How should a genius behave toward society?

Because one of the necessary personality traits of genius, associative horizon, has the tendency to produce behavioral psychoticism, we observe that geniuses do not usually get along well with the societiess they inhabit. One reason is that their psychoticism makes them constitutionally incapable of “going along to get along”, which is the basis for most of the social mores which separate polite company from the proles. For this reason, many geniuses are actually more comfortable in the company of proles than in polite company, at least for short periods of time. Therefore, they also tend to have an unsophisticated and distrustful perspective on civilization, as influenced by their low class and commensurately low ROI for orderly cooperation within society.

However, this is not the ideal case. A genius must understand his relationship with society in order to better pursue his unique forte, and perhaps even benefit materially from it.

Modern evolutionists speculate that geniuses arise, despite their low individual fitness (generally not reproducing), because they increase group fitness. For example, Isaac Newton may not have reproduced, but his society reproduced and destroyed/enslaved its competitors with extraordinary efficiency due to his accomplishments. A conflicting, commonsense argument could be made that geniuses merely express successful traits to such excessive extremes that they reduce individual fitness, whereas they increase individual fitness in ordinary levels of phenotypical expression. For example, relatively high conscientiousness is generally good but too much leads to neuroticism which is not good.

For now, I’ll assume the group fitness paradigm is the more correct one. This indicates that a genius’s relationship with his society is, in the best case, symbiotic.

The worse cases are parasitism (of the genius on society), mutually hostile cohabitation (link shows only the genius’ perspective), predation (of the society on the genius), and divorce. I trust that these require no further explanation from me.

A symbiote (more precisely an ectosymbiote) must be effectively perceived as 1) nonthreatening to the host and 2) more useful as a symbiote than as a diverting snack. These prescriptions follow the basic pattern of nature. What is nature? Various forms of life reproducing and eating each other. What is human nature? To reproduce and eat everything weaker, except they eat other humans figuratively rather than literally because that’s frowned upon (but all bets are off when ITZ here).

How to be 1) nonthreatening? This is pretty easy, actually. One must maintain such hygiene as to remain inoffensive to the five senses, indicating thereby that one is not a vector for contumely diseases. If one finds oneself described as “disgusting”, “gross”, “creepy”, etc., this is an indication of failure. One must also be perceived as prosocial and asexual, so that it would be considered surprising were one to rape and/or murder someone. (This is also good advice for aspiring murderers and rapists, as it confers the advantage of surprise.) Unfortunately, failure in this regard is also indicated by “disgusting”, “gross”, “creepy”, etc., so you will have to ask follow-up questions. Last, it is always good practice to appear as normal, predictable, and sane as reasonably possible. Otherwise people will expect surprising behaviors, of which many will perhaps be undesirable, such as murder and rape.

How to be 2) desirable? This is less easy, but may be considered somewhat formulaic. A good way of keeping score is to ask yourself “How much money do I have?” More money indicates other people consider you more desirable. If you have less money, watch out! Someone is out there, right this moment, thinking up ways to trick you into dying for your country in some Arab hellhole. So how to get money? For this, we must consult Ludwig von Mises. Well actually, he’s dead, but if he were here he’d say you have to give of yourself something which is in high demand and low supply. Think hard, even if it stings a little. What do you have that people can’t get enough of? Don’t ask them, they’ll tell you things like STEM talent, and if you believe that then I have a piece of crumbling civil infrastructure to sell you. Look at what they spend their money on instead: reality shows about raging sluts and worthless plastic garbage. If you are a raging slut who isn’t into show business, consider injection molding as a career choice.

There’s a lot of real demand for people with a pathological lack of concern for the consequences of their actions. If that sounds like you, try high-frequency trading, or violent crime if you’re also a vibrant minority. Or both! Or, if you are one of those weirdos who would enjoy solitary confinement, DRIVE TRUCKS.



About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to How should a genius behave toward society?

  1. Heaviside says:

    By the time ITZ happens Big Pharma will replace proles with legally-dead zombies who can be made to work for free. That’s a bigger threat than “automation,” as if there’s real money being spent on fundamental AI research(there isn’t).

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      We’re almost there already. I think you’re correct on all points except to suppose that a dearth of “real money” will hold back conceptual breakthroughs in AI research. I believe yeoman science has better long-term successes than even the scientific surges which parallel total war efforts, because those surges produce cultural bubbles similar to the economic bubbles in business cycle theory.

      By which I mean AI research will be held back more by general poverty than by lack of grant money for academic researchers.

  2. Heaviside says:

    “Automation” is code for “shipped to Japan and Japanese-capitalized factories in China, Korea, and Taiwan”.

    The illegal immigration problem will solve itself after the zombies come online.

  3. Heaviside says:

    >here’s a lot of real demand for people with a pathological lack of concern for the consequences of their actions. If that sounds like you, try high-frequency trading, or violent crime if you’re also a vibrant minority.

    Or you could become a commissioned officer in the Chair Force.

  4. Lazer says:

    Fuck society. You are a citizen of The Constitutional Republic of the United States of America Aeoli. Your only obedience is to its laws. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is clinical insane, has a severe case of schizophrenia, has a psychotic break from reality, and needs to be locked up in a fucking mental institution with a dose of antipsychotics on IV drip. They also need to be played in a game of 10,000 questions. Remember, the tools of our masters shall be their downfall. 99.9% of Proles almost always back down when a professional genius pushes back with their full fury. There only response is unilateral violence when platiatudes fail.

    In short blend in with your clothing, speech, movements, and always attack back when attacked. Verbally of course. Unless you are assaulted. Then unleash all manner of hell. Even if its only silently. Fuck em, fight em, and give em hell. If its a war Homo Safleni and his minion classes of slaves wants its a war they shall receive. Remember society is built by Neanderthals for neanderthals, then torn down by melonheads and sapiens. Don’t ever give them an god damned inch.

    • Lazer says:

      “There only response is unilateral violence when platiatudes fail.” This refers to the herd of sheeple known as the proles.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        Platitudes are simple NLP. When NLP fails, then the situation was already at the breaking point and everybody was just trying to ignore it. Should be ready long before the normies start coming down from their extended dopamine highs.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Nice rant. Weird thing is, it’s the last bit that caught me.

      >Don’t ever give them an god damned inch.

      Or, don’t feed the raccoons because they’ll just come back. But Christ also instructs us to, anonymously, give charitably to the poor (“deserving” poor according to some). Interestingly, it might be the “anonymous/unexpected” part that makes charity a eucivic practice rather than dyscivic. Will have to think about it.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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