The narrative that all of us want to believe is that we have this part of ourselves that is in control. We control our thoughts.
Except that we don’t. If you meditate you’ll find that you can’t simply control your thoughts. Don’t imagine a pink elephant right now.
But our experience is that we have some measure of control. If you meditate regularly you’ll set up more refined feedback mechanisms and there will be less of a feeling of thoughts being out of control.
But there is still no locus of control that matches up with our narrative. We have fundamental wiring hardware that not only influences what we think, but often simply tells us what we think.
One of my girlfriends is back in town after being gone for two months. We used to live together for three years, but when my health was good enough and the opportunity arose, I took a 2nd lover. That worked for a while until she barged in on us fucking and started pulling hair. Then things settled down and we had an understanding again, but then her emotions became uncontrollable and she became intensely antagonistic in swings and then left town to get some air. There is a point to me sharing all this. I waited in my original shophouse/apartment for her to return, and when she did I acted as if I really missed her and was still in love with her.
Because it was genuine and true.
On the exterior this would look as if I’m a master manipulator of women, and can perform the most subtle of psychological manipulations to get them exactly where I want them. Push pull in the just the right proportions to get what I want. And it’s true. I am, and it’s frightening.
But on the inside I really feel genuine emotions.
So who is in charge here? Where is the locus of control? I’m not only a master manipulator who has internalized all he has learned such that I run on automatic pilot when “gaming” girls, but I’m past automatic pilot to being an automaton. I genuinely believe and feel exactly what is required of me to believe to fulfil my agenda. My biologically programmed agenda. Of fucking this really hot young woman and keeping her as my personal love slave.
This is how the mind very often works. We have these innate wirings that we casually mistake for our own personal decisions.
There has long been a genetic caste war between novelty seeking cads and sluts versus family oriented providers. It has been documented and studied that certain genes are directly correlated with certain morals. We can’t broadly speak about what morals men have or what men want without considering these castes. Some men for instance have a very strong emotional built in feeling for respect for authority. This is such a strong circuit of wiring in the brain, that they will be unable to harbor thoughts in contradiction to this respect. Logic will be unable to bring them to envision alternate views. The brain is forcing you to be what you are – to think what you do. It’s not a personal choice, as much as it feels like the personal choice to be good and moral and on the right side, that’s not an accurate description of reality. Just as a butterfly will fly to a specific tree in South America, your brain has forced you to have unstoppably strong instincts.
But these are not universal. It’s somewhere near a 50/50 or 60/40 split between guys who don’t have the respect for authority gene and those who do.
And there is also a purity gene or confluence of genes and a moral value of respect for purity. The two moral genetic bases may be related or often coincidental – I’m not sure. The point is that it’s something close to a 50/50 split again. Some guys are more and some guys are less bothered by a woman’s sexual past, and this is hard coded into us, in much the same fashion as the butterfly has hard coded designs on a specific tree in South America.
Esteemed and insightful blogger Laidnyc writes:
Because unrestrained female sexuality incentives the wrong behavior in men and erodes civilization.
Because sluts are low quality and having to hang out with them long enough to fuck them is depressing.
Because men have an instinct to be disgusted by girls who’ve been turned out so as not to get cucked into raising their bastards.
and I commented:
We’re on the same page on many things, however it’s obvious we have a fundamental difference in attitude towards high-sociosexual score girls. There is good scientific reason to believe that our attitude differences are at least partly genetic.
I would ask you to at least include people like me into your theory of mind when you claim to speak for the entire male gender.
I see this no-true-Scottsmen like approach to talking about men all the time. “Real guys in the know aren’t into getting close and intimate with infidelity risk girls.”
Ya, except no. That’s not an accurate description of true-Scottsmen. It’s a description of some Scottsmen.
Some true Scottsmen are able to tame sluts, for as long as they want to, and enjoy it.
And some of those true Scottsmen are a bigger boon to “society” than the purity lovers.
