Gleeful losing

 I was listening to a podcast about cricket of all things and had an interesting little epiphany. 

The setup was about a particularly challenging match that was recently played where the general expectation was that one side was going to dominate and had potentially stacked the deck against the other side.  The final result was that the underdogs got the win, but thats not the point I am playing with.

The point is that going into that match, what is the mindset of the players?  They know that the match is important, so they cannot pretend that its not.  They have to find something in their mindset that is almost "gleefully defiant" even facing inevitable defeat (according to the media). They need to go into the match looking for ways to make their opponents bleed at every opportunity, not from spite (as that just doesn't last) but from some form of joy.  They have to genuinely find some joy in every little movement and task that they need to perform within the match and the leadup. 

Some of the players have spent their adult lives training and competing to this point and to go into the match without a positive joyful mindset would make everything a grind.  At some point that would break even the most stoic player. 

Someone showed me a meme about Sisyphus pushing the bolder but happy.  It completely changes the way that the task gets perceived.  It made me wonder about how to communicate that kind of task to a group.  It also reminded me of some of the more challenging mindsets of farmers in dry areas or during droughts, who are trying to keep their farms going or having to make hard decisions about reducing their flocks.  How do they find a perspective to keep walking forward? 

I have in my head some of the pep talks that I have seen given to troops in various war movies before they do something lethally stupid and how their leaders give them a mindset to do the impossible and illogical tasks in front of them.  Often its not in terms of winning but "going down in some spectacular fashion". For instance, the Spartans seeking a glorious death.

I think  the concept of "gleefully defiant" is as close as I can get to that mindset.  Deciding that even though you might be loosing, there is some dignity and self worth in stepping up and making the world bleed a little before you go. 

Perhaps this is a uniquely rural Australian thing.  I seem to have met quite a few people who have some variation of this philosophy.  Confronting the impossible but going and doing it anyway with a "Fuck it, lets see if we can make it cry before it gets us" kind of attitude.   I suspect we would find similar attitudes in other harsh environments... I just have no experience with those folk to speak from.  

I cannot really say that I have heard this point of view described with a pithy phrase that sticks in my head, but I feel like I have encountered it. Equal parts fatalist mixed with clenched teeth pig headedness and a dash of defiance.

Sisu, grit, determination, courage, tenacity etc all have some sense of possible winnning encoded in the idea.  The tasks may be difficult and take a resolute frame of mind, but they still see a chance of winning, right from the start. Often the situation is painted as some stubborn person who sees the chance, and is determined to "show them all". 

The "gleeful losing"mindset I am thinking about involves an acceptance of the inevitable failure before it even starts.  The insurmountable odds, the "no chance at all" kind of mentality.   But couched in terms that make it into an almost manic frame of mind to make the sacrifice matter, if only by denting the opponents Armour. 

The interesting thing is that the mindset still engenders a very focused and productive performance.  There is no sense of just fucking around, its more about finding the opportunities to wound the opposition.  Wasting the opportunity is almost the antithesis of the idea, showboating or just going out in a blaze of glory are just different ways to get it over with.  But being determined and focused, while still accepting that no one thinks its going to matter is one step from stupid or just nuts most of the time.  Its similar to the "Failure to disengage" or gamblers fallacy, where they believe they are always just about to win. 

I feel like I have talked myself around in a circle but I still think there is an interesting point of view in there somewhere that applied to sport could give some athletes a way of looking at their performance in ways that they have not yet considered.  

Not quite sure how this mindset works in other area of life.  Most people are not ready to do start tasks that have no obvious chance of success.   Especially not without some alternative value proposition. (Cheer squads, money etc) 

Does make you wonder if this mindset is all around us in the form of people who have done terminally stupid things and written themselves out of history and its really only in the safe space of a sport that we can really observe and celebrate this mindset without the usually lethal consequences. 

Something for the researchers perhaps...

Do Women lie to each other for social reasons

 I ran across a video about Women lie to each other but did not save the link. 

It explained the idea that women are often in small social groups and will lie to each other to maintain social harmony and cohesion.  Because they are essentially "stuck" with the group.  When there is a difficult conversation, its more straight forward to bullshit, even casually, that it is to confront an unpleasant reality.  Either the person who is being "told" will lose face and potentially blame the "teller" or the "teller" will lose face for doing the telling... and the other women in the group will all have their opinions about who did what and why... drama ensues.  This ties in with the "indirect" nature of a great deal of female communication around what they see as difficult topics. Their social status and the derived social status of their children and mate often depend on how carefully they can navigate the intricacies of these social games.

A point was made in the video about how women will lie to men and expect men to lie to them in the same way, but men operate my different rules, which results in unexpected conflict. 

Men on the other hand, within their male groups often take delight in calling each other out with the bluntest public reality checks. This ties into the realities of making sure each of them is well grounded about any weaknesses they have and shortcomings as this information can be important during any conflict situation when the men need to cooperate and work together.  Deceit and delusions about capacity and competence can be a threat to the individual or the team and result in none of them comming home. 

 

This is not about suggesting that either strategy is better, as they are both adaptations that have been very successful within the respective parts of society and the world. Just that there are very different strategies towards interpersonal reality checks.

Possibilities vs probability and gender differences in threat perception

I think women and men differ in the way they perceive threat in their environment. 

My hypothesis is that women look at all the "Possible" threats they can imagine and see them as all equally dangerous.  This is because if any of the threats materialise, it will have a catastrophic (probably terminal) impact as they may have children or a pregnancy and so escape is probably not an option.  This makes them much more aware of the comfort and safety of their environment.  This is where they stand or fall. 

On the other hand, men look at the threats around them and always have in the back of their heads the idea that if some plan goes to shit, they can always run away.  I think this fundamental assumption about escape being an option has allowed men to focus more on the "probability" of any given threat.  They do calculations about .... if X happens, what are my options? 

The assumption that escape is always a fallback means that the lethality of a threat becomes more nuanced... men can consider degrees of threat.  They can "test" their ability to overcome the threat and if that doesn't work, then can fall back.  Perhaps they can throw a rock at it and the bear will back away... but if not, run!  So the threat is more or less threatening at different moments.  If the bear is a long way away... its less threatening. If its close, its more threatening.  If you are behind it, its less of a problem etc.  This lets men work with threat as a changing, moment by moment calculation.  It lets them work around dangerous equipment, situations and large animals. 

This mindset makes you more conscious of the threats that are infront of you at the time, not just their possibility.  

Back to the women, they need to see threats in a more absolute terms.  If a threat exists in their environment (that they cannot leave), it must be removed.  The threat may be a sharp edge on a piece of furniture that the children are playing on, but the woman knows about it and it exists as an absolute threat to the children.  Its not about the probability of the child getting injured, or how bad the injury might be, its that the children and herself are stuck in an environment with a constant threat.  Children have a way of exploring everything that an environment has to offer... the good and the bad.  This is the nature of children.  So even the dangerous stuff will instinctivly get explored.  Thats a problem... so a woman has to see threats in their environment as almost a guaranteed problem at some point. 

I think this is an issue with how workplace safety has blown up recently.  We have a bunch of female staff who are working in small groups, sometimes isolated or late at night.  Their perceptions of their safety is similar across a number of staff and seems to be a fairly common perception, but they are not very able to articulate any particular issues.  They all have horror stories that they have heard about and some have had weird experiences that they can tell you about... but none have actually had any bad experiences specifically in the environments.   I recognise their vulnerability, but there is no actual evidence of any of their fears having ever manifested.  So, doing a "probablity" calculation in my head results in there being no evidence to support there being any threat. 

However, if you look at the whole situation through the lens of "possibility", their behaviour makes sense.  They see all the dark corners and quiet rooms and remember all the shitty drama movies they have seen and the scary stories they read on the social medias and they see the "possibility" quite clearly. If you see the possibility through an absolute lens, then they are completely correct that they are constantly under threat.  

This does however create a problem.  Essentially, we need to employ even more "protectors" (security guards) to babysit these groups anytime they are working late.  There is some economy by sharing one security guard across a bunch of spaces, but I can forsee them wanting more at some point as the spaces are scattered around more and more.

This raises the issue of the indirect cost of hiring women to do these roles. If we have to hire additional staff to be "protectors" (male or female guards is not the point) does this change the cost of hiring women in the primary roles?

