TBP = anti-systemetization?

future_space_boobs · 2016-12-28T22:00:48+00:00

I think we all systematize to an extent, especially intelligent people. how much that's expressed just comes down to how much control we have over it. some people are just really uncomfortable without a framework.

and this, really, is the gist of social skills. how comfortable are you with spontaneity and how much processing time do you need during a social interaction? do you let things just flow naturally or do you try to plan and control a situation? in my experience people who like to systematize and procedurize tend to gravitate toward ideologies like PUA and TRP that attempt to do just that with complex interactions. when you're interacting with someone there's no foolproof way to make them react a certain way, and that's stressful to someone who needs order and logic. PUA offers some comfort because it sets up guidelines for complex interactions... rules so it's not all a chaotic, emotional mess.

and in theory there's nothing wrong with that. where problems arise are when human beings are systematized too much, to the extent that they are dehumanized. when they don't behave as the system dictates they should they breed contempt and rage.

Systems are OK as a way to organize your thoughts, but without the ability to cope with the chaotic nature of human emotions good people become bitter and vindictive. and we see that a lot with TRPers... what is the "anger phase" but frustration that they've been following the wrong system all this time? That they need to learn a whole other system to get what they want? What's missing from the equation is the ability to step back and see others as human beings as complex as ourselves. if a systematizer never develops that ability they will be stuck in a cycle of frustration which, ultimately, only hurts themselves.

SipsSparklingWater · 2016-12-28T21:44:57+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4yd9io/much_of_the_distaste_for_trprpwi_stems_from/

goatismycopilot · 2016-12-29T00:22:10+00:00

I am not "against" systemization but creating systems also creates the illusion of control which is why TRP leans that way. They like to think they can manipulate the outcome with the right tools applied in a systemic way.

BiggerDthanYou · 2016-12-29T01:54:17+00:00

It's not the systematization that's the problem.

It's that they solely rely on their biases and stereotypes to create those systems.

Let's look at how TRP-logic works.

First I start by just assuming something about women that's true for myself. Let's say "women like rough sex"

Then we look at the available data and see that even among rather kinky women 20% do like rough sex therefore many women do like rough sex therefore most women do like rough sex therefore barely any want don't want it rough.

I'm just kidding. Of course we don't look at any studies or anything.

All women just do like rough sex because every single one of the two women I've had sex with did like rough sex and there's no way that my wish to find a partner that likes rough sex and my wannabe-alpha show might have had any effect on my sample and there's no way that a subreddit filled with similar minded people that rely on the same guidelines might come to similar results unless this is just how women are.

And I googled for women that like rough sex and found thousands therefore they all want it. Biases simply don't exist.

And now that we've proven that all women like rough sex we can figure that this means that they all want to feel inferior (because the only way to have rough sex is obviously by treating her like shit). Non-sequitors also don't exist. If it sounds logically it just must be logically and there is no need to even question anything for a second.

And they also claim that AWALT is not to be taken literally, but they do it all the fucking time.

A woman says she likes thin guys more than Schwarzenegger types? Lying to get attention

A woman has a partner that listens to her and helps with the household? He absolutely gets cheated on with the drug dealer that lives around the corner

A woman has had casual sex? She must have gotten railed by the whole football team and only has had sex with backwards baseball cap douchebros (that she absolutely wanted to commit all the time)

Stacey fucks Chads on the side and then picks a gullible but rich ugly guy that supports her financially? That's just how female nature works and every single one wants to do just exactly that.

People systemize all the time and it's no problem. It's really not the fact that they are trying to explain women that's the problem. The problem stems from the fact that they don't even want to understand different types of women because any nuance more than black and white is too scary for them.

The problem is also that TRP isn't even trying to systemize women for how they are, but they try to force them to fit into their preconceived notions.

All the anecdotes that fit their ideas are proof (even if statistics say otherwise but they are all just feminist lies (even those not created by feminists)), all the others are just outliers or lies (even if they are the majority [but somehow TRP in general doesn't come into contact with them but there's obviously no way that some women might see their behavior as red flags because women don't smart])

There's always a way for TRP to hamster reality away in favor of their alpha fantasy.

