From the new and improved "Prime" at "Beta Revolution:"
I'm now starting The Game for the first time. I'll let you guys know how it goes. The Bell Curve was fucking depressing. Are there any other greatest hits of Game that I should look at as well? I've been reading Roissy off and on for a couple years but had never actually gotten into Game. I can already handle my woman, but I figure I might as well work on my skills. Besides, I'm really digging this other girl now and want to get better prepared for the turnover.
UPDATE: I'm halfway through, and all I got to say is wow! I should have read this earlier, but I'm glad I still have plenty of years to ratchet up my notch count. Seems like many of these PUAs in the book are not that naturally good-looking, and it really makes me ashamed of how much I've relied on my looks over the years and how I've not really gotten much better with women since my college days.
I've now redubbed myself "Prime," which will serve as my online handle and my PUA nickname as I go forward.
There's a bunch of good stuff in this quote, but I'll focus on my favorite line: "I still have plenty of years to ratchet up my notch count."
Interesting. So when I wrote - at Ferdinand's site - that "Game -once you gently scratch the surface – is really about sex. A lot of sex. With a lot of women" that was really a sign of my "arrogant naivety," to quote one of his commenters. Mmhmm.
Later, in the Comment section, "Prime" tell us...
The methods of Game ARE...reified by concepts from evolutionary, social, and personality psychology.
Ah yes, the "science" of evolutionary psychology. I wonder if that "science" will turn out better than the "science of Freud?" Or the "science of Marxism?"
Oh, and who has Beta listed as some of his "heroes?"
Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
Ah yes, 2 of the philosophical architects of Reductionism.
Right now, I'm working on a longer piece on the philosophical roots of Game - specifically, how Reductionist thinking makes Game possible, and indeed, inevitable.
Til' then...
-TW
8 comments:
Nietzsche wasn't reductionist. He abhorred nihilism.
Neitzsche WAS a Reductionist, although he was NOT a Nihilist, as you point out.
I define Reductionism as "the philosophy that human beings are nothing more than a random firing of neurons and chemicals, and that everything in human life can be explained through mechanical, material forces."
I think Nietzsche, as a pro-Darwin atheist, would be fine with that description.
For more on Nietzsche, see here...
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-darwin-to-nietzsche-to-hitler.html
Also, while I oppose Nietzsche's philosophy, I also have a sincere admiration for the man. Nietzsche was a genius. No question about it.
Unlike every major philosopher of the modern era, Nietzsche understand that the "Death of God" was a momentous event that would transform society forever. Every other philosopher ignored that.
How did you know that I'm a Zac Efron fan?
;)
Prime: Isn't everybody? ;)
Todd,
I actually don't mind you 'running me up the flagpole' here, you sent a swarm of new traffic to me. I recognize that our differences are very slight just from what you've written in other places and from your blogroll, so I don't plan on arguing with you about Game or reductionism. It's your choice to label me a reductionist, in your terminology, but I do take issue with your definition of it.
In fact, what you may not realize is that your definition of reductionism, is, in itself, reductionist. Those whom you call reductionist rarely reduce their analyses all the way down to 'neural firing and chemicals'. I don't see too many of the HBD guys discussing serotonin, GHB, or GABA. Razib often does on GNXP, but then he's one of the few that has extensive knowledge of brain chemistry. Most HBDers concentrate on higher levels of analysis, whether at the individual level, at the genetic level, at the social group level, or at the societal level. All of these levels of analysis can enrich your understanding of humanity. But since each of us is an individual, talking about a group or society would be far from reductionist, it would be the opposite, wouldn't it?
Here's an analogy, the game of baseball is 'ruled' by the laws of physics, no? The actions of the ball, the bat, and the throwing arm cannot act outside of Newtonian mechanics. You could reduce every action to physics, but why would you? It's much more interesting to talk about RBIs, a stolen base, or a grand slam. HBDers do mostly account reality as being mechanistic (although for many, consciousness is still up in the air), but they (and I) would NEVER assent to the idea that "human beings are nothing more than a random firing of neurons and chemicals". Baseball is much more than physics and so too is humanity. Besides, the neural firings aren't even all that random.
Prime,
First of all, thanks for being a good sport about getting “Quote of the Day” (and the Zac Efron bedsheets). I think having a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence and self-confidence, so I salute you
Regarding the content of your message…You wrote, “Those whom you call reductionist rarely reduce their analyses all the way down to 'neural firing and chemicals'…[They] concentrate on higher levels of analysis, whether at the individual level, at the genetic level, at the social group level, or at the societal level.”
I don’t disagree. And I would add that when done correctly, there is nothing inherent about either Game or HBD that is “Reductionist” – at least in theory. However, I don’t think I’m being bold by stating that 90%+ of the Game/HBD advocates already have a Reductionist mindset. What does that mean? It means that human beings are nothing more than highly-evolved animals. Our emotions/instincts/desires are “primaries” while Reason is merely their press secretary. As such, using other people to fulfill our desires is fine because those people have no inherent worth beyond their ability to fulfill our desires). This inner Reductionist philosophy enables them to rationalize some of the more questionable behavior by Game Boys (objectifying women, using women for casual sex, scorning traditional Beta men, etc.).
In terms of philosophy and behavior, Reductionism and Game/HBD amplify each other. And I think that’s harmful for both the individual and society.
Also, please note that I didn’t call you a “Reductionist.” I called Nietzsche and Schopenhauer “Reductionists.”
Also regarding the baseball analogy…You wrote, “You could reduce every action to physics, but why would you?”
Yes, I agree. That is the question: Why would you? It seems dumb. But Reductionism is appealing because it enables people to avoid issues of faith, morality, and responsibility.
“Why are you judging me on getting that girl drunk and banging her? Morality is an illusion.”
“You think God will condemn me? Ha, what are you, a religious nut? There is no God.”
“Fine, maybe what I did was 'wrong' by society’s standards. But don’t blame me! My genes made me do it!”
Post a Comment