If we hired only men to do these roles and it came without this "safety tax"... what kind of conversation would that start? 

Fast "Chad" and slow good guy behaviours

 Saw an interesting redpill video that was looking at the two behaviours of "women" who have fast encounters with "chads" and then "make the good guy wait".  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auzCseW3wps

 

 As usual, the comments section is the best bit of the video.  However... as usual, they are missing the point and trying to discover a "successful" counter strategy to the observed behaviors.  Also, as usual, they are trying to game the system for the shortest possible returns.... but thats another rant.

The generalisation of the behaviour, in summary, is that the archetype of the "woman" they are discussing is that of the "modern woman" who meets and quickly beds the stereotypical "Chad", "Tyrone" or "fboy". In otherwords, superficially attractive men.  Then moves on... and eventually settles down and wants a relationship with a "good man"(insert your definition here).  But the kicker is that this stereotypical woman will then make the "good man" wait for some extended period before consumating the relationship. 

The comments section again repeats this idea in a variety of different takes with some minor extensions;  almost universally from the "good guy" victim perspective.  ( possible skew in the commenter demographics perhaps?) 

The key point that is escaping all the hurting "good guys" is why!  Why does she engage in these two seemingly contradictory behaviours? As usual, selfish childish boys with no insight leap to a completely useless conclusion and reinforce the toxic, empathy less dickhead stereotype. 

The reason she engages in these two contradictory behaviours is that the first behaviour (that of quickly sleeping with a "Chad") is that it has no social consequence.  There is no future story that she is going to tell about that encounter TO ANYONE THAT SOCIALLY MATTERS TO HER. It was just for her personal tick-list or momentary entertainment, childish exploration etc. The only people she is going to tell this story to are other similarly childish people who are impressed by stories about cheap sexual conquest without consequences.

In contrast, the "How I met your father/brother/son" story is the one she will pass down to her children and tell all her in-laws.  These are people she has to look at across the family dining table/BBQ for the rest of her life. These are the "Social circle" who will JUDGE her... for the rest of her life.  Creating a narrative of values and respect is now much more important to her inner peace than quickly jumping into bed.  Thus the extended courtship routine gets dusted off and suddenly she starts trying on the behaviors that she has only heard about from other "respectable women".  When she tells this story, she wants to be seen as a respectable woman of substance and values.

Tada!

 Once you see the behavior through the lens of "future story making", it makes more sense.   This in no way explains all the individual variation as that is more driven by the individual skill and knowledge and understanding of the individuals who are involved in the drama.  But the general thrust of the behaviour is shaped by this urge to create a meaningful narrative.  And more importantly, place themselves in it as a virtuous person.

Now imagine if the childish men consuming this video to feed their victim narrative could grow up enough to understand this?  They might start to have a look in the mirror and think about how they appear in such a narrative?  Are they ready to be the prince charming character or are they the angry, petulant man-child thinking about the next sexual moment peering out of the dirty alley watching the adults construct the most elaborate narratives they can manage. Lusting after immature women does not help.  

So what are the better insights to draw from this behaviour?  

The fact that it manifests enough to be commented on as a generalisable pattern suggests that constructing virtuous roles for women in their relationship origin stories still has both intrinsic and extrinsic value; at least to some women at a certain level of development in their life journey.  It does raise the questions about when and how persistent this pressure might be felt.  

How can this pattern be gamed?  How can this pattern be re-inforced?  How can it be emphasised so that the players within it can move towards satisfaction and eventual happy, positive lives. 

 It also raises the question about how the fragmentation of the external "observers" that we assemble as "society" in our internal representation of the environment is either eroding this narrative construction or re-shaping it. 

The quality of the observer and the "media" as shapers of this narrative are probably the most profound variables in how the narratives initially form and are evaluated by the actors. 

I would suggest that the princess narrative is like any other story that we tell ourselves, its all well and good... until it sours.  Then there is no way to tell it without it being bitter.  At this point the actors need to walk away from the narrative or start to see themselves portrayed in the bitter version of the story with the consequent self-reflection that casts them in a light they do not want to be seen in (or see themselves in). 

I think this souring inevitably leads to divorce and the end of relationships with all the consequent legal fallout as the fragments are reassembled into new stories. 

