The Internet fantasy bubble: the gap between the responsible and the spectators

The Internet lets people indulge in wild fantasy, and Twitter is more like World of Warcraft than is commonly assumed: this effect might also be more pronounced in “smart” people than dumb ones. Being smart, or high IQ, isn’t a shield from this effect either, and if anything it may make you more susceptible to these effects. Being rich also insulates a person from the effects of excessive fantasy: the richer we are, the more we seem able to indulge fantasy, because our base human needs are met.

To be good with women, you should be able to suspend disbelief and create an alternate reality, for women to step into, but that skill can be dangerous in regular life. Or useful. Along with suspending disbelief, rock-solid frame helps a lot with women, and thus the emphasis on bringing the woman into your world and worldview. Some guys seem to forget that that frame is a creation, and they carry it through on everything, even when it’s not correct.

Christianity, maybe an improvement on political religions

This post, like all future posts, is now on Substack.

I am slowly swinging around to the view that being genuinely religious is probably good for a lot of people, maybe most people… a big, big improvement over politics-as-religion. Without me personally wanting to be religious.

I’ve had religious-type ecstacy experiences in group sex scenarios… should be obvious from the stories… those scenarios are great in the moment, but from what I can tell and what I have observed, they don’t lead to real community. Your “value” is very much based on sex appeal, ability to bring in hot women, ability to be a hot woman, etc. There is a woman, Gwen Kansen, who did a twitter thread about how her group sex communities effectively eject or de-prioritize older women… her group sex communities are filled with middle-aged guys chasing chicks in their 20s, and I’ve seen this dynamic as well, the invisible older woman thing. I hope Kansen writes something longer and linkable, cause she’s emphasized something usually locked in the attic like a crazy aunt.

In Christianity, your core value is you, and being alive, and your immortal soul; you have an inviolate soul regardless of your external views and features. Of course we all know that, in the real world, that’s often not how it works… the hot Christian gal isn’t into you because of your beautiful soul in the eyes of god, your boss doesn’t hire you for that reason, etc.: there are still real value judgments involved. But there is some latent brutality in the competitive world, that the Christian world tries to de-elevate… and I’m not complaining here: I’ve done fine a lot of the time, competitively, I’m not complaining about the competition, and competition has a lot of merits. Adam Smith wrote about how the competition of capitalism encourages kindness and courtesy, because those things make good business sense. The average American or European store clerk is 100x more useful than the average Soviet government “worker.” The more advanced the market economy, the better the service, and the better the range of products. Capitalism and its competitive features are great. Christianity encourages people to have kids, to be fruitful and multiple, so it isn’t as narcissistic as secular life usually is.

Competition is good but it creates its own challenges (that is not a criticism of capitalism, it is a statement about how not all dimensions can be maximized at once), and the way competition affects and infects people who always want to do better than the guy next to them.

The most stridently asserted opinions will disappear down the memory hole (Pat Stedman example)

The most stridently asserted opinions will disappear down the memory hole.

Remember all the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) truthers from a few months ago? The ones who no longer exist, or seem to exist? The ones who had all the answers six months ago?

I know, I barely remember them either, and probably none of the people who were confidently pitching it do. But I wonder and you should too, “What are they stridently asserting today?” Should we believe it? Why?

What should we take from this episode? I haven’t seen any of the voices who were confidently and wrongly asserting that HCQ or this thing or that thing (vitamin c! no, d!) is a magic bullet, talk about how they were wrong, why they were wrong, and most importantly what will change in the future.

Disagree but be smart about it

I’m happy with intelligent disagreement, as I’ve mentioned before.

The need for intelligent disagreement may be why I’m not very into most Twitter, which seems to encourage the worst in most people, while being too short to be useful as a medium to exchange deep ideas.

It’s sort of like with game advice. I don’t think debating most game advice is very interesting. Hear the advice, go apply it on the streets and in your relationship. Does it work? Keep it. Does it not? Tweak it. Or jettison it. Figure it out for yourself.

I don’t really reply to game haters online, to the extent I see them. Game is about getting what you want out of your life and social relationships. It’s about understanding how women work and think and how to apply that knowledge. For guys who are utterly happy in their life and social relationships, I guess they don’t need game. Guys who are not getting what they want, need game. The ones who need and reject it are most strange to me.

I try to discern what is real and what is fake. Game appears real. So does evolutionary biology (game takes evolutionary biology and applies it to modern social relationships). That is my ideology. Try to understand what is real and true to the best of my abilities.

I know most people who learn of game will never put in the practice to make it work. That’s fine. Most people don’t put the effort into anything. It shows in the quality of their lives. I’ll try to make the world a more joyful place (game does this… women want to be seduced by hot guys).

I don’t like writing about political issues because those issues activate partisan identities that shut down learning. Framing an issue as political impairs the reasoning ability of liberals and conservatives. The end result of arguing about political issues is… more argument. By contrast, in fields that have learning and immediate consequences, it’s possible to grow. If a guy learns game, he bangs more hot chicks. He can then tell other guys what worked and what didn’t. If a guy learns data structures and algorithms, he can program a computer to do what he wants it to do. Politics doesn’t have that immediate feedback loop. Not national politics. Maybe some hyper-local politics have that feedback loop.

People will, strangely, reject life-affirming and life-saving medical treatments, putting themselves and others in danger, to make political points and try to be members of their tribes. I think it better to look at data and not political figures, but I seem to be in the minority.

Moderation is on for this blog, but I approve non-stupid, non-asshole comments. My audience is small enough that I don’t attract haters or trolls.

The best disagreement addresses the substance of the disagreement; the worst is usually name calling, followed by ad-hominem attack, but even the best of us can slip in that direction. Let’s try not to do that.

In business, management is a truly hard problem. It requires listening to criticism, processing it, and being able to use, transform, or discard it. Most people can’t get past their emotional first reactions and into judging the substance of disagreement, taking into account all that is known about the problem area. Few people can do this. Those who can, and who can keep their egos in check during the search for the greater good, often thrive. This is a specialized application of the “disagree, but be smart about it” worldview. Amazon codifies this strategy as “disagree and commit.” Almost every business should adopt this ethos, but few do. How far could we get if we could get our own egos out of the way?