antifeminism empathy deficit entitled babies evil fat fatties men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

“A short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him,” and other tales of MGTOW woe

Is this how the world ends?
Is this how the world ends?

Men Going Their Own Way have a keen eye when it comes to spotting subtle injustices that the rest of us often miss.

Like, for example, the terrible injustice that is … fat chicks dating dudes who aren’t themselves fat.

One Reddit MGTOW recently reminded his comrades just how pervasive this terrible injustice has become in the contemporary world.

Walked round a crowded shopping mall yesterday. (self.MGTOW) submitted 1 day ago by bombow I kept seeing handsome, pleasant naive looking young guys hand in hand with stern angry fat women. NO NO NO

Preach it, brother!

Others in the MGTOW subreddit reported their own findings.

DforDeadpool 4 points 20 hours ago We had a guy when we were in high school. He was tall, athletic, handsome. He was the silent type. A short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him. They dated for 3 years (didn't see them after HS). He thought he was pretty happy.

He THOUGHT he was happy. Just as the German citizens under Hitler THOUGHT they were free!

Little did he know that his life could have been snuffed out in a moment had his girlfriend — *shudder* — decided to sit on him. We have lost too many men, cut down in their prime by hambeast girlfriends who thought it might be “funny” to pretend that their boyfriends were chairs.

Another MGTOW Redditor applied some powerful STEM logic to the problem:

lauranium 1 point 18 hours ago It's about a 3 point difference right now...8 level men get level 5 women...yup it's rough out there....most men are morons in terms of value

Can society long survive with the attractiveness ratio so far out of whack? What kind of world is it when dudes who are EIGHTS are saddled with level 5 plain janes? Or when men who are average joes find themselves trapped in completely voluntary relationships with level 2 hambeasts, some of whom are quite angry and/or stern.

It is the thoughtful ovendice — we’ve met him before — who brings real clarity and wisdom to this difficult issue.

Ovendice 5 points 16 hours ago They don't have to stay thin because there are so many desperate men, Feminism tells them staying attractive and thin is 'oppressive' and most women are pigs anyway. Seriously, Feminists call men pigs, but there TRULY is a night and day difference, most women are completely self absorbed and beyond greedy and entitled. It's hard for men to even BE pigs even if they tried because we literally have to work for everything. Women just get a free ride and everything for free.

I can’t argue with that! Mainly because I have no idea what he’s talking about. How does working hard prevent men from being pigs?

Here’s a song I don’t think MGTOWs are going to like very much.

NOTE: This post contains


292 replies on ““A short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him,” and other tales of MGTOW woe”

There have always been people within and without society who want to tear it down. This is the challenge of civilization. We are not afraid to face it head-on, and with compassion. We will not become a jack-booted police state, we will not crush the meek and helpless in a quest for security. Our police force is capable and engaged in the task. We may have fear, but it will not control us.

This sounds like a speech that Supergirl would give.


You’re being a troll right now. You’re giving people here less and less reasons to respectfully engage with you.

Whatever, i’ll humour you. Me personally (and i would wager most of us here) are not really defending Islam. We’re defending muslims. Subtle difference. Can you spot it? We usually speak out against the dehumanization that MUSLIM PEOPLE are so often the target of. That is usually what we rail against.

To me, Muslims are this:×314.jpg

To people like you they’re usually this:

You want seem to want us to understand you better. How about you do the same for us?

It’s impossible to tell exactly how many children have been sexually abused by women and to what extent. This is partly because the nature of the assault is often different if the perpetrator is a woman. A lot of them want plausible deniability, so they claim they were simply ‘washing’ the child for example. Michele Elliot and Jackie Saradjian have produced some interesting research on the subject.

Chiming in: I know at least one man who had been sexually abused in this way. He’d just turned 5, but he still remembers it (he has an uncanny memory in general).

I’d be interested to know if there had been any studies re: if children who are considered especially vulnerable are more often targeted. The person I know, as I said, was just over 5 and came from a very poor family (it happened in charity care offered by a church in conjunction with a subsidized apartment).

And the abuser did act while bathing him. She’d apparently set up the sprinkler or some other especially messy activity and then give him – and only him (there were other kids in care) a bath.

To my knowledge, she was never punished, but the situation came to a head when he refused the bath one day. When his mother came to pick him, she asked why he was so dirty. The abuser said that he refused to “clean up”. As his mom fussed at him for all the mud getting in her car, he said (paraphrasing from my memory of his relayed memory), “She gives me bad baths.”
“What do you mean? Is she too rough?”
“She gives me bad baths. She puts bubbles in the water and then gives me bad baths.”*

There was some sort of confrontation that ended with his mom pulling him and his sister out of the daycare, having to quit the minimum wage job that the affiliated church had set her up with, and his family no longer pretending to be “just about ready” to join the church in question. They were able to keep the apartment that the church had put them in, probably because his dad had also been given a job as the maintenance man for the complex, but I doubt that any subsidy continued.

That is to say, the church seems to have pushed back or refused to accept the allegations and it wasn’t pursued any further – aside from his parents’ precarious economic situation, they were also “charity cases” with a history of homelessness, drug abuse, and (on the part of his father, at least) criminal activity, including a felony conviction. They probably weren’t keen to interact with the police and chances are middling to high that they would have been dismissed, anyway, given “the kind of people” that they were.

That abuser really seems to have though through her choice of target.

*That’s as detailed as he got – he had been nonverbal until a little after his 4th birthday. He went from nonverbal to speaking in complete sentences in one day, but he was, after all, 5 and had experienced remarkable deprivation for a “developed” country. I’m noting that because I’m honestly not sure if his description would be typical for his age otherwise – my kids would have been more specific, but we also had conversations centered around It’s Not the Stork and kept / keep it around the house freely available to peruse / spark questions.

Come on, the guy said “High Cuck Council”. That should be a clue by (in ?) itself, no ?
But you are all strong minded. I would not be able to stand and answer this kind of bad faith gutter. Kudos to you all !

Of course, the typical SJW tends to exaggerate their suffering a good deal; I’d honestly question whether or not you have a “disability” that prevents you from having sex, or if you’re just too lazy to get up and do something. Hell, I know an old man with Parkinson’s who works on a regular basis, shaking and rattling all throughout the day, and then there are people who just want to lay around and collect disability. If he can work and he has Parkinson’s, what’s stopping you? The question on your mind should not be “who’s going to let me?” but rather “who’s going to stop me?”

Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 9.58 seconds. Why can’t you?

Serious question. Why aren’t you the fastest person in the world, since you think people are interchangeable, and physical achievement is just a matter of willpower?

It’s because you’re a lazy whiner. You made a choice to be slow.

What’s happening? My comment was on the previous page and so were a few before and after it.

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. You can never tell what they’re up to, you have no idea what they’re thinking, what the world is like to them and what they think of you and your own. It doesn’t matter what they say, you can never tell when those people are telling the truth.

This is what happens when you treat an entire demographic as something other than human and never bother to get to know any of the individuals in that group. They become the scary, mysterious other.

Those of us who have gotten to know Muslim people as individuals are telling you that they’re just people. Like any other group of people, there’s going to be a mix of nice people and assholes.

People are just people. Calm down.

if every woman is a “5” or below and every man is an “8” or above, then the simple fact is that you are not a person who is attracted to women

WWTH – I just can’t keep my fingers away from the cuck insecurity buttons of racists. They’re so tempting and clearly marked.

Again, I could kick myself for missing out on some very insightful comments and discussion. Well done!

Thank you for your replies. I’ll try to be brief and on-point, but you’ve asked some big questions here!

Why do you keep calling me Snek?

Okay, that one’s not big.

Personal ideosyncracy! Snakes are poisonous, you see, whereas snacks generally aren’t. “Snek” is a relatively common (to the internet) shorthand for “snake”, and is also similar to “snack”. So I blended it! I apologize. I’ll call you Snack.

I’ve snipped out the following from your two posts; the rest of the posts are related. This one stands out.

Societies that don’t preserve their cultures and national identity are doomed to fail.

Citation please?

No, seriously. Societies change over time. Periods of immigration and transition are often periods of wealth, prosperity and growth. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire brought in an influx of refugees – which brought with them the great libraries of Constantinople and ignited the Renaissance. Our modern concepts of music come from a fusion of the rhythmic medieval and courtly european styles and the more meditative, patient eastern styles. Good old manly medium-rare steak is actually french quisine imported in the 50’s. Cultures thrive when they interact. The failure of a state has little to do with whether its culture stays the same or not.

(There are things to be said about how much a culture can adsorb over a time period without losing some coherence; I guarantee you that 25 thousand refugees a year is well under that for even a little nation like Canada. America, where has your spine gone?)

(Also, willing to be corrected on this by actual historians! Plenty of people know better than me on this one, I’m sure.)

Now, the big one,

What makes you think I’m afraid? Unlike you, I have survival instincts; I have the desire to preserve myself. I’m not going to walk willingly into the mine field that refugees and Islam pose to our civilization.

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. You can never tell what they’re up to, you have no idea what they’re thinking, what the world is like to them and what they think of you and your own. It doesn’t matter what they say, you can never tell when those people are telling the truth. So often it happens to be the case that one of them acts all nice in public, but then he turns around and blows something up. You just can’t trust them. When it comes to my own, I know what they’re thinking, because I’m one of them; I know what it’s like. When one of mine acts up, I know it’s just because he’s a bad person – but with those other people, you can never tell. Why are they so violent?

Aheh. Whooo. Right, let’s start at the top!

What makes me think you’re afraid? My knowledge of how brains work, mostly. I study this sort of thing for a living.

See, individuals have their individual quirks, but in the end we are all generally running the same system.

Normally, people have several systems going at the same time – risk assessment and opportunity identification work together to create our perspective of the world. Under normal circumstances, you can have a conversation with someone about the risks and benefits of a topic without a problem.

But we can’t talk about benefits on this topic – you seem to think that there are no possible benefits to bringing these people into the country. Why? I imagine you’d say that there aren’t any; I’m relatively sure that any argument I give to that fact will be brushed aside.

This isn’t indicative to me that you’re right – it’s indicative that something is blocking your ability to assess opportunities in this scenario. You seem, however, to be more than capable of assessing risks.

Risk assessment is a component of what’s generally called the “fight-or-flight” system of the brain, responsible for fear and aggression. It suppresses opportunity assessment, making it difficult if not impossible to see opportunities. When engaged over the long term, we call this anxiety – it’s very unhealthy.

Assuming that your opinions on this are relatively stable, it seems very likely that this is what’s going on, because there are very few things that can inhibit opportunity assessment. Therefore: your “fight or flight” reaction system is dominant. Therefore: you’re afraid.

Alt-right media, or anything swimming in confrontation, hate and anger, does this to people. It’s not healthy – long term exposure to this shortens lifespans, increases the wear and tear of aging, increases the risk of heart attack, chest pains, little stabbing pains throughout the body, shortness of breath, light-headedness, numbness, fatigue – these are all related symptoms. Please get out of there!

Now, with that said, I can go back to:

Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. […] Why are they so violent?

They aren’t. Your assessment is wrong, for reasons indicated above. They aren’t a minefield or an existential risk to your civilization – you yourself said taht the Christian Dominionists already exist in greater numbers where you are, and are more likely to be the cause of terrorism. But you still fixate on this smaller population of people, the vast number of which are in desperate need and want nothing more than a chance to live a normal life.

No doubt you feel that your conclusions are rational, but – well. Everyone thinks their conclusions are rational. That’s another thing brains do. Brains always think their conclusions are right, because otherwise they wouldn’t come to that conclusion.

That’s a really important thing to keep in mind – there’s no difference in feeling between being wrong and being right. We always feel right. We need something outside of opinion to verify our conclusions.

Muslims are exactly as human as you or I, Snack. They use the same mental hardware, go through the same risk and opportunity assessment, their feelings are the same as ours; they bear the mantle of humanity as much as we do. Believing otherwise is believing in magic, is believing that zombies are real and that an army of orcs is marching from Mordor to Washington. It’s fantasy.

Or, more precisely – it’s a lie, a fabrication, or a confusion that we tell ourselves to allow us to excuse inhuman treatment. “They’re not human,” said the German doctors, experimenting in the concentration camps. “They don’t actually feel feelings,” said the guard, carrying the can of Zyklon-B. These are things that people tell themselves to excuse themselves from accepting the horrible things that their fear makes them do. They are rationalizations.

The violent ones you are talking about are trapped in a similar trap to the one I described above, in fact – unable to assess risks and opportunities properly, egged on to horrible violence by lies and the worst interpretations of their faith. But they are not indicative of everyone living in the middle east or south asia! They are a terrible outlier to the common face of humanity, made a little larger by decades of war (brought on by America and colonialism, largely, but that’s a story for another time) but still an outlier, and still human.

There are no monsters in the world, sir. Only people. People can be monstrous – that’s an important thing to learn – but we must realize that this monstrous nature lives in everyone, and is not the domain of a single race, religion or ideology.

Search for opportunity when you see nothing but threats. Search for risks when you see nothing but opportunity. This is how to keep your mind in balance, and how you can preserve clear thought.

Walk the middle road, sir.

Oops, I also wanted to say THANK YOU to @Victorious Parasol for the link to the wonderful Adam Lee recaps of Atlas Shrugged. I am enjoying them very much!

Just as an aside, since 11/9, bathtubs have killed more Americans than terrorists. I’m not suggesting a drone strike on Wickes though.

As for ‘Fear of Flying (with certain people)’, of course fear isn’t necessarily something one can make a conscious effort to overcome. However you can update your information so that your brain learns what it should and shouldn’t fear.

Assuming all Muslims are potential terrorists is ‘profiling’. That’s a bad thing. Not just for ethical reasons, but also pragmatically. Counter-terrorism and Anti-terrorism experts are moving away from profiling because it’s inefficient (it also makes no commercial sense if you’re in the aviation industry to unnecessarily piss off a huge section of your consumer base).

Now if you’re a relatively uneducated person with a criminal record and no real employment history who converted to Islam whilst in prison, flying on a one way ticket purchased with cash, then you probably will be subject to enhanced scrutiny, so some profiling does still take place, especially where there’s a lack of resources.

But the preferred option is now ‘behavioural analysis’. If you want an overt demonstration of this, fly El Al. You’ll be subject to a lengthy interview before boarding. The interviewer isn’t particularly interested in your answers, but how you react.

Most behavioural analysis is covert though. You’ll be monitored in the departure lounge to see if you trigger certain flags. That takes a lot of resources though; it’s something only humans who’ve had expensive training can do, and it takes a lot of them to cover a busy airport.

Perhaps unsurprisingly though there’s now a massive recruitment drive in that field.

TL;DR Worrying about all flying Muslims is daft. The security services don’t, so neither should you.

@ dreemr

You’re welcome! I’m glad you’re enjoying Adam’s posts. The debates in the comments are nicely vigorous, aren’t they?

These are things that people tell themselves to excuse themselves from accepting the horrible things that their fear makes them do.

Scildfreja, this made me cry a little!

First I have to say to @Scildfreja – that was truly beautiful. Words fail me. I’m going to copy it and save it forever. This is everything I try to explain to others about fear, but articulated beautifully and simply.

@Victorious Parasol – I am only up to about the 6th installment, I think, and have only started delving into the comments. Much like the comments here, I find them overall quite insightful and informative!

I had also read on Patheos a similar step-by-step analysis of the Left Behind series – no doubt from a suggestion I read here in the WHtM comment section. I enjoyed it very much and even went and watched the movies to read along with him.


Those people aren’t like me and mine. They’re different. You can never tell what they’re up to, you have no idea what they’re thinking, what the world is like to them and what they think of you and your own. It doesn’t matter what they say, you can never tell when those people are telling the truth. So often it happens to be the case that one of them acts all nice in public, but then he turns around and blows something up. You just can’t trust them.

Welcome to my life.

I have autistic disorder level 1 – no cognitive deficits (formerly Aspergers). I can’t see what people are thinking, and people have a hard time reading me. People are kind to my face, but I know that any act of kindness could be an attempt to lure me into a trap so that I can be bullied for my neurotype, my race, my hairstyle, or my atheism (all of which have happened).

By your reasoning, you need to get your allistic ass out of my country.

@isidore13, I’m flattered that I moved you, but I hope they were good tears! I don’t want to make anyone upset :c Life is upsetting sometimes.

@VP, dreemr; thank you :3 I thought it was clunky and overwroght when I wrote it, but I’m glad that not everyone thinks so. The short form of all of that stuff is “arguments should be examined in greater detail. They eventually dissolve.” It’s not about terrorism or economics or taxes. It’s about fear, neurons, and brain chemistry. Digging down to the lower level makes the top level problems go away.

Frankly, most of my ideas on this sort of thing are second hand. One of the largest influences on my view of rationality was, strangely, Eliezer Yudkowsky. He now features as a pillar of the Dark Enlightenment and a pillar of alt-right thought (though I don’t know his personal politics). His writing on rationality, cognition and finding truth is deeply worthwhile to read, and not deeply steeped in alt-rightiness. He has retired from that, and it’s my hope that he did so when he saw how others were interpreting him.

It’s a strong reminder to me, that fact, in two ways. The first is that those who hold opposing ideologies may have excellent, worthwhile ideas, so you should never write off a person based on the flag they’re flying. The second is that your worthwhile, excellent ideas provide no protection against being dreadfully, terribly wrong.

@a POIsonous snack
I’m going to revisit your entry into this community as a means to demonstrate why you got the treatment that you have. You could be a decent person to have a conversation with, but you have some significant issues that you need to resolve first.

General note: Here is a helpful concept, Tit for Tat morality. Note that this form of innate human moral rules needs ethics, but few things are broadly agreed upon. I think that when another person starts a fight it’s acceptable to meet them at their own level absent any community standards with respect to fights, and make sure that I don’t do make many things habits it can achieve some useful purpose. I try to combine this with honesty about why I am acting the way I do and leave room to suspend hostilities if the other person admits what they did and alters their behavior. It’s highly situational and one can be a good “social mirror” in a strategic sense that is useful instead of simply to fight.
Note that I also don’t see mere fighting as a problem in and of itself, it’s just that if the aggression does not include any substance, the whole point is trying to “win” and not be correct about reality.



Sure, and I’ll bet you use the same logic with books like: The Bible, The Koran/Quran, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, The State and Revolution, The Catcher in the Rye, anything by Bukowski or Cormac McCarthy, William Shakespeare, because Harold Bloom.
(1) You’re not excused from studying the book itself just because you don’t like the fans of it. (2)I rather think that you just don’t like the idea that you might find that you like Rand, or agree with some of the things that she says, so you refuse to read it.

Numbers for commentary added by me.

(1) Is an assertion and opinion provided without any reason or logic. Rhetorically it’s presented as if you are a teacher and the other person has an obligation so it pretends to be an argument and demand, but absent any reason or logic it’s empty.

If you are willing to assert social demands of others without justification, others get to do that to you in response.

(2) This is an attempt at interpreting the motivations of FrickleFrackle, but again it’s absent any reason or logic rendering it simple making shit up. I’m not saying that you can’t try to interpret the motives of others, heck I have a system for doing it that includes evolutionary theories about emotion. But you have to be able to back your shit up if you want any respect and want to do anything beyond slightly more complicated name-calling.

If you are willing to assert the motives of others without reason or logic, others get to assert your motives without reason or logic.

(1) Stop it, just… Stop. No, your dollars are not 70% of ours, even most feminists are willing to admit that this supposed wage gape of which you all speak is at least .90 – .95 cents for everyman’s dollar. (2)The majority* of the wage gap is the result of women’s choices – (3)don’t you support women’s choices, or do you intend to make women “equal” to men by forcing them into the same professions as them, and basically just make them over as men?

(4)*I am uncertain as to whether or not the remaining 5 – 10 cents is truly the result of sexism, but I don’t think it terribly productive to assert that it is; that is almost a sort of “god of the gaps” argument for feminists.

(1)Another unsupported assertion, this one rhetorically styled as an order, and thus a textual attack. Why are you to be considered an authority on what feminists think of the wage gap? Back your shit up. You probably realize that the wage gap is a commonly accepted phenomena in feminist and left-leaning circles, and you are in a community that accepts it. You attacked, and you got attacked back.

The second best thing to do would have been to share the information that you have to have seen that indicates that most feminists believe what you assert, and ask what demonstrates a 70% wage gap. The best thing would have been to be willing to talk about the dual phenomena of feminine products being more expensive, and female people being paid less as a general concept no matter what the size.

If you are willing to make aggressive demands of others to stop talking and nit-pick their beliefs instead of ask questions about them to find out why they believe what they do, others are allowed to do the same to you.

(2) Another unsupported assertion. In this case the most annoying thing might be that even if your assertion is true, you don’t explain the relevance. You still don’t offer any reason or logic. The thing a person interested in a discussion (or argument even) would do is explain why the putative fact of women choosing certain professions undermines something the other person said or believes.

If you are willing to assert things about the beliefs of others without reason or logic, others are allowed to do that to you in return.

(3)This has to do with how you used (2), it gives away some of your motives. Instead of simply trying to correct another person about something you see as incorrect, you engage in social warfare. You know that women being able to make choices as freely as men is important to people here, so you use the idea of women’s choices against Bina without showing that it’s even a thing. Combined with your lack of willingness to back your shit up it’s a reasonable assumption that social manipulation and attack is your primary purpose here.

If you are willing to use social concepts important to others against them in an aggressive manner, others are allowed to use social concepts important to you against you.

(4) Another unsupported assertion, this time that something Bina said is equivalent to a “god in the gaps” argument. Logical fallacies are not like magic spells, you can’t simply speak the name of one and expect it to magically be so. They have a structure (logic) and motivation behind their use (reason) and when you assert one you have a responsibility to show how it is so or you are simply doing slightly more complex name-calling.

If you are willing to assert that others are engaging in fallacious reasoning without backing your shit up, others are allowed to do the same to you.


(1)I know you meant that comment as an attack on men’s rights, but the sad thing is that that’s the truth of the matter. Every word of that comment, I mean. It’s sad that at times like this you almost come close to realizing the truth, of getting to the heart of things, but it’s like something is stopping you from finally making that last connection. (2)Of course, I’m assuming that you’re a woman, in which case, (3) most of this is already known to you (albeit on a deep, subconscious, primal level that might be unbeknownst to you), but this speaks, I think, to your ability to delude yourselves into thinking that you’re not like this. (4)This is just human biology.

(1) Another unsupported assertion. Why is it the truth? Each of those positions that were stereotyped are assertions about reality that characterize a whole group of people by their very nature.

If you are willing to assert that others are missing some big truth, others are allowed to do that to you.

(2) An unjustified assumption. Why would you assume that Pandapool is a woman? Many of us here are men, even men that can be stereotypically aggressive like me.

If you are willing to make broad assumptions about the nature of others as individuals, others are allowed to make broad assumptions about your nature as an individual.

(3) Another unsupported assertion. Why do you believe that there is any subconscious or primal going on for Pandapool that they are ignoring? Seriously, this is pure discrimination (believing they are different) and prejudice (assuming things) provided without reason or logic which is literal sexism. Any human being willing to make such polarized statements about groups of people better be willing to share the things they base such on or they will be very likely to get hostile treatment.

If you are willing to assert underlying immutable basic characteristics of others, others are allowed to assert underlying immutable basic characteristics about you.

Ethics note: while it works for the tit-for-tat morality, actually mirroring the group connection can propagate bigotry outside of cases where the group has objectively definable shitty character like the KKK or similar. Otherwise there are likely immutable things that are group independent (outside of the group of people with that characteristic). Personally I stay away from this one, I like to be optimistic about bigots and such.

(4)Another unsupported assertion. That the previous is “just human biology”. If that is so you can show us how you know this because there are actually people studying biology.

If you are willing to make unsupported assertive appeals to general human nature via biology, others can make unsupported assertive appeals to general human as well.

Ethics note: mirroring this one is also dangerous when it comes to group connections, but assertions about the individual one is facing off against can be fine.

It’s your choice a POIsonous snack. It does not have to be this way, but you are getting treatment based on how you have treated others. There are even others avoiding dishing out what you have.

@ Scildfreja

Assuming that your opinions on this are relatively stable, it seems very likely that this is what’s going on, because there are very few things that can inhibit opportunity assessment. Therefore: your “fight or flight” reaction system is dominant. Therefore: you’re afraid.

Some useful concepts having to do with this. “Hot” versus “cold cognition”. Though “emotion” as a concept is still technically involved with “cold cognition”. The reality probably a matter of emotions involved with system one or system two.

@Brony, thank you! I’m more familiar with it as the Dual-Process Theory; it’s fascinating stuff and very useful in figuring out just why people behave the way that they do.

And I’m entirely certain that emotion is involved in both modes. Thinking and emotion, in my estimation, are inextricably linked. It’s more a question of how those emotions provide weights to the various potential outcomes of the network, as far as I understand it. I am not an expert, though!

Yeah, I’m basically talking about dual-process theory. It’s amazing how many places it’s getting implemented.

The dichotomy might be something like “impulsive emotions” versus “mindfully and contextually constrained emotions”. I’m not quite happy with the latter name though. Like a spectrum from “fight/flight”-type reactions taken without external reference to local context to “approach/withdraw”-type reactions that are more carefully considered and able to consider why one is reacting a certain way and if it’s the best reaction.


My intuition is that it’s less about “mindful, contextualized emotions” and more about a productive balance of hormones preventing any lower-level reaction system from interfering with the higher-level cognitive systems. Enough adrenaline to keep the episodic and semantic memory systems going, not so much that the fight-or-flight system starts activating; enough dopamine and oxytocin to engage the executive functions and reward success, not so much as to mask proper outcomes by the generalized reward system, etc, etc. I am not a neurologist, but that’s where my intuition is.

@Plaatsvervangende Schaamte,

Thank you!

There have always been people within and without society who want to tear it down. This is the challenge of civilization. We are not afraid to face it head-on, and with compassion. We will not become a jack-booted police state, we will not crush the meek and helpless in a quest for security. Our police force is capable and engaged in the task. We may have fear, but it will not control us.

Fear is intrinsically tied with weakness. It’s an expression of weakness, and in a twisted way it also causes weakness. The presumption is, since people in a position of weakness experience fear, that only people in a position of weakness experience fear. Therefore, if I’m afraid, I must be weak, and my belief that I am weak makes it true.

It’s laughable that the United States, the world’s only current superpower, would be weak, and yet that’s what people like our troll are saying with nonsense like this:

You act like your country is so compassionate for doing this, but when one of those cretins heads south and blows up Americans, what will you say? You’re bringing them closer to us, you’re lucky we don’t invade your country.

This makes sense if – and only if – the United States is weak. If the US is strong and powerful, then no individual in Canada need be feared. So what the troll is saying is that the US is weak.


you’re lucky we don’t invade your country.

The United States already invaded Canada once. The US lost. Sorry to break it to you. There’s no reason to think it would go better a second time. Our military is waaaaay more powerful now, but since Canada is the #1 US trading partner, invading Canada would be like invading California. Only a person with a really profound level of ignorance would even suggest that would be a good idea, let alone that the Canadians are actually lucky that we don’t go through with such a ludicrous plan.


Thank you! A really good insight. Frankly, if the US really is worried about their northern border – that’s fine! It’s a huge border and we don’t have a bottomless pool of money to fund security. We do what we can. The US would be better served by, you know, helping? Since we’re friends and all?

This is what I meant by the whole “unable to do anything beyond threat assessment” thing, @Snack. We’re your friends and your first reaction is “be lucky we don’t invade you!” Everything is a threat to be neutralized, not a problem to be solved.


Funny thing, today during work I set in on doing some white paper reading, and in my stack is a paper using the hot-cool system to assess willpower and delay of gratification! I have moved it to the top of the “possibly useful” stack. Here’s hoping that I get to use it!

Frankly, if the US really is worried about their northern border – that’s fine! It’s a huge border and we don’t have a bottomless pool of money to fund security.

To a large extent, the Cold War was a result of the combination of the immense border characterized by difficult terrain in many locales that the USSR shared with multiple unfriendly neighbors, and the lingering trauma of Hitler’s invasion in 1941. Stalin fully expected an invasion at some point, but he didn’t believe that Hitler would choose that particular moment to start one. The whole idea that Germany would voluntarily open a second front before the first front was secure was so irrational and out there that Stalin proactively punished the officials who tried to convince him that an invasion was imminent. Germany took six months to get their shit together and get the invasion started, and there were lots and lots and lots of reports back to the USSR about it. Stalin literally sent a couple of dudes who brought him this news to Siberia, and after that people were weirdly cautious about bringing it up to him.

Until the early 1980s, all of the highly-placed party officials in the USSR were aging WWII veterans who remembered all too well the danger posed by Russia’s unguardable border, and who remembered perfectly how Hitler’s words and actions were wildly different. They also remembered – as Americans typically do not – the vast, vast, vast numbers of soldiers and civilians who were killed in the course of that invasion.

These past traumas informed their foreign policy, which was built on fear – the fear of invasion and the fear of a border that could never be adequately controlled. Of weakness, in other words. The Cold War was a story about the weakness that the Soviets perceived in their own position in the world, and the weakness of the United States to ICBMs. The US had never previously been in serious danger of attack from anywhere outside the Americas, and no country in the Western Hemisphere could pose much of a threat, let alone an existential one. The US suddenly felt weak in the face of ICBMs, and that feeling of weakness results in fear.

The Cold War has a long shadow. A lot of the fear that our troll is expressing lies under that shadow. Interesting how that works out, isn’t it?

@Plaatsvervangende Schaamte
Thank you. I’m glad that to be able to provide something of value.

That would be the cell and transmitter level explanation that would complement my psychology speculation. What got me thinking about that is how the polarized thought and other kinds of cognitive distortions happen in terms of experience becoming memory that is later retrieved in a manner consistent with hot or cold cognition. I want to understand “the enemy” as a pattern of thought because I’m hoping some new solutions are there.

Bigoted thought looks like when someone was having the concept of people created they did so under hot/intense cognitive rules. So later when they pull the information back out they get these categories and stereotypes that are resistant to being modified by the present context or new information because it feels like, and I’m not sure. Dangerous? That would explain the fear and the way that so much is utterly ignored by such commentators in favor of simple conflict behavior. I’m still absorbing the information and trying to play with it as I try to internalize it.

However it works it looks like objectification of people.

Interesting paper. I’m going to read that because it’s relevant to me with respect to the ADHD. I recently started reading about hot and cold cognition because I’m trying to better understand some other parts of my psychology better, Oppositional Defiant Disorder. I don’t think I would qualify for the diagnosis today, but when I was younger it might have been a possibility.

The impulses still echo in my head though, I just have other choices that I can make, unless it’s useful to be oppositional. It gets a little depressing seeing myself in the people I argue with all the time, but I guess it makes sense because as you said above, it’s still the same system.

@POM, I agree – there’s a very strong thread that links Cold War siege mentality, fascism, and the current state of the alt-right. Frankly I’m sure it goes deeper, to the roots of nationalism itself. All about fear and clearly identifying in-group versus out-group.

It looks like our snacky friend is gone, though. I guess we asked him some questions he wasn’t able to answer.

These dudes’ pairing of people by looks seems naive to me. I feel like that’s how I thought as a young child of 5, like “these two people ‘match.'” (Or how you think two of your teachers should marry each other based solely on the fact that they’re both teachers you like. Regardless of if either of them is already married or partnered.)

I feel like anyone who knows how people work would understand that it matters way more what’s on the inside. Personality and common interest is likely why we see a lot of these “mismatched” couples. Plus attractiveness is purely subjective.

I’m sure there would be no complaints from these guys were they to be “mismatched” with someone considered more conventionally attractive than themselves.

I feel really sad for the lot of them because they are destroying their own chances for happiness.

@policy of madness

Excellent post, and excellent analysis of the Cold War.

I thought when I first read the OP that “a short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him” sounded like a line from a poem, and for some reason inspiration struck today (when I have TWO deadlines I should be working on!) So here you go.

(NB the third stanza is perhaps a bit rapey – no more so than the “gaming and getting” in that line from the OP, I think, but just thought I’d mention it in case. And the fourth is a little unpleasant as well.

Also, a disclaimer: the rhymes all work in my accent but I can’t guarantee they will in anyone else’s!)

The Ballad of the Tall Handsome Athletic Silent Guy and the Short Ugly Hambeast

O list to the tale of my unhappy friend!
‘Tis the salutary tale of his unlucky end
Though a fine HB10 Nature’d allot him
A short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him

To tell of his fitness – oh where to begin?
Tall, handsome, athletic, silent and thin
Whoe’r’d date under 7s, you’d say it was not him!
Yet a short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him

Who can determine what rendered him, luck off,
Unable to tell the short hambeast to fuck off?
Still, something brought down what was needed to pot him
And a short ugly hambeast gamed him and got him

You might think this terror would last just one night,
That he’d come to his senses before any blight
Could result from the efforts to warp him and rot him
Of the short ugly hambeast that gamed him and got him!

Alas, yoked to this hambeast (for over three years!)
He felt no proper shame when beheld by his peers
He’d be smiling and laughing whenever you’d spot him
With the short ugly hambeast who gamed him and got him

But the worst: when we asked how he was, his replies
He said he was HAPPY, “no really, you guys”
Wait, we thought he was suffering – seriously, what, him?-
With the short ugly hambeast who gamed him and got him?

So please heed the lesson of this sorry tale
And refrain from all discourse with any land whale
Or else – though I really don’t mean to upset you!-
A short ugly hambeast may game you and get you

In Indian society it is fairly common to see conventionally unattractive / mediocre looking men paired with conventionally attractive women. But that dynamic has a widely acknowledged explanation: Arranged matchmaking focuses on women’s beauty and men’s providing ability. Consequently, a common young Indian women’s woe is the high likelihood of ending up with a not-so-attractive husband.

The same phenomenon applies here: In the dating/ hooking up culture, it is a lot more common to see overweight women dating and hooking up with relatively attractive, lean, fit guys, than the other way round. As a result you’ll come across more than a few guys expressing their woes regarding this matter. Nothing surprising.

Dammit! Now I want you to write that book about superheroes, so that I can read it! ; )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.