I’m by no means the first to admit it, but I find the Roissy in DC blog hilarious and totally addictive. He’s one of us, for sure (secular, Right); and his stone reductionism appeals to me enough to override the nagging feeling that I’m probably a bit of a herb myself, or was when it mattered.
The Roissy phenomenon, and one or two other windsocks — the popularity of the Two and a Half Men sitcom, with the very Roissyan Charlie Sheen — all support Mr. Hume’s “back to the Paleolithic” theory of social change.
That’s a very funny blog. Thanks for the link! Anyone who can skewer modern feminism as the joyless, superstitious, totalitarian, soul-sucking pseudo-cult that it is goes right to the top of my favorite list.
To even have his blog bookmarked on a university computer would probably constitute a hate-crime.
Sir,
With all due respect, no gentleman is he! One may surely be Right but not conservative, and such is this individual.
Yours truly,
C. V. Snicker
“With all due respect, not gentleman is he!”
And why exactly is he not a gentleman? As far as I can tell he isn’t forcing any of these women into having sex with him.
Heh. He’s a better cognitive psychologist than most of the grad students you run into on the psy floor of the “soft sciences” building. Reading his blog is like walking through a casual-sex-themed science fair.
Definitely a “must read” blog. Roissy expresses insights most of us know but have never really verbalized. He has some off posts. I don’t care for his dialogues, but his straight analysis is hard to beat. Of course, it’s important to understand how he uses terms like “alpha” or “beta” before going too far. A lot people are shocked to see him describe abusers like Chris Brown as “alpha”, think he’s bestowing some sort of moral imprimatur on them when in fact he’s merely making a value-neutral classification.
As far as once being a “herb”, I don’t see how 90-95% of western men weren’t a herb at one time, or are now. The point isn’t to be pure but to recognize the craven tendencies modern society has tried inculcate into men and fight them.
Chet Snicker
no gentleman is he!
You really read the linked post and you are still willing to play the “white knight”?
Well the convergence continues!! Not only does this blog have Derb, Razib, and Heather – who I read separately before SR began – but now Bradlaugh links to Roissy – who is definitely a “must read”. (You guys all reference Sailer too…small world).
Roissy can be a bit off-putting at times (e.g. his recent takedown of shrill, combative-feminist, frequent commenter “Lady Rain”…the knives were definitely out in that post), but his analysis is often dead on, and his writing skills are top-notch. He’s very humorous as well.
Not to take anything away from Roissy, but he definitely benefits from “low-hanging fruit”. Almost no one writes about the increasingly Hobbesian dating world (from a decidedly masculine perspective), so he has little in the way of direct competition. In this regard he finds himself in the same boat as Steve Sailer. However, also like Sailer, Roissy has either not absorbed, or has thoroughly shaken off, many of the modern shibboleths and petty lies our culture tells itself with regards to women (Roissy), race (Sailer), or leftism (both).
Roissy may not be a social conservative, but he is definitely “of” the Right, from what I can tell. He knows his evolutionary psychology very well, and not just in the abstract.
Mr. Snicker, I don’t think Roissy claims to be a gentleman, at least not in the old-fashioned sense. Unfortunately, for reasons explored at length on his blog, old-fashioned gentleman have zero luck with the ladies these days. (Mainly, as Roissy would argue, because the success of feminism has allowed women to think with their nether regions as opposed to their brains, and such regions do not want a gentleman. Such regions want dominance, and often in today’s climate gentlemanly forbearance = weakness = non-dominance.)
For the record re Roissy’s Lady Rain post: I personally enjoyed it very much, and thought it was fully justified. I have a few entries in the comment section (and I think was even quoted by the host himself in his update), so I certainly did not find it “off-putting”.
However, even many of his own commenters seemed taken aback by its hard edge. As the Secular Right’s readership is likely a more genteel sort than Roissy’s readership (I’m guessing), and given that the Lady Rain post is among Roissy’s harshest (deservedly so, from where I’m sitting), readers of this blog might find the urge to white-knight, and save the “poor damsel” from mean ole’ Roissy nearly irresistible.
Just sayin…
Well… a feminist that thinks Dave Letterman is funny and that Sarah Palin and her 14 year old daughter are sluts would likely be skewered by Roissy. I say… go for it.
BUT, in the process of skewering them, he skewers all women. That is not quite so funny.
I don’t care for Roissy’s (ethical) egoism, as I am more of a utilitarian myself. However, I think he has a firm understanding of the social dynamics of relationships. He makes a good read if you can tolerate the crudeness, a great read if you appreciate crudity.
I have occasionally read Roissy’s blog over the years. Roissy is indeed crude. In past, I did not care for it much. However, I find myself coming around to his point of view more recently.
I am a libertarian, transhumanist kind of guy. I believe in making decisions and dealing with others on the basis of reason, mutual respect, and rational self-interest. I am constantly reminded on the internet by many non-libertarians about how libertarianism is not practical or desirable because it fails to account for the more “irrational” aspects of human behavior and attitudes, that it somehow ignores basic aspects of human nature, blah, blah, blah. That libertarianism is flawed because it fails to accept the reality that most peoples’ human nature is driven by socio-biology and that libertarianism cannot work because of this.
Guess what, guys? I agree this assessment. What I respect about Roissy is his recognition of this reality and how he utilizes this reality to score a lot. I love it.
I know full well that most people are more driven by their “irrational” nature than myself. For this reason, I have no problem with utilizing the “irrational” aspects of other peoples’ nature to benefit myself and I consider it to be the most sincere expression of my contempt for these kind of people. The best part is when they have absolutely no clue as to my feelings of contempt for them.
Roissy’s my man!
Roissy does have leadership ability. The American Right Wing can indeed have a “big-tent” after all; with Evangelicals shoulder to shoulder with hedonist womanizers. They can both take on feminist influence wielding their own brand of tactics.
Kurt 9: I too am a libertarian of sorts who has begrudgingly come round to the idea that overly theoretical libertarianism is mistaken in the same way that overly theoretical economists are mistaken: the idea that humans are, at bottom “rational actors” who will “maximize happiness/freedom” in the proper support structures are in place and not too many constraints imposed. This is simply false.
In fact, I have alot of sympathy for social-conservatives who rail against modern liberals and their misguided utopianism – these liberals make the same mistake that our overly theoretical libertarians/economists make: They operate under a thoroughly false view of human nature.
Where I part ways with (most) social conservatives is along religious/scientific grounds. I can agree with SoCons that human nature is “tragic”, but where they would invoke the biblical “fall of man”, I would invoke some of the more unhappy and even unsettling conclusions from history/biology/evolution/psychology.
So I think you and I are largely in agreement here, and our appreciation for Roissy stems from his being in the same boat as we are with regards to the (non-religious) tragic-view of human nature, and his use of evo-psych and “game” to analyze & exploit the modern dating scene. Where I would quibble with you is here:
With all due respect, I’m getting a hint of frustration and even a bit of condescension in this paragraph. Part of the acceptance of the tragic view is coming to grips with the idea that we are ALL affected by our irrational natures. Perhaps you are less “driven” by it, but don’t be so sure. You’re obviously very bright, and perhaps more self-aware than most, but that doesn’t make your nature more “rational”. (Just potentially more effective in achieving your ends – ala Roissy and his women.)
Similarly misguided is an assertion of “contempt” for “these kind” of people. Once the evo-psych-driven tragic view of human nature has fully sunk it, it should be clear that “these kind” of people are the norm. It’s just human nature to be strongly influenced by one’s hindbrain. Why be contemptuous of it? Doesn’t it render one misanthropic to be contemptuous of it?
That women are (subconsciously or not) attracted to high-status, markers of psychological dominance, and prototypically masculine behavior is no more unnatural than men’s being attracted to physical signs of youth & fertility (long hair, hip-waist ratio of about .7, good skin tone, etc.), markers of psychological submissiveness, and prototypically feminine behavior. And no more worthy of condemnation.
What’s objectionable, to me and I think many readers of this and Roissy’s blog, is the corrosive and pernicious modern culture which has allowed these natural inclinations and impulses to go unchecked – to a degree not seen before in human history. (The pill & availability of easy-peasy abortion being two giant culprits in the “uncheckedness” of modern sexuality).
Things are getting ugly between the sexes, and it looks to get uglier before it gets better.
Peace.
It’s not simply false. It’s just that what people actually desire isn’t what you thought they did.
Caledonian – You need to unwind that tautology (among others) that’s running around in your head.
@Chet Snicker
Being a gentleman means never grousing that gentlemanhood is a barrier to getting laid.
With all due respect, I’m getting a hint of frustration and even a bit of condescension in this paragraph. Part of the acceptance of the tragic view is coming to grips with the idea that we are ALL affected by our irrational natures. Perhaps you are less “driven” by it, but don’t be so sure.
It is far beyond frustration. It is utter and complete disgust that I feel towards the so-called “tragic” and “irrational” aspects of human nature and society. My rage and disgust long precedes the rise and fall of the financial bubble (although this has magnified it considerably).
What you call tragedy is simply the result of a society that has, so far, failed to developed effective anti-aging therapies and low cost access to space. In other worlds, “tragedy” is the result of zero-sum thinking. For those of us who believe in positive-sum, it is a meaningless concept.
Consider this. I was in the L-5 Society when I was a kid. I was into a great many other things during the 80’s as well. Probably the number one lesson I have learned over the past 15 years of my life is that I cannot rely on the existing institutions to create the things I want. NASA has not lead to low-cost space access which, in turn, would open to solar system to settlement. The Tokamak fusion program has not lead to commercial fusion. The conventional medical industry has not developed (or is even interested in developing) effective anti-aging therapies. In any of these areas, progress has occurred only when private individuals and groups, usually outside the current milieu, have decided to do the necessary work themselves. All developments in cyro-preservation since the 70’s have been the result of a few individuals working on their own, completely outside the cryo-biology community. The same is true for life extension. Aubry de Grey’s ideas are being researched and developed by privately financed individuals, many on shoe-string budgets, that are operating completely outside the conventional medical field. The same is true for commercial fusion power as well as space launch.
Large social institutions have never been capable of innovation. Innovation has always been the results of efforts of small numbers of individuals, many of whom have often worked completely outside the “system”. This has been the case in the past and is clearly the case today.
My point is that all of the things that I want or aspire to cannot be created by the conventional society or those with conventional world-views. The reason is that conventional institutions, indeed all human institutions, are bureaucracies and bureaucracy is inherently incapable of innovation. What is worse is that these things not only are not productive, but they often get in the way of those of us who do want to do productive things. My friends and I in the late 80’s SoCal used to call this “cultural inertia”.
It is the latter aspect that is the reasons for my disgust for both the liberal-left and social conservative world-views as well as the people and institutions that promulgate them. They simply cannot do anything for me and are, therefor, useless.
In otherwords, I believe that people who believe in zero-sum worldviews create their own tragedy. I also think this makes it easier to exploit such people. I strongly suspect Roissy thinks the same. This is the reason why I respect him. He believes in using other peoples’ flawed worldview as a tool to exploit them. People who refuse to think for themselves deserve to be exploited by those who do.
NASA has not lead to low-cost space access which, in turn, would open to solar system to settlement.
There can be no such thing as “low-cost space access”, learn about gravity wells and escape velocity and DO THE MATH about the energy cost.
All Singularitarians show a strange deficiency with numbers, be it about energy budgets or complexity measures, a little knowledge of physics is dangerous to the monkey brain 🙂
A space elevator would be a method that would have a very low variable cost of space access. However the fixed cost would be large, and any space elevator would be terrorist target #1.
@John
Apologies for getting so far off topic, but it’s fun.
I don’t think Kurt9 would be content with only a space elevator to some very close orbit, plus, it brings down the cost of every “lift” to a bare minimum which, energywise, is still subject to the escape velocity limit (about the top of the parabol before if turns downward).
Beside, my criticism isn’t so much about the specific “space travel” question than about the Singularitarians faith in technology which reeks of religious eschatology, a “modern” variant on Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega point.
P.S. For the Singularitarians this is likely their quest for “meaning” 😀
@Don Kenner Anyone who can skewer modern feminism as the joyless, superstitious, totalitarian, soul-sucking pseudo-cult that it is goes right to the top of my favorite list.
Skewering feminism is hardly the point of his blog. It’s just that anyone wanting better success with women needs to disregard “equality of the sexes” claptrap itself, not to mention the mountain of bulldust feminists and their enablers have erected on top of that preposterous presupposition.
There are two fundamental flaws with non-libertarian conservatism:
1) It attempts to force association between people who may feel they have nothing in common with each other. More specifically, its promulgators are attempting to prevent or decay the bifurcation of humanity between the more competent and the less competent.
2) It is based on the presumption of zero-sum.
kurt9: Whatever the merits of what you’re calling the “two fundamental flaws” with non-libertarian conservatism, I get the sense that you fail to see that libertarianism itself is dependant on a sort of *societal stability* that traditional conservatism has brought about, and that is unsustainable on pure libertarianism alone.
If I’m not mistaken, our Hume (R) is a very unusual bird in that he is a traditional-conservative who is also atheist. He could speak well to what I’m trying to get at here. Which is: Human nature is such that 1) Liberalism, in its modern incarnation, is utopian-fantasy, and 2) Libertarianism, is a kind of realpolitik with some *don’t tread on me* nuggets sprinkled on top. (Or something). Conservatism, on this view, does the “least worst” orientation in terms of taking the current scientific understanding of human nature seriously. An understanding which totally undermines the idea that human are, at bottom, “rational”.
(Little help here Hume? Am I totally off the mark?)
One last thing Kurt9, I’d give up on your idea of society bifurcating into the “more competent” and “less competent”, and of the space travel stuff. It smacks of Asimovian, adolescent wishful-thinking…to this reader at least.
Peace
No A-bax, you got it wrong. Social stability comes from people who are able to think for themselves and make rational choices. If non-libertarian conservatism is needed for this, it can only be due to having to work with a populace who lacks this basic faculty.
About the bifurcation of society into the more and less competent, what do you think the growth of the exurbs and the decline of places like Detroit is all about? In the long run, yes ocean city states and space colonization will become options. However, in the near term, there are the self-sorting demographic changes here and else where that we are all familiar with.
You are right about one thing. Most people are too stupid, emotional, and incompetent to be libertarian. That’s why I agree with you and Razib that libertarianism will not work for any of the currently existing societies, including (especially) the United States.
As I said before, just because other people are too irrational to be libertarian does not mean I have to be such, nor does it mean that I, personally, have to subscribe to their beliefs or to any non-libertarian ideology. If we decide that libertarianism is not a valid world-view, then as far as I’m concerned, there is no philosophical world-view that I subscribe to. I’m in this world to get whatever I can get above all else.
The fact that most people are too irrational to be libertarians simply means that I can exploit them anyway I choose. As I mentioned previously, this is why I respect Roissy so much. The “irrational” people exist to be exploited by their betters.
People who either cannot or will not think for themselves are nothing more than cattle.
One more thing, now that we are talking about how most of the human race is too stupid and irrational to be libertarian. I believe in eugenics. I believe that the less capable (however you choose to define this) should be sterilized. Now, I know that the 1948 SCOTUS ruling makes implemented any such thing unconstitutional. However, I have no problem with China implementing a positive eugenics policy and wish them the best of luck on such an endeavor.
Any society is only as good as the quality of the human capital that comprises it.
Kurt9: Yikes….double yikes………triple yikes. I hope your ideas never any gain any traction, and am unfortunately happy to see that you’re frustrated that your vision “how things should be” is no where near fruition.
Perhaps you should move to China where the culture is more to your liking. You could help the Communists identify “morons” for the sterilization you so admire. Your ideas seem more totalitarian than libertarian. No wonder you are so unhappy in the U.S.
Over-and-out.
A-bax,
What irritates me most about the social conservatives is their insistence that libertarianism is unworkable for what is essentially HBD (human biodiversity) reasons, yet their refusal to confront HBD issues directly. Instead, they do all of this religious hand waving to come up with reasons why we have to accept restrictions on our freedom of action without doing anything to solve the root causes of these problems, which are clearly based on HBD. In this regard, the social conservatives are just as bad as the liberal-left.
You guys want to restrict our freedoms, yet you refuse to solve the problems that you claim necessitate such restrictions in the first place. This irritates me no end.
John. In your new book you must include a chapter on conservatives and the sexual revolution. Thursday explains the errors in conservative thought on this issue here
http://manwhoisthursday.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-benefitted-from-sexual-revolution.html#links
The female sexual counter-revolution and its limitations
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
Human society is at bottom a zero sum game because sex and reproduction are an inherently zero sum game:
http://manwhoisthursday.blogspot.com/2007/07/sex-and-status-competition.html