More speculations re: transubstantiation

(Continuing the line of thought from https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/re-the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation/.)

My expectation is that competent people in a group work setting will be politely ignored as soon as the first woman enters the room.
I’m not exaggerating because this is an observation over many years.
As soon as “social narrative/consensus” (or “optics” if you prefer) concerns appear anyone who is perceived to understand the technical details gets socially demoted to a servant-like “speak only when spoken to” status.
There appears to be more room for social dominance games when realism is minimized.
I suspect the reason it tends to anti-realism over time is that realism limits your ability to be seen as the authority driving the social narrative (or at lower levels, enforcing it- cops may be traitors to America but they always get laid).
Appealing to reality is egalitarian and anti-hierarchical because anyone can do it.
Therefore any form of social competition will drive out reality as people continually raise the stakes.
The less reality intrudes, the more god-like you can present yourself as.

And anytime you anchor your narrative in reality a person with a more postmodern attitude can double down on social dominance and displace you.
All this because, at the bottom level of things, justifying your opinions shows weakness.
The act of justifying implies uncertainty.
Humans like certainty. They especially like the feeling of certainty when it’s provided by an unconditionally loving authority figure because it takes them back to the edenic feeling of being an infant again (ref. Seduction by Robert Greene and Against Edenism by Peter Thiel).
If you aren’t willing to double down on social dominance at the expense of realism, you’ll lose the feminine-style coercion fight.
The driver being that if one man appeals to reality and another man appeals to his own insane ambition, the woman in the room will follow the insane ambitious man.
And then the Betas will follow the woman.

This can go on until reality intrudes catastrophically (i.e. group-level consequences for individualist behavior), so there’s really no downside to being Stalin.
I think this is the reason people are always demanding more and more anti-logic in religion, but over generations it converges more toward truthfulness (via selection self-inflicted catastrophes).
There’s a sort of meta-truth to this, which is that power is the only reality that matters for most practical purposes.

I hear that anyone can believe in the truth, but it takes a true believer of The Cause to believe in crazy bullshit.
Ah, it’s a Moldbug quote: “in many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.”
So, transubstantiation, that man’s a woman now, the NAP, etc

-Boneflour

The exception to this meta-truth is that every now and then, realism produces more power at scale than social influence.
But we can observe in our own lives that you can’t trust people who have power to tell you the truth.
That is, there’s a negative correlation between power and truthfulness because the biggest sort of power, most of the time, is social influence/dominance.
The limiting factor at the population scale is how often people inflict catastrophes on themselves.
And how bad these catastrophes are.
Giving Jews control and showing merely pacifistic resistance to immigration being timely examples.
There’s no sense criticizing people for approaching the Schelling point of anti-realistic status competition leading to catastrophe, because if they don’t do it someone else will and take away their livelihood to prevent them from breeding (i.e. vicious competition).

“World’s gone mad, might as well eat my own children. All the cool kids are doing it”

The only thing preventing the absolute insanity of humanity is that the distribution of group-level consequences within the group isn’t entirely random. The consequences are weakly correlated with individualism.
Possibly even competitiveness in the game of individualist competition, since it strikes people with high ability more strongly.
“The meek will inherit the earth.”
If I were rich I’d turn this into a board game.