Perceptions

There are two ways people view the world, the troubles of the world, one is something like software, culture, education and the other denies all of that, culture and education, the first I would call secular and perhaps liberal, perhaps progressive and the other I would call religious, despite that perhaps few really believe the whole religion, but these are the folks who think people cannot and do not change. I’m not saying these are two well defined camps, most folks probably believe something between, some combination of the two, education helps, but basically there’s not much for “human nature.”

Surely I’m not the only one sees the trap of it?

As always, if there be readers, please, if you know of someone who has already invented this wheel, please, tell me.

I think we are caught between these two paradigms, frozen into powerlessness.

As always, something is missing, the third leg of the table is not described. Education helps, but not apparently enough, or we can’t pre-educate them to want it, we can’t force it on anyone, and to what degree we believe the second thing, a flawed or evil human nature, it means we know the first thing cannot work. We do it anyway, it seems like the only thing, seems to work a little, we are playing the long game, but again:

If we know the other thing, then we know that isn’t it – these principles are opposing, and cancel each other out, but we haven’t identified the third possibility, that there is another explanation, the larger context in which the apparent conflict changes.

I am convinced that were the mechanism of antisocialization more visible, if we stopped discounting it, we could see the falsity of the second thing. As long as this isn’t allowed to be visible, as long as our never ending punishments and threats are exempt from the causation of reality, we shall be trapped in this endless bait and switch: education, yeah, doesn’t work, human nature.

It is a terrible thing to see, once you see the game, you can’t believe in the long game of progress anymore. The long term application of a small pressure, in the absence of no opposing force – no reason for the evil human nature, no causation resulting from our rough social control – that’s a plan, albeit a slow one, but once you see the opposing force, once you realize our long term tiny progress of education is up against threats and violence that begin in infancy, well, then we can see an imbalance in psychological, emotional and social power.

I’ll take your tiny hope – but I offer a bigger one, a real one: stop the violence, stop the social control, stop the spanking. If your kid won’t go down the coal mine without a beating, here’s a new idea: he doesn’t go down the coal mine. Spoil your magic trick, did I? I’m not saying the world wouldn’t change radically. Isn’t that the idea? Eventually somebody will figure out a way to do what we use the coal for without beating anyone – if we stop just settling for that, if we stop pretending the beating isn’t hurting anything. I know.

We think some beatings are OK, makes you strong, that way our team wins the rugby and our country wins the war, and I’m telling you, the thing that makes you win the war makes you fight the war, makes you need the war. The way we think it ends, a “war to end wars, a battle to end battles” – don’t you think it’s time we tried something else? That hasn’t worked out in a few thousand years, maybe ten. Again, the thing that makes you win the war makes you fight the war, makes you need the war – this is quickly obvious when punitive abuse has causality, when human nature requires an explanation.

Jeff

Jan. 11th., 2022

The Abused Ape Theory – Mission Statement/Premises

That’s a change. When I started, I toyed with the other version as my title, my catchphrase, before I settled on Antisocialization Theory, ‘the Abusive Ape Theory,’ like that, like the Aquatic Ape Theory, with the connotations of that theory’s history – and it turns out that it’s the whole point that that isn’t it, that the entire order of operations, the natural order of causality is that the abused ape child precedes its abusive caregivers. At least that’s the change I’m going to make, a rule for AST (antisocialization theory in short) that says the child’s experience precedes and breaking it will mean we have left the bounds of AST.

I plan to proceed as though there were an open marketplace where ideas compete for proximity to reality and therefore usefulness, and try a setup where it doesn’t begin with an adult Adam and Eve, or with the Elders, or with the  old man God who we acknowledge as a ritualized symbolic actual old man, the meta-alpha, where it doesn’t begin with full grown humans created or released from some mythical bondage, like the Raven story from around here – unless that place of bondage is childhood, then that metaphor might fit. Origin stories that begin with adults, that’s been tried, AST wants to try the other side of that choice, make sure we haven’t missed something.

It’s a chicken and egg story – the chicken and egg story, the reason we love that story – and the chicken came first. Until that chick was hatched, it was a proto-chicken egg, perhaps an odd looking one, but until the chicken inside came out and started acting strange, there were no chickens. When we arrived in the world, our progenitors, our caregivers were already here and every child’s story begins with that – but our story does not begin with all the characters’ back stories. Our story begins, when we, the child, begin to sense things, less literally, when we open our eyes and start reading it.

Antisocialization Theory intends to take this view, that life’s causality begins when our experience begins, with the experience of receiving abuse, prior to perhaps all understanding of anything, after all, slaps and deterrents exist specifically because the little ones ‘lack language and reason,’ these tools are directed at the lizard brain, directed at parts that predate all of human experience, so that is the start. In terms of uniquely human origins, again, AST starts with uniquely human experiences, meaning not feeding, or predation, or reproduction, things many creatures share, but rather social control, punitive abuse.

I’m not sure how I would respond to an objection that finds ‘human nature’ precedent to the lizard brain, to pain receptors, these things, while classifiable as ‘nature,’ absolutely predate humans. I understand that from a social point of view, on the social measure, our parents’ ideas or something come first, as though they didn’t have parents and as though we can’t simply carry that on back to the beginning . . . which, again, AST posits, insists: the chicken exists first.

In a human life, the child exists first.

Perhaps, all the origin stories themselves are infantile, baby stories of the adults we first saw, upon finding ourselves in this life. Perhaps in this corner of mythology, we never grow up and take the other view, never look with adult eyes instead at our infant selves for origins. If we were looking from our grownup selves, I imagine that is where we would start.

Jeff

Dec. 25th., 2021

Goes to this one next, logically:

King of the Forest, Part Two

Continuing . . .

