The Way of Men "Because of differences between the sexes, the best person for jobs that involve exploring, hunting, building, or defending is usually going to be a male. This is not some arbitrary cultural prejudice; it is the kind of vital strategic discrimination that will keep your group alive."

erwgv3g34

March 28, 2014

42 upvotes

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	The Way of Men "Because of differences between the sexes, the best person for jobs that involve exploring, hunting, building, or defending is usually going to be a male. This is not some arbitrary cultural prejudice; it is the kind of vital strategic discrimination that will keep your group alive."
Author	erwgv3g34
Upvotes	42
Comments	15
Date	March 28, 2014 6:52 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/21m3mt/the_way_of_men_because_of_differences_between_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/the-way-of-men-because-of-differences-between-the.230608 https://theredarchive.com/post/230608

[–]Nemester5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RP_Magnus0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mass society:

Mass society is any society of the modern era that possesses a mass culture and large-scale, impersonal, social institutions. A mass society is a society in which prosperity and bureaucracy have weakened traditional social ties." Descriptions of society as a "mass" took form in the 19th century, referring to the leveling tendencies in the period of the Industrial Revolution that undermined traditional and aristocratic values.

In the work of early 19th century political theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville, the term was used in discussions of elite concerns about a shift in the body politic of the Western world pronounced since the French Revolution. Such elite concerns centered in large part on the "tyranny of the majority," or mob rule.

In the late 19th century, in the work of Émile Durkheim, the term was associated with society as a mass of undifferentiated, atomistic individuals. In 20th century neo-Marxist accounts, such as those of the Frankfurt School, mass society was linked to a society of alienated individuals held together by a culture industry that served the interests of capitalism.

Conservative accounts in the 20th century critiqued mass society from a different perspective. José Ortega y Gasset, for instance, lamented the decline of high culture in mass society. One of the most interesting things about the term "mass society" is that it at different periods of time has been used by both the radical right and the radical left as a tool for their political argumentation. [original research?]

Image ⁱ

^Interesting: ^Latin ^Mass ^Society ^of ^England ^and ^Wales ^| ^Latin ^Mass ^Society ^of ^Ireland ^| ^Latin ^Mass ^Society ^of ^Australia ^| ^American ^Society ^for ^Mass ^Spectrometry

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]TheRedderPill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RP_Magnus-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]itsmehobnob3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RP_Magnus-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There is too much really. This article takes the Hobbesian , "nasty, brutish, short" meme for Hunter Gatherers too far.

----------------------------------------- "You are part of a small human group fighting to stay alive. The reason why doesn’t matter. Conquest, war, death, hunger or disease—any of The Horsemen will do." ----------------------------------

The four horsemen were the result of the massive social changes of agriculture. There may have been the odd murder or two but by an large there was not "war", diseases, epidemics, or famine for our hunter gatherer ancestors. War required ed something to fight over, concentrated resources or wealth (didn't exist until agricultural surplus and sedentary people). Famine was the result of over-reliance on a few food crops, while hunter gatherers had incredible food diversity and traveled between many different ecosystems if one source was having problems. disease epidemics were the result of the vectors introduced by higher population density and livestock domestication. IE smallpox and measles's developed from close proximity with livestock and circulated and evolved in a population due to the higher pop of agriculturalist.

------------------------------------------ "you are going to survive, your group will need protection from predators—animal, human, alien, or undead. If there is someone or something out there who wants what you have and is willing to fight for it, you’re going to need to figure out who in your group is going to be willing to fight back. You’ll want the people who are best at fighting to stand watch, to defend everything you care about, or to go out and eliminate a potential threat. If someone or something has something that you need, the best way to get it may be to take it. Who in your group will be willing and able to do that?" ---------------------------------------------------------

Aliens or zombies really? Are we 12 years old?

