IS ROSE MCGOWAN A WINNER?
If you are not a clown -- you are a fool.
Prophet Lev of the Church of Socionics
From the annals of improbable research to The Heartless *****es International Website (http://www.heartless-*****es.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml) comes the article titled The Genetic Origins of Personality by David Schlinkert. An “interesting” attempt to tie attitude with genetics. I think it indicates the type of morbid cynicism, which is characteristic of the type of women who run the website. It offers a typology of 16 male attitudes based on combinations of "jerk" genes, "nice guy" genes, "interesting" genes, and "boring" genes. This goes against the Credo of The Church of Socionics: a Real Person may indeed believe that functional types have a genetic, or at least neuropsychological origin, being an extension of the body into the mind. But he lacks the cynicism to deprive the human being of free will entirely, to the point of claiming that we are not free to choose our creed or attitude. Not only were many Moslems converted to Christianity by many a Spanish inquisitor, but many Macho Boys were whipped into Wimphood by many an American feminist.
If their labors had any benefit for the world, it was to prove wrong such determinist rubbish. Otherwise the idea of classifying men by how interesting they are (Challenge), and how the traits of the wimp and the jerk are combined in their personality, is not a bad one. It could be fashioned instead as a typology of creed. We'd only have to substitute genes with memes, nice guy with wimp, and interesting/borring with challenging/borring (why? because interesting is subjective), and we'll have a typology pretty close to the truth. But there is one more thing.
Let's look at who is labeled as the “REAL MAN” in the article? Not surprisingly it is Mr. Negative Challenge ("homogenous for jerk, homogenous for interesting"), with whom the author probably wishes to identify himself. Mr. Negative Challenge in fact has much in common with the gentleman; he is certainly closer to the gentleman than the "purebred" Macho Boy-he is (perceived as) more of a Challenge. But he lacks one important ingredient of a “REAL MAN”-Integrity.
What type of woman will stay with Mr. Negative Challenge? Probably a more or less clinically sane woman, but still one with a somewhat low Self-Esteem and somewhat absent Flexibility; and probably one who wants to control men, but still get the emotional thrills of love. Being somewhat inflexible, she is more comfortable with a guy who is “intense”, than someone who is lighthearted and teasingly playful, truly cool and confident like Cary Grant. All that so-called intensity comes from a gloriously cynical, and starkly hypocritical state of mind (read article IX of The Creed). An attitude, which seems more sober to the inflexible woman. The Negative Challenge mocks idealism not only by word, but also by deed: pretending that ethics is itself nothing but a stratagem, he rants about the importance of honesty and trust in relationships, while thinking of new ways to cheat and use you. As you may expect, his words rarely match his actions. He has to be constantly reminded and pestered to keep his promises. You can’t open up to him, because he is not trustworthy. But that’s probably fine with the type of woman who’d call Mr. Negative Challenge a “REAL MAN”. Why? Because she herself doesn’t possess Integrity-she would feel insecure with someone who would hold her accountable for her words.
This assumed “REAL WOMAN” thinks duping her husband into spending many decades “shepherding another man’s genes” a perfectly normal thing to do. The description of the "real man's" type reads: "Frequently have careers they can't talk about, and incidents they won't admit to. Always one step ahead of the law and past lovers. Rarely marry, unless in politics, but frequently leave children behind to be raised by lesser males". What is this real woman, a devil worshipper? Very likely one of Olister Crawley’s fans. In The Moral Animal, an introduction to evolutionary psychology, Robert Wright rightly writes: "Psychologists found several decades ago that artificially lowering self-esteem (by giving false reports about scores on a personality test) made people more likely to cheat in a subsequent game of cards. Another study finds that people with lower serotonin levels are more likely to commit impulsive crimes”. His hypothesis is that cheating “is an adaptive response, triggered when people are shunned to the bottom of the heap and thus find it hard to get resources legitimately”. Either way, we know that truly confident men are honest. Humans ARE moral animals. As Chesterton pointed out, morality is one of our strengths, not our weakness; just not the fairytale morality, which is the only kind familiar to the wimp; and encouraged by the feminist brainwashers of all epochs. But some of us find lionhearted rather than human hearted heroes more worthy of admiration. These are the worshippers of brute strength, and most of them are fallen angels literally in life, people who were ALMOST successful.
The key is that just because King Arthur was a loser, doesn’t mean that Sir Lancelot was a winner. At least Arthur’s genes aren’t polluting the gene pool of the Brits any longer like the scumbag’s. So who is really closest to the REAL MAN in the typology? The "heterogeneous for jerk/nice, homogeneous for interesting" guy. Someone who is a Challenge and of course possesses Integrity. "Statesmen, chief executives, innovators in all fields. Married to very protective women; who put up with a lot of hassles, but enjoy the good parts". "A lot of hassles" I assume in Negative Challenge's vernacular mean's being accountable for their actions, and having to work to earn the gentleman's trust.
Remember, if you must pick a *****, pick a sweet one.