All the women that aren't hooking up with Chads? Well they just aren't attractive enough to get pumped and dumped by him (and if they are attractive they are lesbians (although all lesbians are fat depending on what you want to argue))

tl;dr: the problem goes a lot deeper

the_calibre_cat · 2016-12-28T23:05:50+00:00

T.B.P. is against systemization of people, because they find it dehumanizing, I would say. You can systemize your Lego collection 'til you're blue in the face, but once you start applying stereotypes to people, you are the most evil member of the human species.

Which is hilarious, since T.B.P.'s supposed scientific approach is pretty much all about systemizing people, putting them into little groups. They just don't like it when others do the exact same thing, and come to conclusions that don't support the moral conclusion they decided upon before ever collecting an ounce of data.

AutoModerator · 2016-12-28T21:39:25+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

honeypuppy · 2016-12-29T02:01:38+00:00

I'm not against systemising, I do it myself. Economists like Gary Becker have done systemised analysis of human behaviour.

The main issues with TRP are unrelated to systematisation. It's simply that they're flat-out wrong. Perhaps if they were really as rational and scientific as they claimed to be, they'd stop upvoting posts which amount to little more "this single anecdote about one woman from a random internet stranger = TRP confirmed".

Though there are some cases in which I think systematisation is specifically leading RPers astray. The main example I can think of when they reduce the highly complex subject of human sexual attraction and relationship-forming to "people seek the 'highest value' mate". There's some element of truth in that there are traits that are generally associated with attractiveness, and people who have a lot of those traits tend to have more people interested in them. But you can't boil it all down to an "equation for SMV" that has any validity. And if you start viewing your partners as being like commodities you can "buy" with your "value", that sounds like a recipe for emotionally unsatisfying relationships.

Princeso_Bubblegum · 2016-12-29T07:16:36+00:00

I am pro-system systematization, not in the sense that I want there to be a system, in fact many times I am against it: ie the class system for example.

I will agree with you that many of my contemporaries are completely anti-systematization. Among my friends its a joke I have with them that within their philosophy, at a certain point, they and up admitting that they don't think Mongolian camels as a species exist. As to them, the notion of a camel species is a social construction, and there is the possibility that they can breed with Arabian camels. Therefore mongolian camels don't exist objectively.

I'm not joking, I can't you how many times I have had this conversation, in person.

I would say I am surprised, but I am not, this is Post-Modernism run amuk, and its only getting worse now as people from the other side of the political spectrum think truth doesn't matter any more, just what you feel (the entirety of Trump's campaign and now fucking presidency). Welcome to the Post-Truth world everyone!

ugh

YetAnotherCommenter · 2016-12-30T05:44:08+00:00

Not BP myself but I think a lot of people in general have an innate revulsion to treating certain subjects "systematically" or in an extremely dispassionate "this is what happens irrespective of what should happen" way.

I'm an economist. One of the things we economists love doing is to take a touchy social issue and subject it to economic analysis in order to derive a conclusion that goes against people's common moral intuitions. The economic cases for legalizing drugs and prostitution, and even the basic Smithian principle of the Invisible Hand (i.e. that selfishness isn't a bad thing so long as its rational), are examples of this. When Freakonomics was first published there was a chapter which was taken to argue "abortion lowers crime rates" and that caused a huge amount of outrage - the same principle applies really.

I'm not sure its precisely about systematization per se; it seems to be more of a revulsion towards systematization plus utilitarianism when applied to morally charged hot button issues.

And sex, love and relationships are the ultimate in morally charged hot button issue.

You could argue that The Blue Pill is itself a systematic framework regarding sex/love/relationships too... just one that is very tacit/implicit and so rarely spelled out in great detail, and one which doesn't make any statements which violate contemporary moral norms.

sunkindonut149 · 2016-12-30T19:45:41+00:00

I am BP because TRP is ablist and against my interests as an autist

wuboo · 2016-12-28T22:15:21+00:00

I systemize and still think TRP is full of crap.

Title	TBP = anti-systemetization?
Author	calling_cq_to_anyone
Upvotes	9
Comments	42
Date	December 28, 2016 9:39 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5kst24/tbp_antisystemetization/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/tbp-anti-systemetization.270970 https://theredarchive.com/post/270970

Comments