Search Box

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

The "morality" of this blog

Just want to expand a little on the previous post, then this bout of bloggish navel-gazing will be over, promise.

A fair number of people have stumbled onto this blog because they're interested in sociopathy, but then get turned off because of my libertarian politics or "racism."

They seem to think, well, he shows good morality in criticizing sociopaths, but, gee, how immoral of him to be so racist!

In fact, it's the exact same set of sensibilities at work on both issues.

What is it people hate most about sociopaths? Their dishonesty and hypocrisy. Well, there's no issue about which there is more dishonesty and hypocrisy these days than race.

And it's that pervasive dishonesty which spurs me to talk about it. I don't dislike black people. If anything, the average black person I meet (in my upper middle class hometown) is warmer and friendlier than the average white person I meet.

What I dislike is the way the media turns every white-on-black crime -- or perceived crime -- into a national focus while covering up the far more numerous black on white crimes. The way Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are given respectful attention by the media, whereas any white who sticks up for white interests is immediately deemed the personification of evil. The way that factual talk about racial differences in IQ or crime rates is considered a hate crime. The way that any black failings are invariably ascribed to white racism.

It's pure dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Ditto for feminism: I don't dislike women in general. What I dislike are all the lies and hypocritical stances of the feminists. The 77 cent myth, long since disproven but still quoted as gospel. The idea that women make just as good soldiers as men, yet must be protected against date rape. The discounting of false rape charges. The idea that there are no differences in emotional stability, or mating strategy, or logical ability, between the sexes.

It's all lies and hypocrisy.

And anyone who points out those lies gets called a woman-hater. Which is just another lie.

And it all happens time and again, and each time the mainstream media expects us to accept what they tell us, even though they've lied so much in the past. As I pointed out once before, the level of dishonesty by the media is downright sociopathic.

Pointing out hypocrisy and lies is not evil. Promoting dishonesty is actually closer to the classic definition of evil. Most liberal True Believers aren't evil, though: they're merely stupid. The people who purposely lie to push their agenda, however, are a different matter.

So, I vent about it on this blog.

It's not one person decrying the machinations of sociopaths, and his evil twin making controversial statements about race. It's the same guy, motivated by the same thing in both cases: contempt for liars.

Let me be clear about something else, too, since this post is essentially about morality: morally speaking, I'm just an average guy. My emotional repertoire encompasses hate, envy, and spite. And I am more sinner than saint. (And if I had more opportunity, I'd be more of a sinner.)

But, I'm not a sociopath, either, and despite my healthy ego, I'm not even a narcissistic personality. (Of course, that's what most narcissists would say.)

Anyway, if you want only selective honesty, go elsewhere.

(One more caveat: I'm not claiming to be honest about everything; merely the topics I cover on this blog.)

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

I came for the race realism and stayed for the sociopathy.

No seriously, I am racking my brain trying to remember what brought me here. Might have been some posts on the Rolling Stone story about the now-debunked frat gang rape? Whatever it was. I found your observations and analyses well-written and amusing so I stayed, even if I never posted until a few days ago.

Like many bloggers, you post your "honest opinion" but unlike others you come across as rational, thoughtful, well-informed and willing to be corrected if wrong. Your posts come from a genuine intellectual interest of human behavior and psychology and not from some black swamp of psychic pain brought on by some deep-seeded wound. Is it crazy that I take you more seriously because your married and have children? It proves to me that you have the engage in the most important basic and ancient human connection that gave rise to civilization. It's hard for me to take seriously those who take a massive metaphorical dump on marriage and children. Either they haven't engaged in it, so they really have no clue, or they did engage and failed.

And your not a "Beta" b/c you had crushes. That's simply preposterous.

Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
You're very kind; thank you. It's been a pleasure to get your intelligent and commonsensical comments recently.

I agree that anybody who for any reason disapproves of children has to be off at some level. But I can see why people have mixed feelings about marriage. It can be very difficult, especially for those who marry in the heat of passion. Because after the passion dies down, and sooner or later, it will, what you're left with is…. another person. And if that person has any issues, or syndromes, or whatever you want to call them, that makes it doubly difficult. A lot of people have been burned that way.

