Just a thought

I find it interesting – absurd, even – that if you want to find real and relevant information about women or relationships you must avoid the MSM at all costs and turn to mostly unacknowledged blogs on the net. Instead of listening to credentialed professionals you’re much better off if you just read through blog posts from ordinary guys who think straight. Here are two recent examples from Roissy and Dalrock. These are solid gold and you can’t find anything like this in the MSM.

Isn’t it strange, to say the least, that some ordinary men with open minds gathered uncomparably more knowledge about women and ‘love’ in a decade than all the “experts” could – with their academic backgrounds – in a century? Am I wrong to think that some prominent bloggers know more about sexual psychology and sociology than a thousand PhD-wielding PC idiots put together?

Of course you couldn’t read them and they couldn’t have gathered this much wisdom without the internet. I think the net will help us humans evolve a lot faster as a species if we use it to that end. We just have to find a way to avoid being shut down.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Blogging, MSM and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Just a thought

  1. dalrock says:

    Thanks for the link Deansdale!

  2. David Collard says:

    I have wondered the same thing. I have some thoughts. It is possible that social scientists are not normal men and women and don’t really know what turns women on (i.e. hypergamy). It is possible that they believed what women told them (like Margaret Mead among the Samoan girls), rather than checking what women actually did. It is possible that they had the wrong theories – I have been reading sociobiology and evolutionary psychology for a few decades now, and very often scientists make good faith theoretical mistakes. The hypergamic sluttiness of women would have come as a surprise to most sociobiologists. Until very recently, they were stressing female caution and sexual conservatism. Another possibility is that social scientists, being mostly kind of left and kind of dim compared with most scientists, just assumed that the “tabula rasa” approach to human nature was correct. Lastly, they might have done a bit of “preference falsifying” as they say, or more bluntly they might have lied to stay popular with their colleagues.

    Another point is that the men who really know about women are too busy having sex with them to be bothered writing up their findings. Roissy reminds me of Sir Richard Burton the Victorian era explorer, a man who had a unique combination of actual personal experience, literary gifts, and the willingness to share his raunchy anthropological knowledge painfully gleaned from the field.

  3. infiniium says:

    Professionals learn from books and get funded. Two things that lead completely in a wrong direction. This goes to everything including health, history, etc. not just dating.

  4. JackAmok says:

    “It is possible that social scientists are not normal men and women and don’t really know what turns women on (i.e. hypergamy). It is possible that they believed what women told them…”

    I think social sciences are just about the most beta, feminine field of endeavor around. It’s a giant sewing circle (except sewing circles end up producing something at least moderately useful like a hat or a scarf or a throw pillow). It’s all consensus based, built on narratives and interpretations. The correct theory is whatever the group is willing to support. There’s never any definitive opportunity to demonstrate “I’m right – look at this!” like there is in, say, physics or mathematics. Or Engineering (hey, did the bridge stand up, or did it fall down?).

    And it seems pretty clear to me that the female of the species is – perhaps intentionally and necessarily so – not naturally very introspective when it comes to this sort of thing. She doesn’t have to be – the men come to her. For most of our history, a woman’s reproductive success depended on not much more than living until puberty. She was free to make up whatever happy story about how it all happened that she wanted, it didn’t impact her chances of being a mother. A man’s reproductive success on the other hand depended heavily on selling himself, so it’s a little more important for a man to be aware of how the sexual marketplace works and to be honest about it, at least with himself.

    So it’s probably no surprise that a feminized institution ignores the truth about sexual selection in favor of happy stories that make women feel good about themselves.

  5. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: You’re Not Going to Read This Headline So Why Should I Make an Effort Edition (NSFW)

  6. Lovekraft says:

    Most of the issues men’s rights activists put the spotlight on are really just common sense and about fairness and accountability. It doesn’t take a genius to expose double standards in areas like family court, academia, media etc.

  7. Xamuel says:

    Going to academics for answers on gender relations is like going to the nerd table for advice on how to get a girlfriend…

  8. David Collard says:

    I was looking at a book called “Female Perversions” by Louise Kaplan today. (Not as interesting as it sounds.) It struck me that there were no data in the book, and no theoretical framework that a scientist would recognise. Perhaps I am being unfair, but it just seemed like free-form speculation, informed by a sort of vaguely resentful feminism. I cannot imagine anybody actually learning anything from it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s