Post by mirrororchid on Aug 13, 2021 6:52:36 GMT -5
The parable of 100 dogs and 95 bones
Imagine a small community comprising 100 dogs. Each morning they set off into the field to dig for bones. If there were enough bones buried in the field then all the dogs would succeed in their search no matter how slow, dumb, or inefficient they were.
Now imagine that one day the 100 dogs set off for the field as usual but this time they find there are only 95 bones buried.
Some dogs who were always very sharp dig up two bones as usual and others dig up the usual one bone. But, as a matter of accounting, at least 5 dogs will return home bone-less.
Now imagine we assume that it is the skills and motivation of the bone-less dogs that is the problem. They are not “boneable” enough.
So a range of dog psychologists and dog-trainers are called into to work on the attitudes and skills of the bone-less dogs. The dogs undergo assessment and are assigned case managers. They are told that unless they train they will forever go hungry. They feel despondent.
Anyway, after running and digging skills are imparted to the bone-less dogs things start to change. Each day as the 100 dogs go in search of 95 bones, we start to observe different dogs coming back bone-less. The bone-less queue seems to become shuffled by the training programs.
However, on any particular day, there are still 100 dogs running into the field and only 95 bones are buried there!
This was offered as a observation why training alone doesn't solve unemployment in an environment of insufficient jobs at:
bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1868
Training just means that the population of unemployed/boneless dogs shifts, but doesn't diminish.
Over on the podcast Dads Starting Over, the host emphasizes physical fitness to appeal to women's primitive lizard brain whether these women are prospects or spouses.
The confidence and cheering on of these men overlooks the 95 bones problem.
It's a competition of diminishing returns. If the wimpiest among us get trim, then those who are trim must get firm to outcompete the newcomers. Those already firm, will need to get buff to attract female eyes, and those who are buff will need to get swole, and those already swole will start doing steroids and hurting themselves to maintain their place in the hierarchy.
Surely other facets can enhance the package, wealth, smarts, humor, lifetime experience, and dozens of others and DSO does include these, but I grow uncomfortable with the emphasis on the physical because it is a time commitment that is firm and fleeting.
It is all too easy to lose gains in physical fitness. Injuries, demotivation, and life events that force abandonment of programs make me look askance at the push to be physically beautiful. The ladies will have their own correlation not just in gym time but in plastic surgery, clothing accessories, and makeup. There's a point at which you should be ready to say, "Enough. I can't invest more in this bullshit."
DSO has strategies in common with MGTOW and PUA minus the misogynist enmity towards women. Even so, the resigned acceptance of hypergamy can drive men towards a competitive spirit that could lead a race to ruin.
I am confident I paraphrase, but I cannot find the original quote:
"When the crowd goes left, and some go right, I look to see a way forward."
That is, what solution is no one advocating for?
You can compete with the rest of mankind and become a better prize endlessly.
You can give up entirely and stay "in your league".
Or, you can do the unthinkable. The socially repugnant.
Bottom feed.
Establish what your league is, then deliberately seek out companionship "beneath you." In an age of global competition where elites would have you thrash about and claw your way up the ladder, what becomes of the person who deliberately, voluntarily, unashamedly, enthusiastically "settles"?
“I would rather sit on a pumpkin, and have it all to myself, than be crowded on a velvet cushion” – Henry David Thoreau
Where are all the guys looking for pumpkins when they can't muscle their way on to a cushion?
There might be hundreds of pumpkins in a field yet the masses stand, longing for a corner of a cushion.
This may produce a demotivation to improve, but what of it?
Do we not look forward to a week each year to allow ourselves to do nothing of value? Is vacation not something we long for?
Do we value what we seek enough to never retire? Then why do we so look forward to it?
DSO's drive to be attractive to one's mate should have a backstop. A point at which one says "F*ck it."
Sure, fix your flaws, gain skills, grow in a way that makes you pleased with yourself, but the idea of reaching for a carrot with nothing short of that carrot being sufficient may be a recipe for depression and failure. Maintaining success may involve a lifetime sentence of vigilance to maintain your "league" and if you punched high, it's that much harder to stay on top.
There is research suggesting many men overestimate their own value. The natural consequence is they overestimate their place in the hierarchy and naturally misjudge who is in their "league". The reprehensible, loathsome choice to be happy with what is easily obtained with no concern for appearances or esteem from others may not just be a better choice for some, it may be the only choice. Some men are attempting the truly impossible. Striving mightily to self-improve to the point of achieving partnership with women they hope to make their equals, while ignoring those who admire them already.
I dare say it. Get over yourself. You don't need what you're due. Accepting less is a magnanimous act. Generosity in your value with those "undeserving" can be a point of pride and bring with it serenity. Were you to partner with someone you must struggle mightily to obtain, is any pleasure in the union going to last through a lifetime of maintaining the effort? Maybe. It could also require luck. Is it unthinkable to build in some leeway? A set advantage that might be temporarily lost through misfortunate and you would be coupled with someone who would still feel fulfilled even in your diminished state?
Should it turn out to be a longer lasting setback and the partner "unworthy" of you deluded themselves into thinking they were your equal (perhaps they were! remember men overestimating their value!), they may lose interest and you'll find a need to shuffle the deck.
You may need to seek out someone yet "lower", unless you seek to reclaim your position through the same relentless effort some choose to obtain a partner currently "above" them.
I put it to the advocates of DSO, PUA, and MGTOW that there is happiness and value to be found in saying, "You do you. While you're at the gym, I'll be chatting up your girlfriend's "ugly" friend over coffee."
And while Mr. Muscles is at coffee with his hottie, you'll be at the movies with your "lesser" sweetheart.
Point is, he doesn't get that time at the gym back.
Unless you want to be better in that specific way, I find it acceptable to question hunting hard for prizes that ain't that great.
Imagine a small community comprising 100 dogs. Each morning they set off into the field to dig for bones. If there were enough bones buried in the field then all the dogs would succeed in their search no matter how slow, dumb, or inefficient they were.
Now imagine that one day the 100 dogs set off for the field as usual but this time they find there are only 95 bones buried.
Some dogs who were always very sharp dig up two bones as usual and others dig up the usual one bone. But, as a matter of accounting, at least 5 dogs will return home bone-less.
Now imagine we assume that it is the skills and motivation of the bone-less dogs that is the problem. They are not “boneable” enough.
So a range of dog psychologists and dog-trainers are called into to work on the attitudes and skills of the bone-less dogs. The dogs undergo assessment and are assigned case managers. They are told that unless they train they will forever go hungry. They feel despondent.
Anyway, after running and digging skills are imparted to the bone-less dogs things start to change. Each day as the 100 dogs go in search of 95 bones, we start to observe different dogs coming back bone-less. The bone-less queue seems to become shuffled by the training programs.
However, on any particular day, there are still 100 dogs running into the field and only 95 bones are buried there!
This was offered as a observation why training alone doesn't solve unemployment in an environment of insufficient jobs at:
bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1868
Training just means that the population of unemployed/boneless dogs shifts, but doesn't diminish.
Over on the podcast Dads Starting Over, the host emphasizes physical fitness to appeal to women's primitive lizard brain whether these women are prospects or spouses.
The confidence and cheering on of these men overlooks the 95 bones problem.
It's a competition of diminishing returns. If the wimpiest among us get trim, then those who are trim must get firm to outcompete the newcomers. Those already firm, will need to get buff to attract female eyes, and those who are buff will need to get swole, and those already swole will start doing steroids and hurting themselves to maintain their place in the hierarchy.
Surely other facets can enhance the package, wealth, smarts, humor, lifetime experience, and dozens of others and DSO does include these, but I grow uncomfortable with the emphasis on the physical because it is a time commitment that is firm and fleeting.
It is all too easy to lose gains in physical fitness. Injuries, demotivation, and life events that force abandonment of programs make me look askance at the push to be physically beautiful. The ladies will have their own correlation not just in gym time but in plastic surgery, clothing accessories, and makeup. There's a point at which you should be ready to say, "Enough. I can't invest more in this bullshit."
DSO has strategies in common with MGTOW and PUA minus the misogynist enmity towards women. Even so, the resigned acceptance of hypergamy can drive men towards a competitive spirit that could lead a race to ruin.
I am confident I paraphrase, but I cannot find the original quote:
"When the crowd goes left, and some go right, I look to see a way forward."
That is, what solution is no one advocating for?
You can compete with the rest of mankind and become a better prize endlessly.
You can give up entirely and stay "in your league".
Or, you can do the unthinkable. The socially repugnant.
Bottom feed.
Establish what your league is, then deliberately seek out companionship "beneath you." In an age of global competition where elites would have you thrash about and claw your way up the ladder, what becomes of the person who deliberately, voluntarily, unashamedly, enthusiastically "settles"?
“I would rather sit on a pumpkin, and have it all to myself, than be crowded on a velvet cushion” – Henry David Thoreau
Where are all the guys looking for pumpkins when they can't muscle their way on to a cushion?
There might be hundreds of pumpkins in a field yet the masses stand, longing for a corner of a cushion.
This may produce a demotivation to improve, but what of it?
Do we not look forward to a week each year to allow ourselves to do nothing of value? Is vacation not something we long for?
Do we value what we seek enough to never retire? Then why do we so look forward to it?
DSO's drive to be attractive to one's mate should have a backstop. A point at which one says "F*ck it."
Sure, fix your flaws, gain skills, grow in a way that makes you pleased with yourself, but the idea of reaching for a carrot with nothing short of that carrot being sufficient may be a recipe for depression and failure. Maintaining success may involve a lifetime sentence of vigilance to maintain your "league" and if you punched high, it's that much harder to stay on top.
There is research suggesting many men overestimate their own value. The natural consequence is they overestimate their place in the hierarchy and naturally misjudge who is in their "league". The reprehensible, loathsome choice to be happy with what is easily obtained with no concern for appearances or esteem from others may not just be a better choice for some, it may be the only choice. Some men are attempting the truly impossible. Striving mightily to self-improve to the point of achieving partnership with women they hope to make their equals, while ignoring those who admire them already.
I dare say it. Get over yourself. You don't need what you're due. Accepting less is a magnanimous act. Generosity in your value with those "undeserving" can be a point of pride and bring with it serenity. Were you to partner with someone you must struggle mightily to obtain, is any pleasure in the union going to last through a lifetime of maintaining the effort? Maybe. It could also require luck. Is it unthinkable to build in some leeway? A set advantage that might be temporarily lost through misfortunate and you would be coupled with someone who would still feel fulfilled even in your diminished state?
Should it turn out to be a longer lasting setback and the partner "unworthy" of you deluded themselves into thinking they were your equal (perhaps they were! remember men overestimating their value!), they may lose interest and you'll find a need to shuffle the deck.
You may need to seek out someone yet "lower", unless you seek to reclaim your position through the same relentless effort some choose to obtain a partner currently "above" them.
I put it to the advocates of DSO, PUA, and MGTOW that there is happiness and value to be found in saying, "You do you. While you're at the gym, I'll be chatting up your girlfriend's "ugly" friend over coffee."
And while Mr. Muscles is at coffee with his hottie, you'll be at the movies with your "lesser" sweetheart.
Point is, he doesn't get that time at the gym back.
Unless you want to be better in that specific way, I find it acceptable to question hunting hard for prizes that ain't that great.