Also, a lot of people put their best foot forward during the courtship phase -- that's actually fairly common, if not universal. But sometimes the gap between best foot forward and reality is fairly wide, and what do you do if you were sold a complete bill of goods?

When I first started writing those confessions of a beta male posts, I thought that other guys would find them both funny (after all, how many guys are willing to admit that there beta?) and reassuring, since the feelings or situations I described have to be fairly universal. But after I'd written several I realized that at a certain level what I was doing was actually congratulating myself for not having a narcissistic personality, since the "alpha" behavior I was contrasting myself to was in many cases actually just narcissism. So, I don't really need assurances I'm not beta, but thank you anyway. That said, I think there actually IS something a little beta about having crushes as opposed to simply lusting after some girl. (I also think that if you've never had romantic, as opposed to just sexual, feelings, you're missing out on something.)

In any case, thanks for your comment. (And I hope that if for some reason I end up divorced I won't lose credibility with you.)

From my deep black swamp of psychic pain,
John

Anonymous said...

Well, it's not simply reassurances that YOU are not beta, although I don't get even a whiff of that, but really a rejection of the whole binary approach (and yes, I'm aware there are other Greek letter classifications.)

To crush is to be fully human.

This guy wrote "Crush On You" and he's about as good as it gets:

http://tinyurl.com/pfsf6o5

Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Gotcha, and I agree that things aren't strictly binary. As I said the other day, all guys are both alpha and beta at times, depending on the situation.

'Fraid I've never been much of a Bruce fan. (I know, hordes of people worship and adore him.) I'm more of a '60's Beach Boys/Stones fan.

And now, by the way, I'm a little pissed at you. You just got me onto Youtube, and I'm probably going to waste the next half hour looking at/listening to old rock and rollers.

Remnant said...

One other point about the liars and hypocrites:

There are different kinds of lies. Some are simply a shading of the truth or obfuscating or shirking the issue. Other types are yet more misleading but not necessarily a complete denial of reality. Another type, and I would argue the type John Craig is talking about, are not mere denials of reality but the actual affirmation and promotion of its opposite.

Thus, many of the people feminists identify as "women haters" are in fact those who are giving women the BEST advice. And the feminists themselves are actually giving the worst advice. Who is/was a happier person: Andrea Dworkin or Ann Romney? Whose life and advice provides the better roadmap for health, stability, success and thriving?

It is almost tautological to say that truth must be predicated on reality, but that is precisely the problem (and the solution).

The truth about women and advice relating to that truth MUST be predicated on reality, and the reality is that there are certain biological imperatives, biological differences and physiological differences. A simple statement such as "most women will feel greater fulfillment in life if they become mothers" is predicated on reality. It is no different, or little different, than stating that "most beavers that are given the opportunity to build dams will feel more fulfilled."

Technology and societal development are actually extremely dangerous things for this reason, because they feed the illusion that certain biological realities are simply alternatives But, without the benefit of extensive additional biological evolution, the technology and social change DO NOT alter (or have not yet altered) the underlying biological reality.

Thus, that contraception, social welfare networks and the development of education and urban life ENABLE women to forego motherhood entirely does not change the underlying biological drives.

Same is true for racial questions as well.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
As usual, you're completely right. The comparison between Andrea Dworkin and Ann Romney is perfect. (It's also a little unfair: biology is destiny, and even if Dworkin had had a different outlook and been willing to marry a man, it's doubtful that most men would have been interested in her.) But, point taken.

When you think of it, all of liberalism is based on ignoring biological realities and human differences. in a fair world, various human traits might be distributed more randomly; but in the real world, they're not.

Anonymous said...

The posts that will most likely end up turning me away are the Beta ones! I don't want to know the truth.

Just too confronting and better Just Not Said.

Andrew

Remnant said...

Milton's depiction of Satan in Paradise Lost is extremely instructive when thinking about extreme feminists, antifa types and so-called anti-racists.

Milton's Satan is the epitome of bottomless resentment and bitterness at reality: there is a natural hierarchy within which everyone can find his proper place, but he rejects it to his own dejection and the development of dejection in others.

Milton's Satan is particularly instructive because you know that he knows at some level he is wrong. His error is conscious and willed. I do believe that, like Satan, at some level the liars and hypocrites we are speaking of know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong and we are right.

To speak the language of "game", it is all a huge shit test, and most of society fails it: the liars and hypocrites would probably fall into line if someone just called them on it....

By the way, I am not trying to set forth a Christian apologetic; I simply think that Milton's literary depiction of Satan is highly instructive for those thinking about feminism and "social justice warriors" generally.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
I haven't read Paradise Lost, but that's an interesting take. Unhappiness results from denying who we are. Hmm. Sounds about right.

I think you're right about the Left at some level knowing that they're wrong, especially when it comes to biological differences. That's probably why liberals hate conservatives so much. People usually don't ate others for spouting nonsense, instead they reserve their bitterest enmity for those who tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

I first came to this blog in 2013 after googling Asperger's syndrome (after being diagnosed with it myself), but carried on reading as your blog is so varied. I think the name 'Just Not Said' suits it perfectly. It's refreshing to see someone be so candid about the types of things most wouldn't dare say. I can't say I agree with you on everything, but I see where you're coming from on most stuff and you have changed my mind about a few things.

RE the sociopaths: I've developed quite an academic interest in them now. Had it not been for this blog, I probably wouldn't have added that sociopath I knew IRL on Facebook. I added him months ago and, although I am keeping him at an arm's length, I enjoy observing the types of things he posts about. I thank you for turning me into more of a people-watcher: pathological people are fascinating. Before reading your stuff, I probably would have blocked him immediately.

I agree with you about blacks - for some reason they seem warmer and friendlier than whites. And it doesn't make sense why people think it's wrong to report any difference in IQ - surely reporting the truth would help people to get the education they need?

As for the feminism, I concur with you on everything. I've come to realise that feminists - as much as they claim to speak for women - actually have a lot of contempt for women. They're fascists who only respect women if they're willing to live as feminists want them to. As much as they go on about "female strength", they actually believe women have less agency than men: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/feminists-we-need-to-talk-about-consent/16782

The bottom line is this: you've never managed to offend me. Keep writing as you do because I like your style.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Thank you, I've known for a long time that we're pretty much in agreement on most things.

Yes, pathological people-watching IS fascinating, though much more enjoyable from a distance. I've had enough up close experience with sociopaths etc. to last me a lifetime.

I actually think most people are fed up with political correctness, but it's hard to tell sometimes because the people who by and large run the media, which is where we get most of our information, continue to enforce it.

Anyway, thank you.

Steven said...

I agree with Gardner. You do seem sane, well adjusted and balanced....for a blogger :-D

John Craig said...

Steven --
I know you're joking, but that is a HUGE caveat.

Bloggers are basically the equivalent of the crazy old coots who used to (and probably still) write letters to the editor. We're the personification of impotent rage.

Nathan Wright said...

On the subject of PC and the mass media: have you ever read Bruce Charlton? I realize he will probably not be to everyone's taste, but I think he has some brilliant insights on this subject: http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.com/

On the alpha-vs-beta thing: I think it's really useful for thinking about female sexual strategy (alpha fux/beta bux), but people in the alt-right/manosphere go overboard and start trying to apply it to everything. Thus you get these apparent contradictions -- some captains of industry are beta but Cory Worthington is an alpha, etc. The key point that seems to be neglected, is that alpha/beta is really not intrinsic to men themselves, but has its reality in female perception. It's so fickle that a man can transmogrify from one to the other just by a change in body language or whatever (or the phenomenon of the "situational alpha").

John Craig said...

Nathan --
I read the first few pages, yes, he does seem to understand.

i agree with you and Gardner (above): alpha beta is not a binary thing. It's mostly a useful metaphor for describing any particular social situation or gathering. The fact that men can be alpha in one situation and beta in another shows that it's not a binding label.

Anonymous said...

Re: Gethin's comment about feminists being Fascists. I have seen this idea in various expressions before and I understand what you and others are saying, but I think you getting it slightly wrong, applying a name to a set of external behaviors that implies some kind of rational and organized thought, when the iron fist of feminism really operates on a more basic gut level. Maybe you are unable to really understand because you are men.

Bear with me. Fascism is a well-thought out political system, that while many find repugnant, is rational and intellectual. The feminist's intense and angry reaction to biology and traditional women's roles does not spring from the mind, from an intellectual place, but from the gut, and a place of panic.

You really MUST remember that women are evolutionarily wired to care a lot about the group. That is why they talk so much. That is why they gossip. That is why they love social media. Woman evolved knowing she cannot survive on her own, but will be dependent on other women to care for her when she is pregnant, has a newborn, has several children to look after etc. Even if feminists refuse this truth today, you can see its evidence everywhere, from the church potluck to the PTA bake sale. Women crave the acceptance and support of other women. To be ostracized is to die.

So, all in the group must be on the same page. It is incredibly threatening to women that some women refuse to play by the new rules -- feminism. Believe me, I live among some of the most strident, hyper-achieving, competitive women in the country. I only share my views with my closest friends and family, but my lifestyle can give me away. Those of us who stay at home, or work part time, cook from scratch, garden, are very involved in our children's lives and love our husbands somehow find each other. We are an unspoken club and we talk in code because the orthodoxy of feminism is so strong in our upper middle class neighborhood, that even if we are clearly defying it, we don't dare say it aloud.

It's one of the reasons I enjoy this blog -- the courage you show in posting these opinions. Sometimes I wonder -- how do you get away with it?

Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
That's a great summation of where feminism comes from and also a great description of the social milieu in which we now live.

And you're right, we're wired to be cavemen (the result of roughly 3-4 million years of evolution as hunter-gatherers), not technocrats (we've lived in a technological society for maybe 50 years, and an industrial one for maybe 200 years before that).

Evolution explains all.

Thank you, but I'm really not showing much courage. All I'm doing is just sitting behind my computer and typing. It' snot like I'm on a battlefield somewhere like my son was. I'm retired, so I can afford to be outspoken. Most of the commenters here work, so must hide behind pseudonyms. If I were still working at a place like Goldman, this blog would be grounds for firing me.

The most strident, hyper achieving, competitive women in the country? What state do you live in? Gotta be either CA, NY, NJ, CT, or MA. I suppose it could be IL as well, but I'm guessing it's NJ because you're such a big Bruce fan.

Anonymous said...

Ah, no not the Garden State. Just outside our nation's capital.

Where the architects of our country's elaborate attempts at overcoming biology live and play.

Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Ah, MD or VA. I have no excuse for not having considered them as possibilities.

Your second sentence is perfect.

Steven said...

Some thoughts on the alpha male idea:

In the animal kingdom, an alpha male is the highest ranking male. Social dominance is an essential- maybe the essential- part of the concept. It is this dominance which gives the male sexual access to the (best) females.

The PUA crowd seem to ignore this key part of alphaness and take it to refer to any man who can bed a lot of women or who can easily seduce women or who is very attractive to women.

I think this is a bit of an ego trip- they get to think of themselves as superior alpha males when in reality they are just average guys who have worked out how to get women to have sex with them, and who in any reasonable sized group of males would not be dominant at all.

Some men have naturally high testosterone levels and therefore will tend to be more masculine and dominance seeking. These are the ones we think of as natural alpha males, especially if they happen to be large, intelligent and good looking too and therefore have the right combination of qualities to lead, be respected and admired, and attract many women.

Alpha and beta-ness may not be fixed but some guys are certainly naturally more alpha than others in this sense.

Of course human society is complex and there are many different ways to be alpha, many different circumstances in which one can be a leader or highest ranking person.

According to the PUA definition and philosophy, anybody can learn to be an alpha. They may be talking about something meaningful- how attractive a guy is to females- and I suppose as long as they consciously have their own definition its fine for them to use but I find their concept limited and lacking, devoid of the most essential aspect of alphaness in ethology. As a result, it has an ignorant, pseudo-scientific feel to me.

John Craig said...

Steven --
You make a great point. With animals, it's not so much social dominance as it is physical dominance over other males. In most animal species, the males literally fight one another over who gets to have the harem. Then they wear themselves out, and a new bull comes along to push him out.

With cavemen, it was probably more this way. Now that we live in a technological society, the rules of dominance have been somewhat upended. Women still like muscles and high testosterone guys, but money often counts for more.

What the PUA community teaches is not how to BE an alpha male, but how to FEIGN being an alpha male. But I get the impression that most of those guys have very little else going for them in their lives, merely the pretense of being alpha which has allowed them more success with women. That said, I'm not saying they don't offer practical, effective advice on that score.

Steven said...

yeah I'm sure the PUA guys have some good advice and they have worked some interesting things out. Its the unnecessary misogyny which turns me off most of all about them (some of them anyway).

I don't think there is really any difference between physical dominance and social dominance in animal species. The physically dominant ones are the alphas (alpha implies a social group and is a social concept- gotta have some others to dominate) and get the girls. Then the more intelligent the species, the more that Machiavellian intelligence comes into play also.

I agree it was probably more like this with cavemen but as per the principles of evolutionary psychology (which you mentioned above), the men we instinctively see as real alpha males and suitable leaders are the large, high t guys. Not only do we see them that way but they tend to be more driven to that too.

Even in modern society, there are still many male situations (sports teams, high school, the army at entry level) where physical dominance still comes into play and makes a big difference to who is accorded respect and gets a leadership role.

I think studies have also shown that people are more likely to accept politicians as leaders when they have physical signs of high t (face width to height ratio), and they associate CEO effectiveness (profitability) with that too.

John Craig said...

Steven --
If what you meant by social dominance was physical dominance, then sorry, I needn't have pointed that out.

And yes, the natural dominant one in any group of men is the most physically imposing one. Doesn't always work out that way in the end (intelligence does count for something), but usually it does.

You should talk to Gardner, she despises Heartiste. I read him from time to time -- he's a very good writer, and usually right about things -- but I can see why people, especially women, hate him for his gratuitous nastiness.

Steven said...

If she is reading, she can read this:

His contempt for women really bothers me. There are no biological or psychological facts about them which justify it- its his own emotional issues and actually seems sociopathic. I don't respect his attitude at all and don't have much time for it.

That is not to say he never says anything true or amusing. I understand that it can be pleasing to read the most virulent version of criticism of the groups of people that annoy you, such as feminists.

MarieCurie said...

Maybe you were unawares, but men need to be protected against "date rape" as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/us/military-suicide-rape/

It's not funny.

John Craig said...

MarieCurie --
When you include the number of male-on-male rapes in jail, there's a huge number of that type. I know it happens in the military, but those numbers pale in comparisons to prison.

Pavonine99 said...

"What is it people hate most about sociopaths? Their dishonesty and hypocrisy."

That got me thinking. Personally, if it were just those two things, I could see myself liking a sociopath or two, in the way you like acquaintances rather than friends. I don't even hate their vacuity and emotional shallowness, neither of which are really their fault.

For me, it's the casual cruelty pervading so many aspects of their lives that makes them unbearable. That results from their conscious choices, and the consequences from outright malice are so much more severe then the consequences of even purely selfish choices.

But that's just my own opinion. I think most men would agree with the dishonesty/hypocrisy angle, while most women would think more about emotional transgressions.

And I'll agree that I appreciate your honesty, and most importantly, your insight. There are many honest people with nothing worthwhile to say. You're definitely not one of them.



John Craig said...

Pavonine --
Thank you very much.

And you're right, it's the wanton cruelty that is the worst thing about sociopaths. When I was saying that it was the dishonesty and hypocrisy that most people hate most, that's because that's what most people get to see about sociopaths if the get to know them moderately well. A lot of sociopaths will hide their cruelty, or at least disguise i, so most people don't necessarily see it. But you're absolutely right: it's their destructive natures -- serial killing and the like -- which are their worst feature.