The composite countryman and racial infidelity

Starting from the assumption that humans can’t keep track of more than about 150 meaningful relationships, it follows that we rely upon abstractions to understand politics, cultures, and humanity in general. In the realm of describing human groups, these abstractions take the form of generalized composites better known as stereotypes. In general, when Americans think of “a black man” we imagine him as someone who enjoys rap music, because almost every black man an American will encounter has enjoyed rap music.

The way we act toward large groups is determined (entirely?) by the qualities embodied in their composite representations. Particularly, we may envision ourselves as being at peace with the composite or in conflict, and therefore imagine ourselves as fighting, hunting, enslaving, submitting, or fleeing. Group overlaps complicate these relations, so for example I may simultaneously see myself as fighting one group (Americans) while submitting to a subset (the upper class), or I may see myself as being stuck in conflict with one group (Star Trek fans) while being at peace with an overlapping group (Star Wars fans).

I expect there is an Elektra complex which, applied to the composite countryman, drives the majority of political behavior as described by the Pyrrhic Cycle.

The modern American female imagines her composite countryman is weak, effeminate, and unattractive and rebels against this “patriarchal” image’s expectations by dating minority men in order to infuriate him. As I understand it, this sort of rebellion is an ultimatum of sorts (or “shit test”). The patriarchal image is expected to react with a dominance display, therefore boosting his attractiveness, and if he fails to do this she will castrate and enslave him.

I’ll never forget the precise moment I chose to be gay. It was the endpoint in a process of rebellion against my white middle-class parents that climaxed with me smuggling a black drug dealer into my bedroom at 3 a.m. on a school night aged 15.

They have a word for this in America. Bratty young white girls who shack up with African Americans (preferably belonging to the criminal underclass) are known as coalburners. I’d previously lost my virginity in a fivesome with two boys and two girls. But that didn’t sufficiently scandalise my mother, so I decided to up my game. At the time, bringing home impoverished ethnic minorities felt like the ultimate desecration of my well-heeled, two-ponies-and-a-pool Home Counties rearing.

Milo Yiannnopoulos
I’m Sooo Bored of Being Gay

It must be noted that this phenomenon is distinct from the cosmopolitan’s curse.

Because the Pyrrhic Cycle describes group and subgroup sociosexual success (adaptivity), the two axes of abstraction and fidelity must be understood in the context of sexuality.

About Aeoli Pera

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

41 Responses to The composite countryman and racial infidelity

  1. Tom Kratman says:

    Caveat, the Dunbar Number doesn’t seem to work that way in practice. People can only identify with and value the good opinion of about 150 to maybe 200 people in an organization, which is to say an infantry company. However, people – or men, at least – can be members of two different companies. Thus, for example, the officers of a regiment or a brigade are in their own companies, but also make up a company of officers. They value and need the good opinion of both companies. Senior non-coms are similar. Junior non-coms belong to their company, but also to the company of junior non-coms in their battalions. Moreover, the physical setting can change things considerably. Plop an infantry battalion down in the middle of nowhere jungle near, say, Colon, Panama, and design the post as a quad so that the members of the battalion pass each other regularly, and the number can go up to 3-4-500.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I often wonder, if everything were known and perfectly tabulated, how large the average “race” would be. I suspect it would be more than 100,000 individuals per race, but less than 10 million. This sense is based primarily on the number of languages and dialects that tend to spring up in a large city or country with such-and-such total number of people.

      • Tom Kratman says:

        That sounds like “race” without a necessary component of DNA, cultural “race” in other words. I don’t know, and really don’t think, that this gets us anywhere.

        Hmmmm…have you ever been irritated almost to the point of homicide by a black driver, ahead of you on the road, stopping to talk at length with some home boy on the sidewalk or in a car that had been going in the opposite direction. When first seen up north, one is initially inclined to attribute this to some aspect of blackness, genetic or cultural.

        And then one is stationed or otherwise lives down south, and discovers it is neither a genetic nor cultural black thing, but a _southern_ thing, at least as common among southern whites as blacks.

        Race also tends to arise / consolidate over geographic factors, for barriers and channelization to drive genetic cohesion. I, personally, have a hard time thinking of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont as being inhabited largely by a single race, nor for any particular subdivision of those to indicate a race at all. And southerners? There were some powerful reasons that they didn’t institute the one drop rule until _well_ after, generations after, the civil war, when memories of one’s actual heredity and that of the neighbors had begun to fade. In the words of a South Carolinian legislator, George Tilman, in 1895, “It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of… colored blood…It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed.” (Lifted from wiki.) There may, in other words, now be a southern race, but it would not be a purely white one. For that matter, one is inclined to doubt, given cross marriage and ancient slave trading, that there is any very large population of purely anything.

    • I think Dunbar’s number can be trained up. I keep lots more than 150 contacts in my CRM, and the list grows all the time.

      • And those are contacts whose personalities / preferences / histories / etc I can mentally account for, the CRM is just there for convenience to make it easy to list them out.

        • I have encountered some kind of internal algorithm ceiling at times, where it felt hard to keep track of people, but I always found I adapted after a while. Maybe $max_dunbar is some kind of important setting that can be tweaked to evolve into human leader archetypes? (Similar to how winning can be utilized to change dopamine and cognition – see Winner Effect book).

      • Tom Kratman says:

        The Dunbar number isn’t so much cognitive as emotional. Of your more than 150 contacts, how many would you lay down your life for? Of how many would you care if they said, amongst themselves, “Edenist is a Whackjob, but he’s _our_ whackjob…and good at it, too”?

        • Ah, makes sense. Yeah, then it’s a lot more likely to cap out at 150. Even lower, I’d think. Closer to 15, is my hunch.

          Maybe there should be a EmoDunbar and a CogDunbar?

          • Tom Kratman says:

            When you live in close quarters, eat meals together, and live an often hard life together, the Dunbar number rises. Note, though, for that huge swaths of the world there is no Dunbar number, there is only blood, degree of blood, and non blood.

  2. Ulixes Orobar says:

    I’ll never forget the precise moment I chose to be straight. I was looking over at this girl when I thought to myself, “Nice! I wonder what she looks like naked.” Everyone told me that liking girls wasn’t rebellious enough. They said that I should pretend to like guys, trannies, toasters, or random holes in the sidewalk. I decided to rebel against the rebels by becoming flamboyantly straight. In clown world, one must conform in order to rebel, and one must rebel in order to conform.

    • Koanic says:

      Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

      Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

  3. Koanic says:

    Before talking about Dunbar’s number, it helps to read the first sentence of its Wikipedia entry:

    > Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.

    It is about primate politics, period. All human organizations larger than Dunbar’s number have slaves at the bottom and liars at the top. This is Scale.

    • Pseudorandom Bypasser says:

      How do traits socket depth, occipital and low DR modify one’s Dunbar’s number? I’ve always had trouble remembering even relatively familiar relationships. My neurotypical average IQ relatives remember tens or hundreds of both personally known and public people and trivia related to them. They recall and rehash them in a flashcard-like manner, either querying a random person with detail x or a random detail about person y. It’s almost like they were autistic in their own way.

      • Koanic says:

        Those physiognomic traits lower Dunbar’s number.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Agreed. I’m less certain about the occipital but that’s the direction I lean. It seems that a larger occipital in absolute terms doesn’t reduce the Dunbar number, but if it’s larger relative to parts of the brain with thicker cortices then it will produce a personality which prefers primitive forms of cognition.

    • Tom Kratman says:

      Said, one imagines, because of your incalculable experience (incalculable because non-existent) of larger organizations. Recall what I said about people being members of two companies. This allows, basically, infinite organization for war, hierarchical, yes, but with no slaves because real chattel slaves, and even moral slaves, are almost useless for war. No, the Janissaries are not an exception to this. And commanders who lie to soldiers lose their command authority.

      • Koanic says:

        All modern soldiers are slaves. They are subject to military discipline. Primitive warriors are not, because their societies are not scaled. We have already observed that this conflicts with your self-image and prompts you to spew endless nonsense.

        • Tom Kratman says:

          And, every time I think you have reached the depths of ignorance even _possible_, while walking on two legs, you manage to surprise me.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            I’m willing to host a proper debate on the subject of freedom and the modern military.

            • Lizard King says:

              Hurray for debates!

            • Koanic says:

              I have no interest. It’s just a definitional ambiguity powered by his ego. The insight is not mine; I got it from LaFond. If he wants to debate the thesis that civilization is inherently slavery, he can take it up with him. http://www.jameslafond.com

            • Tom Kratman says:

              No insight is yours; as near as we can tell, you are incapable of them.

              There are, just for your probably useless aedification, a number of indicia and features of true slavery. One must be chattel, salable by some means. One must be essentially rightless. It must presumptively be in perpetuity, even if there are some provisions for liberation. It must, generally, bar the ownership of arms, though one may carry arms for one’s master’s use or on his behalf, of course. It must be, typically, at the lowest possible end of the socioeconomic ladder, even though a few may rise above it. This list is not exhaustive.

              Modern western soldiers may not be sold. They have a vast list of rights and protections, not merely material but legal. They’re term is finite. They own arms of their own, if they choose to. They’re a lot better paid than most of the people here.

              Now they do obey orders, of course. Hence, if that is the key indicia of slavery, you, young neandethal, are a slave by virtue of paying taxes and obeying traffic police. And you, in the UK, have no right to arms. Thus, you’re much more of a slave than a modern soldier is.

            • Koanic says:

              What part of “civilization is slavery” did you not understand, you obsolete Boomer race traitor?

              Note the moronic and dishonest substitution of “true slavery” for “slavery”, and then the false switch to “chattel slavery”, which is obviously merely a subset of the set of “slavery”. All Catholics are liars.

            • Tom Kratman says:

              Stung you a bit, did it, boy? Good; pain builds character, a matter in which you seem sadly deficient.

              I first noticed the Brit tendency to try to win an argument through playing with semantics when John Keegan did it for his book on (military and geopolitical) intelligence. Since then I’ve seen it in many more places. It isn’t uniquely Brit; neither is it universal among Brits. But, when present, as it is present with you, it is patent.

              You, in particular, were obviously doing it with slavery, because you simply cannot win your argument that soldiers are slaves except by redefinition to the point of meaninglessness. Thus, it was necessary to say “true slavery” because you were from the beginning of this obviously engaged in substituting your own nonsense redefinition for actual slavery, that being a subject, as with just about all subjects of import, in which you have neither understanding, nor expertise, nor recognition that you lack both, nor the intelligence, nor the introspection, to fix your deficiencies. Poor you; it must be difficult.

              One hopes you haven’t found a female so undiscerning as to accept mating with you. After all, condoms can leak and the pill is only about 99% effective.

            • Koanic says:

              No, I found your transparent deceit in this discussion as amusing as your babbling about a fictitious definition of “Dunbar’s number” upthread.

              And I’m not British, you idiot.

            • Tom Kratman says:

              Which is why Aeoli said he met you in Wales? Do you distinguish between Brit and Welch? (It is Britannia, after all.) if so, so the fuck what, dipshit.

              But it’s typical of you, lost in that fantasy universe where you are not a complete loser, dolt, and coward, that you see honesty as deception, and your own ridiculous attempts at fantasy and deception as truth.

              Pathetic.

            • Koanic says:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British

              Welsh are British. I am not British.

            • Tom Kratman says:

              Frankly, it really doesn’t matter what you are, so long as you remain, as you do, a fantasist and a loser, detached from reality and addicted to the intellectual frauds that let you imagine yourself as something better.

            • Koanic says:

              Take your Alzheimer’s meds.

            • Tom Kratman says:

              Weak, Koanic, very weak.

          • :) says:

            “lost in that fantasy universe where you are not a complete loser, dolt, and coward, that you see honesty as deception, and your own ridiculous attempts at fantasy and deception as truth.”

            Everyone knows you are talking about yourself there, Tom. Go write another power fantasy book, loser.

            • Tom Kratman says:

              Yawn. I imagine you’re some new digicarnation of SWOG, and no better as this than you were as that. Back to your gap-toothed, tramp-stamped trailer trash, boy; she may actually care.

    • Power structures based around authentic / personal relationship are optimal (most virtuous) but cannot compete with sheer economic strength of scaled mechanisms (slavery, empires, capitalism, mass democracy, soon to be rule by AI).

      Seems that if personal relationship based structures (tribes, monarchy, city-states, that sort of thing) cannot be scaled due to a variable like Dunbar, then the solution is either some kind of upgrade to the human brain, or to introduce a mechanism that dissolves scaled mechanisms, creating a ceiling to scaled up organizations. Something that enforces Moldbug’s Patchwork through hard, physical limits (or information theory ditto).

      Thoughts on what that might be? Some kind of decentralized AI system that makes sure there is never one single AI running everything? Based on something like Bitcoin’s hard computability barriers (ie you can’t run Sociopath game to get access to resources, your solutions actually have to compile).

      • Koanic says:

        > Seems that if personal relationship based structures (tribes, monarchy, city-states, that sort of thing) cannot be scaled due to a variable like Dunbar, then the solution is either some kind of upgrade to the human brain

        My solution to the former is Neo-Spartan syssitia, and to the latter is [tech project].

        > or to introduce a mechanism that dissolves scaled mechanisms

        No need. See: cycle of history.

  4. Pingback: The Heroine’s Journey in Mulan | Aeoli Pera

  5. Pingback: Culture war, part 2 | Aeoli Pera

  6. Pingback: FINALLY EXPLAINED The mysterious function of female dominance hierarchies :-OOOO | 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s