It does make me wonder if the storytelling can be re-inforced.  Does having the opportunities to tell and re-tell the story (and getting positive social value from doing so) help to keep the narrative building in a virtue spiral?  I suspect it would for many people.  Everyone likes to be reflected well in others eyes.  

I suspect that insecure people are still going to play for the short term wins, without the stability to play for longer term payoffs.  They do not have the innate trust and positive childhood experience to believe a long-term relationship has a reasonable probability of paying off.  They have just never seen it happen.

This gets back to the issue of why people engage in the short term narrative construction.  Obviously, it plays well with their peer group.  If they are only surrounded by a peer group of similar age and maturity level, they are only going to get feedback from those points of view.  Everything will be short term wins, cheap thirlls. All their story building will be focused on maximising their social credit through that lens. Which leads to very superficial activities with the appearance of meaning to other children. 

If they were in an inter-generational household or community where they were having to tell the story to their elders and hear the feedback on their actions... they may find that the social credit of their cool story's might be quite different. 

This is based on the idea that their elders are not also encouraging the asshole behaviour.  But, in theory, if they were getting a better quality of judgement... perhaps it might change the way they made decisions. 

And we have circled back to external judgment

 

     

 

 

  

Zero Day Exploits for Humans

 I saw an interesting speech by James Lindsay to the EU parliament where he tried to draw all the threads of the culture war together and call it marxism.  One of the main points he was trying to make was that "woke" was a movement by "them" that was covert marxism with an American spin.  The core idea was that marxism has "adapted" and is now going to attack America and Europe. 

It was a really well constructed speech but his argument had a bunch of flaws. 

The first was that there was a "THEY".  Some coordinating authority or centrality to the effort.  I think the truth is only in the minds of the people who feel under attack.  Its like someone has a feeling of vulnerability and suddenly they invent a boogie man to blame it on.  It grows in their imagination and they give it a face built out of all their worst fears and all the bad stories that they have ever heard and it becomes the stuff of nightmares.  They can't un-see it... because its their personal monster. 

 I would argue that this whole shitstorm is not coordinated (honestly suprising ... but I will get to that).  Its an emergent set of patterns that are emerging in many places, and communication technology is allowing them to cross fertilise ideas and strategies.  

Mobs form because there are the elements of a mob already present and some situation or events bring them together and the mob dynamics build.

At some point someone (a politician or something that walks and talks like one) is going to clamber to the front of the mob and retcon a false narrative over the mob that gives it legitimacy and authority to do what they want.  But until that happens, its just a mob waiting to happen. 

The question is rightly, why is there a mob waiting to happen? 

I think the dirty secret is that there is always a mob waiting to happen, even in the most perfect of societies.  I think this is one of the secrets that the current chineese government has validly identified and seeks to counter by always being so concerned about public stability and calm.  As the inheritors of the revolution, they know very well that people will form a mob and once that dynamic gets going, there is going to be a few nails getting hammered. 

So, why a mob?  What is the inherent characteristics of a mob that is so... human?  

Anonymity!

Anonymity is one of those weird social moments that change people.  For someone who does not experience anonymity very much or at all, its habitual to always have their social face on.  They act as though people who matter are watching!  They act as though there is consequence to their actions!  

This is generally true enough that it keeps most people in check.  They moderate their behaviour to the standard they have been taught/conditioned and has worked successfully in their context.  

Then give them a sneak peek of anonymity... and usually nothing happens.  It takes a long time for conditioning to fall away.  However, its interesting how people seek anonymity and deal with it. 

People go traveling and on holidays to "go somewhere new".  They move house and jobs to "start a fresh".  And when they arrive they are anonymous.  No one knows them, they have no identity and can be "who they want to be".  (Except for local law and customs... etc)  So sometimes they "go a little crazy" or "act out".  Try watching a show like "Banged up Abroad" or any of the stories about tourists doing silly things in distant lands.  They think they have found a hack that will let them act without consequence on their identity "back home". 

Also consider people in an existing society who are "invisible" and without distinct identity.  They can do things that others cannot and the risk/reward ratio is substantially different. 

So the question is, what do people do when they are anonymous?  