And that is my thesis – that by reaching for strength, by making surviving our group conflict by way of superior violence the goal and reaching only for that, we are forever eating the seed corn, forever eating the first marshmallow. I mean, that was Dr. Strangelove, I think, the entire planet going up in a fight over the first marshmallow, surviving a fight by fighting and winning. We can’t trust each other not to do the stupid thing . . . so we do the stupid thing. What’s a response you can’t explain or control?

Genetics. Specifically, some active gene in the players, specifically, some gene with this version, the fight first version activated – activated by your Momma. By your Dad. Vicariously by all the adults by way of their deflecting children, if not directly by authorized or semi-authorized adults, teachers, preachers, coaches. To say nothing of the professionals, the doctors, the police, the guards.

Your genes, your body knows everyone else is going to take the first marshmallow – the win, and so the fight – when your mom and your dad take the first win – from you. And your genes write the lesson more or less in stone. Isn’t that right? I mean if we as children took the literal marshmallow test and grew out of taking the first one, what have we really learned to trust? Something about that the adults wouldn’t destroy their own test by reneging, perhaps. Something like object permanence, I suppose, in these circumstances, I am probably going to get more marshmallows.

OK, maybe it’s as they say, for individuals, we learn how to wait for the reward.

I think the entire paragraph, both those scenarios happen in a single person, indeed, in all of us. I think the gene gets programmed as a group function, for an aggressive default response (antisocialization), and the individual can learn the exceptions table, for within their group (pro- or simply socialization). Ah, it’s the same as last week’s blog, isn’t it, the child learns a hard binary from the magical, human only social engineering practice of the child abuse we call “discipline.”

It was my hope, my dream, and even my plan to raise my kids without ever doing that, without ever just winning battles with them, and to see them grow up and escape the marshmallow test metaphor, to see them seek something better than the wins and so the fights, but I have no results to report, of course, the world interfered with my test. I wonder if I am making this complaint now, I wonder if there is some germ of truth to my fantasy of my own mother perhaps having some gentleness with me and I can say these things because the activation of my warrior genes failed, somehow?

Highly unlikely. I’m antisocial, sometimes I lose hope and would burn the whole world down and start over. More likely, these days I think my differences with the world are a spectrum matter, some unnamed neuro-divergence on my part, and anyway there was plenty of abuse in my family. But I think it’s a theoretical possibility, again, I had hoped to arrange that for my children for real, and unabused humans, homo sapiens with the warrior genes dormant – I want to see that.

Don’t we all? I mean, wouldn’t we, if . . . ? Don’t we want to want to see that?

I wasn’t thinking about whether they would grow up “strong,” honestly, I was putting all my hopes in the “good” kind of strong, if they had all the love and support and no abuse at home, they’d be resilient, I was more concerned about their mental capacities, I feel we trade truth and so intelligence for activating the strength genes. My idea was to not threaten them and so not perhaps dull their minds with cortisol and fear, I was pretty sure they’d be brilliant. While the experiment was compromised from the start – Mom had unilateral ideas and methods – it looked like that for a while, the kids had terrific grades and such.

But yeah.

We’re stuck here, as long as strength and security are as high a goal as we are allowed to imagine, with the fantastic, unreachable goal of somehow gaining enough strength to be invulnerable to our own species’ strength, we as a group, lack the capacity to wait for the reward of peace – again, it’s almost the first thing we were taught, is not to, and no-one seems to remember there was ever another option, because spanking, because they didn’t wait for us to learn it in peace and save the relationship, they wanted the marshmallow now and didn’t seem to mind making us hate them over it, like it was all part of the plan or something.

Ouch. Damn, sometimes I feeling like Joyce, just rattling off syllables until it hurts.

Jeff

Dec. 20th., 20121

King of the Forest, Part One

The spectacular, miraculous looking ways in which the human being can be evil doesn’t require a mad Creator or a plan no human can grasp, it’s genetics. That’s magic enough.

You reach for “strength” for aeons, you will amaze the other creatures with your strength, the giraffes have been reaching for the top branches for how long, a few million years? And honestly, I don’t think they’ve been quite as obsessive about it as we have about our . . . specialty. I always say “strength” – but today, it seems like “courage” would fit better.

Because I have the Wizard of Oz playing in my head.

How?

Genetics! What makes the aurochs into a cow?

Genetics! What makes the chimpanzee human now?

Genetics! What makes the giraffe as tall as a tree or makes the salmon traverse the whole sea?

Genetics! What makes the bear smell the falling leaf?

Genetics! What makes the tiny coral a reef?

Genetics! What makes your poor belly sore? What puts the “ape” in apex predator? What do I got it, but I want more?

Genetics!

I am sorry, for what it’s worth. Ha.

It can and does look bloody miraculous, have you seen what human dog partnerships can do, the speed of the viper strike, the hi-tech looking visual and colour displays of so many creatures, birds, fish, insects? One wants to declare that anything is possible, anything at all, simply from what we can observe today!

So I’m thinking, considering all this fantastic complexity, why not perhaps something from the dark side, perhaps inabilities that are also nearly magical in their improbability, things we are incapable of that perhaps amaze and surprise us. Honestly, it’s how I feel, combatting the idea of punishment, y’all just haven’t got the software support for “no punishment,” the whole world goes blank, deer in my headlights.

I’m currently reading a scholarly work many steps above my grades and the author seems to be taking on the same thing, breaking down the urge – Achilles’ urge, in the Iliad – to do something when a bad thing has happened. It’s about how grief drives the hero to slaughter, perhaps the Iliad is already an attempt to connect those dots, and this scholar is auditing that effort, but it’s sort of the same as being unable not to punish generally, I think we’re after the same thing, the same glitch in the human code that turns every detected crime into two crimes and turns murder into more murder . . . . and this is my answer.