You’ve set up this left vs right dichotomy where by coincidence you happen to be on the good guy team.
Ya, but the demarcations you make are often straw men. There are socially positive high sexual score men and women. There are high sexual score men and women who bond at least as well and often better than the purity lovers.
Your lines vaguely fit up to the real world, but are mostly setup to paint you and your ilk to look good.
It’s not an accurate description of reality. Guys who like novelty can be and often are prosocial and can and often do make good fathers too. And the same for the women.
You know, some guys marry girls who they then go on to wife swap with. Or the woman will occasionally bring a new girl into the mans bed. It happens, and that works for some people.
Once again – I’ll thank you to not speak for my genetic class when speaking for all men.
Update: UCB mentioned the guardian personality type in one of his comments below, and this led me to the wikipedia entry and this. I highly recommend to readers to read the wikipedia entries on the types. I’ll post two of them here below. It would seem that Laidnyc is a guardian type of personality, and I have some strong artisan traits, although I think I tested more as INTJ.
I’m new to this personality typing. I’d suspect there are genetic and epigenetic bases for these types.
We all can get myopic and think that everybody else is like us, or worse yet that everyone that is not like us SHOULD be.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_temperament
The Guardian temperament is one of four temperaments defined by David Keirsey. Correlating with the SJ (sensing–judging) Myers-Briggs types, the Guardian temperament comprises the following role variants (listed with their corresponding Myers-Briggs types): Inspector (ISTJ), Protector (ISFJ), Provider (ESFJ), and Supervisor (ESTJ).[1]
Description
Guardians are concrete in communicating and cooperative in pursuing their goals. Their greatest strength is logistics. Their most developed intelligence role is either that of the Conservator (Protectors and Providers) or the Administrator (Inspector and Supervisor).
As the security-seeking temperament, Guardians are practical and frugal types. They “share certain core values, among them the belief in a strong work ethic, the need for people and institutions to be responsible, the importance of following the rules and of serving one’s community.”[2] Guardians value experience, and they seek a tangible return on their investments. Believing in common sense, they are not attracted to idle speculation. They are the glue of civilization, maintaining and nurturing institutions that have been established by the dint of hard work. They tend to be conventional and cooperative in their work, wanting to make sure everybody gets what they deserve, no more and no less. They follow the rules and conventions of their cohort or group and expect others to as well.
Interests: In their education and careers, Guardians’ primary interest is business and commerce, with an eye toward practical applications in managing materiel. They are preoccupied with maintaining the morality of their group.[3]
Orientation: Guardians have a strong sense of duty. They forgo the pleasures of the moment to prepare for unseen eventualities. They regard past events with a sense of resignation. They guard against the corruption of outside influences, and look to past experiences to guide their present choices.
Self-image: The Guardians’ self-esteem is based on their dependability; their self-respect on their beneficence; and their self-confidence on their respectability.
Values: Guardians are concerned about the well-being of people and institutions that they hold dear. They trust authority and seek security. They strive for a sense of belonging and want to be appreciated for their contributions. They aspire to become executives, whether by managing their own households or by running a multinational corporation.
Social roles: In romantic relationships, Guardians regard themselves as helpmates, working together with their spouse to establish a secure home. As parents, they focus on raising their children to become productive and law-abiding citizens. In business and social situations, they are stabilizers, establishing procedures and ensuring that the material needs of the group are met.
Stress
Guardians often experience stress when rules, expectations, and structure are unclear, or when those around them do not act according to established norms. The extraverted (expressive) types—Providers and Supervisors—may respond by becoming critical of others. The introverted (attentive) types—Protectors and Inspectors—may take on the burden of trying to correct the perceived faults in the system themselves, resulting in overwork and burnout. Guardians also experience stress when the results of their hard work go unnoticed or unappreciated. [4]
Traits in common with other temperaments
Keirsey identified the following traits of the Guardian temperament:[1]
Concrete in communicating (like Artisans)
Guardians focus on facts. They are concerned about practical needs like providing goods and services that help society function smoothly.
Cooperative in pursuing their goals (like Idealists)
Guardians value teamwork. They are committed to preserving established social institutions. Cautious toward change, Guardians work within the system to ensure that all contingencies are considered.
And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan_temperament :
Artisan temperament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Artisan temperament is one of four temperaments defined by David Keirsey. Correlating with the SP (sensing–perceiving) Myers-Briggs types, the Artisan temperament comprises the following role variants (listed with their corresponding Myers-Briggs types): Composer (ISFP), Crafter (ISTP), Performer (ESFP), and Promoter (ESTP).[1]
Description
Artisans are concrete in speech and utilitarian in pursuing their goals. Their greatest strength is tactical variation. Their most developed intelligence role is that of either the Operator (Promoters and Crafters) or the Entertainer (Performers and Composers).
As the stimulation-seeking temperament, Artisans prefer to live one day at a time. They may spontaneously pursue activities that offer fun or pleasure. Playful in their interpersonal relationships, Artisans tend to be more permissive as parents than the other temperaments,[1] wanting their children to explore and enjoy the world.
Interests: In education, Artisans want to learn artcrafts and techniques that they can use in their career. They tend to seek work involving operations and equipment,[2] which could range from a scalpel to a fighter jet.
Orientation: Artisans live in the here and now. They want to enjoy the present moment. They tend to be optimistic about the future and cynical about the past, believing that life is a series of risks or random events without any larger pattern or meaning.
Self-image: The Artisans’ self-esteem is rooted in their grace and artistry; their self-respect in their boldness; and their self-confidence in their adaptability.
Values: Artisans enjoy excitement and perform well when in a state of restless energy. “They are excitable as children and they never seem to get less excitable as they grow up.”[2] They seek stimulation and trust their impulses. Prone to spontaneous acts of generosity, they want to make an impact on others. They aspire to virtuosity, taking great pleasure in practicing and mastering their technique in the pursuits that interest them.
Social roles: In romantic relationships, Artisans want a playmate, someone who can share in the pleasure and excitement they seek. As parents, Artisans are liberators, exposing their children to a wide variety of activities, encouraging them to push beyond their limits, and guiding them toward independence and self-sufficiency. In business and social situations, they are negotiators, making the most of the opportunities at hand.
Learning
Artisans want teachers who are interesting, active, and playful. They will avoid sedentary forms of learning and uninteresting learning assignments. They will also avoid reading assignments that are not succinct, practical and relevant. Artisans want to demonstrate their learning through actions.
Stress
As a defense mechanism, Artisans may respond with denial, insisting that a fact is untrue despite overwhelming evidence.[3] Since Artisans feel a need to make an impact and to be spontaneous, they become stressed when their ability to do these things becomes constrained. Boredom is another source of stress for Artisans. When under stress, they can become reckless, and they may retaliate against the source of the stress. Providing Artisans with options, such as new ways to make an impact and new activities, can relieve the stress.[1]
Traits in common with other temperaments
Keirsey identified the following traits of the Artisan temperament:[1]
Concrete in communication (like Guardians)
Artisans are realistic. They want to experience events in the moment. They enjoy manipulating concrete objects, whether for practical or artistic purposes.
Pragmatic in pursuing their goals (like Rationals)
Artisans take pride in bold and unconventional behavior. They aren’t interested in following a rule if they don’t see how it serves a practical purpose.
Random Xpat Rantings 
Interesting thought process here. Although I was raised in a fairly conservative Christian environment, these days I learn far closer to your way of viewing things than laidnyc’s. I’m just too stuck in reality. Sure, I like the idea of a so-called “good girl,” I just have a don’t see a whole lot of evidence for such girls in existence. I’ve met plenty of virgins and low-N girls who jumped into bed with me within hours of us first meeting. Is that a bad thing — for them or for me? Should I hold that against them or other girls in the future? I don’t know. Try as we might, we can’t simply stop women from wanting to have sex with other men. All the slut-shaming in the world won’t accomplish that. All we can do really is to place ourselves so high above the competition that women can think of no good reason to want to sleep with other men. I thought that was one of the primary reasons so many guys go into game in the first place.
Anyway, there was a guy a while back — narciso babaero — who wrote some things that completely changed the way I approach women and dating. One of the things he talked about was the fact that guys who have experience with women tend to be far more attracted to sluts than they are consciously aware of. On the one hand, sluts validate them. How else would they rack up such high N-counts without the presence of a fair number of sluts thrown into the mix. However, these same sluts are a threat to their ego, since (according to PUA theory) they will bail at the first hint that there is a slightly more “alpha” male present in her vicinity. I balked at this idea at first, having been raised to be a sociosexual conservative. But then, here I am two years after first reading the piece… and I have since thrown away relationships with a genuinely good girls in favor of the challenge and excitement that comes from taming an unrestricted “slut.” Like you, I’m a high-IQ, high-earning who believes strongly in the value of building strong family and community bonds, and I’ve been as happy as ever been in this current relationship dynamic.
No! You’re a nihilistic deluded social parasite thug and your girlfriend doesn’t really love you and is a whore! Blah blah blah!
***
Evolution has discovered sexual strategies, and one of the strategies is for men to gather together as “communists”. By communists I mean they work socially for the group interest, at the expense of individual interests. This sexual strategy takes the form of enforcing community wide monogamy.
The men who take this strategy are unaware that it is hard coded into them. They think that they are just being good and upstanding.
But they are ALSO just acting out of self interest. Communists also act out of self interest. For their in group. It works for that percentage of men with that strategy to compete better in the sexual marketplace if they act in co-ordination.
That’s all well and good but when describing reality accurately it’s no longer a matter of emotional disgust or family values. For an accurate mental map that matches up with the data at hand we need an accurate theory of mind for the larger majority of men who don’t have high aversion for sexual promiscuity. It’s simply false to say that men are turned off by high n-counts.
Men say that as a bargaining position, as a negotiation tactic with women. If you don’t comply with our demands we won’t marry you, and then where will you be?
That has been a hugely successful evolutionarily programmed sexual strategy.
But the fact that more than 50% of men don’t share the purity-morality-genetic confluence shows that it’s not the only successful strategy.
It’s a wider world out there, and let’s describe it accurately.
Right on. If you haven’t yet, I think you should take a lot at the early retirement extreme blog by Jacob Fisker. It’s mostly a financial blog, but he also talks quite a bit about Myers-Briggs and the Guardian temperament dominates our society just based on pure numbers alone (they make up over 50% of the population). They are the rule-makers and followers, and they have a hard time with types like us who seek only rational, productive outcomes and see most of this rule-making and following as a wasteful sideshow. I try not to judge them over this, but like you say… it’s not the only way to live.
Anyway, I thought it funny you should mention Communists in your response. This whole line of thinking — the slut-shaming aspect — reminded me of the Russians and how they sought to end the arms race leading up to WWI by initiating an arms treaty. Its the same basic logic… since we can’t stop people (or nations) from doing that which they naturally want to do, let’s just implement a bunch of (largely unenforceable) rules to slow things down. Naturally, we all know how well that turned out.
I’ll take my love now, but it’s good see you back to blogging again.
Ya, I’ve posted a number of times about how this innate drive to shame men and women into getting with the social program is no longer effective, and how it is an error in thinking – in fact an instinctually driven error – that leads men to believe that social rules are the driving influence for social behavior.
Society is MUCH more affected by technology.
Farming changed culture. The industrial revolution changed culture. The pill changed culture.
Cultural changes didn’t happen because the rules changed. It wasn’t feminism that changed culture, or the social narrative, or TV shows, or the liberal media.
It was opportunity. Opportunity created by technology.
The differing opportunities allowed for new narratives to gain more traction.
You can’t fight a sexual strategy war through memes. It’s not about the narrative.
It’s about opportunity.
And shame has very little effect on real world opportunity. Girls will do what they are doing regardless of how many bloggers warn them about cats.
Also… on “novelty seeking cads and sluts versus family oriented providers”:
I’ve been seeing this dynamic a lot lately, in the form you describe and also in the pop-psych version of r/K selection theory. I’m in my mid 30s. Spent most of my teens and twenties in monogamous LTRs, did a few years of voluntary celibacy, and in my early thirties racked up an N-count that’s 5-6x’s what most guys will manage over a lifetime. I’m currently helping to raise four kids (not my own) in large part because I want to have some meaningful experience with it before popping out my own sometime in the next few years. So where exactly do I fit into this false dichotomy the PUAs have set up for us.
PUAs too easily forget (or never knew) that these behaviors are environmentally driven. An intelligent person who starts out r-selected will quickly switch over and adapt to a K-selected strategy (and vice versa), when the situation calls for it. If one favors one strategy over another for ethical/moral/personal reasons… well that’s one thing. But to suggest that everyone should simply follow this lead regardless of what’s in their own individual best interest is just silly.
Ya, good point that the general strategy can switch. There are environmental and epigenetic behavioural cues, as well as deep genetic coding.
For instance the testosterone spiral can switch the sexual strategy.
Opportunity and circumstance alter our values, unsurprisingly. Nietzsche said a few things about that. People tend to be communists up until the point they get rich and powerful. Or vote democrat until they are rich, at which point they vote republican.
Saying that my brain is in control, is the same as saying that life is in control or ”god” is in control, i disagree, I am in control.
Of course I don’t 100% control every single thought but usually I can focus on what I want to think.
I am usually 100% with you but not today.
Then let me rephrase. Our hardware influences and constrains what code the software runs.
And some software code is hardware coded.
It isn’t just animals that are animals, or women who are influenced by evolutionary psychology. Our morals are also evolved. Jonathan Haidt has done much research about that, and there has been a lot of research about various behaviour influencing genes.
Some personality styles are noticable and distinct, and we’re starting to correlate them with specific genes and gene confluences.
In other words, our brains not only influence the style in which we are likely to think, but much more than that – sometimes choicelessly command the thoughts. We get fear under some stimuli. We want to mate. We have hard coded instincts.
Now you might be able to struggle with or influence and post process these instinctual signals, but these hard-wired neuronal signals are still going to fire. And more than that – the very struggling is done on evolved hardware. You didn’t create yourself. And you can’t wholely re-create yourself either.
We are also hard wired to seek meaning. This often means that we are unable to go through the 4 stages of grief and come to acceptance of hard truths, and will invent phantasms and fictions to appease our desire for a feeling of purpose and future. Facing death is uncomfortable, so for some people they seem to have no choice but to believe in an afterlife for themselves and their loved ones.
And telling people that morals or a need for meaning is hard coded is faced with resistance because the resistance is hard coded.
Some readers will feel a nervous malaise reading this, and will use those feelings as the impetus for the decision to stop staring into the abyss. And for further protection they will label the dealers of truth as “nihilists”. Bad people saying bad things. Think of the children! Society! Society! Socieeeettttyyyyyyyyyy!
A guardian personality comes from birth pre-programmed to grow up to say:
“Look at me I’m a stable provider. I’m not like one of those guitar players. I’ll give you marriage, and that’s better for you. Those guitar players are not only bad for you, they’re bad for society”.
Ya, it’s a nice line if you can get a girl to swallow it, however girls who are not also pre-disposed to follow authority (other guardians) may not be motivated by it.
It’s all down to motivation.
Many of us can think reasonably up and until our strategies are put at risk, then we’ll rationalize our positions, which only works up to a point.
Guardians rationalize their position with “well, even if religion isn’t true, it’s still better for people to believe it”. The position of course falls down if you take any close look at it.
Bob Altmeyer did great research on “The Authoritarians” and showed us how guardians are fucking freaky scary in their ability to blindly follow orders. He’s afraid of another charismatic like Hitler rousing the 45% or so of guardians to again lead us into doom.
And this snake-oil the guardians try to sell; that everyone except for them is a nihilistic anti-social thug of a parasite who’ll never properly bond or take proper care of the children is just a lie. A lie their genes told them to tell so that they can get married.
Pingback: Our brains tell us what to think | Truth and co...
The encouragement of self-alienation is pervasive in the manosphere. It is so powerful that I am tempted to believe the manosphere does a net disservice to men, separating us from our true selves even at the very same time it is making us handier with the ladies.
Good manosphere writing — like Xsplat’s — encourages us to become our best, individual exponents of masculinity in accordance with our unique natures. Unfortunately, the manosophere overall doesn’t encourage the getting of self-knowledge nearly as much as it encourages the getting of Game Knowledge and solicits our buy-in to a pre-authorised catechism of beliefs about men and women.
The “no true Scotsman” fallacy might well be the most insidious and widespread — I’d even call it evil — tactic that crops up in manopshere propaganda. (I use the word propaganda with care.) It’s replete on blogs and forums, and often its used implicitly, and probably unknowingly, by the authors of posts and comments. They’re not doing it on purpose, but they’re still doing it. (I’m not a psychologist, but they’re probably doing it because it has the effect of bolstering their own identities, their own constructed sense of self. After all, we all have to construct a sense of self, by the nature of human consciousness.)
But I just came across a blog entry on Heartiste where the “no true Scotsman” rears its head explicitly, and I want to share it to help people see what it looks like in all its flagrant glory, and be alert to its subtle manipulation. The line to watch for is: “Is there a man alive with working testicles who wouldn’t agree with my description of the perfect male job? No, I bet not.”
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-greatest-job-in-the-world-for-a-man/
The writer might be correct in this case — erotic photographer Richard Kern’s job does seem perfect… TO ME, anyway — but it’s still a corrosive structure of argument that urges men to “be like Mike” rather than to celebrate, enhance and work within their own true masculine natures, which will vary considerably from man to man.
Summary: the manosophere claims to be helping men to “know thyself,” but too often it encourages the opposite. It appears to pay outward lip service to the differences in life choices and preferences (genetic or chosen) that exist among men, yet defaults fundamentally to the premise that “yeah but, really we all want the same thing, and if you have a different urges or understandings, well, you’re not a real man, obviously.”
Agreed, though Heartiste and his ilk would likely reframe said fallacy as “no true Alpha…”
Funny thing about your “know thyself” argument: I probably wasted 3 – 5 years (off and on) trying to get consistently good at picking up girls using traditional PUA methods. I had some success with it… but it was a long, hard grind and definitely a net negative in my overall development. At some point about two years ago I completely dropped all conscious effort towards PUA and “gaming.” I simply looked back to the things I did in high school that naturally attracted girls to me and tried to figure out how I could best emulate that in my adult life. I’m sure you can figure out what happened next. I didn’t necessarily land more girls, but the ones I landed were considerably better than what I averaged in my PUA days, and I was landing them and keeping them with considerably less effort than what I’d been expending as a PUA.
More and more I’m coming to find the bulk of the Manosphere and supposed “red-pillers” as deluded as the “blue-pill” herd they left behind. My reading of Bob Altermeyer’s “The Authoritarians” (linked above) only confirms this. There is definitely some good information out there; so I haven’t deleted all the old bookmarks just yet. But the signal to noise ratio has become unbearably low in recent years. Hopefully one of these days these guys will all wake up and realize that reading interesting posts on a blog does not make you Neo and this meme (and much of the Manosphere in general) needs to be retired.
Pingback: Telling you why I’m forever alone will further alienate me « Random Xpat Rantings