Anthropological records showed foragers had way more free time than we do today. They spent somewhere around 15 hours a week doing work and procuring food. The vast majority of free time involved sex, socialization and cultural activities. The survivalist desperate struggle portrayed by the author didn't exist at all in the hunter-gatherer world. Am I saying Hunter gatherer's lived a sort of utopian life? No, they had other issues and dealt with severe weather, accidents, and non-endemic diseases as well. In addition child mortality was quite high. They had problems as well, they just were different problems. Not quite the Neo-Hobbesian fantasty portrayed here.

Other TRP misconceptions about forager existence include:

Preoccupation with paternity and MPI (male parental investment)
Origins of Hypergamy
Nature of Women
Economic game theory applied to Human Evolution and Sexuality
Monogamy
Prevalence of the "Nuclear Family structure"
Advocating "Soft Harems"

They're probably more I can't think of atm. If you want to get more in depth you can read books such as Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel or Sex at Dawn, by Dr. Christopher Ryan.

Let me restate, I am not attacking the effectiveness of TRP ideology. It is quite practical and useful in the right context. I am attacking the evolutionary pseudo-common sense type logic that "justifies" some of the different aspect of the Theory.

[–]erwgv3g34[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RP_Magnus0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]erwgv3g34[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

"Conspiracy theory" is really the wrong term for it. Moldbug's Cathedral thesis is not that there is some secret cabal of civil servants who meet every other month to decide in which direction to nudge the universities and the press for their own nefarious interests. Rather, much like evolutionary natural selection or the free market, it is a self-organizing and self-sustaining system which naturally arises when everyone in a democracy follows their own incentives. Konkvistador explains.

So, for example, a work like Guns, Germs, and Steel is best understood as a propaganda piece intended to discredit the idea that European dominance had anything to do with innate traits like IQ. That doesn't mean it outright lies; you can do a lot just by selectively reporting the truth (for example, the Nazipedia page for "Jew" would no doubt feature every famous Jew who really happened to commit some atrocity). And it doesn't mean Jared Diamond is part of a conspiracy; he is just a man looking out for his own interests. Moldbug's thesis is that his incentives are distorted in systematic ways, and the result has no consistent relation with reality.

Have you read The Sequences? They form an excellent background for someone trying to get into the Dark Enlightenment.

[–]RP_Magnus0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I see, I believe the concept of a structural conspiracy is simi!ar, which is perfectly reasonable. However, Jared Diamond representing an progressive view instead of a darker eugenic truth is really odd. I really find his geographic determinism view much more parsimonious than some IQ based theory. This sort of view of human agency is very arrogant in my opinion. It is the same sort of reasoning that determines human technology will advance into infinity until we fufill some escape from the human condition. It is kind of unrational imo. I find it much more likely that complex environmental and geographic factors laid the grownwork for european dominance than some innate genetic superiority.

I did read over your links. There is a lot of great logic tools but I am failing to understand how this makes Jared Diamonds and Christopher Ryan's reasoning invalid.

[–]erwgv3g34[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why did you hear about and read Sex at Dawn and not The Myth of Monogamy? Because one of them is a really famous and well liked pop-sci book and one of them isn't. And part of the process which determines whether a book becomes really popular and famous is a filter that the book must fit in a historically tiny range of political opinions.

This doesn't seem like a big deal if you are not familiar with Bayesian epistemology (explained in The Sequences), but basically, if there is an optimization process which narrows your choices down to a single bit (accept the book's hypothesis / reject the book's hypothesis), then 99% of the work of convincing you of the book's hypothesis is already done. And if you don't trust this optimization process to be truth correlated (I trust academia in math, physics, and chemistry, but not politicized subjects), then that significantly weakens the prior probability that these arguments are true. Basically, the Cathedral has already written "And therefore, box B contains the diamond!" before the book was ever written. This doesn't automatically mean that box B doesn't contain the diamond, but it does mean that the arguments used the justify the conclusion are filtered evidence, and should be treated accordingly.

Again, this probably sounds like nonsense if you're not a Bayesian, so all I can really recommend is to read The Sequences.

[–]SacreBleuMe-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments