42% of young men think of themselves as failures

Is 42% a lot or a little? The story’s headline obviously implies that it’s bad for 42% of men to think of themselves as failures. But should it really be less, or more? What is the optimum percentage of men who feel like failures? Surely it’s not 0%. Some people are failures, so some percentage should feel like failures. Yet if the optimal percentage isn’t 0% or 100%, what is it - 10%, 50%, 90%?

There is ancestry data which suggests that before humans became monogamous, they were polygamous, and fewer than 10% of the male population succeeded in reproducing. So, it may be normal for 10% of men to be successful and 90% to be failures, at least genetically. That would suggest that 90% of men feeling like failures is the correct level. So, maybe the problem is that only 42% of men today think of themselves as failures.

This would imply that ancient sexual selection patterns would cleanly map onto modern people. A man who is legally retarded is more likely to have children than a man who is 130+ IQ. Intelligent young men certainly shouldn’t be made to feel like “failures”.

Low IQ dysgenics are more likely to keep breeding than 130+ IQ men because the smart men in that example are self reflective, I think more intelligent men think of themselves as failures than dumb men simply because low intelligence leads to low self reflection.

Dumbo surveys like this are just proxies for self-esteem, which I guarantee you niggers universally score the highest on. Right wing idiots don’t have “fitness markers” they have things that gratify their ego and they don’t believe in “eugenics” or “HBD” or whatever science-flavored bullshit they want to use as a proxy for self opinion. I fucking hate right wing low IQ buttwiper ideology because it produces grotedque freaks like Orcbrand. And now libtards are adopting it too so we’ll even have sick libtard freaks who discuss vitality and eugenics in the future. Fuck you people for constantly creating new stupid problems for the men’s movement to clean up.

Men’s movement is dumb, when are you going to restore traditional marriage and the patriarchy? All I hear about is game and bone smashing. Lol

Taking self-reported “on a scale from 1-10, how satisfied are you with your life?” polls as science is retarded. The concept that the 42% of the respondents are “the bottom 42%” is retarded and concilliatory to women. Saying actually the number should be higher, society would moar eugenic if 90% of people were chronically depressed or felt like failures is probably retarded even according to your own ideology, which itself is based on retarded shit anyways. Need arguments.

There are books worth of arguments for my position on substack. I guess you’ve never read an article? What point is there in discussing with you then? You seem emotional.

I could not ever for even five seconds care about a single book you wrote or anyone wrote or any argument or article they wrote when they are alive and using the communication technology to talk to me in real time. Based on my utterly non-exist knowledge of history and philosophy I decided that the Greeks valued discussion and dialogue so heavily as philosophical tools because it boils off a massive amount of useless empty watered down rhetoric from the actual marketplace of ideas. And frankly it keeps us on subject much better. I’m sure you have in fact never fully outlined or even developed your concept of how self opinion works or where its value in society is or how we should consider metrics like the one you started the OP with. In discussion my worldview of concepts comes into collision with yours and you don’t just get to write about how I did the academic equivelent of driving drunk and so therefore I can just be arrested as the culprit. Nope. No kangaroo courts here. You have to defend your views.

You just sound lazy, but Greeks valued spoken rhetoric over writing. If you’re so greek, get in voice chat with me. Usually types like you shy away from that. Because in reality they’re just lazy and insincere.

I don’t feel like voice chatting. In fact I am reluctant to do so at all with people I don’t trust and where I am not simply monologuing and can ban anybody who starts trying to insult me. Every time I watch REAL TIME DEBATES it’s just a vector for verbal abuse, and then using any negative reaction to that abuse as some kind of gotcha. Yea, allowing you to retreat to preferred ground seems like the clear losing move here.

Of course, thankfully for me this is the HBD Forum and not the HBD Discord Server and there’s no real excuse to not discuss this on the thread you made to discuss it.

Oh ok you’re greek but don’t feel like voice chatting. Greeks didn’t text bro

This forum is meant to replace a discord server I have btw and as such it is equipped with a voice chatting feature because as a classicist I believe in the importance of spoken dialogue.

Here is a screenshot of the front page. As you can see, we have the forum’s name, a message icon, and my user control panel. Then we have the Forum Index. Below that is an index of the threads containing the forum’s most recent posts. And below THAT is a live text chat which is open by default. Then you have a voice chat zone with a very nondeacript “Join Voice” button. You are just being a chickenshit. I bet your fucking voice chat will barely even actually be used. The website bulk will remain text for its entire lifetime but you pull this nonsense routine to pretend you aren’t a coward.

This is related to what I said in the culture thread. Discussing is a chance to demonstrate the organic flexibility of your ideas and your own mind. That is, if there is any in either.

You should be able to give answers informed by your beliefs to any given question. The beliefs themselves are not an answer. If you understood that you could be another Bronze Age Pervert.

You should be able to give answers informed by your beliefs to any given question. The beliefs themselves are not an answer. If you understood that you could be another Bronze Age Pervert.

Maybe, but I’m not trying to be a pöbel influencer. I expect my audience to be literate enough for my Substack articles. I’m not a shortform dance monkey for manosphere forklift drivers.

You met a specific criticism with a general response. That’s very, very weak. Might as well have said “It’s not my job to educate you”.

And calling people warehouse workers is a coinage of humanitiesfags who laugh at you on tunisbayclub still. Better stop using it. Don’t want to bring back painful associations.

Since I referred him to my articles, it would be inappropriate to tell him “It’s not my job to educate you.” Rather, like any good teacher, I have standards for my students. It’s not my job to do his homework for him. His homework is developing the literacy skills to read and critique my and other’s articles. I told him “I guess you’ve never read an article? What point is there in discussing with you then?” – this means that when he reads the articles and still has questions, we’ll have dialogue. And his criticism was not specific, it was general: “your own ideology, which itself is based on retarded shit anyways. Need arguments.”

And calling people warehouse workers is a coinage of humanitiesfags who laugh at you on tunisbayclub still.

That’s weird since I’m pretty sure TBC people are NEET or warehouse workers. They’re definitely not tenured humanities professors, Hollywood script writers, or journalists at the New York Times lol.

The class of error is not “they didn’t do the work”. The problem with saying “it’s not my job to educate you” is the failure to demonstrate organic flexibility of knowledge and applicability of theory.

I don’t believe there is anything he doesn’t know here which would impact the substance of the disagreement the two of you were having. Maybe he would have a more fleshed out idea of your beliefs if he spent a few hours on your substack and how you fit this thuletide data and OP into that. But you could also just tell him.

He also had a substack and has a long history of posting online. If you were familiar with that (you might be more than you know) you might be able to predict more of his arguments ahead of time.

He never deferred to any existing thoughts, he wanted to take this issue as it came. Which you were content to do yourself in the OP. You did not tell readers to refer to a series of substack posts to build the necessary context to understand what you had written. You were writing a free-standing argument. Pretending otherwise upon meeting pushback was not very intellectual virtuous behaviour.

What upset M. Chat was a suggestion that downward pressure upon people expressing unhappiness with their state in life is good. He made several specific points against this specific point. He wanted them answered. He wanted arguments in defense of the value of this poll, on why we should recognise any kind of virtue in not considering yourself a failure. Your “position” in general is not enlightening for this discussion. I am familiar with it and have been for some time. Mutation Load theory. And the redacted older ideas. I have done the homework. And I am left as wanting for a response as M. Chat.

And the TBC laughs at you. Their memes are potent. Their tendrils long and powerful. The Oldtroon Gravemind beneath the online Delta Halo. A monument to all of our sins.

I don’t believe there is anything he doesn’t know here which would impact the substance of the disagreement the two of you were having. Maybe he would have a more fleshed out idea of your beliefs if he spent a few hours on your substack and how you fit this thuletide data and OP into that. But you could also just tell him.

There is a point at which knowledge is irreducible to anything quicker or simpler. My substacks can’t be reduced to 200 characters, sorry. It’s like that for all forms of expertise, you can’t learn all of physics in a quick conversation. I wish it were easier, but it isn’t.

He also had a substack and has a long history of posting online. If you were familiar with that (you might be more than you know) you might be able to predict more of his arguments ahead of time.

So he is your friend? You are here to post together? Why not just link his substack then and we can discuss it?

You did not tell readers to refer to a series of substack posts to build the necessary context to understand what you had written.

It’s in the subtext.

Mutation Load theory. And the redacted older ideas. I have done the homework. And I am left as wanting for a response as M. Chat.

My ideas indeed changed a bit because I falsified some of my older hypotheses. I used to believe more in “elite theory” and now I sort of believe the opposite, because it fits logic and observation better. That’s what a good thinker does.

And the TBC laughs at you. Their memes are potent. Their tendrils long and powerful. The Oldtroon Gravemind beneath the online Delta Halo. A monument to all of our sins.

Uh huh. I’m glad they think my writing is funny. It seems you all also take it seriously enough but there’s also some kind of hang up to liking me, I guess I’m not egalitarian enough. They seem to get sore when I say I’m intelligent, after being spoken to as if I am stupid. I know it’s a faux pas to do that irl but I want more honest and direct norms that better fit reality in my online spaces. Feigning dumbness is nice to most people for obvious reasons, talking honestly about intelligence levels is not, but it is true. I choose true over nice-to-most-people because true is the real nice.

when are you going to restore traditional marriage and the patriarchy?

I take it by “traditional marriage” you mean “Christian monogamy”. But monogamy isn’t really the traditional form of human marriage, is it? My impression is that for 50 million years of primate history, polygamy was the tradition for 49.99 million of those years. So, you can say that you prefer monogamy, or monogamy is better, or even argue that monogamy increases male cooperation, and raises female fertility, and was responsible for the triumphs of Western Civilization, or a hundred other good things about monogamy, but it’s not right to call it “traditional”.

The only reason to call monogamy “traditional” is that the word “tradition” has positive connotations, and you are appealing to positive vibes, not to historical facts. Language can be used to communicate facts - such as, “polygamy is the dominant human tradition”. But language can also be used to manipulate emotions - such as, “tradition is good, monogamy is tradition, hence monogamy is good”. Your claim that monogamy is “traditional marriage” is the latter use of language.

But monogamy isn’t really the traditional form of human marriage, is it? My impression is that for 50 million years of primate history, polygamy was the tradition for 49.99 million of those years.

They weren’t humans for >49.99 million of those years.

but it’s not right to call it “traditional”.

Traditional means was the norm before the cultural downturn after industrialization.

Oh, but it is traditional, isn’t it? Primates, after all, don’t have “marriage” as a deliberately built social institution. Now if he called it “natural” that would be different, but traditional and natural are two very different things - most tradition exists to keep nature in line, and even eliminate certain aspects of it entirely. What good are those millions of years if they can be swept away by a few thousand?

What good are those millions of years if they can be swept away by a few thousand?

No good anymore. Couldn’t survive.