Genetics! What’s a response you can’t explain or control?

Genetics! When is an individual only playing a role?

Now, I know how we hear this, and no, I’m not telling you this is what you are, because of your programming, because of all that came before, I’m saying this is what you are because this is what you want to be right now, and if you’re having second thoughts, think maybe we ought to be something else, I’m telling you: go for it! All you have to do is want it – well, maybe to want the right things, we need to understand some things too. But don’t follow your heart, not this creature’s heart – that’s what we’re doing now! Don’t practice selection and epigenetic activation for the job you have, practice selection and epigenetic activation for the job you want!

Ha. Fun.

So not a static genetics, not a “you’re born that way,” genetics, and not even a “you still have the chimpanzee in you,” genetics either.

That talk is the very opposite of evolution, it tries to say nothing changes, ever, when of course chimpanzees aren’t and weren’t ever the problem, it’s us, the new guys, and our new genetics that are responsible for the world we have today. Those are evolutionary Satanic Verses, when evolution becomes some evil Nature from the past again, our narcissism gaslighting us about the old world with the new words we taught it. Evolution as “human nature,” that is a reversal, that sort of discourse never learned evolution at all, hasn’t really processed it.

No, the point is, the giraffe has been actively reaching, not remotely simply existing in some sort of conformity with its Nature. The bear’s nose brain has been growing probably since the entire creature was smaller than that part of its brain now. Evolution means time plus desire make magic. We too have been active, have been actively chasing something, wanting something too, something it seems that chimpanzees lacked, and I think popular science is all in agreement, that something was group conflict, or rather, success in/survival from group conflict, and we have chased it perhaps from Lucy the Australopithecus to today’s human being, I wanted to say to the Universal Soldier.

I’m saying the one that wins/survives the group conflict, we want to be that; we are that because that is the goal. I feel that’s what evolution means, that if a thing exists, it’s because someone wanted it, someone chose it from the options available to them. I’m saying when you want to be the warrior, you get the war; and I’m saying, the things we want get us it – again, though, there’s a disconnect, of course, a complication, in that we are not fully conscious of what we want or why we want it.

No, it isn’t new or interesting or helpful to use the new words and talk about inherence or natures or any such old thing, but to say that because it is evolution it is no-one but us, we that are in control of our changes, we that choose from options presented to us when the environment changes. We may have used it badly, that is my thesis, but it is a transformative miracle, evolution, even selection, and it has brought us to this unlikely possible ending and so it can take us elsewhere also, anywhere. Again, it looks like magic, it can take a creature anywhere, given a desire, that is perhaps better to call a direction, and time. I mean, sure, we could take more responsibility, analyse and own our desires better. The giraffes had only that, a direction – up – and they changed radically to get there, several innovations. I don’t think we can say for sure that they didn’t have other options, a change of diet or something and that they didn’t actively also choose reaching higher over other paths. Why assume creatures fight evolution, kicking and screaming into the future? Perhaps the giraffes are as proud and as “I meant to do that” about their stature as we are about our dominance.

Or, more to my sort of point, perhaps they aren’t, perhaps it is a bit of an unconscious goal, perhaps they have an unstated, limitless goal of height that none of them ever feel they live up to, not so much a point of pride as a universally experienced failure – like us and our always reached for and never fully realized “strength.” That’s how a direction feels, a journey with no destination, right?

I sort of think our short term wants destroy our long term wishes, maybe that’s why the manipulative marshmallow test struck such a chord with us, we are stuck there in a much bigger way; it’s not a demonstration of a developmental stage for a child, but a metaphor for the human condition in this sense, that as a group we tend to eat the marshmallow in front of us and do not so much engage in long term trust projects?

More about an arrested stage of societal development than individual development.

I think this next section is a digression, even a derailment of this talk, but somehow unavoidable. Wish me luck, I hope to see you on the other side.

Jeff

Dec. 19th., 2021

First Impressions

You know I’m trying to solve the world’s problems, humanity’s problems, and there’s some guilt I’m not working the food bank, but I have issues, I don’t work well with others, and also the first problem I saw was what I’m always on about, “spanking,” (although anybody would have called what I saw more than that) and I was a kid, I wasn’t going to be working anywhere. The whole thing seemed, I’m sorry, stupid to me, and I have spent my life trying to find smarter thinking, solve it that way.

I must have thought, if I’m five and I can see how dumb these guys are, maybe I can help. Now I’m sixty-one and I think I’ve almost got it, but of course I’m sixty-one and I know no-one wants my answer, maybe any answer.

Too bloody bad, you’re getting it!

Lately, I’ve found a bit of a foil, someone with the skills to argue a large part of my answer, the Human Nature meme, from the dark side so to speak, I mean a bright soul who has seen some things, and there’s an idea I mentioned before but they helped me get another inch along with it.

I’m always on the Human Nature bit, and I’ve suggested before that a baby’s first human is Mom, and her Nature is likely the baby’s first idea of human nature – a schizoid conversation, ‘Natures’ are a Platonic abstraction, not actual things in the real world – but more generically, a baby’s first impression perhaps tells them who people are, who they are . . . OK, ‘first impression’ is a meme of the same age and accuracy as ‘Natures,’ we have had nine months of impressions before the world sees us, I mean ‘early impressions,’ don’t I.

Most of which, hopefully, are prosocializing, loving and nurturing, before what I am suggesting, the trauma of the first slap or something, and it’s also possible a kicking foetus gets a retaliatory blow sometimes, perhaps the first negative impression isn’t after nine whole months either.

But what sort of struck in conversation with my friend, what seemed to bite this time through it, was the idea that the baby’s impression probably really is of something along the lines of a simple binary nature, it’s not a bad working hypothesis for an infant, good/bad, love/hate, life/death, you have to say, the kid seems to have good priorities to form an opinion on the matter. I’ll argue now, after sixty years of life, but with a baby’s data at hand, that is some solid science on their part. Our part, of course.

I would that an education meant correcting the infantile binary ‘natures’ meme.

What hit me so firmly in this conversation was that the baby learns a Nature – from what was, for the mother an entirely contingent act.

It surely happens, that awful episode of M*A*S*H, where we suffocate a baby for silence in the presence of a predator or an enemy – I don’t see how a blow or a denied meal or some such deprivation is ever so necessary. We can say reasoned or compulsive, we can say “it happens,” I don’t think we can ever say it’s not contingent, we can’t ever say it had to be so, when would people die if someone didn’t hit a child. So there is the magic, where the contingent becomes the inherent, caregiver makes a choice, baby learns ‘what a human is.’

I’ve been saying the human nature myth is simply wrong, makes the wrong thing of us, but this made me realize that it’s both, it’s where the lie becomes the truth, where the myth and the truth intersect. The story of baby’s first negative experiences could be read either way, someone “proved” a lie to that baby, and now it thinks the contingent is immutable, or someone showed that baby the truth, I mean it really happened, didn’t it?

Not quite there yet? OK, maybe it’s not ‘the truth’ just because one baby ‘learned’ it, but there is a great assistance from other fallacies, namely consensus. If it really happened to everyone . . . then what? Plato was right, infants are right?

Yes?

Both these truths?

At the same time, as Elvira Kurt’s mother would say?

Jeff

Dec. 6th., 2021

Twenty-Three and Us

An insight that we think about inheritance and family trees backwards, or all in one direction, and suspicious that it’s not an accident.

I have really been loving Henry Louis Gates and his show, Finding Your Roots, but this idea has been creeping up on me, he spins stories about a single line of people, generally finding a few grandparents, of which we have four, usually, perhaps a few great-grandparents – and we all have eight of those, in theory, barring incest and whatnot. Some folks see family back to the bloody Mayflower – one of hundreds of ancestors that far back in time, right?

I mean it’s a great show, and we all learn about the times, we get that glimpse, but is it not true that we think of ancestors as multiplying into the future and we only acknowledge perhaps the richest of our ancestors? When really, our heritage multiplies into the past, and rather than having been drawn in a single line, ultimately ideologically from some First Man, is it not just as true to posit that we are amalgamators of our parents and in the end, descend from all of humanity?

The First Man idea, in all of its forms, does seem to suffer the fallacy of our limitations regarding deep time, and I think if we view the tree of descent as a pyramid and count all of our relatives and “our people” and then divide by two going into the past, we will reach Adam and Eve far too soon, something on the biblical scale and not the geological or evolutionary ones. Warning, and waiver: I’m terrible at math. I do all this in English.

If anyone wants to check me, that sounds wonderful, like a conversation or something.

Jeff

Oct. 21st., 2021

What’s in a Smile

Sometimes it could be anything, bared teeth are bared teeth; sometimes you have to seek other cues, what are the eyes doing? Body language, what is the posture saying?

I have intuited that the smile is intimately intertwined with the snarl. That the difference, whether it’s a smile or a snarl, is whether those teeth belong to your friends or not. A snarl is a threat, and so a smile is one that isn’t aimed at you, a shared snarl among friends, within your group. A snarl says, these teeth are my weapons; a smile says, all these teeth are our weapons.

Like most things human, it is one thing for the in-group and another for the out-groups. Like law and order, law for the out-group, that’s the ‘order.’ Like religions of forgiveness, law for the out-group, forgiveness within.

You Google ‘origins of smiling,’ and you get talk of chimpanzees laughing, but I just watched some and that is open mouth, making noise – that’s laughing, not smiling. My theory here is really the only one there is, I think. Perhaps others have said it and I just don’t know where to look.

Of course it’s all part of the gonzo antisocialization theory suite of ideas, and no-one is there for any of it. I live my life, a naysayer in a life that often seems like a rally, a place where people go to shout together the things I am trying to debunk. Think of the ugly, empty smiles of politicians, and the snarls of the populists that their violent followers pass off as smiles. These lies would never fly if there wasn’t some aspect of it in everyone’s life already. This is what smiles are, is what I’m saying. Violent extremists only make these things easy to see.

That is what a smile is, it’s fierce, a show of strength. I mean, how else could you do it, despite one’s own occasional great fortune, how could you simply smile, happy for all, in this world. A smile draws a circle, right here, right now, within these walls, I am happy, look at me, smiling, perhaps not even knowing what misery you are suffering, you will know that I am feeling good and strong! If you are also, then we are all showing our chompers, a strong and able bunch, look out for us, what can’t we accomplish?

I know, drifting a little off of pure science there, but you get the picture, right? And I’m not saying every smile today is aggressive, only that that’s how smiles began, and what they still are to a great degree. Of course, there are innocent joys to smile about also – any confusion, though, I worry is more of a feature than a bug. The aggressive smilers might prefer some confusion.

I wonder if I ever manage to make it plain enough, does anyone ever get a sense of wonder, that “science” as we know it cannot see much of the world, that things like this oughtn’t be a mystery?

Jeff

Oct. 5th., 2021

Hashtag Weak Together

I started with “Don’t spank your kids,” or, “why do we spank our kids,” and the first answer we all know, you have to teach them right from wrong, and if we will allow that adults hitting kids “accidentally” teaches hitting which may be wrong, then the next argument is strength. Right?

So I’ve been addressing that for a few years.

I detest the cursed “Strong” hashtags, the same bloody day, when are we supposed to cry?

The thing, my thing is, if you talk about resilience and strength, about growth from pain, you are not really fighting the trauma, you’re not really with the victims, I mean not in the sense that you’re actually opposing the trauma.

Desensitization is the social goal of much pain, and the usual result of pain anyhow, whether socially intentioned or not, and so strength and resilience are simply the fruition of the trauma, meaning in line, in spirit with the trauma. It’s been a process of evolution to get us here, all of this has been selected for, your strength is very much the evolved socially desired result of the trauma; your support systems after the trauma and your abusers or whatever hurt you have been partners in producing the stronger, more resilient you.

When you heal, and come back stronger, you are not breaking your programming, as perhaps we like to say, not at all, all of it is a part of human social evolution. The thing about the thing, my thing, is this is all of us, or almost all of us. It is a section of a logical mobius strip that part of the present human condition is that we exist in a ubiquitous state of group conflict and so we always blame some group of people for every problem and really cannot even see a problem that each and every one of our groups has in common. How could strength be bad, right? Resilience, survival – this is bad?

I’m saying, it’s enabling, it’s victim- wait, not shaming, not blaming . . . victim burdening, is what it is. Am I re-inventing this wheel, that’s the term, right? The victims are supposed to solve the situation, and my resilience is supposed to be the answer for my tormentors’ violence, for another’s abuse. There is pain and abuse in the world, and what is the answer, that the victims should complain but move on and accept whatever changes are forced upon them. This is gaslighting ourselves.

And – yes! Anything can be both good and bad! If we are talking about a thing that can’t ever be bad, we have left reality for the social world of taboos.

Which, yes, that could also be bad.

That is not being on the side of the victims, when we only care after the fact, and only enough to encourage them to strengthen themselves, and it isn’t looking after future victims to normalize that requirement. We talk about cycles of abuse, and that is it right there, in minimalist, bare as can be: trauma and strength, yin and yang. Cause and effect, action/reaction – I’m saying we should protect people, try to have fewer victims, that if we care, we should attempt to address causes, stop normalizing, even mythologizing the damage.

Hashtag Weak Together.

Jeff

Oct. 1st., 2021

Easy

The theory (of certain schools of feminism) is, half of humanity gets more abuse and less opportunity – so they’re better. Smarter, more emotionally connected – because abuse and being hated, I guess.

Men are horrible, stupid, violent, horny, unfaithful idiots . . . but we love them. I know it’s “normal,” but it’s not much of a theory. If it’s true, then a lotta ladies are the sort that love assholes.

It’s not good news, true or false.

Of course it’s false.

Of course in a tilted world of violent masters and slaves, the slaves are born to their hate, it’s their birthright.

The idea, examined the way I did and I do – the abused sex brings the love and the sense – this is me teaching, not insulting or saying anything about y’all – that’s the same as some race theory I heard from Charles Murray about the Jews, they were persecuted and abused, so now they’re the highest IQ people on Earth, it’s “abuse improves,” with a tacit rider of “so abuse is good.”

As stark and horrible as I lay it out, this is one of our social narratives, and if you say it nice or avoid saying it, it’s still sitting there, an awful premise for human life – while extreme cases show the error, Roseanne Barr, Theo Fleury, some folks think it too much, badly broken folks are trying to teach. But they are on the spectrum of that narrative and they find students, schools to join also.

Again, I am trying to paint it horrible for you, but this is a common human theme, it’s the status quo.

I like to say “psychology says,” despite that I’m afraid psychology will deny having said it, maybe it’s just me says “abuse damages, it doesn’t improve.” But social knowledge says it improves, usually calling the improvement “strength,” now how can that be bad, right? Here’s how. It’s evolution, it’s multigenerational, that what you reach for you will reach, you will change yourself to reach, like a giraffe reaches for the high branches and grows five or six metres high to do it. We have this strength like giraffes have vertebrae, and sure enough we use it every day like they do, it’s how we make our living, nutting up and ovarying up and doing something awful you need to “be strong” for, logging or whatever.

This social knowledge will take us straight over the cliff, it already has, really, this strength fetish, which is denial of hurt, damage, and abuse, of course it is.

Imagine for a moment, imagine that we really did what the laciest of the ladies seem to vibe, imagine if the humans rather than being strong and taking the abuse and being “better” for it, imagine for a moment that we put that millennial, multigenerational effort into chasing sensitivity instead, to identify abuses and weed them out instead, over thousands of years, what a different creature we might be? Bonobos, maybe, but maybe just humans with the bonobo in us instead of the chimp? Probably something else, who knows?

I mean, the EP boys, the game theory folks, they will say, and it’s hard to argue about origins, but it does seem chasing the brutality and strength wasn’t maybe optional when it began, I mean it’s hardly optional now.

But it could be. Should be.

But there are layers of denial and us hiding stuff from ourselves. Perhaps it wasn’t a choice – but that thought lives alongside that no other animals live this way – so it’s not predetermined either!

We could start chasing the light instead any time we choose.

Starts with honesty, sometimes only available after a lot of thought and talk, and honestly, the human world presently runs on strength, which is hate created by abuse, and I don’t say it with pride but in this state of affairs hate is the functional thing, and we hate each other, men and women.

Sure there’s some love, but even if you don’t feel it – can’t you see that you would, if you were allowed or something? Are you proud of loving that swine you need liberation from?

Isn’t it science that the subjected hate the dominant?

Gonna surprise no-one now and go personal. I never got a chance, never was able to put a dent in my ex’s hate, which I was late detecting, because of Mom’s and others’. I lived Not All Men in the attempt, I have tried to never do a thing to justify women hating me, didn’t work. I found I couldn’t fight a hate that she didn’t acknowledge, or wasn’t up for negotiation, or I just wasn’t people, she wasn’t going to negotiate with the likes of me at any rate.

I’m saying, of course women hate men, we’re evil bastards, why wouldn’t you? One of the layers, one of the tricks is this meme, “men hate, women don’t,” again, which is antithetical to the idea that abuse hurts and damages. I’m sorry, ladies, the abuse mattered, it hurt you, and your ability to love has been impaired, you may have been the bringer of all good things when you were born, but this world has had its way with you the same way it has with us, maybe worse, and we are all hurt and damaged.

Honesty, and choosing the true principle – damage or strength – is what humanity needs to do, ALL of humanity. Both halves.

That was an ending when it was a Twitter thread  – it really is my point to the world, this choice, the damage, which would be the rational take, or the strength, which I see as the social mode – and the whole thing is so sad that after I posted it, I went back to bed, hoping for a better start to my day. Instead I woke up having globalized the entire miserable thing. It’s more than the battle of the sexes here. All the thinkers with a clear cause and a people to fight for, all the philosophers of oppression, not just the Gloria Steinhems but also the James Baldwins, the ground-breaking whatevers, gay, black, Indigenous, women . . . I assume all these brilliant writers reached higher, I expect everyone has a guess or several about the big picture, humanity as a whole, but inasmuch as they are talking and writing about race, or sexuality, or gender, I’m sorry.

That is an easy task for a thinker.

I mean, I know, impossible to reach or change the bigoted white male swine who run the world – but the thinking, I’m sorry, that’s easy. Even sorrier – thinking about the Other and the enemy, that’s always been far too easy for humans. It’s easy for not good reasons – and that’s what that is, at least that’s one thing it is, analyzing the enemy.

I first cottoned onto this in a personal vein, I realized that my feminist sisters have had an advantage over me this way all my life, that their lives have been framed as a struggle against men, and I had no such gorgon to blame. I never did blame women, I was raised by them, my tendency is theirs, to blame men. I must have been thinking from the glory days of babyhood or something that I wasn’t one of the men, that sure they hate men – but they love me, right?

Sorry to say, it doesn’t seem to have been functionally true in my childhood and also, that seems to have been the attitude, often explicitly professed by my lady partners in life – and I believed, accepted. So sad. “I hate your entire species – but I love you.” Like I say, I can’t imagine believing it from the ex if things had ever been any different, if they had been even once, I expect I might have noticed that.

I know, they had it hard, they were abused – this you offer me as evidence that I shouldn’t blame them for their hate, but in reality it is entered as evidence for the prosecution, that Your Honour, of course they were full of hate, look at their abuse. Yes, my naysaying is “reality” here in my blog.

Pathetic. I basically despise everything about sex and gender because why can’t they love me, despite my sex. But sex is everything to us monkeys. In half the world, if you do it “wrong,” they kill you.

I mean, I saw all the boys and men around me, blaming and hating the women, but that had been taken away, that wasn’t available to me, or I, stuck up little wannabe saint that I am refused to use it. I like so many, rejected the hate of the dominant group in favour of the hate of the subjected, I chose to despise what the women say they despise, violence, mostly. I haven’t changed my stance that way, that’s still my enemy, violence and all that. I’ve just realized that the female half of humanity isn’t not involved in it, is all. We all are.

I spend my entire blog talking about spanking. I rarely say “women” in that conversation, but it’s understood, the ladies do a lot of it. That is never going to be solved if in every conversation it is only men bringing the roughness. It is a terrible, sad side effect, that if only male violence exists then a world of children have complaints that must have never happened or something, or as I see across the board, somehow Dad is to blame for this spanking, one abuses and another takes the resentment. My own kids display this function in stark, horrifyingly embarrassing clarity, you would not believe.

Like I say, easy. The internet is full of people, somebodies and nobodies, and many can speak the language of wokeness and describe the oppression in endless nuance . . . I don’t see many brave fools like me, trying to take on more, trying to deal above the level of our social groups, I just don’t.

We’re blocked. I understand that, there are massive social memes in place, “human nature,” don’t get me started. If human nature is bad, then why even look for better? Just find yourself a fight you can agree with and get on with it, right? There are puh-lenty of causes that need you.

Easy. Simple, I mean. Clear.

Irresponsible, is all, not comprehensive. It’s not enough, I mean, it’s more than not enough, it’s just exactly the same thing repeated endlessly, it’s the problem – but as such, all of that, it really, really isn’t enough. More is required. OK, it’s too late. More was required. If there is anyone crawling out of the destruction like all that science fiction, they will need more or nothing will change.

There are people worrying about it, some worry about humanity and the future, but we don’t hear about anyone who’s cracked it, found the answer, what is wrong with each and every human group, I mean except me? It’s the spanking, the morality, the attempt to change things. I said above somewhere that “if we could chase the sensitivity, weed out the hurt,” but I know, that is already what we think we’re doing with our social control, weeding out misbehaviour and crime, these are bad things that hurt and our entire existence is dedicated to the effort . . . yeah, it all goes sideways with the details, with what that effort has been – the spanking, the exile, the shunning, the prisons. The goal has always sounded commendable, the methods have always moved us in exactly the opposite direction.

Thinking what I think isn’t easy.