If you are not a clown -- you are a fool.
Prophet Lev of the Church of Socionics
From the annals of improbable research to The Heartless *****es International Website (http://www.heartless-*****es.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml) comes the article titled The Genetic Origins of Personality by David Schlinkert. An “interesting” attempt to tie attitude with genetics. I think it indicates the type of morbid cynicism, which is characteristic of the type of women who run the website. It offers a typology of 16 male attitudes based on combinations of "jerk" genes, "nice guy" genes, "interesting" genes, and "boring" genes. This goes against the Credo of The Church of Socionics: a Real Person may indeed believe that functional types have a genetic, or at least neuropsychological origin, being an extension of the body into the mind. But he lacks the cynicism to deprive the human being of free will entirely, to the point of claiming that we are not free to choose our creed or attitude. Not only were many Moslems converted to Christianity by many a Spanish inquisitor, but many Macho Boys were whipped into Wimphood by many an American feminist.
If their labors had any benefit for the world, it was to prove wrong such determinist rubbish. Otherwise the idea of classifying men by how interesting they are (Challenge), and how the traits of the wimp and the jerk are combined in their personality, is not a bad one. It could be fashioned instead as a typology of creed. We'd only have to substitute genes with memes, nice guy with wimp, and interesting/borring with challenging/borring (why? because interesting is subjective), and we'll have a typology pretty close to the truth. But there is one more thing.
Let's look at who is labeled as the “REAL MAN” in the article? Not surprisingly it is Mr. Negative Challenge ("homogenous for jerk, homogenous for interesting"), with whom the author probably wishes to identify himself. Mr. Negative Challenge in fact has much in common with the gentleman; he is certainly closer to the gentleman than the "purebred" Macho Boy-he is (perceived as) more of a Challenge. But he lacks one important ingredient of a “REAL MAN”-Integrity.
What type of woman will stay with Mr. Negative Challenge? Probably a more or less clinically sane woman, but still one with a somewhat low Self-Esteem and somewhat absent Flexibility; and probably one who wants to control men, but still get the emotional thrills of love. Being somewhat inflexible, she is more comfortable with a guy who is “intense”, than someone who is lighthearted and teasingly playful, truly cool and confident like Cary Grant. All that so-called intensity comes from a gloriously cynical, and starkly hypocritical state of mind (read article IX of The Creed). An attitude, which seems more sober to the inflexible woman. The Negative Challenge mocks idealism not only by word, but also by deed: pretending that ethics is itself nothing but a stratagem, he rants about the importance of honesty and trust in relationships, while thinking of new ways to cheat and use you. As you may expect, his words rarely match his actions. He has to be constantly reminded and pestered to keep his promises. You can’t open up to him, because he is not trustworthy. But that’s probably fine with the type of woman who’d call Mr. Negative Challenge a “REAL MAN”. Why? Because she herself doesn’t possess Integrity-she would feel insecure with someone who would hold her accountable for her words.
This assumed “REAL WOMAN” thinks duping her husband into spending many decades “shepherding another man’s genes” a perfectly normal thing to do. The description of the "real man's" type reads: "Frequently have careers they can't talk about, and incidents they won't admit to. Always one step ahead of the law and past lovers. Rarely marry, unless in politics, but frequently leave children behind to be raised by lesser males". What is this real woman, a devil worshipper? Very likely one of Olister Crawley’s fans. In The Moral Animal, an introduction to evolutionary psychology, Robert Wright rightly writes: "Psychologists found several decades ago that artificially lowering self-esteem (by giving false reports about scores on a personality test) made people more likely to cheat in a subsequent game of cards. Another study finds that people with lower serotonin levels are more likely to commit impulsive crimes”. His hypothesis is that cheating “is an adaptive response, triggered when people are shunned to the bottom of the heap and thus find it hard to get resources legitimately”. Either way, we know that truly confident men are honest. Humans ARE moral animals. As Chesterton pointed out, morality is one of our strengths, not our weakness; just not the fairytale morality, which is the only kind familiar to the wimp; and encouraged by the feminist brainwashers of all epochs. But some of us find lionhearted rather than human hearted heroes more worthy of admiration. These are the worshippers of brute strength, and most of them are fallen angels literally in life, people who were ALMOST successful.
The key is that just because King Arthur was a loser, doesn’t mean that Sir Lancelot was a winner. At least Arthur’s genes aren’t polluting the gene pool of the Brits any longer like the scumbag’s. So who is really closest to the REAL MAN in the typology? The "heterogeneous for jerk/nice, homogeneous for interesting" guy. Someone who is a Challenge and of course possesses Integrity. "Statesmen, chief executives, innovators in all fields. Married to very protective women; who put up with a lot of hassles, but enjoy the good parts". "A lot of hassles" I assume in Negative Challenge's vernacular mean's being accountable for their actions, and having to work to earn the gentleman's trust.
Remember, if you must pick a *****, pick a sweet one.
Last edited: