The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hmmm... I've read extracts, watched a couple videos, read this thread, and what I keep "hearing" is "oh, he's a bit over the top, you just have to read between the lines" or "he really means this" though he said "that" and "this is a book for men about men" etc, etc, The whole topic is divisive and a lot of "critical correction" is going on and you know what it all says to me????

Psychopath or schizoid psychopath.

I don't think I need to repeat the description of these types, but this bears repeating:

We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological. People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Conscious love, I have more trouble defining. It's like you both see the world the same way in terms of knowledge and values, and have colinear aims that challenge the both of you to grow in knowledge and in the actualization of your potential. I don't think this love is necessarily "romantic", although it can be if the physical component is there.
Or a more explicit definition is that conscious love is conscious, i.e. progressively, both parties strive to become consciously aware of all dynamics within themselves as they pertain to the relationship. This then has the chance to become an intimate 'knowing'. Sadly, it doesn't leave much room for "game" and "passing shit tests".
 
Last edited:

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hmmm... I've read extracts, watched a couple videos, read this thread, and what I keep "hearing" is "oh, he's a bit over the top, you just have to read between the lines" or "he really means this" though he said "that" and "this is a book for men about men" etc, etc, The whole topic is divisive and a lot of "critical correction" is going on and you know what it all says to me????

Psychopath or schizoid psychopath.

I don't think I need to repeat the description of these types, but this bears repeating:
Thanks for this. That's what I've felt from the get-go about this material and this person (Tomassi) but I couldn't quite explain why exactly - other than the fact that it felt wrong (like, I felt the need to take a shower after being exposed to such material). When I read Joe's post about me insisting that there was something fundamentally wrong with this book/material despite the fact that I had not read the books, I questioned my own thinking, critically corrected, rationalized and pushed aside my own gut feelings. Sometimes you just feel something's fundamentally wrong indeed, but you can't really put your finger on it, you can't really "prove" it or demonstrate it to others - it's just a hunch (and I'm not talking about the reality of biological drives, but the fact that the philosophy promoted just feels wrong). But you end up rationalizing because the guy states a couple of harsh truths (and the truth is supposed to be uncomfortable), and others say that it helped them tremendously (cf positive reviews on Amazon -> "social proof"). You end up thinking that you're the one who might be wrong here.
Maybe a clue when assessing such material is to see whether it ultimately divides people (in this case, women VS men) – instead of promoting understanding and cooperation… – distracting our attention from the real, fundamental division: psychopaths against normal human beings.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Maybe a clue when assessing such material is to see whether it ultimately divides people (in this case, women VS men) – instead of promoting understanding and cooperation… – distracting our attention from the real, fundamental division: psychopaths against normal human beings.
That's pretty much been my problem from the get-go, although I leave open the idea that there are useful ideas in the books that can be interpreted and used for positive ends. But yes, there is no way to divorce the discourse in these kinds of books from the current climate of 'men vs women', and that is not something that has any kind of positive outcome at a social level.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
You know, we were all given a tremendously useful analytical tool with Lobaczewski's "Ponerology"; it's surprising that it isn't utilized when needed. It's like when the Cs said about "reading" people and situations:

"We mean that all you have to do is learn the patterns of behavior, the subtle signs, and you will always have the ability of avoiding it. Your own as well as others."

Which goes right along with:

"Lesson number 1: Always expect attack. Lesson number 2: Know the modes of same. Lesson number 3: Know how to counteract same. ... But, if you expect it, you learn how to "head it off," thus neutralizing it. This is called vigilance, which is rooted in knowledge. And, what does knowledge do?"

This is as true when reading things as when interacting with other people. It is also rather crucial to be able to read the signs in yourself when you are running on programs, creating narratives, or being taken in by "critical correction" or just plain pathological acceptance of the psychopathic reality.

I do not need to read the whole book or all the books; there was enough that I did read on the guy's website, that I saw in a video, and extracted from this thread to SEE THE SIGNS. I can see the pattern of behavior, the pattern of language and even the not-so-subtle "schizoidal declaration." I would say that the whole body of work is so riddled with corruption that it's really not even worth it to try to extract anything from it of benefit. There are better, cleaner sources. This stuff is just materialistic filth.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hmmm... I've read extracts, watched a couple videos, read this thread, and what I keep "hearing" is "oh, he's a bit over the top, you just have to read between the lines" or "he really means this" though he said "that" and "this is a book for men about men" etc, etc, The whole topic is divisive and a lot of "critical correction" is going on and you know what it all says to me????

Psychopath or schizoid psychopath.

I don't think I need to repeat the description of these types, but this bears repeating:
I'm glad you spelled that one out since from the get go it seems a number of people here also felt that something isn't quite right there. I kept thinking isn't he basically promoting a "psychopathic outlook on reality/relationship, assuming that everyone thinks and feels like he describes the world?", while I wasn't sure if I should spell it out. Couple this with the appalling/repelling language he uses to promote his ideas and the fact that he uses a pseudonym of a killer from a movie, just might reinforced the suspicion that it can tell us a bit about his thinking/being and that we ought to be careful of what we allow in, when reading this stuff. And I don't think signs like this should be ignored or not taken seriously, because they are serious. Through all of this discussion I still didn't feel the need nor see a valid reason for why I should spend time reading three volumes of this thinking, to be honest.

Then Joe brought up the basic fact that what he seems to promote is basically manipulation of others via putting on a facade of this or that behavior, for in fact, pretty selfish purposes. Then we also had a long discussion about the idea that this is "what most ordinary folks", including people "in the work" operate on, or think and do, or even more specifically the OP variety. I haven't voiced that one yet, but I think if you would ask any basically normal human being out there, about there opinion of what he writes they would also basically feel a repulsion that is hard to put into words, not necessarily because the basic facts he mentions are not true, but because something in those people who read it, lets call it the seed for growth or the soul, feels instinctively that they can be more than this and shouldn't pursuit or reinforce those animalistic/selfish behaviors, by reading stuff like this. They feel a repulsion. I would guess that this applies to a large potion of the population even those who might be more on the OP spectrum of things.

I don't think anyone here really disputes the strong influence biological and animalistic drives have over everyone, including people "in the work", and that we need to work with it in some way, and I don't think that is the issue either that is on dispute here. What is though, is a body of work that seems to be rather repelling in a number of ways, in the way it is written and promoted, so much so that something in people says "why should I put up with this and get influenced by strange language?".

This also brings up the issue of "by their fruits you shall know them". I was listening a bit to Tomassi and reading and listening to people who are "into his stuff" and kept thinking how silly, infantile and schoolyard like their behavior/language and discussions are. Take for example this "are your red pilled or not" nonsense, which they bring up regularly. I can't quite put my finger on it, but how they communicate seems to be like small kids in the schoolyard who fight over "who is in it" and "who is not" in rather simplistic/materialistic way, which also is rather repulsive to me.

I think it is far better to rely on works like Petersons or Dr. Aziz, also shortly mentioned in this thread, where you can clearly feel the signs, as Laura puts it, that what they do, write and think is more then pure materialism used for selfish purposes and more like something called striving for betterment or "higher values" at its core.
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
In a longer presentation on youtube, Alain de Botton explains that psychologically (that is, in addition to physical attraction), we are attracted to familiarity. We are attracted to potential parteners who provide the same kind of dynamics we've internalized during the formative years. He also expands upon the damages of the expectations related to romantism that prevent growth and intermarital feedback for growth.
Notice also the advice he gives in the Q/A part relating to the rationality of hypergamy.
_
Now THAT has value, I think. Very funny, interesting and spot on, IMO. Simple truths, but bringing it back to why it goes wrong (expectations, messed up childhoods, etc.), and why COMMUNICATION is so important. Worth listening to it, IMO. I got the impression that he really cares about what he's teaching and actually has a clue. He certainly doesn't explain everything, but he is definitely not into generating division, all the contrary. He rather focuses on what people (women and men) tend to do, and why it's retarded, and how to try to do it better. I appreciated also the fact that he reminds people that they are basically crazy (i.e. strangers to themselves), and that the best way to be honest is to share how crazy they are, but at the right moments, and trying our best not to wound the other person in the process. He's got other good pieces of advice in there, and explains how one can be "romantic" provided one is REALISTIC and willing to work hard. He makes it clear why the pure "romantics" are not a good example to follow.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Or a more explicit definition is that conscious love is conscious, i.e. progressively, both parties strive to become consciously aware of all dynamics within themselves as they pertain to the relationship. This becomes and intimate 'knowing'. Sadly, it doesn't leave much room for "game" and "passing shit tests".
Yeah exactly. If I had to pin this guy down in the NARM model he would have the Trust survival style, where you adopt the belief that partners lying to and controlling one another either overtly or covertly is just a normal and healthy part of relationships, and that eschewing that in favor of more sincere dialogue or interactions can jeapordize the relationship.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If I had to pin this guy down in the NARM model he would have the Trust survival style, where you adopt the belief that partners lying to and controlling one another either overtly or covertly is just a normal and healthy part of relationships,
That's pretty much why I said that what he advocates is, more or less, that couples see each other as enemies, or at least men should see women as enemies, to be conquered and constrained and controlled, primarily COVERTLY. He advocates, essentially, the couples play games with each other, and you know what, I don't give a crap if he says otherwise elsewhere, CLEARLY that is the line of force in his discourse and the message many people take home. What kind of a fruitloop do you have to be to think that partners lying to and controlling each other is "healthy"???

and that eschewing that in favor of more sincere dialogue or interactions can jeapordize the relationship.
I see, so sincere dialogue jeopardizes a relationship? Maybe with a freak or a psycho, in which case, GOOD! At least then you can move on an find someone more than 2 generations away from a freakin' neanderthal.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
That's pretty much why I said that what he advocates is, more or less, that couples see each other as enemies, or at least men should see women as enemies, to be conquered and constrained and controlled, primarily COVERTLY. .
That is exactly how my ex saw the world, so I experienced this kind of thinking up-close and personal. His parents had that kind of relationship and his mother went senile in her 50s and died. Can't say I was surprised. The whole family used the Bible as the justification for this kind of behavior. It was a "biblical marriage."

There's one other thing I should mention: My ex was diagnosed with "passive-aggressive personality disorder". Maybe there is a connection between personality disorders and this kind of thinking, that is, people who "take to it"?
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
That's pretty much why I said that what he advocates is, more or less, that couples see each other as enemies, or at least men should see women as enemies, to be conquered and constrained and controlled, primarily COVERTLY.
I think Tomassi and the Red Pill Community basically assume that women are already doing the above behavior, it's their "biological reality". So they tell men to do the same thing, because why not. Women try to control covertly, so let's teach men to give them a taste of their own medicine. Angry young men are going to cotton on to that idea. The results: that women end up being seen as only good for sex (Lots of comments from guys saying this).

Take for example the belief that a woman is always surrounding herself with potential intimate partners, even when she is involved with someone. She's always looking to "trade up". But then I read about the advice to men of "spinning plates", and I wonder what's going on in their heads. That's doing the same thing that women are supposedly doing. Do any of these guys experience any cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously tear down female behavior and then tell men to do essentially the same thing? It's rather bemusing to witness.
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Take for example the belief that a woman is always surrounding herself with potential intimate partners, even when she is involved with someone. She's always looking to "trade up". But then I read about the advice to men of "spinning plates", and I wonder what's going on in their heads. That's doing the same thing that women are supposedly doing. Do any of these guys experience any cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously tear down female behavior and then tell men to do essentially the same thing? It's rather bemusing to witness.
I suspect it comes from the idea that engaging in this kind of behaviour is and should remain men's sole prerogative due to biology, which tells men to "impregnate" as many females as possible. They're just infuriated that thanks to the glorious "sexual liberation", women are now allowed to do exactly the same thing without risking any repercussion (like being shamed and shunned by the community, as happened in the past). "How dare they encroach on our turf?". Can we say "gender war"?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom