This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

2
3

Red Pill TheoryPuppies randomly punished/loved develop stronger affections (youtu.be)

submitted by [deleted]

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Modredpillschool 37 points38 points  (26 children)

My point was that sexual strategy is amoral. You might stick to your values, but those who have sex .. have sex.

It's best illustrated through our ancestors. The idea was that whether or not we like the methods used- whoever procreated made children, and those who didn't.. didn't.

Your understanding of how morality works is a bit flawed here. You see, there is no universal morality. There is nothing in the universe applying any law other than those of physics. The rest is abstraction.

Morality is not black and white.

Let's look at stealing for instance. If I steal a loaf of bread, we would normally consider that wrong. But what if I were a starving child on the street and I have no other way of surviving? If I stole that bread and ate it to survive the night, was this right? Is it a grey area?

People make value judgements every day to determine what the best survival strategy is, (and to maximize happiness if basic needs are met).

Most people realized very early on that one good survival strategy was to not be murdered. Sounds pretty basic. So a social contract was developed. I won't murder you if you don't murder me!

But if somebody invades our group, we can kill them!

So we can see that even killing is not right or wrong in a black and white sense.

Murder, stealing, rape, these were all concepts that most people entering into the social contract said, I don't want these things, my best strategy is to cooperate, therefore I should not do them. And the basic framework of morality was built.

Killing Nazis? Moral. Killing your neighbor? Immoral. A simple code to pass on the social contract that enables society and really helped us as a species!

I think you and I agree when I say that we've both signed on to this concept. I don't want to be murdered, and I willingly take part in a social contract of not murdering. Most people have this concept built in evolutionarily- it's called empathy! Empathy helped groups to survive. Empathy follows this model, as most felt righteous or indifferent towards the killing of enemies and food.

So, yes, there is a framework we're calling morality, but understand what gave rise to it and how/why it works. Also understand that morality is not a constant nor objective, and some people have determined a different set of rules will best maximize their success or happiness. If they break our rules, we determine it to be detrimental to our own survival, because we depend on the social contract to exist ourselves!

So we punish murderers. It adds disincentive to breaking our moral code. And I'm fine with that.

Here's where things get a bit hairy. If my mating strategy is to dismiss a maximum number of potential mates (hypergamy), and I tell people certain mating strategies are immoral, then I can get other people to agree to it.

But what happens if this framework isn't based on a contract that benefits all who participate?

What if you signed a contract that said you will pay me $40/month, but I will provide nothing in return?

Eventually you realize that the contract makes no sense!

Sexual strategy is amoral. There are those who have sex, and there are those who do not. What contract will you sign up for? The one that results in you having sex? Or the ones that you're told are moral to uphold but do not bring you sex?

Obviously understanding that we are operating within other frames we believe do benefit us. Obviously rape is a poor decision because it goes against the personal freedom social contract we currently live by. And I support that ideal.

But we're also told that an older man courting a young impressionable 19 year old is immoral because of the age gap- he's too influential, it would be coercion. Tell me, if we avoid doing this out of our sake for morality- where is our benefit in this social contract? It's the feminine imperative you are seeing.

Do not exploit common psychology to build attraction because it is immoral.

This is a prime example of why sexual strategy is amoral. Because at the end of the day, their mating strategy is contingent on beta's failures, and our strategy is based on theirs to fail! Therefore there is no common social contract that we can commit to that benefits both genders. Only men are so easily fooled into entering into these social contracts because they work well for society in general, that they forgot to look at the feminine imperative and ask, but how does that benefit me?

Sexual strategy is amoral.

[–]Gentle-Mang 3 points4 points  (25 children)

Philosophers have been debating morality for thousands of years, but now we've got neuroscience so we can see what's going on in the brain when people make moral choices.

The reason we don't generally murder each other isn't because of a social contract, it's because we have a part of our brain that seems to be based on Kantian deontological ethics, the concept that there are moral imperatives and you do not break these rules no matter what. This area is located in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and contemplates the emotional implications of a moral choice. The rules against your examples of murder, theft, rape are actually hardwired into our brains. Unless you're a psychopath, in which case this area of the brain has significantly lower activity than in non-psychopaths.

There is also a utilitarian morality center in the brain located in the dorsalateral prefrontal cortex. This part of the brain is rational morality, it weighs up the costs and benefits of particular courses of action.

There can often be a conflict between these two morality centers, moral dilemmas are regulated and resolved by the anterior cingular cortex.

Then after all of this has been resolved your higher brain functions will step in to rationalize whatever decision you came to.

So for example you have a runaway train speeding down a track, you stand at a switch that will divert the train from its present course. If you do nothing the train will kill 5 men. If you pull the switch then it will kill 1 man. The utilitarian part of your brain will weigh this up and studies show that most people would decide to pull the switch.

Same scenario, but instead of pulling a switch you have to push a man onto the track in front of the train to save the 5 men... It's the exact same equation in terms of numbers, but because you have to directly take action that would kill someone, you'll have a harder time deciding to do it, because you have a hardwired moral imperative against killing other people.

Here's an article if you're interested: http://brainblogger.com/2012/10/11/what-make-us-moral/

So there is some black and white to morality, it's not all about social contracts. We have hardwirings in our brains that make certain things inherently immoral to us on an emotional level. It is possible to feel immoral about a sexual strategy, therefore sexual strategy is not amoral. If you're a psychopath or a sociopath then you can rely entirely on utilitarian and rationalization, then sexual strategy is amoral because you have no capacity emotional morality.

[–]Modredpillschool 2 points3 points  (16 children)

The reason we don't generally murder each other isn't because of a social contract, it's because we have a part of our brain that seems to be based on Kantian deontological ethics, the concept that there are rules and you do not break these rules no matter what. This area is located in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and contemplates the emotional implications of a moral choice. The rules against your examples of murder, theft, rape are actually hardwired into our brains. unless you're a psychopath, in which case this area of the brain has significanlty lower activity than in non-psychopaths.

But we do murder eachother, just typically not within our own tribe. We even honor some killing!

Obviously an aversion to the actual act of killing is instinctual, and it's true, as a cooperative species, we were able to excel because of this empathy.

Now I did use some short hand to explain how social contracts affected our development as people, but you've decided to delve in, so believe it or not, we're not really talking about two different things!

My shorthand was the logical basis for why a system like this would evolve.

Obviously evolution states that only those who survived that pass on genes. The idea here is that that a non-cooperative brand of humans apparently were unable to outlast cooperative groups. Over generations, yes, we adapt biologically. Due to the systems that allowed the species to survive.

We're really not saying two different things here.

[–]Gentle-Mang 1 point2 points  (14 children)

Sorry I missed out the part about the utilitarian moral center of the brain... I just edited it my last post before I saw your reply.

Yes we do murder and commit other immoral acts, and we don't have to be psychopaths in order to do it because the brain is very complicated. But when we do commit an immoral act there are usually emotional consequences, and that's the point that I'm trying to make. Saying that sexual strategy is amoral is all well and good from an evolutionary perspective, but from a personal perspective it simply isn't a good philosophy.

Killing someone because you're fighting for survival, fair enough because if you don't survive there's no more you, every sinew in your body will do what it can to preserve your life. There will be emotional consequences but you'll still be alive.

Sex is not the same as survival. Sex is nice but it's not worth living out of alignment with your values just to get some, because there will be emotional consequences, unless you really are a psychopath. Your emotional wellbeing is more important than getting laid.

[–]Modredpillschool 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Saying that sexual strategy is amoral is all well and good from an evolutionary perspective, but from a personal perspective it simply isn't a good philosophy.

Obviously you need to make these value judgements for yourself, I certainly don't disagree. I think I made that clear- some people consider strategies that I have deemed harmful to myself. For instance, I personally don't steal things because I think it's a poor strategy. Obviously somebody who does thinks it's a good one. We differ.

Sex is not the same as survival. Sex is nice but it's not worth living out of alignment with your values just to get some, because there will be emotional consequences, unless you really are a psychopath. Your emotional wellbeing is more important than getting laid.

I won't argue that you can't have values. I'm only arguing that the red pill is a good reason to think long and hard which ones you should hold on to and which ones you shouldn't.

My goal in making these points is to do away with this pervasive idea: that any competitive edge a man can get in the sexual market place is somehow evil.

At the end of the day, I think not raping is a good value to hold on to. But let's look at the older man dating a younger woman concept-

If we followed what society advocates under the banner of morality, a 35 year old man should not date an 18 year old girl because of the power imbalance. Obviously this is a value that if internalized unexamined will only boost the 18 year old's options, because somebody will date her if it's not you, and minimizes yours (artificial restraints).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

Sex is about survival.

[–]Gentle-Mang 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Again, only from an evolutionary perspective. From a personal perspective it's about pleasure and propagation.

Don't worry, the human race is in no danger of dying out, it's just our civilization that is in danger of collapsing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Our instincts don't take into account the current population and resources available. We just want to fuuuuuuccccckkkkk. If "civilization" is modern day feminine imperative then let it all burn.

[–]Gentle-Mang -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

If civilization does collapse we're going straight back to a traditional family structure, because there'll be no safe, easy, indoor jobs for women to support themselves with. Patriarchy 2.0 basically. Also the religious fundamentalists will probably be the ones to pick up the peices... Tell me what you think of their attitude is to 'human instincts'.

I'd rather it didn't all come crashing down. I like not having to grow my own food.

[–]Modredpillschool 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That was our downfall. We made life so easy, we made ourselves obsolete in the process.

[–]Gentle-Mang -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say that men are unnecessary or obsolete, we're just seen as unnecessary and obsolete by feminists, and we've been herded into unsatisfying roles all in the name of smashing 'the patriarchy'.

Men are the ones doing the dangerous and dirty jobs that keep our civilization running as illustrated by 95% of workplace deaths and injuries being men. Men keep the lights on in those nice comfy office buildings that women work in. Men pay a higher proportion of taxes that pay for women's higher proportion of state benefits, support and affirmative action. Men pay the child support that enables women to raise children that are statistically more likely to have behavioral problems, poor education, criminal behavior, and get teen pregnancies. Thus the system we currently have is producing children that can't work or pay the taxes required to support the system in the future. One way or another it's coming down.

I think it can be fixed, and I'd like to see it happen without a global socio-economic collapse.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

I'd rather convert from Atheist to "Religious" than continue watching good men get chewed up by the unbalanced feminine imperative running rampant through the First World.

[–]Gentle-Mang 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Then why don't you emigrate to a Muslim country?

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Gentle-Mang 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Reasoned analysis can override emotional morality, but you can still feel shitty about it.

    Also the red pill != evolutionary psychology, it's a personal philosophy. Sexual strategy is indeed amoral in an evolutionary context, but it isn't amoral in a personal context. As I said in a later post, your emotional well-being and living in accordance with your values is more important than getting a bit of poon. Poon is nice but it doesn't make you happy, its a part of life and it can be healthy or unhealthy depending on your relationship with it. Kind of like food can be healthy or unhealthy depending on your relationship with it.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]Gentle-Mang 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      A personal philsophy predicated on evolutionary psychology, no?

      Only as an explanation for observable phenomena, not as a guide on how to live and not as an excuse to be a dickhead. Evolution has hardwired moral imperatives into your brain and if you go against them you will suffer. Just because you've adopted an idea that there is no morality in an evolutionary context, that doesn't mean you can just ignore your brain's built-in emotional morality without any repercussions on your mental and emotional well-being.

      I think this is definitely up for debate.

      I'd recommend watching RSD Jeffy's talk in Transformations (you can torrent it). It's about how he learned all the routine based pickup stuff, got laid all the time, but was an emotionally insecure wreck with a thin veneer of game on top. He was pulling coke whores and all round shitty women, and having to deal with all kinds of drama like smashed windows and shit.

      The reason is that you attract what you are, and if you're a shit-tier person you will spend your time in the company of shit-tier women. If you're going to go to all the effort of improving yourself you owe it to yourself to do it in a healthy way or you will just pick up a new set of problems.

      it but also don't not have sex on the basis of being moral all the time.

      There are plenty of ways to get your dick wet while living in accordance with your values. The thing that started this discussion, being emotionally manipulative by being an unpredictable asshole, is not something that I feel good about, and I don't think it's a healthy approach.

      [–]red0joe 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      but now we've got neuroscience so we can see what's going on in the brain when people make moral choices.

      we cannot see what's going on in the brain. we have a dim idea of what parts increase activity, or which parts look like they increased their activity when examined with the technology we have.

      The reason we don't generally murder each other isn't because of a social contract, it's because we have a part of our brain that seems to be based on Kantian deontological ethics, the concept that there are moral imperatives and you do not break these rules no matter what. This area is located in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and contemplates the emotional implications of a moral choice. The rules against your examples of murder, theft, rape are actually hardwired into our brains.

      hardwired from birth? Or hardwired by society while you are a toddler? If the latter, is "hardwired" an accurate word?

      [–]Gentle-Mang 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      There was one where researchers showed two puppet shows to toddlers, one where a puppet climbs up a mountain and another puppet knocks him down, and another puppet show where the two puppets helped each other. The toddlers would turn to watch the puppet show that depicted cooperation.

      Or hardwired by society while you are a toddler?

      But I see here you subtly try to invalidate the conclusions of any studies that investigate the behavior of toddlers (of which there are many, including twin and adoption studies), by suggesting that toddlers are susceptible to social conditioning.

      I'd be genuinely interested if you can provide any sources that indicate a toddler's susceptibility to social conditioning. Or any parenting books that advise sitting down and talking with your toddler about how murder is wrong.

      [–]red0joe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Firstly, let me say that I have no information about scientific studies about the subject (or anything related). Also I'm not trying to invalidate anything.

      That being said, I think it is pretty clear that children (I'm sorry if toddler was an inaccurate word) are susceptible to socialization.