Hormones and hate, sadism and masochism

Speculating recklessly, inspired by this SMBC comic:

You could replace the Y-axis with k-selection and the X-axis with R-selection and get the exact same graph. At high-k and low-R we find the eternal Norman (and probably a dose of Asperger’s*), breeding speciously in the modern environment due to straightforward selfishness unattenuated by any patina of neoChurchian niceties. See, you have to be a bit of a fag to be a proper Chad now. Consider that Milo is the pinnacle of PUA virtue (narcissism, the gift of gab.ai, glorious coiffer): if you could emulate him you’d be the greatest PUA of all time.

At high-r and high-k we find vodka-swilling sloots and gogo boys, shouting incoherent neoliberal shibboleths over bleating club music and copulating vigorously despite a notable absence of gender dimorphism. (“BLACK LIVES MATTER” “WHAT?” “I SAID BLACK LIVES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT” “WHAT?” “LET’S GO SOMEWHERE QUIET”.) All hail the eternal Chad, for he shall inherit the earth. Mother Nature loves her middle children because she is mean, and cares the most for those anchorless souls who respond to her whimsical currents with average alacrity.

At high-r and low-k we find the nümale sperg crying into his appletini because his oneitis waifu rejected him at the behest of her feminist roommate to spend more time decorating their cats’ scrapbooks. Self-hating men have the lowest possible status: this is why South Park tarred Mel Gibson as a masochist.

As a rule of thumb, masochism is low-status, feminine, introspective, nonverbal and emotional whereas sadism is high-status, masculine, exogenous, rational and intellectual. A masochist focuses on navigating their own emotional reactions, whereas a sadist wants to explore the emotional reactions of someone else. I believe these are abstract emotional drives that evolved as adaptations within long-standing caste systems. It makes sense that a submissive slave subpopulation would become masochism-shifted (domestication is primarily characterized by inhibitions) and vice versa for the dominant caste.

Related, I thought this JP Sears video was pretty insightful.

*Everyone who studies melonheads and neanderthals for any length of time independently comes to the conclusion that they’re strongly blood-related somehow. My interbreeding theory, tl;dr- “the most popular guy gets the prettiest girl”, is a good start but doesn’t seem to cover the whole thing. It appears these races are strongly linked somehow.

(Da blergh will soon be fully operational. Sorry for the inconvenience.)

UPDATE: I completely forgot to copy over one of my bullet points because I’m a fucking retard.

Hormones are governed by both nature and nurture. For instance, black men have 120% the average testosterone of white men (nature), and weightlifters have 140% the average testosterone (nurture).

Behavior (i.e. strategies for obtaining neurochemical rewards) appears to be primarily governed by hormones, which in turn have their “set” points from the limbic system (particularly the hypothalamus, which activates and deactivates the glands). The development of these master switches is affected by both nature and nurture. It appears (to me, presently) that the way to change overall behavior is to flood the system with a hormone at intervals so that the body has to adjust its overall composition to compensate for these shocks, which raises the set point around which the body maintains homeostasis. (It also seems to me that emulating the attitude/behavior of a strong male father figure as a child is important for development of a high set point for testosterone.)

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

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

25 Responses to Hormones and hate, sadism and masochism

  1. I guess Jagermeister is off the chart on both axes.

  2. Edenist Whackjob says:

    ” It appears (to me, presently) that the way to change overall behavior is to flood the system with a hormone at intervals so that the body has to adjust its overall composition to compensate for these shocks, which raises the set point around which the body maintains homeostasis. ”

    Now, this is very interesting.

    I think you could actually do a lot of the good for the world by focusing more on concrete but cutting-edge research like this. Go forth and do neuroendocrinopsychotherapy on yourself!

  3. Heaviside says:

    If you could convert this graph to a log-10 scale, you might just barely be able to see “water” at the top of the y-axis.

    Stalin used to keep his personal flask filled with water.

  4. Pingback: Neuroglandular theory of personality (and racial culture) | Aeoli Pera

  5. Santoculto says:

    Sadism is rational?

    No way.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Rational in the sense meaning conscious, deliberate, and verbal. The emotional drive in modern humans to do sadistic things is an irrational, a priori desire.

      • Santoculto says:

        Yes I understand but I think it’s not rational, I mean, reflectively balanced, weighted, but logical or pseudo-rationalized.

        I agree about intellectual because the sadistic need understand their preys better than themselves.

        In my opinion rational is never imoral exactly because their weighted/reflective approach, looking and analyzing for “all” perspectives while logical seems more appropriate, the application of “natural” moral relativism/ amoralism to the imoralism that prevails in the food chain among humans.

        • Santoculto says:

          Looking for “all” perspectives and choosing for the best of the choices, ultimately moral.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Yeah, logical is probably a better word. I think you’re conflating rational with “correct” or “right” because, while I agree that a more rational person is more likely to be correct and moral, it is often the case that smarter and more rational people have incorrect and immoral worldviews.

          • Santoculto says:

            Yes but people who are more rational, comparatively speaking, but less rational in many important aspects make them ideally less rational than they usually think.

            Rationality in my opinion is the expansion of logic to the abstract world/”subjective’ truth.

            Logic is usually morally pragmatic (generally indifferent with moral sensitivities), utilitarian and materialistic or just selfish.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I usually use them with the connotations reversed from what you’ve said here, but I’d be willing to change in order to communicate. I see no further disagreement her.

  6. Santoculto says:

    Seems you’re taking about extremes while many to most people tend to be between this extremes, nor too “K” or “R”‘types.

    • Santoculto says:

      I thought normies are even more interesting to be behaviorally analysed in contrast with their cognitive torpor. They tend to be more complex/confused than outliers even geniuses types. Outliers/outsiders are more extremely homogeneous in their long-life behavior while normies tend to be bizarrely inconstant. Or not.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        I haven’t lived long enough to say, but I tend to disagree. I think they aren’t really confused so much as they are just repeating phrases they’ve been trained to repeat without really internalizing them, like “All body types are sexy.” Sure they are, let’s see your internet browser history then.

        • Santoculto says:

          I disagree with you because if they just repeat socially desirable shocks without know what they are saying/ doing, and with any curiosity to really know, it’s appear to be a symptom of mental confusion, implicit for most people, who are also normies, but existent and salient for good perceivers.

          Many normies are subconsciously mentally morbid, a lot of them behave like pathological liars for example but they don’t have any remote idea they are self-delusionalizing.

          Just look for the rampant behavioral or cultural changes between generations???

  7. Santoculto says:

    Your last speculative sentence don’t was proved and well there are plenty of strong paternal figures with a temperamental/behavioral diversity of sons. So your lamarckian-esque or blankslate-esque speculation don’t appear to be universally present/causal.

  8. Wow this explain my drinking habits perfectly. Draw the line x=1 for a best-fit.

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