Beginning theory of general socializing

If nerds can industrialize Game in a single generation, then they can industrialize Frame in a practical amount of time. That’s what I’m gonna call the general theory of which Game must be a subtheory: “Frame”. The verb follows the example of Game—a Frame practitioner “Frames” their subject and engages in “Framing”.

This is an overly reductionist theory, or what I think of as a “naive” theory which is created for the purpose of further expansion. So, the idea is not to be exactly correct on the first try, but to make a start so as to more obviously see what’s wrong with it, complain, and then refactor to cover more cases.

A normal human brain is wired to recite social scripts to maximize one’s allocation of the commonweal. This evolves from chimp sociology: high-status group members get a bigger slice of the pie. However, human sociology is more abstract in that it includes “classes” of people, which combine to produce a person’s socioeconomic value. Socioeconomic value can be well-approximated by the product of a person’s political influence, net worth, and SMV. That is,

If an interaction is in-group, 80% of the time the esoteric meaning of the social scripts is contained in the following: “You should perceive me as a Good Type of person. You should not perceive me as a Bad Type of person. The Good Type is superior to the Bad Type because the members of the Good Type are moral, intelligent, tall, attractive, and are victims because they deserve more than what they’re currently getting, whereas the members of the Bad Type are sickly, ugly, contemptible, and all-in-all have it better than they really deserve.”

More abstractly, and more precisely:

I am in identity class A.
I am not in identity class B.
A is receiving fewer resources than they deserve.
B is receiving more resources than they deserve.
(Implied: Therefore, I deserve more resources.)

Example of an exoteric expression: “After comparing a broad selection of ancient and modern political philosophers (read: ‘im zmurt’), we are forced to conclude that government administration must be concentrated in the hands of a talented class of natural aristocrats (read: ‘gib da gibs to teh zmurt ppl’).”

Whether a person spends the majority of their time and energy convincing others of his class identities, or himself, depends on personality.

Next step is to critique this in order to generalize further. For instance, it’s pretty clear that when early teenagers practice socializing they are only practicing their status signalling, similar to when lion cubs play fight with each other, because these interactions have negligible power to acquire resources. Also, this only accounts for the “competitor” strategy in CSR theory (virtue signalling), but there are other sorts of signalling. Other resources that white people seek when they have a resource-abundance mindset are A) a feeling of self-righteousness and B) a feeling of ethical certainty/purpose (see here).

I bid thee complain about the inadequacies of this theory!

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

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

10 Responses to Beginning theory of general socializing

  1. Marshall Mead says:

    test comment

  2. Boneflour says:

    Frame = Perception management (self, society, women, men, all of it)

    Game = Perception management for men, focused toward women. (self-talk, brand management, status markers, mindset modification, conversation skills, etc.)

    Perception matters because perception changes action, and collective human action is a stronger force then damn near anything else on the planet. Even Great Men don’t surpass this force so much as steer it.

    Tangent:

    Anime excels at turning the metaphorical into the literal. In Gurren Lagann, the giant robots are literally fueled by “fighting spirit”. When morale is low, or the hero is emotionally unbalanced, his giant robot is physically weaker, and even refuses to respond to commands. With enough fighting spirit/morale/perception management, the heroes are capable of tearing holes in reality.

    In Dragonball Z, Earth’s warriors could channel the life force of the planet into a “spirit bomb”, which was stronger than any one fighter to date, including the superpowered intergalactic warlord Frieza. In later epsiodes, the Spirit Bomb was more powerful than the Triple Demigod powers of Super Saiyan 3.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Yes, excellent.

      Here’s a brief flowchart for how I figure it works: Perception > Feelz > Reason > Calculation > Action.

      So, action is calculated to accomplish “reasons”, which are driven by feelz, which are a reaction to perceptions (which are processed through internal values).

      • Heaviside says:

        I think a better model for most people is desire -> action -> belief. People are psychically influenced, seduced, or herded into taking one particular choice of action without conscious choice, and then they rationalize it after the fact as being a result of their own free will.

    • Heaviside says:

      >Anime excels at turning the metaphorical into the literal. In Gurren Lagann, the giant robots are literally fueled by “fighting spirit”.

      It’s not metaphorical.

      • Boneflour says:

        In real life, people talk about ‘morale’ or ‘esprit de corps’ ‘will to fight’ as an abstract force that strengthens a group. Dropping a bomb while SUPER PUMPED doesn’t increase its explosive force.

        In the anime, the more people cheer at your Spirit Bomb, the more explosive force it gets.

        In real life, When the Morgenthau plan was publicized, US troops said it was, “worth thirty divisions to the Germans”. They didn’t literally get an airdrop of troops and Panzers, did they?

        In the anime, they would have.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        I wonder which side the artists themselves would fall on here.

        Japanese culture seems to have enough in common with German culture that their psychophilosophies would be the same too. Common attributes: prosocial, high abstraction/systemization, stringent social enforcement of ideological norms, academic stratification process, affinity for fascism…etc.

        Differences: nonverbal culture vs. verbal, “Face” vs. ingenopathy, other-focused ego vs. solipsistic egoism…probably missing something important here.

  3. Pingback: Premises of Frame | Aeoli Pera

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