House of Eratosthenes

Item: We have in our extended family a very promising young man, currently under the stewardship of someone who craves conflict. Recently we have noticed his future has started to darken, as his skills have softened. With a few more visits, the picture to us has become sadly clear: He’s learning the wrong lessons about how to deal with challenges, how to side-step them. Minute One, he will have a tasking, a thing he is expected to do. Minute Two, he’ll languish a bit while other kids his age would’ve been diving in, getting the job halfway done already, and he’ll stir up some issues. Minute Three, everyone around him will be fighting about something and he won’t be doing the whatever-it-is. It’s sad to watch. We know exactly where he gets this.

The irony is, we also know exactly what fixes it: Competition. Competition is an exercise in conflict. When kids don’t get competition, they start to use conflict to avoid work. They lose sight of the timeless and plain truism that we all have names, identities that are attached to the work we manage to actually get done. Or, not get done. You can put a name by a handicap too, even if the handicap is a pure fabrication.

Item: The Z Blog has an excellent manifesto about the intoxicating elixir of “anti-racism” (hat tip to Gerard, once again)…

In many respects, anti-racism is the perfect topic for the Cultural Marxist. The pale penis people will always be with us so there is no “winning” or end game like we had with homosexual marriage. Since blacks will also always be with us, the disparities are a social constant.

The key to these modern movements is that the promised land must be just over the next hill. That way, the believers can feel their are getting closer so they get worked up in a frenzy at anything that is seen as an obstacle. As the Greeks learned in the Peloponnesian War, fanaticism comes easy when the enemy is evil.
:
Just scan through those comments. They are clawing each others eyes out to get to the top of the piety pole. They are rats hooked on coke banging at the little button to get their next fix. That does not go away without something filling the void.

Shades of GoodPerson Fever; I noticed it way back when. But, I was too asleep-at-the-switch to think of the “rats banging on the button” metaphor. That’s golden.

Item: This insightful comment about hockey…specifically, the refereeing of it…

With only one exception, all the guys who are always up in arms about the calls are the sneakiest, dirtiest such-and-sos out there. The guys playing hard who may pick up a call here and there generally just head to the box; if they were fouled and don’t get a call, they’ll ask but they won’t really get up in arms unless it’s a horrible miss.

Why are the complainers also the biggest rulebook jockeys?…They don’t want to take the trouble to learn what will and won’t get them whistled. They can’t change the rulebook itself, but they can try to influence how it’s called, so that now the other team isn’t just involved in a skill contest, but in a “skill AND lobby the refs and see if we can swing just one future call in a big spot” contest. And if they’re not bending your ear over the most arcane paragraphs in the book, they’re busy seeing if they can get over on a few of their tricks by doing everything in that grey area, daring you to call it all so they can [whine] more about how “it’s hockey and you gotta let us play” or else “call it both ways” and such.

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, play a different game, the “This argument isn’t over until it’s over the way I like” game. And that’s the same thing going on, I think, with the rats-and-button with the little anti-racism game. Slam that juice into the main vein, and half an hour later you’ll want to do it again.

The discussion is about Architects and Medicators — the latter of whom I named because, well, I guess I just didn’t realize it at the time, but they’re constantly medicating. What I had in mind was that their highest priority is to regulate their own emotional state, and they put this above the state or status of anything else. But this isn’t the first time it’s been called to my attention: “medicate” fits in so many more ways. They act just like junkies. They crave something, they get it, a little while later they crave exactly the same thing all over again. You can almost see the belt or rubber tubing on their arms.

But then there is a subtly different kind of Medicator: The Cheesecake Nazi. You guys, stop talking about all that stuff! There’s cheesecake! Ah, but there was cheesecake thirty minutes ago, and it will keep for awhile. The “Stop arguing, there’s cheesecake” types have it in common with the “This argument’s not over until it’s over the way I like” people that they favor this agenda item: They don’t want it to go there. There are certain things both camps want left unsaid. Certain dark alleyways neither one wants illuminated.

If it’s a family thing — and it usually is — the dark alleyway tends to be some sort of co-dependent relationship. Seems every extended family has to have a “Bubba” somewhere, a “Nothing is ever his fault” guy. Or an Aunt Mabel, constantly at the center of a tempest that’s never her fault: Darn you, for saying that thing that made her fly off the handle like that!

The lesson ultimately seems to be that on the bell-curve of conflict, the Medicator lives on both of the extreme ends, with some of ’em generating the conflict to avoid having to live up to some standard, and others sidestepping the conflict entirely: Don’t know what you’re arguing about there, don’t wanna know, just leave me to my tunes. The Architect is in the middle, not avoiding the conflict but not worshiping it either, instead trying to use it to accomplish some other aim that the Medicator can’t, or won’t, understand. To the Medicator, I’m sure it looks like the Architect must thrive on conflict. They very often say exactly that. It’s easiest to understand the conundrum when one thinks about real Architects: Here & there, now & then, they get into a “block” when confronted by two proofs that the next line should be drawn in two different places, and have to stop everything while they resolve which one is errant. Sure, the Architect will bring a passion to this struggle while those perceiving the exercise from the outside will fail to understand how or why there is any problem at all. But that doesn’t show that the Architect actually thrives on the conflict. He’s certainly not going to be the happier for having spent the entire day on it. He’d prefer it be over & done in the space of five minutes, two or one would be better. But if after ten or twenty or thirty the problem is still unsolved, then that will remain the priority until it’s solved.

But to the Medicator, it’s all about how it makes you feel. Everything keeps coming back to that. Where’s my next fix?

Vox Day calls those “it’s never my fault!” drama queens gamma males, and argues that their bizarre behavior is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the socio-sexual hierarchy — a gamma is an Alpha Male in his own mind, because he always “wins” the “argument”… in his own mind. “Causing maximum feelbad to others” = “winning” to these pathetic specimens.

I find the whole alpha/beta/delta/whatever thing convoluted and spergy, but he’s really on to something here.
- Severian | 03/16/2015 @ 17:09
a gamma is an Alpha Male in his own mind, because he always “wins” the “argument”… in his own mind. “Causing maximum feelbad to others” = “winning” to these pathetic specimens.

I find the whole alpha/beta/delta/whatever thing convoluted and spergy, but he’s really on to something here.

Now what will really drive you nuts is: how do you tell the difference from the inside? (i.e. Doesn’t Vox always “win” his arguments too?) Or can you? Is this just another labeling of… is “false consciousness” the term I’m thinking of? The rotten chestnut some have put out that nobody can see beyond their own upbringing/class/race/sex/whatever? Anyway, if the mindset of Alpha and Gamma end up being fundamentally the same, is it then the entire surrounding social structure which determines which is which?

This is the big problem with critiquing others’ delusions. Because there always arises the question of: How do you know you’re not deluded?
- Nate Winchester | 03/17/2015 @ 05:38
That’s a game that can be played endlessly for fun and profit. 🙂 Which is why the “game” people love it so much (“no no, we’re not talking about Dungeons & Dragons character classes; this is about scoring, dude. Like, with chicks.” And they’ll be getting around to the actual “talking to girls” part aaaaaaannnny minute now). Kinda like the way stupid people are the most likely to yell “Dunning-Kruger!” at others (didn’t you have one of those trolls once, Morgan?).

Still, Vox’s descriptions of “gamma” behavior, and the belief system behind it, makes sense and has predictive value. And he’d no doubt say that, unlike “false consciousness,” this has an external standard — number and quality of chicks banged (note I didn’t say a good standard).

As I say, I find the system as a whole convoluted and spergy. But it does provide a coherent explanation for displays of basically junior-high behavior well into middle age (and beyond). And is there really any doubt that being a socio-sexual loser is at least a big part of these people’s whole deal? If you take it as read (as I do) that liberalism as a whole is the lifelong effort to make high school come out right, then the “gammas” are the people who are still stuck in the AV Club.
- Severian | 03/17/2015 @ 10:19
Nate, I think your question – “Anyway, if the mindset of Alpha and Gamma end up being fundamentally the same, is it then the entire surrounding social structure which determines which is which?” – was addressed very well by CS Lewis in The Pilgrim’s Regress. Specifically, Reason challenges the Giant, Zeitgeist, with three riddles that all hinge on a particular point: how do you tell a copy from the original?

The simplest way, I think, is to see which one cannot exist without the other. The real thing may look exactly like its image in the mirror, but if you smash that mirror, only one of the two will abide.

In the present case, I’d say that a true alpha shows this persistence of self. They’d be the same no matter what the betas or gammas are doing. But the gammas would have no idea how to try to behave without being knock-offs of what they imagine an Alpha to be.

That’s why they also tend to prize the result over the process – if it looks the same from the outside they’re satisfied that it is the same. Punching someone to keep them from stealing is regrettable violence, the same as punching someone because you hate their nose and wish it gone. “Winning the argument is what successes do,” so I MUST win the argument to be a success… they don’t dream that successes win arguments because they actually prize truth more, and that if they lose an argument because someone else is in the right, they are not discomfited. And it works in reverse, too – for example, they want to be able to boss you around, and when you resist, they think of it as you bossing them around… but absent them, there would be no bossing at all – it would cease to be – whereas if you weren’t around, they’d be bossing someone else. When I ref other teams’ games, everyone’s happy; when other refs work their games, they’re still miserable.

I don’t recall precisely how this question was resolved in the book; my answer here may be a synthesis of what Lewis wrote and what I’ve been thinking about since. Not surprising – Lewis wrote a good book and it ought to make one think. I hope that means I actually learned something, rather than pulling a Master Parrot.
- nightfly | 03/17/2015 @ 11:35
(PS – thanks for the mention, Morgan!)
- nightfly | 03/17/2015 @ 11:58
Severian & nightfly both make good points, thank you.

(also, +3 internets to the latter for CS Lewis reference)
- Nate Winchester | 03/17/2015 @ 13:19
“….Kinda like the way stupid people are the most likely to yell “Dunning-Kruger!” at others”
HEY! I resemble that remark!
I’ve discovered the folly of making “certain” citations to “certain” folks, as once they learn a new word, they won’t shut up with it, (like a 2-3 year old, and “poop”) OR bother to learn what it actually means (Also See: Racism, Chauvinism, Podium)
Robert’s rules is simular, try to bind “debate” to Robert’s Rules and all I get is “Motion to reconsider” after
the “this is why you’re wrong, and lost the vote of your peers” attention span elapses.
Now, when the Robert’s Rules, Logical fallicy, and emotional bullying grow tiresome (my OWN “attention span” is short with such) I revert to Aesops Fables, maybe Brother’s Grimm, and other traditional stuff, which apparently is otherwise SACRED to folks citing the “rule book” as they move the goal posts, mid game, or call “that’s a gimme’ for the 30 inch “tap in”.
“We’ll have to agree to disagree” is usually enough to put space between us to make as graceful (and enduring) as possible removal from my (personally biased) sphere of influence.
When THAT fails Code Duello comes in handy, and I don’t even have to get yet another unhonored agreement to abide by it! Good thing, because THEN I’m most likely to “cheat”!
- CaptDMO | 03/18/2015 @ 15:22
[…] as “Who are you to say,” and “I refuse to discuss.” And yet she thrives on conflict for conflict’s sake. If you really want to set her off toot-sweet, just start inspecting any one of a number of things […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/26/2017 @ 07:59

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Conflict for Conflict’s SakeMonday, March 16th, 2015

Conflict for Conflict’s Sake
Monday, March 16th, 2015