“The tongue is the sword of a woman and she never lets it become rusty.” – Chinese Proverb
Contents:
1.) Justification is a Machiavellian Fallacy
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences
3.) The Logician’s Problem
4.) The Rational Machiavellian
4a.) Switching Between Logical & Machiavellian Cognitive Modalities
5.) Closing Remarks
6.) Relevant Reading
1.) Justification is a Machiavellian Fallacy:
Justification is for the weak, in the game of power nobody respects he who justifies himself. Within a social fabric where the lowest common denominator prevails; where feelings triumph over logic, and likewise grandiosity over humility, honesty is but a virtue bastardised. You see, it is the transparency of justification that makes it powerless. Regardless, many an intellectual man’s instinctual adherence to logical authoritarianism renders him incapable of determining this. Therefore, when he is tested, questioned, scrutinised and cross-examined, his most visceral instinct is to justify himself to his haranguing attacker; woe befalls him.
Little does he know his challenger’s agenda is malicious, and their enquiry, insincere. Such a man haphazardly scrambles to explain himself by demonstrating his thought process. It is in this moment the Machiavellian knows they have won. With widening smile, such a rational yet foolish man can be gamed, intimidated, humiliated and berated. He will be kept on the defence with his own words, for it is they which will be weaponised against him. The more he speaks, the deeper his grave.
As Queen Gertrude said in Hamlet “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Likewise, he who opts to prove, demonstrate and qualify himself with merely and solely the spoken word is perceived to be dishonest, pathetic. The justification is not seen as transparent or helpful, but rather as persuasive, deceptive, false – even when it isn’t. People have a propensity to distrust that which doesn’t embody an element of effortlessness.
With both the playful Machiavellian and the dimwit, a sentiment is shared; the more one protests, the more their guilt is assumed. It is thought if one were not guilty they would feel no need to justify their position. Why? Well because their position would “be obvious” of course; oh the subjective horror! To the idiot and the Machiavellian alike, truth is self-evident; it is organic and therefore shows in one’s actions. The need to have to say anything about an aspect of one’s self robs it of its naturalness, and therefore to the devout Machiavellian, its charismatic credibility.
Honesty destroys mystery, and with it, the attraction of curiosity. The Machiavellian hates the duplicitous more than most, and yet, respectfully appreciates only the cunning. As such, Machiavellians tend to be in a constant flux of love-hate with their peers. When you are understood, you are unattractive. When you try to help people understand you, they lose respect for you, you’re making it too easy. People only value what they work for, be it wages or relationships. Of course the man of reason is oft deficient in the social realm, and therefore he does not fully comprehend the games that people play.
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences:
The minds of rational men are attuned toward deduction and debate, not toward subtextual nuance and psychological warfare. This is why so many men are undervalued if not completely absent in the social game, superficial social popularity does not care how smart you are. Women know this innately, and are thus natural improvisers compelled to manage delicately how others perceive them. Women are sensitively attuned to their reputation in this way, uniquely so, whilst men on the other hand are less innately capable of such façades, finding the effort involved cumbersome and alien.
Rational but socially deficient men attempt foolishly to enhance their social standing with logic, knowledge and shows of intelligence (dare one say, intellectual narcissism) but this serves only to further repel the masses. In the social game it is rhetoric, humorous wit and good feeling that are valued above all. That and of course, matters of the flesh, in which sex appeal is something women possess no short supply of.
Naturally idiots care little for reason, for they cannot grasp it, and as for Machiavellians, the transparency bores them. They despise it because it is boring, and it is boring because it is bereft cunning. There is neither fun nor challenge to be had in the absence of mystique, for the cunning possess a propensity to seek perpetual psychological challenge.
Logic bores the playful Machiavellian, for it is too serious, too predictable and too bland for their social palate, and that which is bland by dismerit of transparency is accordingly disrespected. There are those (such as myself) who can switch between a Machiavellian and logical mode of communication, but this is atypical. Most people are firmly cunning (indirect and subtle), or transparently direct in their dominant mode of communication.
For man, Machiavellianism is predominantly a vocation learned. Few men are naturally equipped with Machiavellian tendency, let alone apt in employing its devices. Some are raised in challenging environments which imbue these traits from a young age, but rest assured, Machiavellianism is a female instinct and a male art form. If man does not pursue Machiavellianism as an art form, a vocation to be learned and practised, he can never hope to be half as cunning as the typical woman. Feminine cunning is a byproduct of female evolutionary development, and thus is oft subconscious rather than premeditated, ergo most women do not lack cunning, most men do.
A manipulative mentality is not a modus operandi for the average man like it is the average woman. Man was given biceps to impose his will, women received the gift of cunning. If man wants to become cunning, he must thus go out of his way to become acquainted with the Machiavellian mode of thinking. In absence of such instinctual proclivity, man must learn to integrate Machiavellian ideas through reading and social practice.
Throughout human existence, women have been the physically weaker sex. As such they have needed to evolve subconscious strategies to covertly manipulate men in ways that benefit their sole needs. When you are (physically) weaker than most of your predators and thus rely on man to protect and support you; you have to get good at exploiting male strength and reason to ensure you are protected and provided for. Remember, female economic independence is a fairly recent trend, for almost all of human history women have depended upon men for their resources.
Naturally, manipulation with and without its sexual connotation is the predominant purview of the feminine. Some men blindly dabble in Machiavellianism out of anger, frustration or a lust for power, but fewer yet vocationally refine their Machiavellian capacity to a degree beyond woman’s ability. Indeed, much the scope of Illimitable Men is aiding one in this endeavour. You see, the majority of men are effectively clueless in matters of Machiavellianism. Women on the other hand are Machiavellian as water is wet. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who isn’t Machiavellian, female autists come to mind as a possible exception.
The idiotic man is limited most by morality, the intelligent man, by rationalism, and the woman, neither. For women Machiavellianism is the de facto status quo, her natural way of both conscious and subconscious interaction with the world. Things don’t have to “be logically or morally right” for women to believe in an idea or exhibit specific behaviour. Women have been observed to make noble, moral arguments, whilst surreptitiously behaving contrary to the repute of said opinion.
It is in all the “glory” of dissociation that women can easily manipulate themselves into believing falsehoods via pseudo-rationalisation. This makes them incredibly compelling, as it grants them the capacity to bear-faced lie with a seemingly pure conviction; this is something typical of the feminine, but deemed psychopathic in nature when depicted by the masculine.
In the greater manosphere, we refer to this phenomenon as “the rationalisation hamster”. The typical man thoroughly lacks the capacity to delude himself an entirely false narrative with such potency; therefore in the absence of such competently instinctual self-delusion, man must confront any moral concerns and rational tendencies head-on before he is able to embrace and exemplify the Machiavellian mindset.
3.) The Logician’s Problem:
The rational not only reduces his power by justifying himself, but likewise he alienates others by correcting their logical inconsistencies. Like an autist, the logician’s primary concern is veracity over finesse; naturally this offends, and thus in matters of persuasion is a grave faux pas.
Indeed, it is more difficult for the rational intellectual to socialise and be liked for the fortitude of his character than it is the loveable idiot. For logic is charmless, challenging, and taxing for a largely illogical population. People oft feel threatened by that which they do not understand; intellect beyond their comprehension is of course no exception.
Boundless fear pulsates through the veins of the ignorant and the egotistical, the ignorant fear the unknown and the strongest of egotists are inhabited by a paranoid loathing for anything that could remotely challenge their sense of supremacy. If you have ever been disrespected for sounding intelligent, you were on the brunt end of this. You made the mistake of thinking you were in fair and open-minded company, while indeed you were not.
Unlike the logician, the idiot does not become pre-occupied with their thoughts. The intellectual on the other hand is often immersed deep in abstract thought and thus must “switch into another way of being” to be socially competent. The thought wavelength symptomatic of higher cognitive functions would appear to be incompatible with the social demands of the lower.
As such, the logician must “turn their charm on,” that is to say, subdue the honest and mechanical thinking part of their brain, instead turning on their duplicitous social brain. Idiots have little thinking brain to turn off, they’re always in social mode. Women likewise thrive in social mode as socialising is their bread and butter, that is to say, women tend to be socially focused and group-orientated as they’re more dependant on “the group” than men are. In the ancestral environment where men could hunt and survive alone, a woman would almost certainly perish without tribe acceptance.
As I stated in a previous paragraph, historically women were dependent on men. You don’t survive if you’re a dependant and an introvert; hence it is my theoretical contention that women have evolved biologically to be more extroverted than men on the whole. Their inclination toward excess chatter, and preference for work which is social rather than solitary in nature is indicative of this. Regardless, I find it tangentially relevant at this point to stipulate that introverts have a tendency to be more intellectual than extroverts.
Introverts live to think and innovate, they prioritise solitude. Extroverts live to play and consume, they prioritise company. Naturally the prior is more typical of man, and the latter, of women. The seasoned Machiavellian learns how to switch between his rational brain and his social brain so that he can interact as necessary; this is utilitarian ambiversion.
The merits and demerits of logic are so in-conflict with the merits and demerits of Machiavellian logic that the rational man’s primary mode of thought: “logical reasoning” impedes his ability to be socially effective. One cannot be socially effective without being sufficiently Machiavellian. Not all Machiavellians are strategists in the strictest sense, but all socialites are Machiavellian. When you are logical, you are easy to predict and lack the tools necessary to predict those of a less rational disposition.
Instinctually, Machiavellian logic is counterintuitive to man’s sense of innate, natural logic. I believe this is one of the fundamental reasons many a man struggles to understand the feminine. You see, unlike “raw logic” Machiavellianism is an alternative system of logic; it is the logic of popularity, dominance and duplicity.
As a logician, you are easy to understand because you do not selectively utilise chaos, your rationalism makes you easily read and predictable. The Machiavellian is harder to predict because where it suits him, he will disobey, distort and undermine logic with cunning and poise. The Machiavellian is adept in sophistry, whilst the logician is not.
4.) The Rational Machiavellian:
Machiavellianism is aligned with pragmatism and self-betterment, not truth or a set of ethics. That is to say, Machiavellianism is most concerned with maximising one’s efficiency as far as power acquisition and personal well-being is concerned. You will scarcely find a Machiavellian who is not a pragmatist, but you will find plenty of “rational” idealists.
In many circumstances, logic and fact are an obstruction to the Machiavellian motive; they expose duplicity by contradicting narrative with fact, and so the Machiavellian practices caution with the logical, for they are less easily duped.
People who understand logic but do not obey its authoritative confines will try to exploit your logic. They are what I refer to as “Rational Machiavellians”. They tend to be men blessed with high reasoning faculty, but adept in the ways of cunning, and as such, can switch between rational and Machiavellian modes of thought. Such ability is rare, other than myself, a figure who comes to mind that appears capable of this is journalist Milo Yiannopoulos. This ability is a binary cognitive modality that, in my view, all men looking to build or maintain power should embody.
The rational Machiavellian thinks logically about the challenge they are going to present to you. With their rationalism weaponised, they will predict your potential responses in correlation with what they know of your character. Your potential responses are easily preconceived because running on the assumption you are rational, it is easy to lead to you to certain answers. Your answer will be X or Y in theme (categorically deductive) because you are rational, rationalism makes you easy to predict because you will scarcely say something irrational and hence intellectually spontaneous.
Rational Machiavellians are logical only when necessary. They realise the rules of the social game, and that cunning’s success rate far surpasses logic’s when it comes to social and political matters. Yet the rational Machiavellian also realises the logician is enslaved to logic, and that as such, his source of strength is likewise his most glaring weakness.
Inversely, the rational Machiavellian can weaponise logic where beneficial, he is not confined to the realm of rational thought whilst attempting to actualise his imperative. As such, he can influence the rational and irrational with equal measure, pandering to both the logician’s need to understand and the idiot’s need to belong.
The rational yet socially incompetent man has a mind that operates far differently from that of the common idiot. Yet it is not the intellectual that dictates the rules of the social game, it is the socially Machiavellian, the charmers and the hucksters.
The rational thinks the strong justify, because there is strength in justification. The rational sees justification as a chain of reasoning, the rational believes logic is good. The rational therefore concludes if one can create a chain of reasoning conducive to their opinions, then said justification is strength, virtuous even. To the rational, an inability to support one’s opinions and choices with a traceable succession of chain reasoning is weakness.
Indeed, an inability to support one’s opinion with cogent reason is incompetently fallacious, but this alone is insufficient. The ignorant rationalist, safe in the knowledge he is more logical than his opponent, hastily deduces that he has the upper hand, that he is the superior, and therefore the victor. The fatal flaw in his reasoning of course is conflating logical supremacy with social victory, women for example are of inferior logic, yet they often beat men in arguments. In the social game, being correct does not guarantee you victory, if your opponent is incorrect but more cunning, they will win. Irrationalism wielded correctly is its own strength.
You see, you can be indubitably wrong about all manner of things, you can be unfair, and you can have shitty token reasons for the decisions you make. Yet, if you say it with charm, guile and the expressiveness of passion, with the correct gambits played it does not matter, you will win.
Humans do not reward he who is most logical in social matters, but rather he who is most impressive. Suffice to say, Machiavellian gambits and persuasive rhetoric often triumph over the autistic charmlessness of logic, fact and statistic. Who cares about the logicians or if they’re right?! “Fuck logic, it’s a nuisance!” – words uttered by an arousedly angered ex-girlfriend of mine.
Alas, in victory, where logic benefits one, one utilises it to improve the validity of their argument. Where logic opposes one’s desires, logic is conveniently ignored, omitted from presentation. Instead, the underhandedness of Machiavellianism and its emotional rhetoric peddling is utilised. Rhetoric is convincing in its persuasion because the majority of people are primarily governed by emotion rather than reason; hence when certain emotive responses are triggered, such people are sucked into the asserted viewpoint no matter how factually incorrect it may be.
4a.) Switching Between Logical & Machiavellian Cognitive Modalities:
People will shit test you to gauge whether you’re worthy of respect, before even deigning to address your logic. If you can’t hold frame, the socially powerful (who are often stubborn) won’t even get to the stage of disputing your reason. To dispute your reason, one must respect you enough as a person to engage intellectually, therefore those who disrespect you will not dispute your reason, but rather, your character.
Most people argue with logic, or underhanded social Machiavellianism. The best debaters (eg: Milo Yiannopoulos) calibrate to the seriousness of their opponent; if the opponent is being obtuse and offensive, the debater will undermine and ridicule, if the opponent is at least attempting to make a reasoned argument, it will be refuted with cogent counterargument.
Those who use social dominance rather than reason to win their battles will not be taken seriously by the reasonable. If you are autistically logical, people will humiliate you, you will seem clueless, and your appeal will be damaged as you appear socially incompetent. As such, one must be socially (and manipulatively) intelligent enough to pass shit tests, as well as possess cogent reason for formulating an argument that can hold up to scrutiny.
Improper debate such as taunting and reputation smearing almost always precede proper debate. Proper debate is the transparent disputation of theory or decision-making via assertion and counterargument. Although not so deliberately outrageous as Milo Yiannopoulos, another person who achieves the balance of social competence and logical rigour in my opinion would be British politician Nigel Farage.
Argumental effectiveness thus lies in mode-switching between duplicitous and logical communication. It is only through the embodiment of this duality that people looking to see someone get burned will give your reasoning the time it deserves, whilst the nerdy relish in the observation of logic triumphing over dogma.
One must be competently cunning, as well as logical in order to defend their reputation and deliver effective arguments. As one is exposed when unable to sufficiently handle another’s insults, they will likewise meet eventual exposure if all they do is insult absent a capacity to form cogent arguments. If you are not very good in either capacity, you are easy to ridicule/refute; if you are good in one aspect but not the other, you’re an average debater; if you’re good in both aspects, you’re difficult to humiliate or refute with reason and hence a powerful debater.
Of course as institutions of learning do not overtly teach Machiavellianism, most people don’t tap into this vein of knowledge. And those like Milo Yiannoopoulos who instinctively understand and behave in accordance with this dynamic thus appear godlike to both idiots and intellectuals alike.
If you attend a debating society or something of the sort, you will come into contact with philosophical models, logical fallacies and the structure of argument. But knowledge pertaining to the rules of the social game, such as how to emotionally endure your opponent, humiliate them and leave the audience in awe is absent; the instruction of sophistry and rhetoric is limited, dominated almost exclusively by a small elite of aristocrats and political families.
In fact, the well-meaning yet foolish logicians who take centre position in logic and philosophy circles will discourage you from deploying effective Machiavellian social gambits. Effective methodologies for ridiculing the opposition and winning audience approval almost always take the form of logical fallacy. Deliberately misrepresenting them (straw man), insulting them (ad hominem) or pressure flipping (tu quoque) are effective because they shake the opponent’s resolve, but due to their fallacious nature will be penalised rather than encouraged in debating circles. This is the logician’s weakness, by being fixated on the logical incoherence of such manoeuvres he fails to perceive their Machiavellian utility.
Fallacies or not, these methods of sophistry are very effective, and one is wise to employ them where an otherwise sound debate is not possible. People are far more enamoured by the outrageousness of theatre than they are the monotonous recount of reason and statistic. Should you wish to deploy statistic and hit a home run with your argument, it is wise to dazzle your opponent first.
5.) Closing Remarks:
When one works in a position where justification is expected, promoted, or part of the job description – it is still despised. This is why those low on the corporate totem pole are disrespected and often unconfident. The justification inherent of their job demands causes their peers to view them pathetically.
Justification no matter the circumstance is seen as low value behaviour, an admission of guilt, a symptom of inferiority. Even when you are “simply doing your job” or merely wish to engage in an honest informational exchange, if the other is not on your wavelength you will be perceived as: “caring too much” and “trying too hard.” Social calibration is everything.
Social calibration consists of altering your behaviour based upon the level of respect your company has for you. If you’re with an idiot or irrational Machiavellian (this is most people, including women) downplay the importance of logic, duplicity dominates. When you are in open-minded and logical company, you can be less duplicitous. Adjust your style of communication to reflect the disposition of your company, this will allow you to hold the upper hand and ensure you don’t get played.
6.) Relevant Reading:
Blog Material:
Everything in the Strategy, Power & War Hub – (There are numerous articles here)
How Women Argue
Solipsism, Emotion & Arguments
Book(s) on Machiavellianism:
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War”
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power”
Buy “The Craft of Power”
Buy “The Prince”
Very interesting.
Crap! This is good! If you are a logical man you should read 48 laws of power it will help you deal with maschivellian people, Or at least be able to protect yourself from them.
I’ve covered law 1 more in-depth:
http://illimitablemen.com/2013/12/10/law-01-never-outshine-the-master-exemplified-and-explained/
More to come.
I’m looking to expand my understandings even more. I’ve read Greene’s books, any other good recommendations?
Yes: The Craft of Power by Ralph Gun Hoy Siu
People you refer to as idiots – Jesus Christ, Socrates, Diogenes, MLK, Bernie Sanders. All these people would score very low on any mach test. You kind of gloss over how logic relates to ethics, the same way economists seem to dismiss any behavior outside the Homus Economicus model as “irrational”. A Machiavellian is just someone who likes to succeed at others people’s expense, or with no regard for others whatsoever. All morality is relative. Life is game. – Low mach people, or idiots / fools / dimwits/ logicians as you like to call them, are just the people who see through your bullshit and reject it on an ethical level. A classic example is Barnum, identifying himself as a predator to all the like-minded Machiavellians around by saying ” a sucker is born every minute”. The greatest example of this i have ever seen is in the movie Contact, when the protagonist (low mach) conducts herself ethically, while her winning adversary uses every duplicitous technique in the book to beat her. He even tells her “I wish we lived in a world where ….. and you would have won. but we don’t live in that world. To which she replies “Funny. I always thought the world was what we make it.” I’m really curious. When you see that scene doesn’t it make you feel just a little guilty? That you agree with THAT guy and not the logical, sincere protagonist?
Bernie Sanders?
Would you recommend to a woman seeking truth and reason the same things you would to men? And if not, why not?
Had to read twice to fully comprehend the genius.I was that guy who would constantly justify his arguments in every logical way possible. Not anymore
I wish I had been introduced to this material earlier in my life. Currently finishing my last undergraduate semester and finally understanding the roots of my social frustrations. I always assumed that I would benefit from being fiercely logical and “technically correct”, that I would necessarily be respected for knowledge and logic over social finesse. I struggled to see the value in strategic social discourse, or “manipulation” because I was bad at it and thus it was of no value to me personally. I deluded myself by justifying logical behavior as morally superior. In reality, I found myself consistently disseminating information with idiotic transparency.
I massively appreciate your writing, thank you. I have work to do but articles like these give me direction and purpose. Looking forward to more.
There are many things incorrect about this. But the two most blatant are, there’s a binary opposition an assumption perhaps for the sake of constructing your argument that there’s a polar difference between your two categories: The social- the non-social & present a contrast that’s based on observations of human nature to create a schema or outline about these rules. A. trying to reduce this to a science leaves out many subtleties one being that the dimensions between introversion & extra are closer to a spectrum than a polarity. That being said, one of the most obvious objections to your forgone conclusions are, it’s necessarily implied that someone who thinks logically is incapable of reading someones social behavior there are several examples that could be made to the contrary thought I’d prefer to avoid that investment in this time or place. -Secondly, Your adoption of social vogues indicate that a person who is incapable of socialization is not adaptive and functional in our current societal setup. There real question would be, “Why is that?” That being said there’s a much better appeal than to, “Humans are inherently group oriented in nature there-fore to exploit group orientation personality traits ethical or otherwise are virtuous.” It’s merely a contest of utility & what exactly maintains the best utility in certain contexts; anything other than that is ideological.
Translation: IM I dont agree with what your writing but I’m going to try and sound logical while making no sense at all .
We got ourselves a feminist!!!!!
…a statement which, ironically, is as disagreeable and nonsensical as you claim it to be. What evidence, besides disagreement, do you have to support the assertion that the previous commenter is a feminist?
I need your help. I read the article but much if it is alien. At first I thought your ideas were convoluted but afterwards I figured it’s probably me. I might be missing some prerequisite knowledge needed to full grasp these concepts you’re discussing. I would love to fully understand the articles so I can start applying them in my daily life. I do have the 48 Laws and The Prince. I’ve only read The Prince so far. Any tips on some materials I should read first to have a better chance of comprehending this? Thanks.
Hmm. I’m not sure reading either of those books will help you understand this article. If you make your question as precise as possible, I will endeavour to do the same with my response. The general premise of the article is that men justify themselves out of logic, thinking explaining themselves makes them more credible. Machiavellians/women argue out of manipulation, legitimacy is found in what is superficially plausible rather than what is backed with solid reasoning. Different ways of communicating and seeing the world.
Ok I’ll try my best. For all of my 31 years of life I’ve been beta. I discovered the redpill last summer. Very slowly I’m trying to change my outlook on the world and my behaviour into the redpill view. One of the biggest obstacles I have to overcome is the use of logic. I can’t behave without using it. It’s very frustrating because it makes my dealings with others painful. I really can’t stand most people. Most are pretty illogical and hard to deal with. Unfortunately we are more or less forced to deal with them.
I have an issue where I can start to get angry and lose frame when I see that someone isn’t making sense. Especially on purpose. To get under my skin. I want to be able to gain full control over my emotions (I actually wouldn’t mind not having any to be honest) so that I can control myself in any given situation. This is the best way i can explain it through text. If I tried any harder I’d make less sense. I hope you get the gist of what I’m trying to say. Thanks man.
P.S. I hope you go ahead with the book idea. I’d gladly shell out some coin for it.
OF, the way to deal with that is to make a (covert/powertalky) statement in the same vein that, while not engaging in logictalk like ‘fallacy’ or ‘half-truth’ or what have you, subtly demonstrates that you’re onto the game and know the other is full of shit. Classic example is to never respond to an elliptical cultural reference (quotation, song lyric) by identifying it, but rather to make a similar (ideally more elliptical) cultural reference. It’s a variant on Agree & Amplify I suppose.
“men justify themselves out of logic, thinking explaining themselves makes them more credible”.
That’s so true, it was very foolish of me to ever defend attacks by explaining my logic or honest reasons for things when trying to avoid misunderstandings, or to resolve a matter of disagreement. People do tend to form social groups around superficially plausible ideas of what is acceptable and there are many Machiavellian types who would seek to manipulate themselves into power through social engineering, and many fools who believe anything that supports their preferred worldview or protects their status.
Cant say Ive noticed a difference in gender though, beyond the fact that girls learn it in high school and lads catch up in the workplace.
How does one actively learn to improve rhetoric and charm?
Stand-up comedy is a good starting place to learn both.
Watching political speeches/debates is a good medium to learn rhetoric.
I am a bit confused how everybody can be so Machiavellian. It seems to me that this stuff can only work if the majority of people are idiots. Is that right? If there were more logical people in the world, this stuff wouldn’t work, would it? Recently I had the opportunity to visit a reception with a lot of CEOs and other people in high level management. I could tell that literally everything they said was bullshit (I only found 2 people in the reception who appeared to sometimes say what they meant). I was astounded, because if I were a boss, I would not trust these people with any task greater than taking out the trash, but they were all millionaire high level managers.
And I am a bit confused on another thing. You said in a different post that women are attracted to men who have traits from the dark triad. But I don’t think most men are like that. If women are attracted to those kinds of men, then why aren’t those men a majority due to sexual selection? A plausible answer seems to be that logical men who work together can out-compete men without inherent value (men with dark triad traits), so they conquer the psychopaths and Machiavellians with efficiency. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it be beneficial for a woman to be attracted to a rational man rather than a machiavellian one? The way I see it, if the majority of men are rational, and the majority of women are attracted to machiavellians, then the life-strategy of one of the genders is extremely dysfunctional. I don’t understand how that can happen.
And another thing. If women think that being logical is boring, and they are attracted to machiavellians, then how to logical men ever reproduce? Do they win the women by being rich, and the women secretly despise their husbands for being so transparent and logical, but they stay with them for money? It is a depressing thought.
Firstly, the majority of people are completely oblivious to any introspection and searching thought – a logical person first always thinks before acting unless any external factors disallow them from thinking, such as time restraints, punishment, pressure and distractions. In the modern world, these external factors are normal things, normal distractions. We are all under time restraints; it controls us because we need to it to be mechanical and ordered. If you need time to logically map out a decision or to formulate a venturing thought, you won’t get it because you have to be at work at 08:00 am, you need to pick up the kids at 16:00, you need to go to the shops at 18:00 and you need to be asleep at 21:00 because of work at 08:00 am. You have no time to think, never mind the ability – even if you possessed the ability, you are limited.
Therefore you go throughout your day and life rushing because everything except your constraints/distraction are unimportant because your obstructions are the logical and ordered things in your life – Time is always systematic, your TV show always comes on with time’s system, you always get warnings for missing work. Hence when you are rushing home and you need to purchase something or you are on the edge of a profound thought whilst watching TV – you do not possess the control to logically decide what to purchase or to develop the profound thought because you are distracted.
The populace is not logical because of many innate, environmental and cognitive factors but then even if many are able to use logic, they are unable to on a large scale because they are in chains from daily life. So when a logical/Machiavellian person comes around, switched on, he/she targets the person’s absence of logic and targets the automatic responses and emotional centres because that’s all they possess because they are drowning in distractions and restraints from daily life. The Machiavellian mind is sharp in social contexts to ply its trade. Marketing and advertising work in the same fashion. A person can be manipulated easily once they are distracted and their emotions fondled with as long as the manipulator behaves as the logical centre in their life in the situation. ‘Why not buy a coke, it’s warm and you’re thirsty. It’s unhealthy to be dehydrated and your body loves glucose.’
The majority of people use a large section of logic in appearance everyday but this logic can be overpowered through many factors as mentioned above. Consequently, the majority of people aren’t all necessary idiots, but are consumed with many factors which clouds their logic. And of course, there are also a lot of unintelligent idiots out there who are easily toyed with.
The CEO’s and managers of such companies are most likely Machiavellian. They have reached the positions possibly because of these traits, they have played the ostensibly ‘logical’ people below and above them. You yourself are probably contemplative and observant of social communication, which makes you immune to the techniques such people use. So to finally answer your first question (finally) is yes most people are idiots, and some are not all idiotic but are restrained by many factors to think astutely as a Machiavellian does. Leaving them defenceless from their attacks but you yourself, possess a shield against their swords.
If most people were logical at most times, such as the bosses who hire such people, then things would advance. Better suited and more rational people would be hired and chosen in life’s different roles. Machiavellian’s are actors who confuse normal minds into submission and benefit off them but do not always give back. It can certainly be perceived as an evolutionary survival or advancement strategy.
The complete man is logical but is aware of and can deploy Machiavellian tact.
On to your second paragraph –
Logical men ‘who work together’ is called civilization. Traditionalism is in favour for the ‘beta’ or the logical man. The Machiavellian is not a moral and civilized character underneath. In a survival context, the logical man who relies on other men is weaker than the Machiavellian man who relies on his astuteness to survive and thrive. A man who can also charm his way into civilized places to survive, As a woman, if society were to fall, would she want the ‘beta’/logic man’ to maintain her survival or the Machiavellian? The Machiavellian is adaptable.
Traditionalism forces women to breed with logical men rather than dark triad men, which is how they are ‘conquered’. When these traditions are replaced or reduced (fall of marriage, hypergamy), the woman reveals her true target. It is dysfunctional to civilization if dark triads are prevalent – which is what we are experiencing. Women are just surviving.
I have often pondered this same question. Having been a person who tried marriage a few times, both ending with the woman leaving me followed by the same woman relentlessly attempting to reconnect with me after they wanted out; leads me to wonder if it is me or some biological trends that we may not have total control over as people. As I am one of those men who only understand logic, I started to pull these apart. Maybe you can help me to determine if my thoughts are sound.
When people developed through less geographically saturated times, many of the traits which were bred into us benefited humans back then. However, like the X-men comics, the world has drastically changed and the people who are these logical geniuses that wield the sword of reason and can develop a virtual world in an afternoon are somewhat of new species. We are at odds with this longstanding developed world of biological reactions which suited humans in their past development.
Females of the species developed in community centers, and the traits that benefited growing and maintaining their continuation are different than that of the males. In earlier times in history it took 14 years to bring up a new reproductive ability (a new woman) in the community. Like adding a new piece of equipment to a factory line. If it took that long to add a new piece of equipment to the factory line and wars were happening all the time we would make our primary objective to preserve the factory line. The females with the traits to make preservation of each member in the group their primary objective, but only after their own preservation, were the ones that survived to pass on biological DNA to the next generation.
Our world history does not go many generations without an overpowering event in which your culture should expect to have all the men removed and the women assimilated into the new culture. What traits would be best suited for this in a female? When new cultures came and overpowered the women who were loyal and resisted were killed, or just did not reproduce in great number due to the biological resistance to overpowering. But the ones who adapted to overpowering (or were actually turned on by it) reproduced in large numbers. As this overpowering happens over and over, we breed the female trait of attraction to overpowering (or at least attraction to the strength above being loyal).
At the same time, people are also attracted to status, which makes the fastest rising or accelerating mate the most attractive. In this day and age we have separated these two things. The most successful male does not often have to have the physical power. In fact, the last few generations of males have been raised to think that every traditional male trait which shows traditional physical dominance is wrong. This makes a new contradiction in both males and females.
Women biologically desire the traditional male traits even if only subconsciously, and women see these traits when the relationship is new and the idea of the new male can be whatever is in the woman’s imagination. Watch a traditional female marketed romantic comedy. Males will have the form of a man, and physical dominance, and status; but their personalities will never really be developed at all. The idea of a man (the ideal man) meets the biological desire of women in general, but does not require anything other than for the man to be present.
Now back to the X-men example. The most successfully accelerating people (highest status) have changed. They are a very logical people who are comfortable in the world of technology. Throughout history, males have learned that their value is only with success; but success now a days is not physical for the most part. Both women and men have changed their skillset and cognitive thinking in a one or two generations. But that is not enough to change our biology. Women still biologically desire the hero of the dark ages and men still biologically desire female traits which show fertility. Both sexes are going after 10% of the other sex, with increasingly more resources to throw at this effort.
Connecting the two; to be viewed as the ideal of both biological attraction and status attraction is what the Machiavellian revival is giving its growing following. The entire approach I see of MGTOW and other such movements is that they are trying to raise the status of the male and get the biological trigger to come to them. These are both only band-aides until our biology catches up with this new generation of X-men.
The logical male with growing success in the world is what the females want when they are sober, they will keep coming back because they want and have a connection with these men. But they will act based on biology when in a reproductive mindset. When some situation drives them back to the biological trigger they revert to, the self is first, and the group of women are to be maintained above all. This takes on the appearance of hypergamy.
The problem is also accented because men are not just Alpha or Beta types, we are both and this is accented even more by the training women give their young sons focused on removing male traits. Men want to be Alpha, and can shut off emotions and remove connection for periods of time effectively; however, the best traits that served the survival of males’ offspring over the same thousands of years were the ones that told us to protect our offspring at all costs. Thus, the males who chose that they would die to protect their groups have passed along their biological make up (DNA) more effectively, and they are the ones left on the planet. This trait makes men decide what they will die for, not weather we will should preserve ourselves or not. Men in a reproductive mindset then become more single mindedly focuses on protecting the one person which, in this case the woman, which is biologically hpyergamisitc.
The more rational and logically minded we become, the more this division seems to be accented. We have the status and success of the alpha, but then become the beta when our biology kicks in in the relationship. It is happy hunting, but don’t expect 2000+ years of biology to change as fast as the traits which make us most effective in today’s age. Unfortunately the people we still chase that make up this 10% do not often value the logical progression of their own lives that our X-men super humans are progressing toward.
Your final paragraph –
Logical men reproduce because of tradition through religious teaching such as marriage. The ‘beta’ provides and yes she does despise him as we know and may try to explore for dark triad sperm on the side. Another way a logical man reproduces is, if he employs Machiavellian tact, either accidentally or purposefully.
And being rich is like a cheat code to be able to not employ dark triad traits or to use traditional means and to still be able to reproduce with attractive women. Which is why most men want to be rich, to re-route sexual relationships and so they don’t have to become dark triad.
Money is to a man what makeup is to a woman. It makes one more attractive.
Simply because of hypergamy and briffault’s law.
I hope I can add some good input to your questions. My previous relationship had lasted four years. After reading this article I have tangible logic to how I gain a woman’s interest, or seduce her in a way. I believe, and find through personal experience, that the Machiavellian methods are good when trying to flirt, hit on, or seduce a woman. In my previous relationship, for the first couple months, it was very heavily weighted on that, and it was quite passionate. As the relationship developed, or any relationship, you have to balance it with the rational side of your personality. How she, and the relationship, developes from there really determines whether or not it will last.
So yes, simply just approaching a relationship with 100% Machiavellian techniques and maneuvers is not good, but whats worse is approaching it from 100% rational/logical angle. That is just boring, plain, and will not ignite a flame between you and her. Like mentioned in the article, women are very much machiavellian rather than rational, and if you do not touch upon that aspect then I strongly believe, with experience to back it up, that it will go nowhere.
Brandon, my good man,
Most people are, idiots! They just don’t realize it, due to the other idiots they are with. Sit back and enjoy the show. Idiots are quite entertaining and educational.
Thanks for your replies. I don’t know if I don’t understand, or if these questions haven’t been answered yet:
If Machiavellian are talking to each other, and they each know that everything the other one says is bullshit, why do they bother talking to each other? I can understand saying bullshit to deceive stupid people, but I don’t understand the point of all this bullshit if the person you are talking to knows it’s bullshit. Everybody in the receptions I visited did the same stuff, so I assume they all knew that it was bullshit. I don’t get it. Don’t you have to show some degree of sincerity to work with somebody who is roughly your equal and who understands his own interests?
And I still don’t get how it is that men on the whole can have such a strong sense of honor, but women aren’t attracted to that trait. It’s not like the world was filled with psychopaths in prehistory, and then suddenly logic appeared when civilization appeared, and women just haven’t caught up yet. That makes no sense. I have a guess actually: honor is how men relate to each other. If being honorable is a positive trait (it must be in some circumstances, otherwise it wouldn’t exist), that probably means that competition between men is more important for male sexual prowess than female sexual selection. Probably dishonorable men get themselves killed frequently by pissing off the honorable men. Maybe women are attracted to psychopaths because they don’t get to choose who they mate with when there is order (patriarchy), and psychopaths are better mates in periods of chaos, which is the only time women get to chose. That’s just a guess though.
All the truly ingrained Machiavellian men, who live by dark triad traits are narcissistic and solipsist – I’m sure you know which other being shares these traits. Like women, they will talk on a superficial level. they will discuss relationships, sports, business and will partake in swordplay to show off their intellectual pedigree. But never will there be deep, sincere profound conversation where all guards are dropped and weakness is shown – if this does occur, then the Machiavellian who keeps his guard attached will use it to his/her benefit.
We all know women cannot stop talking, but never about anything meaningful, it is always vacuous; there is always the cliché joke that women remember exactly what you said in a moment of weakness (dropping frame) and will bring it up to use as an attacking strategy.
You said you were at a business function: a function which largely serves as a networking opportunity to develop relationships for your benefit. The whole thing is a Machiavellian’s perfect environment – they can use it to ‘get ahead’. All these people are empty beyond their aims and living like this eternally is unsatisfying; the best approach is to employ such tact when you require. Unfortunately, most Machiavellian’s don’t develop past their teenage mentality – e.g. Women.
The second paragraph –
You end the paragraph with your answer and I agree. Firstly, as stated previously, morality and religion is a male creation to create civilization. Morality comes from and is linked with religion and tradition – honour is the display of supreme morality. Logical men respect each other through morality because they believe these men will not use dark triad traits on them to ‘get one over them’ – which is why ‘blue pill’ men are so startled when these men or women do.
I also believe you are wrong that psychopaths didn’t exist in pre-civilization. Logical men probably started to increase probably fuelling their belief that civilization is the way humanity will advance. Machiavellian’s will always exist because in my opinion it is an evolutionary advantage, these men probably were leaders and survived and thrived in such conditions. In society, they occupy the same positions largely. Most CEO’s and leaders are reported to have such traits as we know.
Honour is how men formed relationships and married their daughters off to each other’s children. A man showing no honour was and is seen as detrimental to the future and success. As I agree with your conclusion, developing it further: that women cannot choose the ideal civilization-positive male and would always opt for dark triads because in the end, in the chaos – they would survive. That’s why religion and tradition always made the father and male’s in charge of the female’s sexual selection.
Allowing women to choose creates a cycle of decline which exponentially gets worse until it falls. Unfavourable dark triad men procreate, their offspring procreate with more unfavourable persons resulting in the present. This is Western civilization in the last century: Anti-advancement.
women aren’t attracted to honor outright because the know at some point, whether consciously or not, that being honorable or maintaining a position out of honor means you’ll have to sacrifice something, loose something, or put somebody else ahead of your needs as a way of reciprocation.
So a woman will tell you that it’s good that you have a sense of honor. She may be able to use that at some point. Your stance on honor means she may be able to get you to defend her honor, even though what she did to need her honor defended in her eyes was her choice that she made well informed. It may be that she hoped certain people didn’t find out about her choice.
A quick example is the movie Wolf of Wall Street. None of the women cared how he made his money. As long as it flowed their direction and facilitated in their excitement.
You get some notoriety from being honorable, get an award, become famous, you’ll be sexy and honorable. Otherwise, you might find yourself just a little higher up than the nice guy.
The mistake about honor being something women are attracted to is partly why military men can some of the most confused about women and some of the most heartbroken over them.
It has been a difficult thing for me to grasp as well since am one of the extremely logical people. I am also turned off by other people of the Dark Triad as you have referenced. In regard to the group of CEO’s that all were skilled as saying nothing to each other but all doing it in the same way, that skill is often a requirement for that type of job. They are public figure heads which have more responsibility to not say the wrong thing then to say anything at all. So those personalities who learn to NOT say the politically incorrect things are successful at that work.
I know this does not resolve what you have expressed. However I do not think this has anything to do with women vs. men. From what I have seen when someone does get into those positions (such as CEO) who has the ability to Not say the wrong thing but also be effective at straight forward communicators, they become the great leaders. These effective communicators are rare but seem to be women as often as men.
This part of the post stood out for me:
“It is in all the “glory” of dissociation that women can easily manipulate themselves into believing falsehoods via pseudo-rationalisation. This makes them incredibly compelling as they bear-face lie with utter and seemingly pure conviction. In the greater manosphere, we refer to this phenomenon as “the rationalisation hamster.”
It reminded me of one of my favorite books in my library: Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets: The Truth About Why Women Lie, by Susan Shapiro Barash. Every Man should read that book. It’s an excellent introduction into (dark) female Machiavellianism.
I’ll take a look at that book. Thank you for the recommendation.
It is very rare these days, being 6+ years deep in red pill philosophy and having read everything by such esteemed writers as Roissy, Rollo, Robert Greene to name but 3 in a sea of great contributers, that I have huge epiphany moments anymore while reading on these sorts of topics. Less and less every year. That is to be expected of course. But I feel like I did with this piece.
You absolutely nailed what is a very subtle and difficult to articulate problem that many men have, particularly men who pride themselves on their logic and rationality – as I do for myself. Even though I know the 48 Laws inside out I still find myself on occasion thinking I am somehow “above the process” as it were – like I can still default to pure logic, subtle qualification of myself and break the laws selectively somehow without repurcussion. Big mistake. Whenever I do so I get punished mercilessly. Knowing who you are dealing with is imperitive. It can be so hard to let go of needing to justify my position with logic and demonstrate why I am right in a certain instance – it always leads to the other party becoming defensive, feeling ego attacked, becoming alienated, etc.
Sometimes I know that I am doing it in the middle of doing it but I just can’t help myself. It is a very difficult thing to discipline yourself with. It really is a constant work in process and battle of refinement to become a “rational machiavellian” as you put it. This article helped clarify some things I have been struggling with lately but finding it difficult to articulate to myself or really come to terms with in a way that I can begin working on in a practical sense.
Really fucking well written piece my man. Absolutely beautiful – I know it isn’t easy to explain such a subtle and easily misunderstood topic and do so in such a succint way. Very impressive. If you release a book, and I sincerely hope you do – there’s something definitive and authoritarian that goes along with releasing a book – I’ll be first in line to buy. I hold your writing up there with Roissy (07-11 Roissy for the most part), Rollo and Robert Greene who in my opinion are the top dogs in all things red pill philosophy. Keep up the great writing – it’s a real pleasure to read.
I am a highly rational person, and I perceive the 48 laws of power and The Prince as a logical template for my behaviour.In the beginning it was like trial and error, If i make move X(being nice to people) then Y happens(people treat me like a bitch). So whenever I make a move, I question myself whether my action follow the 48 laws, if not I adapt my action to be more machiavellian based on the template generated from the books. Is this a good approach to be more Machiavellian or is there more efficient ways?
Also as a person who is guided by logic how can you befriend idiots(male) when you can not stand their nature because every word/action they do is plain irrational?
Yes and no. Let me explain.
You are attempting to build a “Blueprint” for your actions to be more socially in-line with what your desires are, to be more socially accepted, women, etc.
The issue here is, the blueprint shows there is no blueprint. You are attempting to use logic to form an intuitive bias, so you can act better, but still think about every single step. You will fail this way as explained in the article.
“In fact, in some circumstances, logic and fact are an obstruction to the Machiavellian motive. They expose duplicity via the contradiction of fact, and so the Machiavellian is wary of the logical, preferring the company of idiots for they are more exploitable, better managed.”
You do not question whether you follow the laws, that is still in line with rationalism. You sense yourself, how you feel, are you stressed, what is your mood, how is your body language. It is about pragmatism, not having the correct social guide. Once you say, screw the 48 laws, and stop caring about the “blueprint” of the words, you will notice more and more of the situations in front of you. Get out of your own head, and your actions will become easier, to the point of being scared by yourself.
As far as befriending people, you hate idiots because you still feel superior. Did you not read the article? Of course idiots are going to be irrational, THAT IS THEIR NATURE. So accept that you want superiority and to be felt correct over what they are doing, which is looking better, getting more women and not being stressed. You have to get over your own ego trip bro.
Thank you for this. I developed a zealous interest in Machiavellian philosophy due to my suffering in a jail cell constructed with the adversity that is the logician’s low glass ceiling. The magnitude of my frustration has, in fact, led me into the depths of sadism, as I can’t help but entertain the idea of inflicting pain on those who have taken advantage, exploited, and ignored my logical nature and autism, for inflicting pain’s sake (As an actual diagnosed autist, learning to silence the logician when necessary is and will continue to be my biggest life challenges for as long as I live). However, said sadism is but a fantasy built on anger – I would like to expend the energy created by that anger into tangible Machiavellian goal-scoring. What lines of discourse do you recommend I take in this respect, IM? Fortunately, just as the dark triad model is a fluid spectrum, so is the autism model.
Very interesting piece. I have a few thoughts but first a general comment. I respect the amount of research and logical (!) thought that was put into this piece, but IMO the author has a certain lack of humility. To me you mix conjecture with fact a bit too much. Not that your observations are horrible, but any man who lacks humility should automatically be respected less, and the things they utter hold less credibility.
Reading this piece and your other writing on machiavellianism kind of reminds me of an old Al Capone quote, one that I more/less live by: “Don’t mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.”
I’d say this is a rather Machiavellian approach, or perhaps more of a logical machiavellian approach. I typically like your posts b/c you do articulate most clearly how many people (including most women) behave, regardless of how we think they should behave.
Where I’d take a slightly different tone is that I do think we should still have some standards that are socially enforced. For example, if a cunning scumbag whore marries a guy for his money (he is also to blame) then leaves him and their 2 kids 4 years later, taking half his shit and the kids and marrying some douchebag, I think she should still be held accountable. That is a shitty thing to do.
Kindness is still important, and if it isn’t to you, you are a lesser person than I. Instead of logically beating you down though, I will use my own cunning and charm to shun/shame/dominate you, as I believe you are a lesser person than I (hypothetically, not making a personal attack here).
Always lead with kindness. If someone is unkind, then bring out the machiavellian shit. Otherwise wtf why would you want to live unless you were in the top 5% of humans? And if you personally were, you wouldn’t be spending your time writing all this shit you’d be fucking hoes and other fun shit.
You can be an honorable and kind person without being a doormat. You can swallow the red pill and still treat others how you’d like to be treated. None of this is in contradiction of RP truths or Machiavellianism for that matter. Just want to make that distinction — those of you who think this stuff is true (which by and large it is), it doesnt mean you have to become a scumbag and become a psychopath. Maybe if you go to prison then yeah, become a psychopath or die. But in the real world, not a good idea and probably won’t end well for you.
I see you are trying to process what you have read and how to integrate it into your world view by presenting your questions in a somewhat passive aggressive manner. I am not offended, merely making an observation. Unfortunately, I cannot allot a portion of my time specifically to helping you develop your world view.
(Whether people realise it or not, a common way to try and get assistance is to attack those who could be helpful as to elicit explanation and insight that the attacking person would otherwise struggle to devise themselves – quite Machiavellian!)
I agree with the general theme of your comment, although nobody can technically become a psychopath. As for changing how one strategises and lives their life on the other hand? This of course can be changed.
As I said in Machiavellian Maxims:
– Be magnanimous to friends, civil to strangers and ruthless to foes; furthermore, know who’s who.
So as for your general premise pertaining to morality, we are in agreement.
i read constantly to try to figure out why most people strive to be deceptive as a way of living. tv programs promote deception and manipulation. blogs like this and many more promote it as well.
all one needs to know about life is the ten commandments and the golden rule.
men are in positions of power because they think they know better ,when they havent a clue about just being who they are.
they have made a mess of this world, feel qualified to make others adhere to their rules while molesting their own children and beating their wives.
BEATING THEIR WIVES as a source of superiority. women are smarter and more compassionate than men in their sleep.
all men think about is sex any disgusting deceitful way they can get it .even from their own children.
men know if women ever gained power ..men’s shallow bullshit would be a thing of the past.
articles like this promote selfish deceitful practices as the way to succeed.
one comment about women talking excessively about nothing are just talking in the only categories men can comprehend outside of their own agendas
men have limited…very limited abilities to just be who they are and deal with acceptance or rejection as it comes.no wonder this world and most people in it are fake.
men…develop some character and read something you can discuss intelligently and stop looking for ways to be anything other than what you are.
the ten commandments and the golden rule people. its just that simple.
but no money, sex or power in that, huh?
i’m so offended by this writing that i dont give a shit about spell check for you male morons.
feel free to trash my opinion in the only way you insecure dinosaurs know how….
The best conversations i had were with asperger individuals, they’re cold (not machiavellian), impartial and logic to the extreme, and some wise persons who are few, with the rest(95% population) i only talk shit, teasing… cause they’re very emotional. I’ve lost many friends because i didn’t realize it.
My father has asperger and just what goes against his principles he doesn’t like, but i do not see an emotional connection.
I’ve done so much shit and he never mind because seems not to have the “feeling” the “emotional” of morality, but abstractly if he realizes he gets angry.
Well written, yet I disagree with many things. For example:
Justification is not the same thing as honesty. And honesty works out a lot better, with GOOD people. Honesty can be very powerful. I have seen it myself many times. With EVIL people, you should NOT be honest.
The biggest fallacy is taking ANYTHING as a rule. There’s no black and white, only shades of grey.
The problem is not justifying yourself. This is not weak, necessarily. The problem is FOLLOWING A LEAD. If someone asks a question, do you really have to respond? Why? THIS is what is weak, not what you are doing or not doing, e.g. justifying, being honest, etc.
Hey! I found this website while searching Google for content from a podcast I listen to, Beige Phillip. It’s nice to have found you but these blogs are sometimes too “wordy”, drawn out, and repeatitive. With effort, your concepts can be simplified. On another note, thank you for spending your time to communicate these philosophies!
A harsh but true lesson for the standard talented genius or geek who despite his success in the academic circle, finds himself the slave and object of ridicule of those who don’t possess a fraction of his capabilities. The bullied socially awkward kid is the most classic example of this.