Diagnosing Objectivity And Subjectivity

So it seems there has been some sort of skirmish in the ‘sphere lately involving “Roosh” and a number of folks over at the Red Pill Sub-Reddit. Personally, I don’t care much about this battle- I read neither, and so have no interest in getting involved- much less taking sides. Cail Corishev has an interesting analysis on the situation which some of my readers might find interesting, as it covers both the “schism” as well as provides some useful background info.

Apparently Rollo was involved in this matter to some degree, as he has written a post in response to what has been going on. What interests me about that post is not the commentary about Roosh, but rather about Rollo’s preference for an apolitical or neutral “Red Pill.” In this most recent post he quotes from one of his own posts a few weeks back, The Political is Personal:

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.

Now, if I am reading Rollo right what he is saying in that post and in his post recent post is that the “Red Pill” should remain a movement focused on an objective diagnosis of reality. That is, the “Red Pill” shouldn’t be about telling people (men primarily) how to live. That would be Prescription, as Rollo calls it. Rather, the Red Pill should be about telling people how the world, specifically human socio-sexual behavior, works (Description). Then they can decide for themselves how they want to live.

I agree with Rollo that any sort of Prescriptive approach to the Red Pill would be inherently subjective- it would necessarily intersect with ideology or religion. This naturally will divide people, as we are now seeing (and in fact have seen for a while now). However, I must respectfully disagree with Rollo that even if the Red Pill was only Descriptive that it could ever be truly objective. While there is certainly a strong appeal to this notion, as it allows us all something in common, I don’t think it is consistent with human behavior.

Human beings are inherently subjective creatures. Pure objectivity is not really possible for us, even when we are merely trying to describe things. That’s right, even if we merely leave off at simply describing what we see, our internal filters will have an effect on what we notice. And if we take it further to try and understand what phenomena are at work, that involves even more of our subjective understanding and belief. To paraphrase the TV show House: if a neurologist, a cardiologist and an oncologist all examine the same patient, they are all apt to give a different diagnosis. This is because their training and background makes them look for different things, to examine the same symptoms differently, and to connect facts together in a different manner. What might be remarkable to one would be overlooked by another.

Our subjective beliefs influence our perception, and this means two men watching the same behavior can come to two different conclusions about what is going on. Part of the reason why scientific studies and papers are supposed to be peer reviewed is to help screen out biases. This same principle applies to the Red Pill.

The solution, however, is not to reject any attempt to provide a description of what is going on around us. A subjective observation can still be a correct observation, after all. Rather, what human subjectivity should make clear is the necessity of a place where people can share their observations with another, as well as their conclusions about those observations. A vibrant community helps provide a greater pool of observations, as well as helps weed out bad data (inaccurate observations), which naturally will help lead towards more accurate conclusions as well.

And those conclusions are not necessarily prescriptive. As I think on it, I believe that we can distinguish between description and diagnosis. By separating them we can better understand the process of what is going on. And speaking of “what,” I think that word gets to the heart of three different steps involved in this whole process:

  • Description- What I just observed
  • Diagnosis- What I think that observation means
  • Prescription- What I think should be done about it

Again, I don’t think that you can make any one of these steps objective. Human nature precludes this. But I do think that wide-scale collaboration can overcome the negative aspects of subjectivity, at least in the area of Diagnosis. Diagnosis is really about creating effective models or theories of human behavior. Then using those theories or models to predict future behavior. If a model fails repeatedly to predict behavior accurately, then it either needs to be refined or discarded. The collaborative nature of the ‘sphere allows for this kind of testing on wider scale than any individual could hope to achieve themselves. In many ways this is what PUAs have been doing from the very beginning.

My LAMPS/PSALM model is an example of one of my efforts to diagnose female behavior. That model tries to explain what it is that drives female arousal/sexual attraction. By understanding the bounds set in place by that model, a man can focus his self-improvement in areas which will provide direct and positive effects on his overall sexual attractiveness to women. What is great about the ‘sphere is that men can learn about that model and test it out for themselves to determine its accuracy. So far I think it has been a fairly successful model. Not perfect, by any means, but it has held up well.

I can understand Rollo’s concern with the Description and Diagnosis process being caught up in an ideological or religious battle. However, I think that the damage can be mitigated to a large degree by keeping that community large and open. But even if there was Balkanization, or some faction or another dominated the movement, that wouldn’t be the end of the world. After all, whoever is left will still need to provide effective and accurate models/theories. If they don’t, then those who are looking for an explanation of the world around them will go somewhere else. After all, the rise of the Red Pill is attributable in large part to the fact that general society’s own models and theories are lacking. I think that those who would find a model or theory invalid because of its “taint” are probably not likely to accept the model in the first place- after all, their minds are not yet freed (to continue the Matrix analogy). [As a side-note, a model should be judged on its efficacy, not its source. To disregard it because of who created it would be a mistake- for anyone.]

If Rollo wishes to focus on Description and Diagnosis, then by all means he should do so. Nor should anyone fault him for focusing only on them. They are still vital areas which should not be ignored. While there is a lot of Description out there, new Diagnosis is always welcome. It would be the height of presumption to think that “the science is settled” and that no new models or theories should be developed to help explain or understand human behavior.

As for myself, my blog initially focused mostly on Diagnosis. Over time I became more and more focused on Prescription. I suspect that the latter will continue to be my dominant focus in the near future. But don’t be surprised to see me direct my attention back to Diagnosis from time to time.

Advertisements

24 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, LAMPS, Red Pill

24 responses to “Diagnosing Objectivity And Subjectivity

  1. mdavid

    Glad you commented on this. I don’t want to waste time reading about it but glanced over your link to Rollo’s comments about it.

    I’m with Rollo here: I’ll take issue with his [Roosh’s] anti-evolution, anti-evo psych stance. I’ll take issue with his want for some as yet undefined moralism

    To me, to be anti-evolution is to be anti-God. And “undefined moralism” is worse than honest atheism. Moralism without doctrine is catnip to the FI.

  2. Well, the main problem if you subscribe to the Christian view of God is that there may not be any observations of what is “righteous” to view or to emulate.

    In this instance, description, diagosis, and prescription are only about what not to do — e.g. do not emulate society — and they aren’t focused about what to do because we don’t have any examples of what we are to actually do. I suppose that’s where the Scriptures come in, but obviously we are going to be making a lot of mistakes as we attempt to discover what to actually do.

  3. “Neutrality” is what modern people claim for themselves when they want to privilege their own understanding of reality over all other understandings of reality without appearing to do so or taking responsibility. “Ruling without appearing to rule” is how Jim Kalb once described liberalism, and “metaphysical neutrality” is a similar gambit in the domain of ideas.

    Views of reality which they disparage and subordinate are labeled “ideology” or “religion”, typically.

  4. IOW, the very notion that “religion” or “ideology” can be kept separate from understanding the truth is itself a religion or ideology. For
    example, to embrace a Humean “is-ought gap” is to rule out certain understandings of reality and embrace others.

    And the pretense otherwise is intrinsically dishonest — whatever “branding” or “marketing” implications may follow.

  5. mdavid

    Well said Zippy. Most Christians today quarantine “organized religion” or their interpretation of “the Bible” away from doctrine (Jesus and me and the hell with thee is what I call it). Of course, this isn’t logically sound and thus the Scriptures that demand doctrine (esp. on obedience to Church) get ignored or tied in knots. But it’s for the very same reasons you describe non-Christians do it: to keep one’s individualistic views of things while pretending not to do it. Or as I like to say: to recreate God in my own image.

    I saw this in living color at Pentecost mass this weekend. During a long, hard sermon on gay marriage, birth control, abortion, and the need for confession to a priest, four people walked out right in front of everyone. It was beautiful.

    [DG: Self-excommunication certainly helps save the Church the trouble of the process otherwise.]

  6. Zippy stole my thunder. If the red pill means seeing the world as it truly is, then it will necessarily have religious and political implications.

  7. @ mdavid

    To me, to be anti-evolution is to be anti-God.

    I don’t agree with this, and I say that as someone who is not hostile to that particular theory.

    I would say, rather, that to be anti-truth is to be anti-God.

    Agree with your comments about moralism, however.

  8. @ Deep Strength

    I think you may be misunderstanding my point here. My focus was primarily on socio-sexual behavior. Much of that is reflexive; akin to the reflex response when you hit someone’s knee with a small hammer.

    Of course there will be a cultural/environmental overlay on top of that. However, that is why a large sample size is important- it helps to mitigate that somewhat.

  9. @ Zippy

    Well said. Your previous writing on neutrality influenced some of my thought in this post.

  10. mdavid

    DG, I don’t agree with this

    To clarify: if one is just ignorant that all the extinct species couldn’t fit on the globe, or that the common cold is just seasonal bacterial evolution, then sure, that person is not anti God. But if they deny evolution because it offends their sensibilities, well, that’s recreating God into one’s own image and decrying His methods. Hence, anti God.

  11. mdavid

    Excuse me I meant “respiratory infections” not “common cold” (frequently used to describe a virus).

  12. Pingback: No true Scotsman | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  13. LandS

    I’ve been following the Reddit. Rollo is operating from his own ideology, Inclusionism, so his opinion to force the manosphere in unity should not be surprising. Growth of the manosphere will cause division by interest. This is the nature of growth. Intentionally unifying the manosphere on this scale will stunt its growth.

    Blogging is a medium that accommodates expansion through free-enterprise, and its strength should be nurtured to this degree. The Feminists haven’t ignored the impact of the Sphere, and have been pushing their agenda in response to it.

  14. “…the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology…”

    Red Pill is an ideology and it’s one that people frequently allow to trump scripture. Red pill ideology often begins to take precedent over Christ’s teachings. There are Christian men right now advocating promiscuity for men, promoting pornography, claiming men are incapable of sin, obsessing over the behavior of women to the point of goddess worship. That is a form of idolatry.

    So often what men want from women is a kind of love that can only be found from having a relationship with Christ. When you focus relentlessly on attempting to control women’s sexuality, what you are doing is really an odd form of goddess worship, one that seeks to place women on a pedestal, because your very identity must defined by your ability to control and manipulate her alleged hypergamy. It’s extremely co-dependant and the results of red pill frustration are evident all over the manosphere with relentless expressions of hostility and sexual rage towards all women.

    Roosh has spent a lift time trying to pour women and casual sex into the abyss of his soul. What he probably really longs for is intimacy both with women and with his Creator.

  15. Novaseeker

    Another storm in a teapot, really. About once every 12-18 months, there is some “schism” in the manosphere-at-large, and this is absolutely normal given the fundamentally fissiparous nature of our culture, and how the internet magnifies that even further. I never really read much of Roosh’s stuff, and didn’t follow him pretty much at all, so it isn’t a schism that I really have much of a perspective on, other than it seems like the typical case of people eventually hiving off into sub-groups (as was the case with this very blog). Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose — it seems to me.

  16. OK IB22:

    Red Pill is an ideology and it’s one that people frequently allow to trump scripture. Red pill ideology often begins to take precedent over Christ’s teachings. There are Christian men right now advocating promiscuity for men, promoting pornography, claiming men are incapable of sin, obsessing over the behavior of women to the point of goddess worship. That is a form of idolatry.

    Prove it. You should be able to link many instances of this if it is so prevalent.

    However, before you do you might want to think about it first. There’s tons of non-Christians who comment on Dalrock, Vox,and other blogs. Just because they are commenting on a “Christian” blog does not mean they are Christian.

    So often what men want from women is a kind of love that can only be found from having a relationship with Christ. When you focus relentlessly on attempting to control women’s sexuality, what you are doing is really an odd form of goddess worship, one that seeks to place women on a pedestal, because your very identity must defined by your ability to control and manipulate her alleged hypergamy. It’s extremely co-dependant and the results of red pill frustration are evident all over the manosphere with relentless expressions of hostility and sexual rage towards all women.

    lol. The very fact that you think you understand why men are angry is just amusing. Karen Straughen is perhaps the only women who has a semblance of understanding why men are angry. Here’s a post made on reddit:

    I don’t think there is a universe that could exist where men, in general, hate women.

    So maybe the first thing would be to stop accusing men of hating women? And to call out the women in positions of power who accuse men of hating women? And to call out the women like Quinn Norton who claim that men are raised to hate women, or Chloe Angyal of Feministing who claim that our entire society hates women?

    Honestly, the Nazis hated the Jews. The Hutus hated the Tutsis. The KKK hated blacks. And yet this male dominated society, where men hold the majority of the positions of power, somehow HATES women despite not a single lynching of a woman for wronging a man, despite NOMAAS and the White Ribbon Campaign and HeForShe and a male feminist president, despite Boko Haram’s sparing of girls while burning boys in their dormitories, despite the unbelievable (and unbelievably unspoken-of) gender gap in executions and criminal sentencing in Islamic countries, despite males being the primary receptacles of violence by both males and females from infancy to old age GLOBALLY, despite not a single genocide in history that DIDN’T begin with the systematic extermination of almost exclusively men and boys.

    And you think men hate women. If men hate women, then how do men feel about men? On any given day, any given male is more likely to assault a male, undermine a male, ignore a male in need, murder a male, celebrate the suffering of a male wrongdoer, hit his male child, make a decision to mutilate his male child, arrest a male, convict a male, and sentence a male to incarceration or death, than he is a female.

    And yet women–yes, women–have allowed a narrative to become entrenched in all our systems and institutions that males favor other males at the expense of females. That somehow, there is a “team men” that has been oppressing, subjugating and subordinating women since the dawn of human history. That men have waged a “war on women” since we descended from the trees and first tottered on two legs on the African Savannah.

    Men have bled for their women, fought to protect their women, died for their women, and admonished each other for millennia to love their virtuous women as Christ loves the Church, to treat their honorable women as queens and as jewels, to present to them the heads of the men who displease them, and to duel to the death to defend their honor. The literary canon, written primarily by men, has always lauded a masculinity that protects women–the villains identified by their willingness to harm women, and the heroes identified by their willingness to avenge those harms.

    And you think men hate women?

    Men have never hated women. Men will never hate women.

    What you see as hate is fear and frustration. Fear of what you have the power to do to any given man on any given day, just by virtue of being female. Frustration that no matter how far men bend to your whims, it’s never enough to prove to you that they don’t hate you and have never hated you.

    For god sake, have you ever gone on a conservative website and seen what the people there write about Islam and misogyny? These men couldn’t care less that for every 1 woman executed for adultery in Saudi Arabia, 500 men are executed for less serious crimes. They couldn’t care less that 80% of women in Saudi Arabia DON’T want the driving ban lifted, because it would mean giving up the privilege of being waited on by male family members. Those conservatives say, “OMG, look at how those horrible Islamists treat their women! They objectify and sexually exploit them!” And what do you think the Islamists are saying about Americans? “OMG, look at how those horrible Americans treat their women! They objectify and sexually degrade them!”

    And somehow, a minority of women (feminists) have convinced all of society that men hate women.

    No wonder men are afraid of you. If you [women] can convince society that it hates women, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, then you have a power that is unfathomable to the average man. A power that is unfathomable to the most powerful man. You have the power to convince society that men hate you because they don’t love you 10 or 100 or 1000 times as much as they love other men, and you have the power to convince society to enact legislation an policy based on that completely stupefying false belief, and these powerful men who supposedly hate you and are in charge of everything will do it. They’ll lie and they’ll cheat and they’ll throw less privileged men under the bus just to prove to you that they’re not misogynists.

    Putting your foot down and saying, “what you’re doing is abuse” is not hate. Drawing a boundary and saying, “this far, no further” is not hate. Saying, “I choose not to have anything to do with women unless necessary” is not hate.

    It’s self-preservation, HSW.

    link: https://archive.is/s8Cva

    Please, stop saying you understand and know what men are going through. You don’t know what men are going through. You’re not a man. Women have shown that their empathizing skills are lacking in relationship to men.

    The more you keep parroting the fact that you know why men are angry and how it relates to the Scriptures the more you prove to us that you just don’t get it. That’s why many commentors have called you a troll.

    If you want to show some empathy stop telling us why we are feeling what we are feeling cause it’s clear you don’t know.

  17. mdavid

    LandS, Rollo is operating from his own ideology, Inclusionism, so his opinion to force the manosphere in unity should not be surprising.

    I assumed Rollo is merely warning how division will lead to lack of political effect. Modern Christianity has taken the “division by interest” approach and has lost any political control of the culture, for better or worse.

  18. “There’s tons of non-Christians who comment on Dalrock, Vox,and other blogs. Just because they are commenting on a “Christian” blog does not mean they are Christian.”

    Oh, it’s much worse than that! Can you even prove Vox, Dalrock, etc, are Christians themselves? “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” No love, no mercy, no values, no Christ. It’s that simple. If I thought Vox or Dalrock were representatives of Christ, I would have become an atheist myself.

    I don’t want to link to all the violent hate filled comments coming from red pills, but I can tell you that anyone who doesn’t see it is simply being willfully blind.

    As to men, the vast majority do not hate women, in fact I don’t think I’ve ever met one that did. Until I bumped into the red pills, many who advocate precisely that. Not all mind you, but there is clearly a violent and hate filled component that many people actually encourage and cheer on.

  19. “There’s tons of non-Christians who comment on Dalrock, Vox,and other blogs. Just because they are commenting on a “Christian” blog does not mean they are Christian.”

    Oh, it’s much worse than that! Can you even prove Vox, Dalrock, etc, are Christians themselves? “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” No love, no mercy, no values, no Christ. It’s that simple. If I thought Vox or Dalrock were representatives of Christ, I would have become an atheist myself.

    This is by far the funniest thing I have heard in a while.

    I make an observation that not everyone who comments on a “Christian blog” is a “Christian.” Then the argument becomes about me proving them to being Christians. If I took that bait it would be a novice mistake.

    Guess what? If they’re not “Christians” then why are you so concerned about them doing evil? Newflash: evil people do evil deeds.

    You act like you’re suprised that evil people do evil things.

    I don’t want to link to all the violent hate filled comments coming from red pills, but I can tell you that anyone who doesn’t see it is simply being willfully blind.

    Then keep you comments to yourself. If you’re going to accuse people of something then you had better back it up. Anything else is gossip and slander.

    Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good

  20. Novaseeker

    Dalrock is a Christian — it’s obvious if you have read him from the beginning of his blog, more or less, as I have.

    Vox has his own kinda-Christian thing going on — it’s his own faith, in my opinion, but not really small-o orthodox Christianity, based on what I have seen him write about it many years ago.

    Anyone else involved?

  21. LandS

    When the Titanic hit an iceberg, it divided. It was just too big.

  22. “You act like you’re suprised that evil people do evil things.”

    I am surprised when those claiming Christ’s name do evil things, yes. Pretty naive of me, isn’t it?

    “This is by far the funniest thing I have heard in a while. ”

    I’m glad you find it amusing. I assure you, I don’t.

  23. “You act like you’re suprised that evil people do evil things.”

    I am surprised when those claiming Christ’s name do evil things, yes. Pretty naive of me, isn’t it?

    “This is by far the funniest thing I have heard in a while. ”

    I’m glad you find it amusing. I assure you, I don’t.

    This is getting tiresome. If you’re mature in Christ then act like it.

    Almost every post I’ve seen you post on you’re complaining about the same things. No use continuing to pout and complain that people aren’t listening to you.

    Do you know why Christ was able to forgive the people mocking Him when on the cross? He was secure in His identity. He already told them and demonstrated to them with miracles that He was sent from the Father. He didn’t need to complain and pout about how they weren’t changing even though they said they were “sons of Abraham” and called him possessed by the devil. He forgave them and He told the Father to forgive them because they didn’t know whate they were doing.

    Lots of people do evil in Christ’s name. If you’ve said what you need to say to them to admonish them from the Scriptures and they don’t turn from their ways then that’s all you need to do. Let God judge hearts and actions.

    I’m still waiting for your proof with links, but I’m not holding my breath.

  24. Pedat Ebediyah

    I concur with Deepstrength wholeheartedly on this, and am wholly uncertain as to her purpose as a whole for coming into these spaces with such a presentation.

    I wonder has she not realized the contradictions in such a ruse?

    I wonder if she doesn’t realize that her false commiserating is really only manifest in the form of conflict, contention, and combativeness, not to mention callousness?

    I wonder if she doesn’t realize the magnitude of her folly?

    I wonder why, as DS noted, she’s bearing false witness against her brethren (firstly) and slandering the non-brethren at TRM (secondly)?

    I wonder if she knows that true empathy doesn’t demand that others “stop feeling like that”, as if she is the arbiter of the convictions of men and their need to work out “their own salvation with fear and trembling”?

    I wonder what she fears that she, and other women, stand to lose by men edifying one another to greater works “according to the inner man”, and as Rollo noted, “Building Better Worlds” from the inside out?

    I wonder is she in His grip, or is she gripped with fear that elements of womenfolk will be left back as the men press for the mark of the higher calling in Christ, leading to greater esteem in Him, being firm in the standards borne out of His standard, accepting or tolerating nothing less.

    I wonder if she doesn’t realize that what she may consider privilege is merely just grace extended by her benefactors (Rollo) and now Donal in tolerating such folly, notwithstanding that this is cyberspace as opposed to a real life men’s space where she’d be summarily tossed out on her tailbone…

    …or as Jet Li noted in Lethal Weapon 4, when confronted by the insolence of Detective Riggs and Murtaugh declared:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s