From a recent comment on Krauserpua:

As for feminism/leftism, the impact of this is dramatically overstated in the manosphere, which sort of just reaffirms what i previously suspected about many communities: full of dudes who don’t go outside and (instead) formulate their view of the world based on other internet recluses.

From a recent email to myself:

If your blog gets low traffic I think that’s a sad commentary on the intellectual and emotional capacities of the bulk of the manosphere. Hell, every man should be exposed to your ideas and feelings. Your blog is gold.

I was speculating today why this blog is low traffic.  Some ideas that I had:

  • Other guys might not be interested in the lifestyle that interests me (they might prefer to be married, or to have egalitarian relationships, or prefer monogamous dating with women in their own age and accomplishment category)
  • Other people may not share my ambitions.  In fact my ambitions my even be off-putting.
  • My experiences might be too far outside the norm to register as relevant to most guys.
  • It’s too niche, for too many reasons
  • People assume that living and loving in Indonesia is very different than living in their own country.
  • I don’t make any popular appeals to blaming other people about any social or sexual ills or injustices. 
  • I view hypergamy as an opportunity instead of an excuse.
  • I don’t simplify my world-view, but instead use a lot of “ands”.
  • Some guys might just consider themselves to be too fundamentally unattractive to consider my ideas about dating to be relevant to their lives.

It could be that my thinking style itself, by it’s nature, could never make for a popular read.  And I mean that independently from the writing style; I like to think about things as if ideas were glorious toys.  I rarely meet people who view ideas as toys in real life.  Ideas are defence systems or rationalizations or weapons of argument, called upon with reluctance as a last resort, to many.  I put huge value on maximum coherence and scope of thought – holding as many facts together coherently is my definition of truth, and truth is my second greatest value.  I rarely meet people in real life who hold a similar value.

And my top value is sustained personal happiness/contentment/pleasure.  I don’t see that as all that popular a value either, to be honest.  A lot of guys value commitment, integrity, and other ideals that put others before themselves as more valuable.

There aren’t many comments on this lonely outpost of a blog, so sometimes it feels like I’m writing into the void.  In such cases how can I tell if I’m writing quality content or just have my usual delusions of grandeur?  When I do step out into the comments sections of other blogs and forums, I grow even more confident in my views, through view-combat.  I think my ideas are stated well and stand up to close scrutiny, and hold up very well wherever there is any disagreement.  But I no longer have as much time or interest to comment on the places that I used to.

I may never understand why more people don’t value this blog as much as I do.  I really love it and am pretty proud of it.  It’s a pretty close approximation to myself and my life, and how I think and how I love and what I feel and what I do.  I’m glad to have this outward manifestation of myself – it’s almost like having a friend.

Or course there could be other reasons my blog doesn’t get much interest.

  1. It might be boring (but I think that begs the question.  Boring to who and why?)
  2. The amateurish layout puts the content in a bad context.
  3. The writing isn’t tight enough and can ramble.
  4. The style and tone may not have popular appeal

But I’d rather blame other people, if I could get away with it even in my own hidden corners.

So it’s a mystery to me.  If my blog seems so good to me (and a select minority of other men), why isn’t it anywhere near as popular as other blogs that also seem good to me?

A friend mentioned Ken Wilber’s Boomeritis as a clue.  He said something like that most people are not at Wilber’s “Vision Logic” stage.  He hinted that this is a vision logic blog.  A lot of “and”s in it.  It’s a thinking about thinking, from a big all at once perspective blog.  Whereas according to Wilber, only about 2% of the population think that way by habit.

Update: Antonio commented:

Not only that, language, and its possible logical structures, don’t matter to them as much as the collective conscience of popular ideas. Say something outside of the scope of what is popularly heard, and even if that makes pristine sense, people will not register what you said. It is as if it was out of their vocabulary, a completely different language.


Human nature is simplistic, and is constantly searching for a convenient narrative. Convenient narratives require simplification, they require a clear villain and a clear hero. Not simplifying and not pointing fingers at villains is a guarantee that most people won’t relate to what you say..