Explore.  Depending on how complete their conditioning is, they may continue doing the same habitual things or they might not.  If the conditioning is incomplete, they will start to "try new things". Explore opportunities that they perceive in the environment. There is no "reason" not to.  They can stay in bed all day... or eat toast with their fingers.  Like children in a new place they will explore and test their boundaries.  This is basic human survival skills... figure out where the good stuff is, figure out whats a threat... get comfortable. Repeat. 

However, people with "baggage" also want to unload. This might be fast or slow, it might be positive or negative. People let out their issues in different ways.  If the opportunity arises, they may let out stuff that they have kept repressed for a long time.  Repression takes energy and chips away at their wellbeing over time,...so this can be very confronting to release for the individual.   Nothing like letting go of personal hygiene. 

 

The point of a mob however, is that the mob forms around an event or situation. The situation has an emotional loading inherent.  Where this is a positive situation, the mood of the mob will be positive and re-inforce that.  Where the mood is negative or can be turned negative, the dynamic will escalate the negativity. 

So, if you are a revolutionary and you want to do some casual destruction, find a group of people with any sort of issue and use that to form the mob.  If you can get the mob to form, then you can harness the energy of the mob and turn its attention on a target you can link to the grievance.  The more vague the grievance, the more people will self-adopt your description to fit their individual situation.  They will start to recruit more people to the mob and every one of them will choose to believe that the mob is somehow on their side.  

The feeling of belonging. 

A good mob feels like its on your side.  When life has got you down and a bunch of people seem to all be commiserating with you about your particular problem... it can feel good.  Finally your being recognized.  You have shared problems. The weight is lifted a little.  Vague promises are told (often by the individual to themselves).  Excitement and euphoria quickly follow.  People will do all sorts of things to keep that feeling going. Belonging and meaning are very attractive when you have been starved of those feelings. 

If you look around at any group, you will always find someone who does not feel like they belong or don't really have a place (or especially don't have a winning place). Every pile of humanity has people at the bottom. 

So all you need is a group of people who feel a bit dissatisfied with their lot and a situation that they can rally around and a few loud voices to egg them on. Now pick a topic they have in common and talk about that, once they agree, pick an enemy and blame them for the topic. Ta da! Mob creation 101.

Now lets look at "Activists".  These are the "loud voice" element.  They are the self-elected "leaders" and "Spokes-people".  They are the ones who chant the message and set the tone.  They are always near the front of the mob, but not in the front row where the cannon fodder stand.  (That's where the truly stupid gather)

The interesting thing about "Activists" is that they become the leaders of the mob.  And eventually, they have to figure out what to do with the mob.  

During a revolution a bloodthirsty mob is a very handy thing for someone who wants to change the world.  They can be used in all sorts of ways.  But eventually the situation goes from revolution, to starvation and people have to start putting food on the table again.  Even revolutionaries like eating. 

So the bit after the revolution always has some sort of "disposal" process for the mob.  Look back through history, there are very few bloodthirsty mobs that have been successfully turned into a peaceful population.  This is because the very nature of a bloodthirsty mob is that it gets a taste for the darker aspects of life.  This is very hard to turn off.  The people who self select into the most extreem elements of the mob tend to not want it to end.  This is their moment, suddenly it all feels good. Why would they stop and go back to a menial job? 

So after the revolution, the mob either gets liquidated or scattered (and quietly liquidated) or hopefully just dies during the revolution... one way or the other, the problem gets solved. 

The activists however, are the mouthpeices and survivors.  They are the ones who are cunning enough to get to the front of the mob and give it guidance. After the revolution, they are the ones who the mob looks to for organisation as they have been doing that up till now.  Think of it as a battle field promotion based on competence. 

In the even that the activists are a positive group, they go on to form a positive society.  In the even they are carrying some unhealthy traits (paranoia, narcissism, greed, lust etc) then they form the society in their image.  

Again, history provides us with endless examples.  

Why is any of this new? Well, clearly its not. The only new thing is the context that the revolution is currently being fought in. 

The US has not had a revolution in some time... nearly 4 years or so.  

The interesting thing about a democracy is that the cyclical nature of the election cycle tends to let the mobs form and dissipate their energy every few years.  I think this is actually the reason why democracies last so long rather than anything to do with votes or rights.  The fact that they go through a small controlled revolution a few times a decade lets most people work through this cycle enough times that they get sick of it and realise that they are not going to get their problems solved this way.  Theoretically, each election results in some redistribution of power and resources and life goes on. 

The problem comes when the election cycle is corrupt and constantly reinforce the inequity and failure of the society.  This lets the unresolved grievances build up and makes the ground fertile for anyone to do a bit of recreational mob building.

Another thing that history tells us is that corrupt societies where there is a lot of difference between those who have and those who have not tend to be very ripe for revolution.  Look at every monarchy or aristocracy ever.  They only existed as long as they could keep their populations divided and powerless.  Once some mob formed and started to self-organize, and a few random mouthpieces popped up and agreed on some vague ideas, it was on.   

I don't think its hard to see the seeds of discontent in a number of the current democratic countries in the "west" at the moment. 

There is a lot of people who are feeling left out and rejected in society, ironically they are often wealthy and succsesful in comparision with their ancestors.  But humans will human. 

Now look at the mouthpieces who are trying to unite the mobs.  Look at the "common themese" they are using to pull the mobs together.  Look at the really vague narratives of "what comes next".  Notice any patterns? 

Same strategies, same techniques.  Same hacks that have always worked. 

Coming back to the speech by James Lindsay.  I think the main mistake he is making is that he thinks this is a marxist revolutionary thing.  It's not marxist, its just revolutionary.  

These are the same emergent strategies that have worked in every revolution ever.  

Hey kids don't like the status quo?  You angry about stuff?  Lets criticize the old way because that's where the stuff comes from.  Now lets reform the world! 

There are endless variations on this patterns but they all have the same basic format.  Mob + mouthpiece.  The mob will self form when the social pyramid gets too deep and the top forgets about the bottom.  The mouthpieces are always around because stupidity is not evenly distributed.  

I think the most amazing thing at the moment is just how many different mobs are in the formation stage in the US at the moment.  There are so many different grievance groups who have been magnified into being by technology.  All of them are being horrible to each other at the same time and fighting for ascendancy.  The range of shouty mouthpieces who are self-electing to be the brains of the operation is also quite impressive.  I think its been clear to everyone for a long time that the final element is long overdue for revolution.  The top of the pyramid has completely lost touch with the reality of the bottom.  

I tend to think that this is the prime reason we are seeing all this bubbling up.  I am certainly not the first commentard to point out this, so its not particularly hard to spot.  But like any slowly collapsing structure, there is not really any way to stop it.  A phrase always comes back to me... "Seeds of its own destruction".  There is a certain inevitability about the whole thing.  Some sort of historical renewal that was always going to happen. 

The fun thing to remember is that this is not the first time this has bubbled up in the US.  There have always been some pretty big scars in that culture to exploit. And there is never a shortage of shouty mouthpieces who are willing to take a run at the big chair... so perhaps its just going to keep going until they either get so broken down that someone keeps them down or just the wheel will turn again and off they go.  

I strongly think that the difference between a revolution and a non-revolution is probably leadership.  They have had a run of bad luck with a succession of weak leaders and corruption of their institutions that has chipped away at the faith and ability to move forward. Now they just seem to be doing self-destructive circle work as they chew their own legs off to try to get away from themselves.  Anyway, renewal brings hope... come the man, come the day... something or other.  

 

 

 

 

 

How virtual is your world?

 It occurs to me that while we all have a part of our lives that is imagined, technology has enabled a greater percentage of that to be manifest in various ways. 

So the question is, has this changed in any material way? What proportion of peoples lives were previously lived in their imaginary world?  

The majn thing that has changed is the fidelity that the virtual can be manifest with virtual environments and the social networks that allow recruiting participants with similar interests. 

Infinite dating

In previous generations, the "dating phase" of an adults life, started in late teen years and ended with marriage.  Job done.  

The interesting thing to note is that its during this phase that young adults, particularly women, were most able to be commercialized.  They were most likely to be pressured into purchasing stuff to increase their social success and also had access to resources that were not otherwise committed to hearth and home. 

So... why not extend the "dating phase" longer.  Keep people single and not committed to ownership of things like houses or children will make them endlessly vulnerable to all the social marketing and products, while maximising the resources they have to pour into these markets.