I accuse, I must be wrong to a great degree, but my quest is always to find the undiscovered “right to great degree” thing that no-one is saying, and so in this test, I accuse the writers of oppression of not trying to solve everyone’s problems, of limiting themselves to their causes for clarity and purpose – yes, you heard right, I accuse them of purpose, in case you’re in any doubt about my commitment to what I see as the truth, purpose is a . . . bias – and so missing as we all have forever, the common cause that sets it all in motion. I have said, I will again, critical race theory belongs as a subset of antisocialization theory because it needs a reason why Whitey is such a bastard and all anyone has for that is we’re all born that way?

This is supposed to be helpful how?

Antisocialization Theory is not easy to think, but at least it works at all.

That’s a clue that your quest is on track, when it keeps getting more difficult, right? When the gods keep throwing stuff in your way? Antisocialization Theory is psychology writ large. It’s hard. You kinda have to step over Mom to get to it.

It’s not easy to hear that Mom messed me up not “for my own good” at all, but in step with some mad social function to drive us all mad on purpose, no-one wants to hear that the agent, the creator of the evil human nature we all suffer under is dear old Mom. We all seem sort of able to get on with our lives no matter what bullshit went on as long as we can say. “Well, they tried, and they never had a chance, they did their best.” When some smartass gonzo science idiot comes along and says, no, messing you up like this was the whole plan and if they could have done more and better, you would be feeling even worse right now, well then it’s going to be WTF did you just say about my dear old Mother, isn’t it? It’s not easy, facing that no-one was ever trying to do good, that the function is all bad and they just call it good.

I expect it hurts even more to think it alone, and that’s why I’m trying to drag you all down with me. We can still let our parents of the hook, they may have really believed it – but we must do the hard thing and face that what is “their best” in that situation was the application of bad stuff and their efforts were the very opposite of mitigation. Again, most of them if they could have “tried harder,” would only have been rougher, because that’s what they thought was “good.” It is already when they were bringing the tough love that they were working as hard as a human can work, doing the hardest thing, going against what is natural and normal for most animals, especially most mammals, especially especially most primates, three especiallies for the higher primates!

Humans are amazing, magical in their ability to think and do the unthinkable.

It is surely what the unrepentant ones still think, nothing to apologize for, that was good.

I mean, I don’t think the feminist writers, the race writers, they are not exhorting their readers to discipline their kids. I think there may be a little of “the Man made me beat you,” some demand side talk about the dominants inducing abuse in the subjected peoples’ lives, and this stuff while true, life is a champagne fountain of abuse and it all flows downhill, down the social ladder, this line of reasoning tends to stop at the oppressor, we’re mostly not worried about his kids, and punitive abuse isn’t the First Cause I find it to be in these conversations, but only a downstream effect. The Man has us beating our kids for release, it’s hard to imagine in this scenario how we worry about protecting his own kids from him!

I think that would help, if we could, I mean if we could all stop. I think the billionaires whooping their kids is like the first pour in the top glass of the fountain and the bastard’s kids grow up feeling all hard done by despite the wealth and so they feel justified in all the horrible crap they do. This true for all of us, it is what is the active function for all of us. It’s not easy to think.

I don’t imagine Baldwin blamed the world on his poor mama and I don’t think the feminist writers blame their poor mamas for the state of the world, I mean I don’t think James would blame the world on his father either if he was rough and neither am I, not one father for the state of the world or one mother – but it is what antisocialization theory asks of us, to blame our parents, to blame parenting and the larger social control in general.

I don’t know, I can’t say anyone has  had it easy, I’ve certainly had it the easiest of the lot, and I’m not saying Baldwin never had to face that his mother was the problem, I have no idea what his life even was let alone his response to it, I’m only saying he doesn’t have to in order to write race philosophy, and so his readers also don’t have to. I’m not saying it about the feminist writers either, same thing, I don’t know their lives or their challenges, but they may not have had to do it publicly at least, in order to promote their views – and I would have to, do have to trash my caregivers to make my points, lay the real blame there, such is my sad theory.

Also, I don’t know the feminist thinkers and authors, but the ladies I learned it from don’t talk about their mothers as much as they do the men, the fathers and husbands – again, the particular “isms” don’t require it, they don’t have to go there. Basically, no-one has to address First Causes, because Human Nature has that covered. I laugh at myself saying it, but some of these geniuses have had it easy. At work, I mean, LOL.

The worst people, they enjoy this ease also, the racists, the xenophobes, they also do not elevate their thinking above human groups, they are all about the groups, the existence of groups themselves serves as their First Cause – Good Lord, did I really publish this complaining about the good folks and never mention the Nazis? I am so sorry, OMG. I try not to talk about them or to them, it’s not that I am with them, of course! I am with the woke, I only complain to waken the woke even further; it’s not that I don’t criticize the worst, it’s that I don’t talk to them at all. To criticize would suggest I think there is anything about them worth saving, I don’t spend any time there – we are bad enough for me! If we solve the salt of the Earth’s problems, they will stop breeding Nazis, this is my plan. Destroy their reason for being by solving the world’s problems, if everybody’s happy, no-one is fighting.

It’s not easy blaming either the entire world or Mom and Dad, or all of the above. It is certainly hard thinking that all nearly eight billions of minds have to change when we’ve all had the experience of trying and failing to ever change one. It’s all around a very difficult thing to think, and I imagine that must be what I was looking for, this must have been a quest for the impossible and I feel I have won or lost a lottery to find anything that can even pretend to be the answer.

It wasn’t supposed to be possible, you bunch of liars, I thought it was safe to go looking for the Holy Grail, I wasn’t supposed to have to worry about what would happen if I found it. Murphy’s Law.

I think I’ve said before, you know like how when you’re two, a year is half of your life and when you’re fifty it’s only two percent of your life, that when I started to look for the larger answer, for all of us, it was an unknown proposition that despite the obvious long odds, felt like a binary, a fifty-fifty, I’d find it or I wouldn’t. This is a limitation Pinker and a bunch of EP boys like to throw at us, we really don’t process odds rationally, and sure, I concur with that bit I said, long odds, but an emotional binary situation – well that changed when it wasn’t some unknown “an” answer. Once I started triangulating the answer, narrowing it down, the odds rapidly got more rational, and maybe ironically, depressingly huge again.

(Possible future line of inquiry, is it always some unformed, unspecified thing we can’t make odds for in their stories? Maybe? Never mind. Shut up. Later.)

I said it above, right, it just means changing a few billion minds, sad emoji.

Frustrating, I keep having this circular kill-thought, that if we could stop the roughness, the minds would change themselves. Oh, hey, look, that was the door.

I’m outta here.

Jeff

Sept. 22nd., 2021

Racism – the Invention of Hate

  1. AST

Antisocialization theory is the idea that hatred is taught and learned, the same as love is, the same as everything is. Socialization is an accepted idea, a real and obvious thing in the world, and so prosocialization and antisocialization are also, established principles (in the world of scientific principles, whether you, mere human, know it or not). Antisocialization theory is the idea that antisocial traits are nurtured, and that any tendency towards antisociality and violence requires a scientific explanation in the here and now, in life history, and not be accepted as some default.

AST, my acronym for antisocialization theory, starts from the idea that nature and evolution do not have defaults or natures, and that all things can and must be accounted for. I have noticed others’ efforts to understand altruism and morality; the bad things are always some background, the premise behind it all, the setting, not requiring a back story of its own.

Antisocialization theory is science and therefore does not define abuse by what is legal, or by the stated purpose for it, it defines abuse as a choice to hurt someone, that the act of abuse is deliberate hurt, not accidental hurt. Of course it thinks that accidents antisocialize, embitter people also, but antisocialization is generally deliberate, the hurt has a rationale. People report feeling “punished” when they suffer a rare trauma, when they are one of the very few shark attack victims or something, because that is usually the way we get hurt, intentionally.

By this definition, the altogether legal and normal minor abuse that adults do to their children all day long qualifies. The pat on the bum was deliberate, the lessons, the things taken away . . . in adult punishment situations also, prison sentences and executions, all deliberate, all abuse, somebody hurts somebody, on purpose.

Please, I know the story. I am not a child or a Martian. The “reasons” are ubiquitous, inescapable, how could anyone dream I had simply never heard them? I am teaching here, not asking.

Antisocialization theory is the theory that if so much hurt happens through deliberate actions, that the hurt is being selected for, that the hurt is the desired result of all that stimuli. Again, I know the story, I understand deterrents. AST is the idea that when deterrents fail, that this phenomenon occurs in the real world, and that there is real causation around it, before and after. Specifically, repressive blindness before and an antisocial population after (which, also before). AST and its author find it odd and rather amazing that human science manages to work around this, finding science in the virtual thing, the deterrent, but none in the actual spanking/beating/prison sentence.

When we break a rule, science and reason turn their backs on us along with everything else that does. We have a lot of talk and science around when we do what we’re told, but really none for what happens to us when we don’t – but we do have a little science about trauma and the damages of abuse – I suppose someone must be studying the accidents, the collateral damage. The good news is it applies, and we know generally, that a tough life makes a tough human being, meaning insensitive and aggressive.

2. Conflict

So that’s why, that’s what the rules and punishments produce. Sure, the deterrents produce the good things, perhaps, I’ll allow it, but the abuse when the deterrent fails, that’s what produces all the bad things, and we produce them because we love them, we think we need them, we produce them on purpose through our purposeful actions. An angry young man is exactly what the generals want, what warrior society loves, and so abused angry young men are probably not accidents, and their abuse angers them quite reasonably and logically.

The controlled, deterred human makes beautiful porcelain things, the abuse behind the control makes us smash them. The controlled human is civil to our community, the abuse behind it makes us abuse other communities. This is the causality, the true story of group life, this is why it’s “prosocial at home and antisocial at the border,” because we are tortured and wound up at home but forbidden to act out there and sent out to get our release from the neighbors, from someone else. We do not smash our own porcelain, generally, is the idea. This is all group conflict. This is what men and nations call “strength,” their reserve of artificially created or stored anger, and our “strength,” is always and forever the reason for someone else’s.

Again, this is all human group conflict: at home, we take the shit and out and about, we give it.

3. Race

This is racism, race and cultural markings, dress and custom, these signify “not at home,” mode for pre-charged, abused people. These foreign things are what your frustration was arranged for, why it was created, what your antisocialization is for. NOT an endorsement. But this is racism.

There is nothing “wrong” with the other community/race/person, they are perfect for their role, to complete the circle and resolve our abuse. Again, today’s target, American blacks, did not kill Christ, and they do not “own the banks,” none of that was really the point about the German Nazis’ targets, it was simply that they were targets, viable, legal targets for the overly controlled at home Germans’ stored rage.

I see the word all day, “racism,” it’s the scourge, it’s the problem, it’s what you shouldn’t have, and of course I agree . . . what I don’t see is what I offer here, a scientific look at what it is and what function it serves, I mean not from anyone but the Nazis themselves. It seems the bad guys want science to authorize their hate and the good guys worry that it will or something, so they try to keep them apart, science and racism.

I get that.

But they control their kids, same as anybody else.

They say racism is awful and wrong and all that, but then they do all the social control stuff that makes so many people need an outlet. Don’t play with fire kid, but hold on a minute, where do you think you’re going without your matches, kind of thing. Don’t hate anybody, but here’s an ass kicking for you to sit on forever.

Jeff

Dec. 16th., 2020