistics than doing it in Maine or Minnesota. It's not hard to get an airlift to a spot in the wilderness if you have the money and know where to look; it's a thing people do, and most of them come back okay. The thing is, most of the people who do it go through outfitters who provide gear and provisions and tell them where to go, even if the tours are self-guided. As such, he's not going to get dropped at some arbitrary location, but a spot where the pilot can actually land the plane, which is going to be a spot that people normally use for these types of adventures. There's a decent chance he may even run into other people on this trip.

That being said, as I mentioned in my last post on the subject, most people who aren't in the outdoor world won't know the difference between any of the finer gradations of how badass something is supposed to be. I wouldn't go out of my way to plan such a trip myself, but if a group were going and I were invited and cost/time off work weren't an issue I'd jump at the chance. I have friends who do a ski touring vacation every winter and they love it, though the fact that they have small children they bring along means they usually stick to the kind of trips where you ski between cabins on well-marked trails. To the uninitiated, though, it doesn't matter. Some people — even outdoorsy people — seem shocked that I've backpacked overnight solo without being scared in the woods. Non-outdoorsy people often ask what kind of gun I bring with me. When I tell them that, aside from the weight alone making it a nonstarter, that a pistol isn't likely to do anything against any animal that could do serious damage, they change tack and suggest that the woods is crawling with deranged hillbillies. If Sookum wants to do something other people will find impressive, a few overnighters on a local trail will probably be sufficient without the additional risk and cost.

It's basically just a backcountry ski trip with more complicated logistics than doing it in Maine or Minnesota.

Also quite a bit colder at least than Maine; Minnesota can sometimes get as cold. I know that people use Ely, Minnesota as a training ground for polar expedition training. Fifty degrees below zero is no joke. As far as the airlift, bush pilots are expensive and I plan on carrying gasoline with me as stove fuel, so I'll be leaving from Arctic Village and attempting to reach the town of Sagwon.

Also quite a bit colder at least than Maine

I like to bring up the time back in 1999 the local Air National Guard had to rescue a Navy SEAL team from the mountains outside Anchorage when a cold spell hit during their training exercise.

What’s your plan once reaching Sagwon given no one lives there?

I plan on carrying gasoline with me as stove fuel

Okay I've never hiked or camped or the like but that does not sound like a good plan. How much weight can you carry? How much weight are you expecting to carry? You're going to burn more fuel than you expect just to keep warm, and you'll likely run out before you reach your destination, not to mention possibility of accident (spilling or losing fuel) or not being able to make your mileage goals because you're too loaded down.

Polar (both north and south) expeditions have foundered on things like this. Scott of the Antarctic was brave and experienced, but things went badly wrong and we know how that ended up. Don't die because of a stupid miscalculation.

Gasoline is the fuel I'll be buying in Arctic Village. The stove is only for melting snow for drinking water, not for warmth - using a liquid fuel stove for warmth seems like a rather impractical idea.

As for weight carried: something like 40 pounds on my back and another 40 to 60 in the sled.

attempting to reach the town of Sagwon

Alright, I'm going to stop you right there. Sagwon is not a town. Sagwon is an abandoned airstrip that was built to service the construction of the Alaska pipeline. The best you can hope to find there is a passing truck on the Dalton Highway you can flag down for an awkward six-hour-plus ride to Wiseman. It would make more sense to start at Sagwon since at least you'd have a real town to aim for. This is relative, though. When you first talked about this you kept mentioning a trek through the forest so I though you were talking about the lowlands in the vicinity of the southern entrance to Gates of the Arctic National Park. What you have proposed is crossing the Brooks Range in an area where I'm not sure anyone crosses it. Do you have avalanche training? What ski setup are you using? Are you going backcountry xc, tele, or full backcountry touring? Do you have an ice axe, crampons, and screws? How's your downhill skiing ability? Can you at least drop into an easy bowl without more than a cursory look? If so, can you still do it with open heels? How many passes will you have to cross? I could go on but I think you get the point. On second thought, start from Arctic Village; at least then you aren't committed and can turn back.

Do you have avalanche training?

No, but I've read some stuff online, does that count? Going to read some books on that.

What ski setup are you using?

Backcountry touring.

Do you have an ice axe, crampons, and screws?

Yes, or I will have these.

How's your downhill skiing ability

In high school, I was a mediocre ski racer; I can ski black terrain but not glades or moguls, at least not well at all. Hopefully that means something.

Can you still do it with open heels

I hope not to find out.

How many passes will you have to cross?

One, hopefully.

Thing is: if I started around Sagwon, and missed Arctic Village by ten miles due to a navigation error, I could potentially be fucked. If I start at Arctic Village, I just need to head in the general direction of the Dalton Highway, and I should be able to, as you said, flag down a passing truck. The plan is to hitchhike from wherever I finish the Hock (assuming I survive) back to Fairbanks.

I'll walk back my earlier comments in part, in that skis are indeed a reasonable pick for this area -- you will however need boots that fit, and the plastic ones you have are not what I would choose.

People use something like this: https://www.alpinasports.com/en/nordic/backcountry/alaska-75-50082

They are even called "Alaska"!

You can get neoprene booties to go over them, but if you are making enough miles to get where you are going before running out of supplies, cold feet will not be your problem.

I would worry quite a lot about avalanche danger as a solo traveller there -- not sure what the Brooks looks like on the ground, but based on Google Earth everything resembling a pass is quite exposed -- and when you are by yourself even a small slough could trap you enough that you will die through no fault of your own. (other than engaging in solo travel through exposed avvie terrain in the first place, ofc)

The fact that you think navigation errors are even on the table makes me think that you should do some better planning -- the original '100 miles through the forest' plan actually seemed pretty survivable with appropriate gear, but mountain travel is a thing where small mistakes kill even experienced people quickly.

DM me your real name before you leave so I can pray for your soul.

From "Catholic Tumblr Gothic":

You pray for your followers by their urls. “God, please pour your blessings out upon lesbiantonystark.” He knows what you mean.

Autistic guys can slay.

Maybe if they're fairly good looking, tall, and insanely dedicated - I'm talking at least as determined as a Navy SEAL. Since they were in single digits. The kind of person that could write courses on communication and facial expressions. The kind of person that makes a social blunder once a decade while sober. The kind of person that can inspire people, ironically, to endure Hock-level privation for no good goddamn reason. As far as I'm concerned, every word and gesture a neurotypical makes is a performance not much less graceful than that of a concert pianist or professional ballet dancer, and they can often inspire people to endure immense hardship in order to make them happy.

As far as positive comments: people almost unanimously said that it was stupid; many had respect for it but thought it was no less stupid.

Look, there's autism or at least "on the spectrum" and/or Aspergers in my paternal family line, and yet many of them manage to get married and have families. You seem to have set up some impossible standard in your mind for success with the opposite sex. Maybe recalibrate a bit on that? And yeah, this is depressing advice, but "lower your standards" may help. If you're looking for the Perfect Woman, she doesn't exist. And you may be overlooking better chances with women who are below the standards of "wants tall, dedicated, rich, handsome guy".

And yeah, this is depressing advice, but "lower your standards" may help.

Let's say my standards are something like...

  • Not morbidly obese
  • Can do basic hygiene
  • Can work a job, any job; preferably employed
  • Not a danger to herself or others
  • Not addicted to any hard drugs
  • Able to manage her own affairs

Is that realistic, for someone like me? Is that shooting too high? I hope not; I don't want to be running a goddamn nursing home in my household for someone whose choices were part of what led her to need that level of care. On the other hand, one of my classmates in medical school lived What's Eating Gilbert Grape and did okay for herself, so...

I don't see "can write courses on communication, extremely dedicated to being socially graceful, capable of gracefully enduring Hock-tier hardship and perhaps inspiring others to do the same" to be an impossible ask for a guy on the spectrum, for what it's worth. For example: I know ten guys who are 5'4" or shorter IRL. Only one managed to get a girlfriend who wasn't morbidly obese...or a danger to herself or others. He is, I shit you not, our class president, charismatic enough for a career in politics, and a future neurosurgeon. The four short residents I know are all focused on their careers unlike their average height and tall counterparts. Top 1 percent charisma + being on track for a million a year seems to be what it takes...although if you are OK with someone half again or twice your weight, and you're short, all you need is a body like a Greek God while being otherwise average. I'm talking...can compete in amateur physique bodybuilding competitions, like one of my college classmates. I don't think any of this is bad, for what it is worth.

Is that realistic, for someone like me?

What do you mean by "someone like me"? That only makes you sound like you have a neurotic, distorted self-image and are determined to follow this course of action based on how you think it will make you feel. Which okay, it's your life, but it has nothing to do with "get a woman" and I wish you'd drop that part of it. Most women don't care a damn about "I did a really stupid hike that could have killed me", and indeed will be motivated to avoid a guy like that, because if you get into a relationship with him, what is to stop him doing an equally stupid could-kill-him stunt? Then if you're married and have kids, you're left a widow with orphaned children and probably a heap of debt and look, it's all too much hassle. Find a man who won't decide to throw it all up and go hiking in the Arctic in the morning because he thought somebody said something mean at work.

What do you mean by "someone like me"

I mean: dreaming of a career in the NBA would be pretty realistic if I was seven feet tall, the NBA scouts for pretty much anyone seven feet and breathing - but at 5'6" I'd be the second-shortest player in NBA history, after 5'3" Muggsy Bogues. And even for a six-footer who loves basketball, it's more of a pipe dream than anything realistic.

I was asking essentially about whether or not my standards, as I'd described them, were unrealistically high. For what it is worth, based on what I've seen: unattractive people who would like to date need to choose where they want the ambulances. No, not the Hock. The Hock is stupid and pointless, and it may be a kind of prologue for things that will happen later in my life. Let me just say that I personally know two autistic women that knew damn well that they were very vulnerable to predators yet chose to date anyway. They fell prey to said predators. One is happy that she chose to date and the other has some mild regrets and thinks whatever wisdom she got wasn't worth it. If she had it to do over, she'd have been celibate. On the male side of things...let me see. Morbidly obese wives, supermorbidly obese wives, wives that tried to strangle their 10-year-old child, one attempted stabbing by a girlfriend, one successful stabbing by a girlfriend that very nearly killed the guy but he made a full recovery. Attempted stabbing guy's in a healthy relationship with his wife, one of the autistic women had a husband that raped her who she then divorced and then got in an OK relationship with a reasonably functional and well-off civil engineer that smokes pot and cigarettes like a chimney. So there's a light at the end of the tunnel, and if it's an oncoming train it usually doesn't kill you.

As I've said repeatedly here - I do not think that things are any better for unattractive women and they are probably worse. As a man, I'm not privy to as many of the tales of woe from that side of things, but hear other short and/or spergy guys - or their children - sharing stories of the things they or their parents endured. I believe I'll be going through Hell of one form or another. I realized, I think, rather late, possibly too late, that the question facing unattractive people who want to date is this: "Where do you want the ambulances?" But you need to and should choose, and that choice, freely and willingly undertaken, is in itself noble.

For what it is worth, I do not think that telling people about the Hock or even people learning that I Hocked and survived is going to do all that much for how attractive I am. In the words of Steve from the Friendly Southern Gossip discord: Sufficiently extreme challenge will just be thought of as stupidity or mildly suicidal. No, any benefit from the Hock will come from freezing the neuroticism or perhaps the hypocrisy off of me and making me accustomed to pain, discomfort, and struggle. That this pain, discomfort, and struggle are considered pointless and idiotic is a feature, not a bug: living What's Eating Gilbert Grape or some other shit is kind of on a par with that. Ask @Southkraut; he warned me in no uncertain terms about how bad an idea it was to marry someone that was digging herself a very early grave with knife and fork - or any other addiction.

I realized, I think, rather late, possibly too late, that the question facing unattractive people who want to date is this: "Where do you want the ambulances?"

I don't know where you got this idea that every unattractive person who wants to date people will at some point end up in an ambulance as a result, but it's bullshit. To illustrate my point:

  1. Attractive people can be victims of domestic violence. Rihanna. April Hernandez-Castillo. Tina Turner. Robin Givens. Bree Olson. Whitney Houston. Tyra Banks. Denise Richards. Brett Rossi. Oksana Grigorieva. Alice Kim. Kelly LeBrock. Pamela Anderson. There are numerous other examples, but I think I've made my point - none of these women are unattractive, and all have been victims of domestic violence.

  2. Many unattractive people in romantic relationships go their whole lives without needing to call an ambulance for any reason, including domestic violence. This point seems so self-evident that it hardly even needs justifying, but if you must see hard data before considering that you might be simply wrong, Women's Aid Ireland reported about 30,000 contacts with Irish women reporting domestic abuse in 2022. Even allowing that this is a huge undercount of the real number of victims (let's say, of a factor of 3): if 90,000 women are victims of domestic abuse in Ireland every year, there's something like 2 million adult women in Ireland. This suggests that (thankfully!) domestic abuse is something only experienced by a minority of people, between 1.5-4.5% of women in a calendar year. Even the most pessimistic feminist campaigns I've seen suggest that 1 in 4 women will experience it in their lifetime, which obviously means that 3 in 4 won't (and this 1 in 4 figure sometimes includes types of abuse for which no ambulance would be necessary). We're privileged to live in an era in which even the most passionate progressive campaigners must begrudgingly acknowledge that violence is the exception rather than the rule.

Perhaps you're making an inappropriate generalisation from a social circle made up of unusually unlucky people. Perhaps your social circle is actually no more unlucky than average, and you're just fixating on the one or two unusually unlucky people it contains as a means to justify/excuse your self-pity and avoidant tendencies. If you can show me hard evidence that literally every single unattractive person who wants to be in a romantic relationship will at some point be the victim of domestic abuse severe enough to require an ambulance, I would love to see it. You won't show it to me, because we both know it doesn't exist and this is all just part of some weird mind game you're playing with yourself.

Please don't insult my intelligence by backtracking and claiming that "ambulances" can refer to something other than domestic violence. You said 'the question facing unattractive people who want to date is this: "Where do you want the ambulances?"' You can be single your whole life, never seek out a relationship with anyone, and still end up in an ambulance from a heart attack caused by your obesity.

Please don't insult my intelligence by backtracking and claiming that "ambulances" can refer to something other than domestic violence. You said 'the question facing unattractive people who want to date is this: "Where do you want the ambulances?"

The guy with the 450-pound partner and the woman married to Smokestack our engineering hero aren't facing domestic violence in relationships. The ambulances can be and often are domestic violence, but they can come from plenty of other things as well. Like congestive heart failure from supermorbid obesity. Or good old-fashioned lung cancer from a two-pack-a-day cigarette habit and smoking pot like fucking Snoop Dogg.

Consider the sky high - 80 percent, by some metrics - abuse/victimization rate reported by autistic women. This is still well north of half even if you just look at autistic women with normal IQs.

More comments

Does Mark Normand look good, Jerry Seinfeld? I'm not the best judge, but they seem passable at best.

You don't really have to look that good as a guy anyways. The most sexually active guy I ever knew was fat and had what I would consider some unattractive facial features. He was a terrible listener in conversations, he was dyslexic, and he came across as very goofy and happy go-lucky. Prior to covid he was probably averaging sex with 5 different partners a week. He was a divorcee, so he could also claim to have managed to do the whole long-term relationship thing too.

The Hock doesn't sound like it is something that will impress women. It something that might impress other straight guys.

Prior to covid he was probably averaging sex with 5 different partners a week. He was a divorcee, so he could also claim to have managed to do the whole long-term relationship thing too.

How old was this entertaining character at the time?

I think around 30

Does Mark Normand look good

He looks like Jim from The Office, of course he looks good.

We must be thinking of different people.

Okay, contrarian time: The Hock is a noble endeavor. Stupid but brave. Self-destructive but benign. I think Skookum is crazy in an entirely undesirable way (IMHO his biggest problem isn't awkwardness, sexual frustration or autism, but being straight-up delusional and obsessive), but I also don't think that him doing his Hock thing is necessarily bad. It won't solve his problem and it won't get him what he wants, but if he actually goes through with it then women will not consider him one jot better than before, but I for one sure as hell will be impressed. A rare display of masculine virtue in a domesticated age. Even if it kills him. Maybe even especially if it kills him? Don't quote me on that last part, I'm not sure about it.

If he survives it, and right now it doesn't sound survivable. "Well that was dumb but I have to say I'm kinda impressed" isn't the problem here; nobody is much concerned about trying to keep everyone from ever doing anything stupid. What it sounds like is the kind of hairbrained notions that get people killed, from "I know all about bears" to all the climbers who die on Everest.

Gallant death is not wrong, but "he died because he was too stupid to live" isn't a good way to go out.

I find myself nodding along and basically agreeing, but one thing...

The Hock is a noble endeavor.

Do any of us know what the fuck this is? I kind of love that it now has mythical status, means a thing in and of itself on this board. You'd know what I meant if I said, "it's kind of my Hock" even though I literally don't know what the Hock is.

Does it even matter? It's outdoor activity in nature - I'm already on board by that point.

You support people doing any "outdoor activity in nature"? Christopher McCandless starving to death in Alaska? Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend getting eaten alive by bears? Green Boots? The Titan?

Christopher McCandless

Respect for the guy

Timothy Treadwell

Respect, but jackass got his girlfriend eaten

Green Boots

Respect

The Titan

Some respect, but also come on guys, you cut too many corners.

It's bad for those people that they died and bad for their families. But in the end, nobody forced them as far as I know. Yes going out of doors is dangerous. Yes its better to correctly judge the risks and to not do anything overly stupid and to come back alive. But there's always some danger, and there will always be some people who happen to be the bad end of some bell curve by disposition or by bad luck. Someone will die.

I fundamentally don't understand the idea of exposing yourself to extreme danger for no discernible payoff other than to satisfy your own ego. The whole thing just seems so pointless and masturbatory.

Exposing yourself to extreme risk in order to save someone else's life? Noble. Exposing yourself to extreme risk in order to expand the range of human knowledge? Admirable. Exposing yourself to extreme risk just 'cause? Why not just OD on heroin instead of going to all this trouble?

I don't get the big egos either, but wanting to be outdoors I understand. Wanting to be more outdoors to the point of ignoring potentially fatal risks I understand. So I don't actually understand Skookum, because he's crazy, but I'm not fundamentally opposed to wanting to be outdoors so bad it has an elevated risk of killing you. It certainly beats ODing on drugs.

But in the end neither of us understands his motives.

"The Hock" is a long-range wilderness hike through extremely inhospitable terrain, alone, at serious risk to one's life. Skook's plan is to hike through something like a hundred miles of Alaskan wilderness, alone, in the dead of winter, with no communications or access to emergency services if something goes wrong. His explicit plan is to either complete the hike successfully, or die in the attempt.

My take is you should give it a rest and celebrate becoming a doctor by going to the Philippines.

Look, I’ll believe you lack certain social graces through no fault of your own, that this meaningfully impacts your ability to find a romantic partner, and that this is agonizing for you. But you will soon be a doctor with US citizenship; if you want female companionship and are willing to commit there is no shortage of cultures which considers that deal the equivalent of hitting the jackpot.

Seconded. Just go to South Asia and get yourself an apartment for like 6 months in an upscale area. Let it be known you are an American doctor and you just came here for a quick break before you start practicing. Go to upscale meeting places like art galleries and cultural attractions etc. and mention in passing that you are single but wouldn't mind getting married and you will quickly find yourslef a not too religious not too traditional woman who commits to you. You'll pobably find many such women, giving you your pick of the pack, and as an added bonus these women will probably be more honourable and less kooked in the head than your average westerner.

Also, 5’6” is roughly median height for a man over there.

What's your take?

My take is that I've never seen so comically insane of an instance of Goodhart's Law (When the measure becomess the target, it ceases to be a meaningful measure).

Having values you are willing to die for is getting badly translated into Being willing to die for something gives it/you value. Dude you are way off base, and you should take it as a sign of your ultimate disappointment and disillusionment that everyone EVERYONE has told you so, and you stubbornly refuse to adjust your perspective even a little.

I approve of setting goals and taking on endurance challenges etc, so I have no reason to talk you out of that, generally. But you cannot allow yourself to go do something until you've cleared yourself as mentally competent enough to take on the risk. So here is a quick sobriety test:

1. You do fully understand that completing the Hock will not make you not awkward? It won't directly or indirectly help awkwardness at all.

In fact, I would bet it will make you feel slightly more awkward in social settings because it will be another point of distance between your inner self and those around you. "These people have never been through what I have been through" will become a resentment crutch, when you realize it did nothing to directly affect your social awkardness.

2. Do you understand that it will make you only slightly more attractive to women? Slighlty and in a very limited way, which will be quickly undone and reversed if you try to milk it.

Let me unpack that. I recall you said previously that you used to do competitive downhill skiing in high school. I'd put the Hock at objectively 30% as attactrive as that, but with the compensating benefits of recency. (If, you're say, under 35, I imagine the skiing will remain more interesting). Thriving in a competitive social and physical environment is far more interesting to women than pursing a loner hobby.

For another comparison, it will register as about as attractive as if you've recently completed a marathon. Maybe slightly more if the "I put my life on hold for 3 months" registers as financial secuirty. So, I'd say about as interesting as recently completing a marathon during a trip to Europe.

Now here's why I say it is limited and will be quickly undone, and listen closely because it has everything to do with the awkwardness issue: To present it attractively, you can only bring it up briefly once or twice, and should mostly act uninterested in talking about it, like it wasn't that interesting, so mundane for your life that you're amused she's even interested. Basically, if you harp on it in any way like you have here, you'll be repelling the ladies like youre name is Pepper Spray. Thus there is a hard and very low cap with the usefulness of this bit of 'proof of value' that can be used with any given woman. (Unless she is herself an autistic survivalist, which is fine. Maybe even seek those out after this)

If you in anyway try to: Go into long details about the trip, get too enthusiastic, present any philosophical musings, bring it up regularly, make it obvious that your sense of identity or self-worth is connected to this, call yourself a Hockist etc, you will be flagged (unfairly or not) as weird and unattractive by the average woman.

EDIT: By way of analogy, overall I feel like you're a guy trying to prove he isn't autistic and directionless by... building a giant model trainset in the basement. The harder you go all out on this, the more counter-productive it's going to be.

Don't get me wrong, a giant train set sounds fun and cool, and I endorse it. Just be clear about what it is and isn't going to accomplish for you.

Having values you are willing to die for is getting badly translated into Being willing to die for something gives it/you value.

  1. Human life has value: the economists put it at around $10 million per head, if we're talking about Americans.

  2. Things are worth what we sacrifice to get them.

Therefore it seems self-evident that a thing has value because someone is willing to die for it: that person, even if he's a deranged lunatic, has staked his life on that thing. The value of it has been upped to "one deranged lunatic" from whatever it was before.

Also, I know damn well that the Hock is dumb and that people becoming aware that I've completed the Hock is not going to do much for me. I think that the Hock is going to irreversibly alter my character and personality, though, and that's what I'm after. I'll carry myself differently (I hope) after surviving the Hock...

Therefore it seems self-evident that a thing has value because someone is willing to die for it: that person, even if he's a deranged lunatic, has staked his life on that thing. The value of it has been upped to "one deranged lunatic" from whatever it was before.

Correct, but note that deranged lunatics or careless idiots who win a Darwin Award are not worth the full 10 million. Those 10 million are a human living a productive life for as long as possible. And even then the transfer of value may not be successful; the manner of the dying may have more impact on the value of the final product than the nominal value of the man who died.

Therefore it seems self-evident that a thing has value because someone is willing to die for it: that person, even if he's a deranged lunatic, has staked his life on that thing. The value of it has been upped to "one deranged lunatic" from whatever it was before.

You're just wrong here. Compare: I love my dog, therefore, I would risk my life for him. to I don't love this dog, but I wish I did. If I risk my life for him, it will make it so. you have causality backwards. In the latter scenario, you are de-valuing your life down to what you value your dog. Not the other way around.

Human life has value: the economists put it at around $10 million per head, if we're talking about Americans.

This bit is a nonsequitor. Risking your life for something without value, doesn't give it $10m in value.

Between 2008-21, 379 people were killed during the act of taking a selfie. The combined value of these selfies is not $3.79 billion. If you were to somehow to collect all of them and try to auction them off, I'd be impressed if you made a few hundred bucks.

If you read this story of a man who fell out of a moving train while trying to lean out to take a selfie and think "God, what a fucking idiot - what a stupid, pointless way to die", then try to understand that that is exactly how we all feel about you.

That's the wrong way to think about it. You'd have to instead multiply it by the risk they took, or consider the value of all such risky selfies.

According to Skookum's logic, if you die for something, that thing therefore has value equal to a human life. Following this logic, a selfie of some random nobody is worth nothing - unless they die in the act of taking it, in which case it's worth $10 million.

Therefore it seems self-evident that a thing has value because someone is willing to die for it

A carjacker getting shot dead while trying to lift a lemon from a parking lot doesn't mean it'll go on auction for a cool $10 million.

You do fully understand that completing the Hock will not make you not awkward? It won't directly or indirectly help awkwardness at all.

It will potentially make me more conscientious: the attitude that lets me survive the Hock might let me pay a shitload of attention in social situations so I don't miss anything.

Do you understand that it will make you only slightly more attractive to women? Slightly and in a very limited way, which will be quickly undone and reversed if you try to milk it.

Yes. The Hock is going to freeze most or all of the hypocrisy off of me, but not much of the awkwardness. I'll probably be less neurotic.

It will potentially make me more conscientious: the attitude that lets me survive the Hock might let me pay a shitload of attention in social situations so I don't miss anything.

There is no reason to think it will do anything like this. if you want to become more conscientious, go do something extremely social for 3 months. Go be a missionary in Uganda.

If not net 0, the Hock will make you more detached and withdrawn in social situations. Consider the soldier who comes home from war, and has trouble adjusting back into civilian life. If not nothing at all, you're going to mostly experience a wall between you and others.

Imagine you're at some social event, say some meet-up at a bar. You're standing there, drink in hand, watching everyone else, seemingly mingling effortlessly. Why not you, dammit. You're hyper-conscientious about your own milling around, you try to stand next to others talking to eachother, but feel unsure where and how to jump in naturally. Damn you feel awkward. Still! What's more, now you feel resentful, angry even at the frivolty of it.

3 months ago, you were struggling to get a match lit with your half-frost bitten hands. It was a race against the cold and wind, and you were losing. Once that fire was roaring, your body was still in freezing agony sore all over, but hell, the relief and triumph was simultaneously better and worse than anything you'd ever known.

Back to the room. Fuck these people. You survived that night, and so many other after it. Something significant, something none of these people will ever know. What are they talking about now, some twitter drama? So shallow, they have no idea. Your triumph would humble them if only, anyone cared to ask. If only there was a way into the conversation... fuck it, these people have nothing in common with you. You've been through so much.

This is the optimistic way of it playing out.

Survivormanning alone in the woods will not address social competence in any kind of a positive way or provide any useful frame for engaging social scenarios more healthfully.

Yes. The Hock is going to freeze most or all of the hypocrisy off of me,

I don't know what this means, so I'll reiterate. In small, very temperate doses, it will make you slightly more attractive to women, but not anywhere near proportional to the effort you are putting in.

I'll end by granting you that on some deep level, it's quite possible this will improve your self-possesion and perspective in a way that will manifest much deeper into a relationship in a much more nuanced way. But these effects will not appear (and may appear counterproductively) on a group-level or in initial and high level interactions.

Again to the soldier analogy. The things he learned and survived in the hellishness of war may make him a demonstrably better father, with deeper values and worldly detachment. But those are mostly going to come at the cost of social grease and 'gracefullness' and connectedness to the people around him.

I suppose if he does go ahead with this (hopefully in a shortened version that is better planned) it will indeed do a lot to change what he worries about; as you say, getting twisted into knots over a silly conversation at a routine party will be less of a thing when compared with "I nearly froze to death that time and had to save myself". So that may work to reduce social awkwardness because the stakes will be, by comparison, so trivial. Not caring about "am I coming across as too needy?" may indeed help him over a lot of social barriers.

But he has to be alive to do that, and so far this trip is sounding like an elaborate form of suicide. Taking risks because there's no way to reduce all risk is one thing, taking risks because you want risks that are literally life-or-death in order to achieve some psychic transformation is quite different.

The Hock is basically a homebrew form of psychological chemotherapy. Its aim is, among other things, to kill the neuroticism before it kills the human. Of course, chemotherapy administered and brewed by random jackasses is best described as 'risky as all hell'.

Hmm. Let me say something about my reasoning.

When I was 11, I feared [redacted] happening to me - a fate which most of you on the Motte would agree is a terrible one. I believed that skill at public speaking and rhetoric could reduce my odds of suffering this fate, so I practiced diligently in front of a mirror. I did this for a few years.

I was never nervous about any presentation I ever gave after that. Why would I be? Blow a school presentation, and what's the worst that happens? I get a C? If I'm really unlucky, a fistfight with some asshole bully that's probably going to leave no more than bruises? Laughable. I also became an excellent public speaker - better than say 99 percent of high school or college students. Any time there was a speech or presentation that needed to be given, my classmates and the faculty would agree that I was the best in say my classroom of 25, and by a pretty decent margin.

I had just been training in earnest for a goddamn rhetoric Hock, and it had benefits in other areas - such as being genuinely confident and unafraid when presenting and public speaking. Also it made me a decent if overwrought writer. Why fear being rejected or making a fool of yourself, when you've just stared death by avalanche or hypothermia or wild animals in the face day after day?

As far as frivolity: that is the point. The Hock is just pointless Twitter drama writ large and played out in the Alaskan wilderness.

I do have a question for you - have you ever survived any kind of life and death shit like war or something like that? I haven't, and I'm sorry if the question is offensive. If it is, it's probably offensive for its trite meaninglessness and dumbass attempt to ask about shit that you have to be there to know anything about.

Why fear being rejected or making a fool of yourself, when you've just stared death by avalanche or hypothermia or wild animals in the face day after day?

Because it won't make you fearless, it will make you resentful that it didn't work.

Notice in your "presentation Hock" comparison, the thing that made you not fear public speaking was practicing for public speaking? There is no analogy skill transfer between wilderness survival -> improving social awkwardness. You are comparing practicing something that directly improves the thing it applies to, to doing something completely unrelated in hopes that it will reframe you into being better at it. IT WON'T WORK the way you are hoping.

I do beleive that if you went and worked as a mission in a 3rd world scenario, surrounded by others, it would, in fact improve your socialization.

The Hock is just pointless Twitter drama writ large and played out in the Alaskan wilderness.

So three days into your Twitter drama you get yourself killed and your remains are not found until the summer thaw, if ever. If you are the only person in your world, that's fine. But if you have family or any one else involved with you, be that work or life, it's shitty for them.

What's [redacted]?

I do have a question for you - have you ever survived any kind of life and death shit like war or something like that?

I dunno about the guy you’re replying to, but I have and I agree with him. You can read the rest of my advice in replies to your ‘hock’ posting.

I don't know what this means

Skookum has explained to me at length his theory that women suffer greatly as a result of voluntarily being in relationships with socially awkward men who aren't especially good-looking, to the point of believing there's a 1 in 20 chance that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers more than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up (yes, really). He hence thinks it's hypocritical of him to ask a woman to suffer for his benefit without him having suffered a comparable degree beforehand. Completing his stupid hike is his way of demonstrating his willingness to undergo pointless suffering for nobody's benefit.

If this chain of reasoning makes no sense to you, that makes two of us.

1 in 20 chance that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers more than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up (yes, really).

No. I said I was like 95% certain that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers much less than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up. The other 5 percent is basically some devil's advocate stuff like "maybe he is so incompetent socially that he makes her isolated and miserable, and that's worse than being beat up" or some stuff like that. It most definitely can be very charitably considered a stretch; I'm simply leaving the option open that there is some very non-obvious way that Awkward Andy is a worse partner than that Henry guy from Radicalizing the Romanceless. Personally, I'm stumped, Andy's got to be better as a partner than Henry and Henry's just a fucking con man to Andy's crap marketing. However, I was sort of hoping that someone here would come up with some eloquent argument for how Awkward Andy sucks rotting donkey balls as a partner in a way that is very much not obvious at first glance. I can't think of it, to be honest, although admit to perhaps being unable to grok just how Awkward Andy might suck in some sort of weird illegible way that ultimately cashes out to worse than being in an ER with a black eye and broken arm courtesy of Henry.

Really struggling to see how what you just said differs in any way from my gloss of your position.

It's a subtle difference: you'd said something like "1 in 20 women in a relationship with Awkward Andy are as bad off or worse than those being beat by Henry"; I'm saying "Dude, Henry sucks and is a terrible partner, but I'm open to the possibility that Andy sucks donkey balls in some weird way and is just as bad. Although exactly how has me fucking stumped."

I explicitly didn't say "1 in 20 women in a relationship with Awkward Andy are as bad off or worse than those being beat by Henry"; I said:

to the point of believing there's a 1 in 20 chance that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers more than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up

Which means exactly the same thing as what you just said.

You can throw around the phrase "extremely non-obvious" as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that what you're arguing is grotesque. You're so myopically mired in self-pity that you actually think there's even the remotest chance that a woman would rather be in a relationship with a man who beats her up than you. You shouldn't be "open to the possibility": it's preposterous and a grave insult to every victim of domestic abuse in history.

When you qualify as a doctor, I pity the poor women you'll have to treat whose shitty boyfriends land them in the ER. Knowing you, you'll be too busy asking them "but was he handsome tho??" to set their jaws properly.

More comments

maybe he is so incompetent socially that he makes her isolated and miserable, and that's worse than being beat up

This doesn’t happen; women can manage their own social relationships just fine.

Thriving in social situations is arguably not about "paying a shitload of attention so you don't miss anything." In fact a rapt focused interest is very commonly off-putting, especially if you start asking questions.

I'll be honest here, I don't think anything anyone says in this forum is going to cause you to change your tune regarding this topic (You) and it's possibly an unconscious way for you to draw attentive concern your way in a kind of internetty, 2023 way.

If your declarations regarding this planned trip contained questions or queries of advice on specifics (if anyone has experience cold-weather camping, best ideas for lightweight cooking gear, knowledge of knives or ropes or fire or best campsite practices in icy terrain etc. etc etc.) I would be more compelled to follow the outcome.

As it is this seems so half-assed and ill-conceived as to make Chris McCandless seem like Sir Edmund Hillary by comparison. It's like the kid who says he will tunnel to China over the weekend, just you wait.

This is not a dare. Far from it. And despite your suspicion that you've invested so many internet hours talking about this that surely now you'll have to do it, I would say literally everyone (at risk of "speaking for the group") would commend you if you decided to immediately drop this plan and never mention it again.

Edit ok maybe not @Southkraut

Hmm. My questions are rather obscure, but someone might be able to give me some advice here. I do have them - I've just been asking them on different forums. I've been putting off writing to people that have completed the Brooks Range Wilderness Ski Classic - I need to get on that, thanks for reminding me.

  1. What type of snow is commonly found in the Brooks Range in Northern Alaska? I've heard that it was generally homogenous depth hoar or sugar snow, but don't know for sure. If it is depth hoar, is it possible to pile a lot of it up, pack it down with skis, and build a snow cave or quinzee out of it? For what it's worth, I built more than a few of these as a kid.

  2. How common are avalanches in that area, given the snow conditions? I am guessing not uncommon; most of the trip will be on the flat but there is going to be a mountain/pass crossing involved.

  3. How likely are bear encounters in Arctic Village or Sagwon in February? I know that bears should be hibernating at that time, and polar bears rarely travel that far south.

  4. River travel: I've read that travel on the Sheenjek River is dangerous when it is 10 below zero, but safe when it is 40 below. Much of the water in the Sheenjek River comes from upwelling groundwater, and this erodes any ice that forms. Are other rivers in this region of Alaska fueled by upwelling groundwater and similarly dangerous? If they are - how do you tell that you're on a river (vs. flat ground) and how do you balance this hazard vs. avalanche hazard?

  5. Generally speaking, is the avalanche danger any greater or less in March in this region than it is in February?

I suppose that I might also want to post about some items I'm interested in purchasing. Namely, men's medium or large 8000-meter expedition grade down pants and a sleeping bag rated to 40 degrees below zero. Also, a Primus OmniLite stove pump. I wouldn't exactly suspect any of y'all have this kind of esoteric and specialized shit just laying around.

I hope that I'm at least at Chris McCandless tier here.

  1. It's probably pretty compact for skiing on, with various layers due to wind or melt events. Don't consider snow caves, take a tent. (also note bene that the above is a perfect description of snow that is likely to (unpredictably) slide off in refrigerator-sized chunks from any slope > 30 degrees or so)

  2. Based on Google Earth there will be more like two passes, and there's maybe sort of a plateau there -- if you don't already know which passes are passable, you will probably not find out until you are past the point of no return (avalanches, see above -- they can run a lot further than you probably think)

  3. Unlikely

  4. It probably won't matter much -- if you are in a potentially hazardous avalance area travelling next to the river, you will also be there when you are on the river. You are by yourself -- any avalanche you are involved in will probably kill you DRT

  5. Depends on the weather

  6. Add a tent and some boots that fit to your list

Yeah. I doubt that Mottizens are looking to unload one- or two- person mountaineering grade tents...but I might be wrong.

As far as avalanches: there are relatively broad valleys as much as a mile or two wide with meandering rivers there. The mountains are a couple of thousand feet above the valley. I am no avalanche expert, but I am not sure that I'd be likely to trigger an avalanche over half a mile away that can endanger me...while traveling on flat ground. Of course, there are also narrow valleys as well. Ridge travel is a possibility, too - but I really need to seek out some local advice, which I'll be doing by writing to people living in the village of Anaktuvuk Pass. They've got to be riding around on snowmobiles and have some level of local knowledge and metis about travel in avalanche terrain...

Wind slabs are a concern, especially with the sugar snow/depth hoar I might encounter, but melt events seem very unlikely when temperatures haven't been higher than 10 above for months.

As far as avalanches: there are relatively broad valleys as much as a mile or two wide with meandering rivers there.

There are but those are probably not the ones that you are going to need to travel in if you are planning to cross the mountains. A class three (moderate) avalanche can indeed self trigger and run over half a mile; you are not going to want to be travelling on ridges. (especially if you are pulling a sledge)

Local info would be good, but probably people don't snowmobile around up there for fun; it's pretty remote for backcountry skiing, but those are the people you'd want to talk to -- I'd be very surprised if they told you it was safe to cross the range by yourself. (or without a transceiver in a group)

I took this trip into the northern reaches of the Brooks Range because I wanted my perspectives to be challenged, to reexamine long held anxieties, and to explore a rare wildness. This experience was a dialogue about how to be at home in the world: an openness to fear, a grasp of limitations, and an attentive spirit. It is the language of humility.

Above are the words of a woman who hiked in the Brooks Range, in June of presumably 2014 or 15. You can read all that here.. Maybe you already have.

Here's a reddit post and this person also went in June.

Another blogpost (1 of 3) where the blogger was in the BR, but in summer time, back in 2009.

Here is a Sierra Club trip where they take you through there (not currently accepting reservations) and has a writeup on it. I bet they also go in June.

Here is a site of a bunch of women and trans folks who went in August of this year. No cis-men were allowed. Yes, you read that right. I have no idea how it went for them.

Finally here is a hardcore dude who claims to have traversed 1000 miles solo through the Range. In...wait for it...June.

I think there is a theme here, and it isn't February. Maybe you've read all these, or more, I don't know. Maybe get in touch with some of them (perhaps not the person who did not want to hike with "cis-males.")

I am not encouraging you. I am trying to help inform you before you start buying things.

What other forums do you post on?

Oh no, I'll also commend him for dropping it, but only if he's candid about it. It takes some spine to admit that you've been a bonehead for months on end, and that it was necessary to change your ways.

If he just quietly turns back at the airport, disappears for a while, then comes back with an alt, I'll be disappointed.

I think it's easier to learn to be quick with a smile and a laugh than it is to train for an idiotic and meaningless way to demonstrate grit and determination. Then again, I spend very little time wallowing in self-pity, so I might be underestimating the difficulty of being quick with a smile and a laugh.

It doesn't even matter whether it's easier. It will be dramatically more effective.

I am a socially awkward person. I struggle to make sustained eye contact. I'm hopeless at talking to people I don't know (in bars, parties, clubs etc.), and have literally never gotten a girl into bed from a cold approach - about 95% of the women I've had sex with were through dating apps. Extended family gatherings are torture for me. I'm Irish, a race famed for our gift of the gab, and even other Irish people have complained to me for years that I speak too quickly to be easily understood. I have very few friends. I use alcohol as a crutch to overcome my social awkwardness, a strategy which has led to more than its fair share of embarrassments.

Have I thought about ending it all? The thought has crossed my mind from time to time.

Have I thought about ending it all specifically because I'm a socially awkward person? No, of course not, that's ridiculous.

Do I think spending several weeks in the middle of the Alaskan wasteland without talking to or interacting with another soul would do anything to improve my social awkwardness? Honestly, I think the question kind of answers itself. The cure for social awkwardness is to practise one's social skills, not to allow them to atrophy even further.

But I'm sure you're already writing up a big long screed about how the fact that your stupid hike won't cure you of your social awkwardness is actually the entire point and it's supposed to be stupid and pointless and narcissistic and self-absorbed because isn't the very idea of dating you stupid and pointless and etc.

I wish you'd just give it a rest and find something to talk about other than how sorry you feel for yourself. Or at the minimum if you're going to throw this big pity party so often, stop involving the rest of us in it.

He should be less concerned with his obsession of being totally undateable, and more concerned with how he is going to function as a medical doctor when he has such a one track delusional mind, autism and awkwardness, and ugliness to the point that no one can stand to look at him (so he claims). Though, he would be far from the first MD with horrendous bedside manner.

how he is going to function as a medical doctor when he has such a one track delusional mind, autism and awkwardness, and ugliness to the point that no one can stand to look at him (so he claims).

I am 20th percentile for physical appearance or so. Not deformed, but decidedly below average. As far as bedside manner: that is...okay. Not bad, although it used to be. It is possible that the attendings I've talked to are now simply blowing smoke up my autistic ass for some reason. I can't think of why they would do so now and wouldn't do so a year or two ago.

A lot of men don't put any effort into their appearance at all, so putting in effort should at least make you average. A lot of men are overweight or obese, are you really claiming they are more physically attractive than you?

Have you gone through the effort of getting a toned body, skincare, hair care, self-grooming, etc? If your face is really physically unattractive even after doing all that, plastic surgery is an option.

I am 20th percentile for physical appearance or so.

I really, really doubt this.

Last time I saw people ask him for pics to substantiate the claim, he changed it to "well, I guess it's more about being awkward".

I actually wonder what "20th percentile" even translates to in terms of physical attractiveness. Like, are we considering all humans, all males, all men, all men of a certain age range, all single men, all single men of a certain age range, or what? In any case 20th percentile isn't so far in one direction as to be unbelievable; I'd wager well over 20% of the posters here are below the 20th percentile in attractiveness - when controlling for age, wealth, nationality and such. But I'd wager that very few are below 20th percentile if you consider all men, since there are so many men out there who are malnourished, sickly, deformed, or unhygienic who are unfortunate to live in very different societies than us. If SkookumTree is closer to the former 20th percentile than the latter, it's both believable and also a situation that's nowhere near as hopeless as he's making it out to be. If it's closer to the latter, that's definitely worth doubting.

I think I've always maintained that I am rather unattractive - just barely attractive enough to not experience desexualization, as the disability theorists define it. I've also said that my physical appearance does me no favors, but is not Quasimodo tier. There are a lot of ways to be unattractive, and it is not just physical appearance that does it. For me...if I had to pull some numbers out of my rear end, it's 2 or 3 parts awkwardness to 1 part physical appearance.

He did it again!

There are a lot of ways to be unattractive, and it is not just physical appearance that does it.

Except you said "I am 20th percentile for physical appearance or so". Pics or it didn't happen.

Ok, good. Once you're working as an MD, you'll be able to get a pragmatic woman. Let go of your delusions and hang-ups. They're what's keeping your from a decent life. You don't need the "hock", you just need to stop running the same bullshit story in your mind every day. It's not true. None of what the mind throws up is real.

What does UMC mean?

And why are you fundamentally willing to die over your awkwardness? The reason people died over things like honor is because their entire society for generations and ages formulated these precise moral guidelines and virtues. They weren't randomly picked out of a hat based on one person's life experience.

UMC: upper middle class

And why are you fundamentally willing to die over your awkwardness?

Personal convictions.

Personal convictions.

That's answering a question with a question.

Upper Middle Class?

My take is that the guy that gave you the advice to find an asian/latina partner that is more concerned with your ability to be kind and provide than your skill at social etiquette is probably the way you should go. Better than dying on 'The Hock'.

My experience is that Latinas are never single, are super stranger-danger-y, and too people-pleasing to just fucking say no, thus wasting your time.

I recall making the same suggestion, there are plenty of cultures where women are more pragmatic in terms of who they marry instead of daydreaming about Prince Charming. In their eyes, he might well be a catch instead of someone to grudgingly tolerate.

Seriously. Go to the Philippines or Thailand or almost anywhere somewhat touristy in Central America, and this guy is guaranteed to get a decent looking girl. He can even try Eastern Europe if he’s willing to deal with a higher rate of rejection.

better to die than do your utmost to be graceful.

Let me see if I have this correct: "Rather than try hard to have charm, poise, cool, grace, one should die." ???

This is counterintuitive and nonsensical to me. What is the problem with trying to "have grace?" or "be graceful?" Am I not following your terms here? And how is this related to class, or the aristocracy? Isn't part of class grace? Why is death preferable? If someone is charmless or awkward, should they just die and rid us of their awkward presence? That kills off most all of the world's teenagers, male and female.

It's likely I'm misunderstanding. Clarify if you're so inclined.

hmm. The hock is indirectly going to help me have charm, poise, and cool. After you've almost died in the fucking alaskan wilderness, a lot of things seem trivial by comparison. I hope I'll be more determined, more conscientious, and less neurotic. I suppose it'd be good if the least graceful five percent or so of teenagers decided to undertake a challenge as dangerous as the Hock, although everyone rolls their own Hock. Doesn't have to be wilderness, even.

The hock is indirectly going to help me have charm, poise, and cool.

No it won’t. Go to chilis and strike up political conversations with random other tables. Mentor at risk youth. Start teaching yourself a new language and frequent pool halls that do business in it. Something to interact with people you have nothing in common with until you develop enough cool to have a hitchhiker’s towel effect on grace, charm, and all the rest.

My take is that UMC that compare themselves to petty aristocracy are annoying upstarts.

Agreed. I'd also add that if you are at all unsure about your status as a member of the aristocracy or think you need to reinforce that status, you are not a member of the aristocracy.

Yeah, fair enough, my family's basically bush league new money at best.


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats