“Feminist in her natural habitat”Intelligence and Dysgenics showed that a secular decline in general intelligence g (“Nature”) started with the Industrial Revolution.[1] For a time, increasing IQ from environmental changes (“Nurture”) prevented many negative effects from the decline in g. Then in the 1960s, feminism gave us the Sexual Revolution which unleashed sudden key and detrimental social changes (“Nurture”)—anti-Christianity, anti-patriarchy, rejection of excellence, and the dominance of bureaucracy.[2][3a]
To establish sexual liberation, feminism had to throw off Christianity’s moral dominance over sexuality. Prior to the sexual revolution, Christianity had a huge moderating effect on group behavior. Research done on the 70s and 80s shows that advanced paternal age[4] is inversely correlated with religiosity. Advanced paternal age is opposed to religiosity because it is directly correlated with higher levels of de novo mutations and inversely correlated with higher g.[1a] However, no correlation was found in the 30s and 40s when cultural and societal pressures forced most to embrace Christianity—whether true believers or cultural Christians.[3b][3c] Christianity had been holding back the floodgate on effects from declining g and mutation accumulation.
Unfettered from Christianity, feminism was free to cause social chaos using the now-familiar tools: fornication and adultery, divorce, the child support model, abortion, contraception, anti-patriarchy, and women pursuing anti-maternal, career-focused lives.
The goal of this series has been to examine the potential causal role that feminism plays in society’s fundamental problems. Consider Boxer’s claim:
“Feminism as a social movement is not coherent, until it’s appreciated as a consequence of late-stage capitalism, where most of the people in such an unfortunate society are hopelessly atomized, living as cogs in a giant machine they neither like nor understand. In context, feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of fundamental problems”
The series so far has largely been concerned with the genetic g decline (“Nature”), but the sexual revolution’s changes were highly social and environmental (“Nurture”). The rise of feminism was certainly influenced by declining g, but it seems implausible to treat feminism as merely a symptom. It is one principle cause. The combination of declining general intelligence and the rise in feminism are inextricably linked to fundamental problems.[4] The ‘cogs in a giant machine’ society—and failing capitalism—is a consequence of bureaucracy brought on by these factors.
The sexual revolution’s feminist goal was to destroy patriarchal systems, which it has done quite effectively. Feminist economist Victoria Bateman credits the destruction of patriarchy for modern economic prosperity.[5] By contrast, Gunner Q notes:
“The level of patriarchy/matriarchy used in a society is the most controlling factor in its overall success–reproductive, financial and otherwise. Systems that come close to God’s ideal, even if they do not acknowledge God, still get the patriarchal benefit.”
Both cannot be true.
Over thousands of years, patriarchal systems have utilized ‘mate guarding’—controls of female reproduction—to prevent cuckoldry.[6] One such example is the set of Christian sexual ethics and norms thrown off by the sexual revolution.
When men are confident that their wives are faithful, this creates male-to-male trust. In high trust societies, men spend less time guarding their mate, so more time can be spent on group cooperative activities—lowering conflict and violence and increasing economic output.[3d][6] Society—including Christian churches—is still in the process of noticing that we no longer have this high trust. MGTOW is one consequence of this.
High trust societies are also conducive to producing geniuses and innovations.[3d] By suppressing patriarchy, feminism has ensured—in the face of declining g—that these become even rarer. Research has found that religion and Victorian-like cultural sexual taboos promote greater creativity and accomplishments.[7][8] By rejecting Christianity and endorsing sexual excesses, feminism further decreases creative output.
Studying the fall of civilizations, societal collapse follows sexual excesses. High civilization leads to low stress, followed by rejection of religion, liberalized sexuality (including contraception), decreasing intelligence, and inevitable decline.[3e][8][9]
In asserting that the unequal are equal, feminism is fundamentally logically incoherent. Attempts to enforce equality of unequal things must necessarily involve the rejection of that which makes those things special. Excellent things like healthy marriages or boys getting top grades are threats to feminists. The ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mentality is the logical consequence.
At the same time, the growth of bureaucracy replaces truth and excellence with rules and procedures. When a bureaucratic drone is faced with a contradiction between their rules and procedures and some opposing but truthful fact, they will deny the truth and promote its opposite. Eventually society becomes unable to pursue truth, as expedient lies dominate.[10]
As a result of the sexual revolution, the incoherence of feminism, the growth of bureaucracy, and the rejection of Christianity combined with the decline in g, lead to the rejection of excellence and the promotion of mediocrity (or worse).
One example of this is the corruption of peer review. What should be a process that improves the quality of scientific research and conclusions does the opposite.[11][12][13] Rather than focus filtering out poor research, peer review is now used to filter out politically disfavored conclusions.[3f][14] The result is the loss of faith in scientific research.
Another example is the school system. For many years programs have been designed to give minorities (mostly blacks) additional supports. These were based on the notion that everyone is a blank slate and will have equal outcomes if given equal opportunities. Given that there are actually group differences (e.g. blacks on average have 15 IQ points less than whites) and that blank-slatism is pseudoscience, this was doomed to failure. Rather than accept reality, the only remaining options were to apply standards unevenly and to lower the standards. Harvard applied standards unevenly by discriminating against high-IQ ‘white-adjacent’ Asians. The University of California is supporting dropping the SAT and ACT from admission requirements, effectively lowering admission standards.
A society that crushes excellence is a society that will be mediocre. As this series has shown, it is also a society that will experience inevitable decline.
In examining the sexual revolution, we’ve seen how sexual excesses and socially maladaptive behaviors (e.g. rejection of patriarchy; rejection of excellence) combined with declining general intelligence and increased bureaucracy. In the next part of the series, we’ll examine how it all ties together and see where to go from here.
[1] Woodley, Michael A. (2014) “How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation.” Personality and Individual Differences vol 75 80-84. Oct. 2014, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.047
[a] The age of parents (along with selection changes) account for a .84 points per decade loss in g.
[2] The relationship between the rise in feminism—including women’s suffrage—in the 1800s and early 1900s and the decline in g is unclear, but the 1960’s cultural changes were too fast to be purely genetic.
[3] YouTube Videos
[a] Charlton, B., Dutton, E. (2019) “Genius Famine and Albion Awakes”
[b] Dutton, E. Woodley, M. (2019), “The Rise of the Mutants”
[c] Dutton, E. (2019) “Why’s it so Difficult for Liberals and Conservatives to be Friends?”
[d] Dutton, E. (2019) “Why Civilizations Need Patriarchy and Feminism Destroys Them”
[e] Dutton, E. (2019) “Why Having Less Sex Might Save Civilization”
[f] Pierre de Tiremont interview of Michael A. Woodley of Menie (link).
[4] Feminism can be understood to be both symptom and cause. There is likely a synergistic effect between different causes, such that no cause is truly independent.
[5] Bateman, V. (2019). The Sex Factor. Polity Press.
[6] Mate Guarding: Grant, R. & Montrose, V.T. (2018). “It’s a Man’s World: Mate Guarding and the Evolution of Patriarchy” Mankind Quarterly, 58: 384-418.
[7] Kim, E. et al. (2013). “Sublimation, Culture and Creativity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
[8] Unwin, J.D. (1934). Sex and Culture. https://archive.org/details/b20442580
[9] Cattell, R. (1938). “Some Changes in Social life in a Community With Fall Intelligence Quotient”
[10] Charles Murray (2003) “Human Accomplishment”
[11] Charlton, B. (2010) “The cancer of bureaucracy: How it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything else” Med Hypotheses, 74(6):961-5. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.038
[12] Charlton, B. (2013) “Not even trying: the corruption of real science”
[13] Anonymous (2018) “Against Peer Review” Free Northerner.
[14] Cofnas, N., Carl, N. & Woodley of Menie, “Does Activism in Social Science Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists?” M.A. Am Soc (2018) 49: 135.
Nice post, but you should have a praying mantis in the picture instead of a snake; as my husband points out, the females use male resources to reproduce, bite the males’ heads off, and die alone and cold in a world without males. Happy Thanksgiving weekend!
https://www.studyfinds.org/birth-control-pills-may-be-shrinking-a-vital-brain-region-in-women-study-finds/
I read such study as well…and I had to laugh at this one..
and…
You know that’s a lie. Mess up the hormones, mess up the thinking process. For example they choose more feminized, emasculated soy boys for mates. That’s dumb.
Wonder if honeycomb (or anyone else) also agrees with this thought I’ve long since suspected….
Quite often the source of domestic abuse…is fornication.
I’ve read enough stories from wimminz in those situations about how their bad boy went punchy after she satisfied her tingles (sexually and/or BPD roller coaster emotionally) with him that they can’t seem to put 2+2 together.
In my experience most men are jailed for defending themselves or using force to her abuse ..
Bad boy violence is a small sample .. most just kick dat “peach” to da curb .. or deny her drunk sex .. & then have to defend himself from her rage ..
True bad boy “wife beater” violence is rare .. and that’s why wimminz never worry much about their past violence ways. Plus those wimminz get off on the chance to tame a lion. Crazy wimminz deserve what they get. And should be removed from the gene pool anywayz.
Agree. Which is why the more I hear about their ‘victim’ stories…the more I suspect they were the instigator and they figured out quickly a guy has 20 times more testosterone than they do. Granted I can’t say that’s the case for abuse 100% of the time…but it’s got to be the majority.
Put it this way…I wouldn’t go around trying to instigate fights with guys just for some emotional thrills because they might just snap and beat the tar out of me. And I’m a guy who would have a better chance of defending myself than a wimminz would.
Huh? In my twenties (the Nineties), every woman I met that I was interested in or was trying to date *always* had a former boyfriend that: beat them / abused them / locked them in a closet for days at a time / raped them frequently / stole from them / emotionally hurt them / cheated on them almost daily
Hence *why* they could not date me because they “were-taking-time-for-themselves”
I knew it was a lie, but I was stupid to keep trying………I believed in love still back them. Corny I know.
@Heidi
This juxtaposition made me literally laugh out loud. Well played.
While Boxer has a rather communal take on copyright, I prefer using my own photos (like this one) in my articles. I can’t steal my own photos and Boxer doesn’t have to worry about takedown notices. I don’t have any good praying mantis photos in my collection, so snake it is.
Bring your parents to
work.. errrrr ..job interview.. errrr .. speed dating event .. lolhttps://news.yahoo.com/parasite-singles-why-young-japanese-arent-getting-married-031514178.html
From the article:
Economic pressure. Japan’s population pyramid is only going to get more and more inverted and the economic pressures are going to increase. Japanese men are so uninterested in sex that they won’t even masturbate. Japan’s civilization is collapsing. It’s the human Mouse Utopia.
“The high ratio of unmarried men and women won’t change unless more women accept the idea of marrying a man with an income lower than herself,” said Yamada.
LOL, like that’s going to happen. Can you imagine women abandoning hypergamy? They’ll sooner abandon feminism.
I agree Japan is in an interesting situation…..however we in the West (again) forget the unique cultural attitudes in Japan that have always allowed it to adapt. They are not “western” and they are an adaptive culture. Japan throughout its history with the West, from Commodore Perry, through the Meiji Era through the Empire to the post-war and cold-war era……….the “end” and “demise” of Japan has consistently been predicted.
Japan is not “judeo-christian” in its customs and culture. It has always made a very uniquely “japanese” thing out of imported institutions from the West. Always.
They will have challenges in this new phase but they as a people don’t seem too worried about it.
I am no expert on Japan, but I was there briefly in Fujisawa when I was with IBM for two weeks in 1999. The Japanese are a ‘clinical’ people so to speak. Even then the birthrate was falling through the floor, marriage was already very low there……and I recall reading back then that “Japan would be a collapsed country by 2010 if things didn’t change”
The world hasn’t ended. The over-intelligent *again* were wrong.
Robotics and a culture that understands that less will be more. Smaller towns will be abandoned. Tokyo will continue to grow. Things will change, but they are far from a society on the verge of collapse.
I believe we in the West have more to worry about than Japan if truth be told.
Again, you guys are equating everything…manhood, culture, family to “sex” and if somehow a man isn’t gettin’ it 24 hours a day somehow by some strange equation and definition….the culture is going to die.
The Japanese are far from fools, and I admire their clean streets almost ZERO crime and decorum in many interpersonal matters.
Jason, you’ve raised many interesting points. Let’s start with the most important:
Except they are collapsing, right now. Economic output, fertility, and population are all collapsing. The culture is extremely workaholic, which is not indicative of a social species’ health. The decline is accelerating, not slowing.
But it has collapsed. It’s just going to take time to play out. Population effects take decades to work out. Right now the largest segment of the population is in their 40s. Despite the fact that we have another 15-30 years before the elderly utterly dominate their society, we are already seeing the negative effects. Can you imagine how economically stressed it is going to be in two decades?
Who is going to pay for all of those senior citizens? One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the economic bubble that is the Japanese stock market. There is a lot of money there, but what’s going to happen when Japanese elderly want to retire on their wealth? Like population, the fiat economic system is essentially a pyramid scheme of its own. It can’t function if the majority need their money.
Tell me, what is going to reverse the accelerating decline? How is Japan going to stem off extinction? In the face of ever declining economic prospects, are the people suddenly going to start having children? Read the quote I gave from the article. The experts know that women have to start marrying lower income men and having children with them. If they don’t, Japan is going to lose a large chunk of its population. It will still exist, of course, but it will be a shell of its former glory. It will follow the rest of the world in being, at best, mediocre.
A species has to reproduce or it dies. This is just biology. Do you know how strange it is for masses of a population of men to not be interested in sex or marriage? We’re not talking incels here, we’re talking men who are not interested in sex or children.
This is one of the points of my series. Many metrics of human living are at all time highs, but this just masks the underlying problems. In Mouse Utopia, the mice had everything they needed to survive. They had no external concerns and they went extinct.
Perhaps. Time will tell.
“A species has to reproduce or it dies. This is just biology. Do you know how strange it is for masses of a population of men to not be interested in sex or marriage? We.re not talking incels here, we.re talking men who are not interested in sex or children”
Why should they be? There really isn’t anything too strange about this. High cost of living. A deep sense of cultural honor (something we could use a serious dose of in the West) a cultural that does focus on reflective internal thought combined with modern gadgets to keep them occupied does make some sense here with the Japanese. Add into the fact that Japanese women (despite how femme and attractive as they are) still expect a man to make more than her, and more than her family. Cultural lag its called. Many of the women there do the same thing many professional / para-professional women do in the USA. The man must make more than her. Must be established. Must be “smarter” than her…..but not too smart. Must be funny, but not too funny. Must have this, must have that……..
When you’re a late twenty-something Japanese man who is (gasp) average looking by their standards in that culture, working at IBM in 1999 and you’re putting in eighty hours a week. Paying an outrageous amount for an apartment, and the last fifty women you asked out said “no thanks” the last thing on your mind is working double-overtime for sex that probably is not going to be had….and the cost of getting it and marriage is just about zero because you MUST have a house and have it all figured out….I don’t blame them.
I don’t blame many men in the USA as well. Besides…you top 20%-30% of men will take care of everything. You always have the plan anyway
Now, you guys will just tell them to accept jesus, read Rollo’s book, learn game, hit the gym, change your style, be funny, learn comedy, have manly pursuits, get into a high paying STEM field, asking tons and tons of women out, go on tons of dates….mind you….they also have to keep working 80 hours a week, sometimes six days a week…….find time to know who they are, and play political chess daily at work for a possible promotion. The man-o-sphere *again* will tell us how really *easy* this is…forgetting again that Japan is not the West.
Derek, what happens when the biggest wave of Baby Boomers retires and peaks in the USA? You think Social Security is gonna only give them a paltry 1.1% increase per year???? They will demand HUGE raises and crash the system here. In Japan, family is still MUCH stronger than it is in the USA. THAT my friend is a basic to a culture in society. Not having lots of sex.
Mousetopia is poor example to compare humans to. We’re humans. Not mice.
As for your term using “incel”. That is used incorrectly in your statement. Incels are men who want sex and cannot get it.
By mid century, Japan’s population will be around or slightly lower than it was at the end of World War II. Hardly going extinct.
If you want to know a basis of Japanese ingenuity and adaptation. This very complex drama from 1963 by Kurasawa stands the test. Japan has always been a culture in transition ever since the USA *forced* it open. Mind you, seventy years after we opened Japan, they took us on in a full scale war and almost won (that debate could be for another time). Japan has always had to adapt to the ways of the West….and they have always done it with always finding a unique and very “japanese” way of doing it. Yes, the transition will be hard and something that they will have to face alone…..but I have much more confidence in their culture than ours. The style of dress has changed, times have changed…..but this film encapsulates still a culture in crisis…….and this was in 1963 when they were a modern nation but at that time rapidly changing. This wasn’t even twenty years after total destruction by us………..we should focus more on our own problems………..
If the trends continue, today’s infants will witness a country with half as many people in it by the time they hit retirement age.
Yes, that sounds about right. The rest of this century projects to be a miserable time characterized by mediocrity. They’ll come out the other side, but that’s nothing like the thriving economic powerhouse they left behind.
You misunderstand me. I think Japan is merely the first to experience demographic crisis, like the canary in the coal mine. China will follow maybe a decade or two later. America is too complex to predict because of immigration and religious influences. Either way, mass death in a variety of forms is a highly likely outcome.
You’ve said this before, but without providing a counter-argument. Mice have short lifespans, humans have long lifespans. If humanity follows Mouse Utopia’s example, it would play out over the course of a century or so. Projecting outward, we appear to have 50 years (give or take a decade).
the thriving economic powerhouse that was built on 80 hour weeks. that was built on adaptation. that was built on a homogeneous culture (that is even like this today). that was built on sacrifice. that was built on just thinking differently. Japan is not a land of innovation….but a place where they are very industrious to make existing things better. I deal with mediocrity here in the USA daily. Half-assed work. Bad attitudes everywhere. A massive sense of entitlement and zero responsibility. Japan doesn’t have that. We do. Now.
We’re gonna crash WAY before them
My counter to Mousetopia?
Ummmmmm we’re not effing mice Derek.
Case and point. I worked for IBM’s flagship “storage system” facility in San Jose (which is now closed). It was where the disk drive was invented. Anyway…..they closed SIX manufacturing lines in San Jose and sent them to Japan…in the 1990’s. It was three times more expensive to operate in Japan….but in the end their failure rate was almost ZERO percent compared to FORTY percent in San Jose. Why?
Because that culture and mindset has something called duty and self respect. We have lawyers, crybabies and the modern Democratic Party. Thoudsands of jobs were cut in San Jose…and the media called IBM “eviL” and a “greedy corporation” for doing this…….
Yet…..you ask any of these people if they would want their sick baby, or grandmother or parent on a machine in a hospital with an IBM storage drive that was failing at 40%??????????????????????????????
Yeah. Excatly
As part of my research, I ran into the article “Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought” by Kirk Durston on the book by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin. It is worth a read for its clarity in describing what we already know.
The analysis mostly agrees with my series, including why sexual deviancy cause social degradation so quickly. It cites poor use of creative energy (i.e. innovation and geniuses), the breakdown of family as the cultural unit (i.e. feminism and anti-patriarchy), and the rejection of moral laws (i.e. rejection of Christian moral and cultural standards). The author notes that it is hard to pin down the cause on any one thing, but it also does not note the decline in intelligence, which is what many of these analyses are missing. It also, as per usual, does not realize the primal role of bureaucracy.
Here is an interesting quote:
We already know that virginity is correlated with much lower divorce risk. The only way this could be called a “virginity fetish” is if it is correlated but not causal, that is, valuing virginity is a proxy for something else, like patriarchy. This did note that…
…but that virginity on its own was still the most important factor. Moreover:
Not valuing virginity seems to cause decline in religiosity, rational thinking, and patriarchy. My series suggests that this is causation is mutual.
“Society.including Christian churches.is still in the process of noticing that we no longer have this high trust. MGTOW is one consequence of this.”
Interesting. Still confused by much of the “science” in this whole essay……..but the above statement you made strikes me.
My take when I was a christian and attending church. The church tends to be ten, fifteen, twenty years behind the culture / society on just about everything…..and then plays “catch up” and looks rather foolish in the process…..deadening its meaning further.
The church takes EVERYTHING worldly, throws a “jesus” stamp on it somewhere and now…”behold…..its now christian! we reclaimed it for jesus!” claptrap. Instead of defining the culture and times, it plays catch up. They are like the uncool kid who keeps trying hang with the cool kids. How do you define the culture and the times you ask????
You actually behave like a christian. You actually let people discover and grow their gifts. You actually inspire. You actually might have to drop the ‘social club’ thing and view church as a job, a duty and something worth fighting for and believing in. You just may have to get really dirty, and you may actually have to see jesus in the broken, the lost, the insane and ignored. This will never happen. They’re too busy talking about how bold they are. Too busy talking about how “god is blessing them” while they don’t even know 25% of their congregation who are lonely, hurting, lost, or even not sure why they are there.
The lost want answers, not platitudes. The unchurched need real fellowship…….and they all claim they do…..but when its time to “work” to get this. It’s a very sloppy, and lazy evangelism, a very Homer Simpson attitude of “I’m a leader / alpha / been a christian long than you……let someone else do it”
And when perhaps a man or woman does step up to do it……………………..they are then told they are doing it wrong, or a very “oh…..so this one thinks they are better than us!!!!!!”
The church has not had trust since the 1960’s…..through its own actions, and mostly by INACTION. It’s a club, and most out there, and men like myself were fools for thinking it differently.
MGTOW could be a consequence of this……MGTOW is very varied……but many in MGTOW became MGTOW because there really was no other choice left. Many in MGTOW are this because they didn’t make the genetic cut in looks, or intelligence or other factors………….if any trust was betrayed, it was from the people who were commanded by their god to “redeem them” and you know….its easier to have a debating club about how they didn’t trust jesus enough…….how gentically they are beta, or they should have been a leader and brought their wife to repentance……..
MGTOW was a forced hand for many……and since I am a so-called MGTOW, I would know a little better than you Derek
We agree, we’re just approaching it from different angles. MGTOW.in all its variety.is the logical consequence of a low-trust society. In the terminology used in the link above, society transitioned from “absolute monogamy” into “modified monogamy” (as well as from “Strict Chastity” to “Irregular or occasional restraint” all the way to “Complete sexual freedom”) and this ushered in the rapid (in generational terms) declines. Men are insane to marry without cultural and/or physical mate-guarding norms in place.
MGTOW is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Some think that MGTOW is some sort of solution, but it isn’t. It’s going to continue to grow as the rest of society plays catch-up, corresponding to a worsening situation, not a better one. MGTOW is good for the individual, but doesn’t help society. Indeed, it likely makes things worse.
Correct. It’s not clear how much is the fault of the church and how much is the church under attack. Either way, if the church wants to fix things, it must fight to reverse the various cultural changes of the 60s. That said, who else is going to do it? If the church fails to do it, nobody will.
and since I am a so-called MGTOW, I would know a little better than you
How gracious of you to assume you know more because of some self important rank .. and also .. How big a bully do you need to be to enforce your ideology?
You don’t speak for all .. many or a bunch of MGTOWs. You speak for one. Yourself only. Try acting like it.
Secondly, you’re not a believer .. so discussions on the subject make you, in fact, much less than a
nexpertchild than your self important mind has remarked.As a Confirmed Bachelor .. and now MGTOW (apparently) .. allow me the opportunity to inform you .. you can speak for yourself .. and leave the heavy handed (MGTOW) finger wagging out of your responses.
Derek has been to kind to your self-important blathering.
“How gracious of you to assume you know more because of some self important rank .. and also .. How big a bully do you need to be to enforce your ideology?”
Yeah, I do know more about MGTOW than Derek would. Sure he can read about it and get into all the high end scientific reasons why it exists. But MGTOW forming because we live in a low trust society???? Not really 100% true. Not even 50% true. Before there was the term called MGTOW….and a community (if you can even call it that) of sorts……..it was always there. It was your uncle who never married but who rather work on his motorcycle. It was the men who just gave up after the ten billionth rejection. It was men who never wanted to get married to begin with. It was the man who got anally raped in a divorce and was forced to move back home with mom and dad into his teenage bedroom because “everything” was taken, and all his money went to court fees, lawyers, alimony and child support. You also had that guy who may wanted to date and marry but genetics locked him at from the day he was born.
It’s a wide swath and net……………the muscle of the Internet made into a way of life of sorts where say in 1993….none of these men could connect….and now they can…..hence it now being a “movement”
MGTOW doesn’t have a spokesman. Doesn’t have a set of doctrines that you must sign off on. The men in MGTOW or consider themselves one is as varied as the day is long. MGTOW was always around, sure….its bigger today but not because of a “low trust society” to many of the men in MGTOW……..the burden of trust was put upon them, and only them. Most of the world doesn’t and shouldn’t care about MGTOW. They have been getting along for a long time there was a term. You’re welcome.
“You don.t speak for all .. many or a bunch of MGTOWs. You speak for one. Yourself only. Try acting like it.”
Okay. Remember that when you post a “she seems nice” headline.
“Secondly, you.re not a believer .. so discussions on the subject make you, in fact, much less than an expert child than your self important mind has remarked.”
And when I was believer, this would be the same exact comment except I would be told I don’t speak greek, or hebrew / not a christian as long as them / not a mature christian as the person speaking / didn’t belong to the right church / didn’t read the right translation of the bible / didn’t pray the right way / misunderstood what jesus ‘really meant’
So, my input now, concerning MGTOW should carry some weight. You guys in the sphere HATE the fact that someone out there has dared done something or may indeed know something you don’t nor have lived in some cases. Which brings me to the fact why the christian faith deserves to die. Self righteous men who have all the gifts while the proles “just have to try harder” hence it having zero appeal to men. No one is allowed to grow, change, and learn. Accept that women evil, and men just have to be alpha.
“As a Confirmed Bachelor .. and now MGTOW (apparently) .. allow me the opportunity to inform you .. you can speak for yourself .. and leave the heavy handed (MGTOW) finger wagging out of your responses.”
Very good, can you go to the second grade now? How bold and alpha of you to put me in line. Quaking in my doc martens. Is the fear thing?
“Derek has been to kind to your self-important blathering.”
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I am sure Derek can speak for himself. He is way smarter than me but that doesn’t mean he is a good person, or can speak on stuff he may not know about.
Finally post us a “she seeems nice post” which speaks for all women evidently.
I know why you dislike my “she seems nice” remarks .. not because I’m saying ALL women are like this .. no .. I’m sure there are a few nice ones.
It’s because it re-affirms we live in a .low trust society..
And you don’t want that .. do you?
I never married because I could never trust a woman to the point men before me could. I saw them as the whores they were ..
I was brought up on a myth and lies about the nature of (men &) women.
Because I could see with my own eyes what they were and were not .. it was one heckuva education.
Every man makes a choice regarding women. One is healthy for everyone (i.e. society) and the other ain’t.
Every man can be married inside of 2 weeks if he so desires. He’ll have to dig a lot lower in the apple bin .. but some womminz will say yes. We know the outcome of such a relationship .. don’t we?
When “society” gets back to promoting healthy marriages / women .. I’ll then advise young men to marry.
Until then .. I don’t recommend marriage.
BTW .. I’ll retire early. Probably to Wyoming. It is a great state for retirees.
And .. my Confirmed Bachelor / MGTOW ways are all to blame.
You’ll still be wearing that same old pair of Doc Martens.
Cheers
“BTW .. I.ll retire early. Probably to Wyoming. It is a great state for retirees”
Don’t brag about you retiring until you actually do. Every MGTOW seems to think they are going to retire early. Some will. You may well indeed do so. Most won’t.
Nothing wrong with Doc Martens, even old ones ..
Well then.
Now there was one pertinent point well worth responding to:
Of course before there was MGTOW there were historical celibate classes: laborers, warriors, eunuchs serving the elite, the priesthood, the poor, etc. So yes, there have always been those who don’t marry.
MGTOW isn’t made up of men who merely never had any interest in marriage or the means to marry. You wouldn’t need to invent an acronym and start a whole movement dedicated to doing what you were never going to do in the first place. MGTOW is about doing something different. What that something is isn’t important other than to note that it is reactionary.
We once had a high-trust society (peaking in mid 1800s) that has been decline ever since. It’s decline accelerated in the 60s and onward, partially due to feminism. That MGTOW formed as a sort of ad hoc anti-feminist movement seems pretty non-controversial. If we lived in a high-trust society, there would be no need for MGTOW.
I still have a pair that’s 25 + years old.
And .. for the record .. I’ll be retired early. My Portfolio says I could do it now.
^^^ THIS ^^^
Derek….
A good and plenty of MGTOWS are this, and I am lifting this from a Dischord chat I was in about eight months ago in a MGTOW forum of sorts. Paraphrasing.
“Most MGTOW’s are like a homeless guy walking into a Mercedes Benz or BMW dealership…..complaining about the low quality of the cars, on how they are overpriced, or how pretentious their brands are……and this man could not even afford one, nor care for one, nor even have the responsibility of working to own one……….and then getting ruthlessly offended about how the sales staff treated him poorly…..ie women suck / they’re all whores / they’re evil…I’m MGTOW til I die, so now let me complain about women 24 hours a day because I’m so going-my-own-way!!!!”
That usually is, but not always the incel side of that scene.
Many are MGTOW until the next girlfriend comes along. It’s growing for the fact that more and more men don’t make the cut looks wise to women. That has nothing to do with a low-trust society. That has everything to do with a culture that values this over anything. Look no further to the man-o-sphere (christian or not) to see this. Many MGTOWs really when faced with the choice of going full red pill and they are going to find and marry that Unicorn no matter what (and at the same time told she doesn’t exist, but she does, but she doesn’t but you have to vett, you have to date, you have to train her, she can’t be trained, read ROllo, but there are none left, but there are, but you have to…you have to….you have to……you have to….)
Easier to go MGTOW.
Men like you Derek, are the elect. Polite as you are to me mind you……I would never be allowed into your circle, your church, your social class or you circle of status in these matters. We can debate if this is a result of feminism, I see it more as a result of men like Rollo and the pump n dump crowd………..but more and more men are being not even welcomed by their fellow men into anything…………..hence another shove towards the forced hand of MGTOW.
Men like honeycomb and others are cool for what they are in that. There is that element there as well in MGTOW. It’s hardly a unified scene, and hardly did not form because one day a bunch of men said “we live in a low trust society, lets form this”
Yes this exactly.
High trust societies are defined as those characterized by individualism and moral consensus. Those characterized as low-trust are obsessed with identity groups, typically kin groups. So it’s really easy to see how we’ve transitioned from one to another: (1) bureaucracy has replaced individualism; and (2) moral consensus (derived from religion and intelligent discourse) has been replaced by anti-theism and screeching.
Cultural.whole society.standards of mate-guarding (i.e. ensuring that a woman doesn’t cuckhold you) builds trust. Marriages in low-trust societies can work if you have strong bonds of kinship, but we don’t have that in our society.
Here is another interesting point:
You would be allowed in any of the many churches I’ve attended, provided you were respectful and didn’t flaunt sin. I’ve attended churches that value discipleship among all the men who desired it. What kind of churches do you think I attend anyway? Your twisted view of the church defies reality.
You would not be ‘allowed’ in my social circle because you are not in one of the following groups:
1) married with similar aged children
2) clergy
3) a co-worker
4) a relative
This isn’t because I don’t like you, it’s just how social groups work and is perfectly normal and amoral. However, the reality is that I don’t actually have a social circle. I have one friend besides my wife who I interact with regularly. Thus, you are easily in the top 10 of people I interact with on a non-professional, non-family basis.
If by “social class” you mean “social outcast”, then you are free to join me.
As for “circle of status”, I have no idea what you mean by this.
.Every man can be married inside of 2 weeks if he so desires. He.ll have to dig a lot lower in the apple bin .. but some womminz will say yes. We know the outcome of such a relationship .. don.t we?.
“Yes this exactly.”
Come on…you just agreed above that there were always men who couldn’t marry, and now its “yes, this exactly”
A high trust society doesn’t value individualism. Society in general, has and has always viewed individualism with a mild distrust or disgust.
In the man-o-sphere if you don’t agree with the exact and explicit doctrines of red pill, or laws, or taboos or internal norms of that group…you’re shunned pretty quickly. Back in the day, a staunch individual was usually unfairly labeled “the village idiot” or “shunned” or had to flee to the edge of the frontier.
Today the individual is only a wedge to classify on how unique we are and made useless into a word like “love” or “confidence” words so broad in their encompassment of their meaning….they’ve lost the meaning.
“I.ve attended churches that value discipleship among all the men who desired it. What kind of churches do you think I attend anyway? Your twisted view of the church defies reality”
So……….why are they dying? why are the pews emptying? why are churches closing???? Ask any former christian on why they left the church and the faith……the biggest answer you would get (call it a hunch) would be probably this:
self-righteous. superior. so holy, so set apart so blinded by their own sin, but condemn the man who doesn’t get on his knees and accepts jesus and then puts money in the collection plate. arrogant. gossipy. all the answers and zero action or help. all about how wrong the world is and can’t lift a finger to do anything. more about being a club than actually teaching and helping them apply it.
if the church was doing its job, and its calling and what it was founded for perhaps we would not be in some of this mess we’re in now. No, I get the blame. Men like me get blamed for the churches failures. I, and millions upon millions of men like me who have no intellect, no power, no sex appeal, no real “manhood” (lol) no financial power, no gifts the church wants or needs somehow are blamed for the state of the country, the church and menhood in general.
Look to many of the blogs in the sphere, and countless churches today to see the problem. MGTOW could be a symptom of the times we are now in. The church maybe ten years ago had a golden opportunity to probably grab MGTOW and pull these men into church….but they were too busy reading Rollo, banging Poland, lecturing everyone on Game and just telling everyone to shower, get some confidence and be a man.
Yeah, because it’s infected with bureaucratic thinking. All of it. It truly astounds me that people think nothing of the bureaucratic thinking found in every single facet of their day-to-day lives. Bureaucratic thinking is the antithesis of individualism.
Have you read the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any of the Federalist Papers? You literally live in the country founded upon the concept of high-trust individualism. It’s a democratic republic, not a hereditarian monarchy. Our entire system is based around the individual. Let’s not forget that the country was founded on largely Protestant notions of the importance of the individual. Moreover, in Free Market Capitalism, the individual can and should do whatever he thinks is best.
The difference between bureaucratic thinking in low-trust societies and individualism in high-trust societies is night and day. The former defines standards in terms of laws, rules, and hierarchy, the latter defines standards in terms of culture and society. This is a critical distinction. For example, both societies can have “freedom of speech”, but their reasoning is very, very different. Understand why, and you’ll understand the difference.
No, I said there were always men who “never had any interest in marriage or the means to marry.” MGTOW are a different category of men altogether.
Are you kidding? Why don’t people want to attend a church that tells them to live holy, blameless, sacrificial lives? People abandon the church because they don’t like what’s on offer:
Jesus taught 2000 years ago that wealth led to rejection of God:
Are you genuinely surprised that the wealthiest society in history has little room for God?
My current church is overflowing. It’s growing at multi-digit percentages every year. We have ~50 baptisms a year. If you look at the nationwide statistics, it is the apostate Mainline Protestant churches that are hemorrhaging the worst. The more traditional churches are doing much better on relative terms, but all churches are suffering for the reasons stated above.
If you ever attend a church infected by bureaucracy, and there are many, you should leave it. That church is dead.
There are outreach-focused churches if that is your preference. There are discipleship-focused churches if that is your preferences. There are churches focused on condemning sin if that’s what you need. Different churches, different focuses, different needs. Not every focus fits every person. I see no problem with that.
Yeah, I read the Constitution. Originally the property owner, male and white could only vote….that’s in the Constitution……..and if we were going by that standard, I am not a property owner, thus would not be able to vote. Not that it matters anyway today if you do or don’t vote. High trust individualism for “the elect” and let me add that the Founding Fathers had much disdain for the common man out there. Jefferson and the like (and his ilk) wanted a landed gentry of aristocratic farmers.
I do believe its probably the “best” people can get by any standard then or now……..but I do know very quickly that if I don’t pay my taxes, I will be jailed. I do know that a lot of men we’re sent to their death in pointless wars to “defend” national interests (oil, trade routes, manifest destiny, freedom, third world border skirmishes) but always cloaked in protecting our women / children from the tyranny at that respected time (pirates, the French, the Mexicans, the slaveholder, the communists, the evil dictator, islamic men who cook over dung furnaces and sit on prayer matts somehow are going to take over this country….wait…….men with boxcutters brought us to our knees in 2001, and we’re still powerless!!!)
The ones who pay this “burden” of trust in either society (high or low) are men like me for the most part that pay the cost of it. Good or bad. Right or wrong. That is a reason for MGTOW. That is a reason for a moribund or ineffectual church. That is why PUA / Game and the whole cottage industry has risen.
I at one time got angered or annoyed at the apathy of the USA…now I really don’t care. When I and men like myslef (which is growing by the day) suddenly were “blamed” for all of this……we did give up. The last shreds of personal dignity were being torn from us….and many now realized “go your own way” or just drop out and prepare the best one can for the future. Again, these men who had zero influence, looks, status, intellect or power got blamed when the blame should have been at the “high trust class” from day one.
These folks are running out of places and people to make “deals” with and the last swath have been and are still being pushed towards this. What choice did they really have???? None.
“If you ever attend a church infected by bureaucracy, and there are many, you should leave it. That church is dead.”
Yeah……all of them. Except for the church you attend and of course the church everyone in red-pilled land attends.
Individualism doesn’t mean an individual can do whatever they want or even that all individuals are equivalent. Treating all individuals as fundamentally equivalent is the irrational consequence of feminism and multiculturalism: it indicates low-trust. High-trust societies are not perfect, they are just better relative to low-trust societies.
In a high-trust society, members of my local church can make meals out of their kitchens and give it to the poor. In a low-trust society, members of my local church will be punished for making meals for the homeless out of their non-certified kitchens.
Now you are just contradicting yourself.
Tell me, what evidence do you have that the First Church of the Brethren is corrupt? I’ve sat through discipleship groups with men who were divorced or suffered from porn or substance addiction. I’ve seen such lay members take the pulpit. I’ve also seen the church lose members because nobody wants that stuff (including you).
Tell me, what evidence do you have that the ValleyPoint Church is full of hypocrites? This is an outreach focused church that is getting results. Behind that silly rock concert style are people who help others. They put time and money into outreach. And in the process they are growing by double digit percentages every year along with many baptisms. They bear fruit.
How many people like you whine and complain, but when push comes to shove, you don’t care about churches like these or else you’d already be a member. It’s all just a smokescreen so you can wallow in self-pity. Stop lying about the state of the church to score points in an argument.
Ah…I hit a nerve. It’s always someone elses’ church, except yours. Scott and Frank back the Dalrock forum would always push this orthodox thing “protestants, welcome home!” and “there is a church that respects men and puts women in their place. it’s called orthodoxy, and its the real first church”
Well, I went.
Chanting in front of icons, a very closed group…….constantly had to stand, sit, kneel, stand sit kneel……so I asked some questions the following week. What was the reply “Oh sweet Jesus……..there is a link here that will tell you about why we do the things we do” and no, you can;t join unless this, and that, and that…..and this, and you are asked and you complete the third feasts of the fifth cycle of the second calendar of this saint…..:”
when did jesus ever “chant” in front of icons???????? Besides. No one even said hello. The service started in rigidity and ended in cold silence. I didn’t feel “transformed” nor had an encounter with the holy spirit.
I’ve taken the pulpit when I was at the Salvation Army. It didn’t make me a pastor, learned or even listened to. You’re right. Nobody wants that stuff, especially you. They want a man who makes “the elect” feel justified in their arrogance. The pastor needs to have a pretty wife. Children with nice teeth. He has to be a little smarter than the layity, but not too smart because the “elect” will leave and form a church where they can’t be bullied…..
I was in the Salvation Army Derek. The church called to help the broken and the lost. Many of the people who come to The Salvation Army are people who are not welcomed ANYWHERE else because they stink, they are poor, they have bad breath, they are mentally disabled and are addict and streetwalkers…………they might have transformed people at one time…but they really don’t anymore. We all know its on “Gods timing” now and I used to buy that.
Not anymore. I got clean by me. Not by jesus. Not by some priest speaking in chant over me annoiting me with oil, and def not by fellow members of the body (for the most part are the most hateful people on the planet)
Yes. I don’t like lying.
Stop bearing false witness.
Of course it is. The church that satisfies my needs is the one that becomes my church. If it doesn’t, I discard it and go find another one. But, no church satisfies your needs, so you’ve rejected them all. Without talking about the ‘problems’ other churches have, can you tell us what your ideal church looks like?
And why is that?
Jesus said to repent, believe, and sin no more. Those are things that you have to do, Jesus can’t do them for you.
by the way……my taxes are way, way, way higher than than they were in 1776 that were imposed by the King of England. Where is the Revolution now? Yes, we just have to vote in people who will cut the taxes……the current president…….my taxes have not gone down, but they have for GE, IBM, Raytheon, Dow…………and we have a huge debt, that neither party wants to start paying down……..and in a high trust society which were in during Washingtons term as president sen the militia to put down the ‘whiskey rebellion” and levied taxes that were just as high on the people which “sparked” the Revolution in the first place. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…..
Derek,
You’re wasting valuable time engaging an infidel.
Answering your statements: I am not lying. I am not bearing false witness. Yeah, my ideal church? People who actually live like they act on Sunday the rest of the week. The Sally Army, like all churches are about being a social club. About patting themselves on the back on how “just” they are. How “saved” they are. How much better “they” are than anyone else. Chruch is a social club, a few are alllowed, anyone that wants to take it back to the streets is ignored, or made to feel and believe “how dare you think you are better than us!!!!!!!” (showing their own severe insecurities). I guess we don’t need church, bible studies, books, podcasts, collection plates, ritual and modern praise because jesus just said believe, repent, and sin no more……………….sadly people in church don’t believe that for a second
Honeycomb, if Derek should not be wasting valuable time he should have posted this on Dalrock, or some other like minded blog where he would get 100% affirmation. This space / blog thankfully holds some very actual libertarian principles.
This has nothing to do with “100% affirmation”. Or what site it’s on.
This site is great.
And you’d agrue with yourself just to get the last word in.
You guys are very sweet. If I were worried about infidels, I’d have thrown the Muslim and Jewish dudes out, and I’d throw you, Derek and Jason out, too. Then I would explicitly require all my future commenters to be other secular Mormon agnostic types.
I can’t imagine anything more boring than hosting people who share my own opinions on religion.
While I don’t see any internet “safe space” as particularly valuable, that’s one thing I’m glad this blog has grown into. This ought to be a place where we can all practice having free speech.
We live in a society where David Duke and the Church of Satan are welcome to have Twitter accounts, and where I’m silenced for criticizing immoral and undisciplined Tinder sluts, or making fun of trannies. The least I can do is open up a microsphere where we can indulge in such thoughtcrime.
No one sez otherwise.
But, he’s still wasting his time. You’ll notice I never told Jason or Derek to stop posting.
But, Derek is throwing pearls to swine .. and is a non-believer . [1] He’s wasting his time.
[1] Matt 7:6 .. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
I’m an unbeliever, too. Glad you’re here. ..
It’s good that you brought up taxes. Tax rates correlate with the social changes described in this series. Ironically, you ask “Where is the Revolution now?” Wars are expensive:
The key changes were: (1) tariffs in the late 1700s to pay for the American Revolution, (2) the Civil War, (3) federal income tax in 1916 during World War I, (4) World War II, and (5) the explosion of entitlement spending in the lead-up to and aftermath of the Sexual Revolution and the Vietnam War. Do you see a theme here?
Jesus came to bring peace, but what did he know?
Yes, I know. It’s not a problem in that regard. But, to continue to debate a non-believer is un-fruitful.
Engage in conversation is fine. But, to belabor with someone who is as closed minded as Jason is a mistake. He’d argue with himself. No good comes from that.
That’s all I was pointing out.
Sadly, you are lying to yourself as well. If that were actually true, you wouldn’t care about icons, chants, emotional appeal, emotional transformation, wealth, beauty, teeth, marital status, social status, or intelligence, so long as members were faithful and not hypocritical. By this standard, there are many ideal churches. But you care very, very deeply about those other things, don’t you?
You guess wrong. The church is a collective body. Learning.bible studies and teachings.guides spiritual development. Tithing.commanded by God.is a sacrifice to God, an act of worship. Ritual.in general.helps maintain focus. Do the basics first (repent, believe, sin no more) and only then gather together, worship, learn, tithe, and perform rituals for the purposes of enhancing repentance, belief, and holy living.
@honeycomb
I don’t think this has been a fruitless conversation. I have not had to repeat myself and the conversation has been moving forward. I’ve also been able to tie the discussion back to the series itself, which is useful.
One of the problems I’m having with the next article in the series is deciding on its focus, and this conversation with Jason is helping with that. Whether or not you see it, Jason does ask good questions and raise good objections, and this helps with my writing.
Also, imagine if we hid the Bible because a skeptic might read it. The Catholic church once did that.
If we were having a face-to-face conversation or an email exchange, my reaction would be different. As this is public and others are listening, I’m going to assume that every party is an adult who can decide for themselves when to sign off.
It’s good that you brought up taxes. Tax rates correlate with the social changes described in this series. Ironically, you ask “Where is the Revolution now?” Wars are expensive:
The key changes were: (1) tariffs in the late 1700s to pay for the American Revolution, (2) the Civil War, (3) federal income tax in 1916 during World War I, (4) World War II, and (5) the explosion of entitlement spending in the lead-up to and aftermath of the Sexual Revolution and the Vietnam War. Do you see a theme here?
Jesus came to bring peace, but what did he know?
No one is suggesting that. The Bible was written for believer’s. So, read all you want. It’s just a book to non-believer’s.
It was a suggestion. And, yes you are wasting your time with Jason. If you just want a record for others to read .. well .. fine.
“Jesus came to bring peace, but what did he know?”
Yes the very people who invoke his name are usually the ones clamoring for war, or the protection of their status quo, and having the class of people who bear the burden of these “high trust and low trust” environments pay for it in death, in maiming, in taxes, in psychological scars and the threat of jail. The founding fathers setup a “price” for their children to pay so they didn’t have to fight in the Revolution (paid in silver…..how fitting, Judas was paid in that too) while a large swath of the Continental Army didn’t get paid til after the war….and it was paid not in silver but in land of low value in Upstate New York, and Western Penn…..and in fact, much the land promised these veterans soon found out was indian land…now facing hostility and death from some tribes that were a mite angry by this. Mind you the average soldier in the Continental Army couldn’t afford the price to pay to “get out” of service.
“By this standard, there are many ideal churches. But you care very, very deeply about those other things, don.t you?”
I really don’t. Though you wouldn’t believe me. I grew up in household where I was shunned because of not having these things (my older brother for example bestowed by a loving god who created people like him to “teach me a lesson”) evidently. God made me an addict so I could glorify him? No, if he indeed did this he did it out of a pure sadistic hatred for mankind, so others in the “gathering” could all sigh relief when they got home “well, we’re not like them” and the countless who died because of addiction, they are now eternally in hell because they didn’t repent for being created that way……….
Again, when the church and the educated, self-righteous rot in there can actually come to grips with the fact they are the ones who forced a standard…their own…not their gods standard on the unwashed masses, if they repent from this and live a life of inspiration that others may want to emulate. I’m all in.
“Do the basics first (repent, believe, sin no more) and only then gather together, worship, learn, tithe, and perform rituals for the purposes of enhancing repentance, belief, and holy living”
I did this. Then I learned over the course of eight years that no one inside this gathering believed a word of it. Other churches. Same thing. It’s a club.
I don’t believe you because (1) those factors are all you talk about and (2) you don’t attend one of the many churches where people are faithful and non-hypocritical even though you could. You should be honest with yourself. Now, since I’m repeating myself, that’s my cue to bow out.
I don’t have the luxury to travel the country and spend the whole year “dropping in” on every church in the country and taking the time to find these churches. Nor did you do this.
We’re just two men who disagree. They are big factors of why men like myself left, and why many want nothing to do with that pit of vipers.
Every church I have ever been in says / states “but…but we tell people to come as they are / we don’t turn anyone away…ever!”
Thank you for the spirited debate and discussion.
I wanted to go back and address a point that slipped through the cracks yesterday in the discussion about low/high trust societies and the correlation with bureaucracy/individualism:
Your error is focusing on the elite class. Selection for intelligence and individualism occurred primarily in the middle class in the 1700s and 1800s. This was driven primarily from two factors. First, this group outbred everyone else, replacing them. Second, the existing aristocracy became downwardly-mobile and the middle class became upwardly-mobile. The middle class gained influence that it never had in history before. This increased the level of culture-wide individualism.
Look at what has changed. Intelligence has declined. Individualism has been replaced by bureaucracy in all facets of life. Studies have shown that upward mobility (the “American Dream”) is going down and the differences between classes is increasing. Our society is nothing like the late 1700s when the country was founded.
Don’t think of a high-trust or low-trust society in absolute, black-and-white terms. Think of them in relative terms. It isn’t that we have no individualism now, but that we have less. It isn’t that America had no aristocracy, but that it had a much larger and more influential population of intelligent, individualistic members driving the culture. Again, your error is thinking that aristocracy is what matters, so you look to government. This shows your implicit, unconscious embrace of bureaucratic thinking. You assume that culture must be determined by who is in charge (bureaucratic thinking) because that’s all you’ve known in your lifetime.
Okay…here we go……
And its all you have know in your lifetime. No, it really didn’t. Most people couldn’t vote in Jefferson’s time. I’m not knocking it, it was a fact. Who was driving the culture in 1792?
Eli Whitney the inventor was hardly known outside his mill-town. He was pragmatic, but certainly wasn’t driving the culture. Who do we know from this period aside from the Founding Fathers and thinkers that had a long term impact that was driving this culture at this time in the young republic?
Now, yes….the learned and those who study early US history from this period probably could name a few more. I know enough about US history from the region I am from (Adirondack Region, New York State) and about the “old northwest” to know that most of the country were farmers. It was the ‘homespun’ era. Local craftsmen. Lumbering. Potash manufacture. Fancy goods may have made it up the Hudson past Albany……but most things were produced by the local community and local region that were needed.
I didn’t lay this out in black and white terms. You did. Paraphrasing here “We used to be a high trust society, but today we are low trust. Low trust societies do this, and high trust societies do that. High trust societies are good, low trust are bad. You all live ina low trust society, but I don’t because of my church / upbringing et al”
Intelligence has declined I am sure….I am average intelligence so I could care less…….what I think in a “high trust” society still would have labeled me as “dumb” or “you’re not a smart as I am am” attitude. In a “low trust” society I am still viewed with disadain because I am still not amazing like all the people today who manged to get the “way above average intelligence” (the leaders….in culture, in politics, in the man-o-sphere, in church, at work)
Yet, I am somehow supposed to have a grip on all of this, and just be like you all. Like I said before…..when all of us average dullards decide to stop working, you all can use your high intelligence to debate each other about who should dig the ditches, clean the floors, make the food and fix your car.
The country would grind to a halt.
You tell me on one hand this doesn’t matter, and then…well, it does for when it comes to making decisions, or having discussions like this. Hence why more and more men want nothing to do with your god, your church, your ideas about how the world should work. Yet you all get so mad in our “errors” and our “logic” and failed “understanding” of history, complexities with the letter “n” representing this or that……and we’re supposed to take it as gold.
Intelligent people have a responsibility. You like just proving how right you think you are. We just saw the results from this in the UK with the elections last night.
A stupid man like me can speak Welsh fluently. I was on a Welsh forum discussing the election as the results poured in. The reason why Labour got the whacking it deserved is not because the “low trust society” suddenly decided to become “high trust” again. It was sick of being spoken down to as a bunch of yobs / cuckservatives /betas / chumps / losers
Intelligent people actually and honestly believe they have cornered the market on common sense as well. And that was Labours downfall.
You think the Founding Fathers and thinkers were leading the demographic/cultural changes during the Industrial Revolution? The rise of the middle class (merchants, craftsman, etc.) was driving culture. It wasn’t any one thing or person in particular. Cultural development is a complex group thing.
Here is the critical question: why were innovators in this time period so successful?
Innovators are rare, and can be completely unknown, but the results of their works tend to be game-changing (e.g. James Watt). The research suggests that these creative innovators are produced in individualistic cultures that select for high intelligence.
I don’t fully understand this objection. This series is an exploration about the reality of what was, what is.with a fair bit of conjecture and opinion.and what might be. It’s a study of declining intelligence and cultural change, the problems that this has caused, and what might be done about it. Yes, I think the abandonment of Christianity (at cultural and moral levels) is a huge factor in today’s problems. It’s fine if you disagree, certainly not this:
Here is the critical question: why were innovators in this time period so successful?
That question could be asked today, or in 1975, or 1963, or 1945, or 1922
Innovators are successful not because they speak off the cuff, or are necessarily “more intelligent” most….sure, some indeed are but most have an idea. Usually a simple one. In the recent times, every innovator thinks they are Steve Jobs because they speak off the cuff are arrogant and think they are right.
One of my patents from IBM did not change the world. It did not make life “easier for everyone” not did it get me on TV, nor did it give me permission or give me a license to behave like a douche bag. My patent? I created a tool that spun plastic casing off tape drive cases for the reels used. Tape drive was still being used in the 1990’s on many of IBM systems (and still is by some customers!). When I was in the lab for testing I was getting damn tired of spending a few minutes of opening each reel casing. The tool just slid under the casing tape and spun it off. I submitted it to the IBM Ideas Dept after I built many on my own for co-workers to use. The Ideas team liked it, asked me to patent it, and then I sold it to IBM. No, I could not retire off it……but it got my Roth IRA off to skyrocketed start few men had at the age of 25. When I do retire, my Roth IRA will enable me a level of comfort many with a solid government pension will never have
The tool was simple, obvious and plain as day. It just took a set of eyes and a “huh? Lets see if this would work”
Anyone could have done this. It just happened to be me. Countless ideas and inventions are coming out of our “low trust society”
Now, I know you will argue that I submitted it to the “Ideas Dept” in a bureacratic machine and thus…my invention somehow is not as cool had I done it on my own workshop, in my own garage that I built with my own hands, that I drafted on my own with my intelligence and creativity.
Gates, Bezos, Yang, Sam Walton, my hero Sir George Martin (Beatles producer) were not all Johns Hopkins or Ivy League grads, top of their class and were “gifted” from out of the womb.
They had intelligence….and some above average for sure…..all had some sort of talent……….but they all had one thing in common. Talent alone wasn’t going to sell their idea. Hard work, practice tenacity, humility, and common sense would.
You are purporting and making this into a math equation. People are not math equations. They have countless variables. They do things that don’t make sense. They don’t follow a neat, and always predictable pattern. You putting fourth of “high trust societies are this” and “low trust societies are that” the twain shall never meet.
So my silly little invention made by a nameless and faceless man in a low trust society didn’t who did have a nice head of hair at the time mind you……didn’t drive the times and the culture, but the middle class craftsmen (nameless and faceless) in the late 18th Century and early 19th century did???
The industrial revolution didn’t start in the USA until well into the 19th century
This is what happens when I rush my response late at night. Let me step back. The Industrial Revolution (both European and American) came out of a culture that was relatively high-trust and individualistic, it didn’t cause it. I apologize for not stating this properly. I realize I implied that the Industrial Revolution was the cause of the high-trust society and American culture, which doesn’t make any sense.
The Industrial Revolution era signaled the beginning of demographic changes that ultimately led to a decline in intelligence and other changes. Other factors, such as penicillin, also contributed, but for the purposes of this series it’s enough to merely discuss the decline and its effects, not worrying about specific causes, as they are too complex for a brief discussion such as this.
During the hundreds of years prior to the European and American Industrial Revolutions, the lower class had very high mortality rates while the middle class had much lower mortality rates. This had a number of effects, such as the steady increase of intelligence and individualism population-wide as the middle class dominated reproductive success. It was a patriarchal Christian society. All of this combined to create a high-trust society, where marriages were stable and you could more-or-less rely on your neighbors (e.g. not to have sex with your wife).
Roughly speaking, the rise of the middle class in Europe was the cause of American exceptionalism as highly-individualistic Protestant European colonists founded the country. Of note, America never had the hereditary aristocracy of Europe. Sure it had the rich, but there is no question that the culture was different.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment tomorrow.
The research that I’ve cited discusses macro vs micro innovations, per capita rates of productivity and innovation, the personality of creative and innovative geniuses, and their effect on society and culture (including the arts). They make the claim that the incidence of genius and associated society-changing macro-innovations has been in significant decline and support this with data. Given your view…
…it is clear that you don’t think this is the case. I’ve cited some of the research, you disagree. Let me try a general approach.
IQ has been increasing even as general intelligence has been declining. The ability of our population to do certain tasks has actually improved dramatically over the last century in response to improved environmental conditions. We are actually very good at tasks that don’t require high general intelligence. So we are better at micro-innovations, but worse at macro-innovations.
At the same time, finding people who can do even the most obvious things is getting increasingly difficult. Most people are cogs and can’t think outside the box. We have whole industries (e.g. education system) filled with individuals who not only can’t see the obvious, but literally promote false realities. It is not just about innovation, it takes a certain kind of person to do these things. You seem to intuit this:
As previously noted, progress has peaked and there is no reason to think that the progressive decline won’t continue. Sustaining productivity (etc.) requires a steady stream of improvements that will come at a slower and slower pace.
I read that link to that book. It purports that after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, civilization fell into the dark ages that took a a thousand years to come out of (or thereabouts)
We today in 2019 don’t know how medieval architects built and constructed the amazing vaults of the great cathedrals of Europe during that “dark age”, let alone on how they were drafted, and how they calculated weight and mass to support these structures. The artisans and craftsmen of that time…….were they living in a high trust society that was supposedly dark and “low trust”? Were they the exception? Wait….most of feudal Europe was illiterate (as were most Roman citizens) so, were these people unintelligent? They couldn’t read but they knew how to mechanize pullies, and levers and other operations to haul and pour / smooth wet concrete in a complex building environment, high above the Medieval Eropean landscape. Even medicine was vastly improved from the Roman era. Many innovations came out of the Dark Ages. Many breakthroughs….and before the Plague in 1347 arrived, the population of Europe was much greater than it was at the time of the Roman Empire……..and the vast improvements in basic farming came about in this time.
I find what you are purporting interesting……..but who deems who a “genius” today? The school system? To them, everyone is some sort of amazing genius. An IQ test? They make something that people like (art or music), plenty of music around that people like, but it doesn’t mean its good.
Who then, and are geniuses bred (eugentical thinking) and a very dangerous path for one like yourself who claims god “created us all, and loves everyone of us…..but he made some better”. Who determines what is genius? Met plenty of people who claim how intelligent they are but are lazy, sloppy, or some other personality trait that is bad….but that has to be excused because they are genius? Or someone thinks or said they were?
The average farmer in 1802 in my area was not some genius, nor even above average in intelligence…yet you believe men like this are the product of a “high trust” society and were driving the times?????
To me……this is all coming off “well, a few of us should lead, are better looking, used phsyisogmy, bred with the best women the rest of you follow us”
You can all demand a Brave New Dystopian World. I’ll pass.
Intelligence is innate. The Flynn Effect is why humanity is at its IQ peak right now but hit its intelligence peak around 1850 (give or take a few decades). What you are calling “intelligence” is the combination of the innate and the environmental.
Yes indeed. It’s worth noting that innovations are getting harder.
It is estimated that human populations are at the same intelligence level as ~1600. We are still producing innovations at a reasonable level (partially due to environment), but not as high as we would if our intelligence was higher. Soon enough genetic research will progress to the level where we’ll be able to reliably estimate what intelligence was during those times.
Or the Saturn V rocket.
None of the above. Genius.being poorly heritable.is a somewhat random occurrence. Geniuses are associated with a complex set of traits. Hans Eysenck gave a list of 12 traits that have to come together. Michael Woodley has stated that families (or populations) need to first select for these traits in general, after which it becomes just a numbers game: the more people, the more geniuses arise by chance.
As Arthur Jensen noted, giftedness (high IQ) does not equal genius.
The middle class in the 1700s and 1800s drove the culture, not individual men, not geniuses. A deep-dive study of the middle class dynamics of that period are outside the scope of a comment-box discussion.
A high-trust society is one in which you are driven by culture and individualism rather than kin or governments. For example, democracy doesn’t work well in the Middle East because it is a low-trust, cousin-marriage society. Rulers will, inevitably, give positions of power to kin rather than those who are best suited for the job. It isn’t that they are corrupt, it’s just the way they think. By contrast, in a high-trust society, you can give that job to the best suited person whether they are black or white, man or woman, young or old. The risk in a high-trust society is that the ethnic/kind group in power gives another ethnic/kin group power and gets supplanted. High-trust societies both encourage and require altruism.
In the case of marriage, a low-trust society means that you can’t trust marriage outside the controls of your own ethnic group. As Boxer frequently notes, he thinks my marriage is successful because it’s within the bounds of our ethnic group. My series is certainly compatible with that theory.
I’m not making this argument. I apologize for taking so long to get my next article in the series out, but I will address this issue in more detail.
Power brokers and leaders have little, if anything, to do with addressing the dysgenic problems. This isn’t a call for genetically fit to lead. I think a view of history suggests that leaders are rarely useful in these roles. The “Genius Famine” book suggests that leaders should, if anything, foster environments where less power resides in hierarchical leadership and regulation, so individuals are able to thrive on their own.
Society would benefit from a larger population in general (i.e. in all walks of life) of better fit individuals, but there is no practical moral way to accomplish this. There is almost nothing we can do about it. Indeed, any attempts to do something about it are (and will be) bureaucratic solutions that will make things worse. My goal in writing this series is to inform. Information is power of its own kind.
Huh, WordPress Spam filter in its infinite wisdom put my above comment (as post author) in the spam bin. Gotta love those algorithms.
You often contrast how average you are with how your actions are different from average. I want to reemphasize exactly how wrong it is to say that everyone can do these things. Bureaucratic thinking, especially among academia, makes it nearly impossible to even see the obvious. For example, this researcher (2:26:29 to 2:27:20) noted that academia failed to get polygenic scoring for cognitive ability out of the sequenced data from ancient genome even though this was an obvious thing to do.
Consider that the vast majority of Ph.D. students publish zero papers or one paper (usually their thesis paper). These degrees are essentially worthless for the goal of producing academic output. Indeed, it seems that the one of the main reasons to get a Ph.D. is to call yourself “Dr.”
“For example, this researcher (2:26:29 to 2:27:20) noted that academia failed to get polygenic scoring for cognitive ability out of the sequenced data from ancient genome even though this was an obvious thing to do”
I and 99% of the population in the USA would have missed that too. That comparison is probably not the best one to compare to my simple tool.
No, the point is that in his domain it was a completely obvious thing, but nobody did it. This applies to many fields, such as software engineering (my field), education, and therapy (my wife’s field). Most professions are packed full of people who simply cannot identify or do the obvious because these things are not actually obvious anymore.
I think often about how you have to do janitorial work. Last week the elementary school principal stood up in front of parents and declared that it was inevitable that the school janitor would have to stay late to clean up. She just couldn’t comprehend, in her arrogance and bureaucratic mindset, that it was possible for people to help him. Such things are extremely obvious, but hardly anyone thinks of doing them.
My Wikipedia work on cities and counties was basic and obvious: copying public domain data from A to B while adding formatting. The subject matter was trivial. Any software developer (a large percentage of Wikipedia editors) could have done it, but no one else did. Indeed, bureaucratic processes kicked in multiple times to try to undo the work (they still do nearly 2 decades later). We’re it not for my active involvement, the prevailing forces would have likely seen my work eliminated despite its usefulness.
In 2004, about 4 years after Wikipedia started, I created a technical way to more easily and formally make citations. Despite Wikipedia being in existence for so long, nobody had bothered to do this on an encyclopedia. This was an extremely obvious thing to do, but nobody had done it. So I did. Now it is used in millions of pages (see “Step #3” in the comic below).
Fortunately in this case there was no bureaucratic reason to delete it and it’s now a (hidden) centerpiece.
I could probably come up with a hundred different examples from multiple disciplines of how normal people just don’t do obvious innovations. In many cases they are more inclined to fight against those innovations.
Please pay special attention the the xkcd comic itself. Notice the utter and complete irony represented. Something as mundane and obvious as citations in an encyclopedia was harnessed into an bureaucratic process for creating false information.