#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
The former His Royal Highness didn’t:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will no longer use HRH titles, will REPAY £2.4million of public cash spent on their Frogmore Cottage home and receive no more public cash.
Notice how behavioral patterns trumped situational status here.
UPDATE: Apparently reports that they will not be using HRH titles are not correct, as Meghan Markle has already sent out a tweet using it.
A science experiment backs up the PUA theory concerning the attractiveness of Dark Triad men:
In his research Mr Brazil recruited 46 men to produce two-minute videos of themselves to be shown to prospective romantic partners.
They were interviewed by a female research assistant in the clips, and spoke about what they’d do on a first date or what they looked for in a relationship. The same men were then tested to measure whether they had psychopathic personality traits, and to gauge their social intelligence and their views on sex.
A group of 108 women then watched the videos and rated the men on their attractiveness in general, how sexy they thought they were, and their confidence.
Mr Brazil found that the higher a man scored on the psychopathy test, in general, the more attractive he was considered to be by the women.
Stop trying to be “nice”, gentlemen. There is a reason why “the Perfect Gentleman” was an involuntary celibate. And don’t believe the music, ladies. It’s not mere coincidence that the guy who sings about how he can treat you better and how you deserve a gentleman is a closeted homosexual.
Neal DeGrasse Tyson is, at the very least, guilty of disappointing women with his unexpected Gammatude:
While filming this past summer, I had a (female) Production Assistant assigned to me, to ensure, among her countless tasks, that every ounce of my energy was efficiently allocated to the production needs of the show. As part of this, she was also my driver, to and from the studio, ensuring that I arrive on time. In the car we would review details of the shoot and she would help me anticipate parts of the shoot to come. Across the many weeks of shooting she and I spent upwards of a hundred hours in one-on-one conversation. We became so friendly that we talked about all manner of subjects, even social-personal ones, like the care of aging parents, sibling relationships, life in high school and college, hometown hobbies, race, gender, and so forth. We also discussed less-personal topics in abundance, like rock lyrics, favorite songs in various musical genres, concert experiences, etc. And we also talked about food – I’m kind of a foodie, and her fiancé was a chef. In short, we had a fun, talkative friendship.
She is a talented, warm and friendly person — excellent traits for morale on a high pressure production. Practically everyone she knows on set gets a daily welcome-hug from her. I expressly rejected each hug offered frequently during the Production. But in its place I offered a handshake, and on a few occasions, clumsily declared, “If I hug you I might just want more.” My intent was to express restrained but genuine affection.
In the final week of shooting, with just a few days left, as a capstone of our friendship, I invited her to wine & cheese at my place upon dropping me off from work. No pressure. I serve wine & cheese often to visitors. And I even alerted her that others from the production were gathering elsewhere that evening, so she could just drop me off and head straight there or anywhere elsewhere. She freely chose to come by for wine & cheese and I was delighted. In the car, we had started a long conversation that could continue unabated. Production days are long. We arrived late, but she was on her way home two hours later.
Afterwards, she came into my office to told me she was creeped out by the wine & cheese evening. She viewed the invite as an attempt to seduce her, even though she sat across the wine & cheese table from me, and all conversation had been in the same vein as all other conversations we ever had.
Further, I never touched her until I shook her hand upon departure. On that occasion, I had offered a special handshake, one I learned from a Native elder on reservation land at the edge of the Grand Canyon. You extend your thumb forward during the handshake to feel the other person’s vital spirit energy — the pulse. I’ve never forgotten that handshake, and I save it in appreciation of people with whom I’ve developed new friendships.
At that last meeting in my office, I apologized profusely. She accepted the apology. And I assured her that had I known she was uncomfortable, I would have apologized on the spot, ended the evening, and possibly reminded her of the other social gathering that she could attend. She nonetheless declared it her last day, with only a few days left of production.
I note that her final gesture to me was the offer of a hug, which I accepted as a parting friend.
This is like reading an account of an easily avoided car crash. I actually tend to believe that the nerdling Tyson didn’t genuinely hit on these women, but he quite clearly wanted to do so, and worse, behaved in a manner that let them know the door was open if they wanted to initiate anything with him. All the talk about “friendship” and “restrained but genuine affection” and “special handshakes” is just dishonest Gamma speak for “I wanted to pursue her but was afraid to do so.”
Never forget that women get far more creeped out by the guys who want to hit on them, but are afraid to, than by the men who openly pursue them. They react very negatively to male incongruity, and as a black man and media celebrity, Tyson’s behavior would have struck them as bizarrely incongruous. Where is that confrontation-seeking boldness that was portrayed on the Big Bang Theory? It never existed, of course, it was a fictitious portrayal that probably owed part of its humor to being so unlike the real persona.
Don’t think that you’re fooling anyone, including yourself, when you strike up a respectful friendship with a young female assistant or colleague. If you’re going to be a dog, then be a shameless dog. If you’re not, then don’t flirt with the danger and humiliation that is all-too-likely to result from playing with socio-sexual fire. My approach to women is very simple: keep your damn distance. No hugs, no special handshakes, no wine-and-cheese evenings.
All that being said, Neal DeGrasse Tyson doesn’t get a pass. The new rules of sexual harassment are perfectly clear. He violated them and he’s not on our side, so let him burn.
The question really answers itself. From the comments on the recent Voxiversity video on the Socio-Sexual hierarchy:
Captain Memo: Why reverse gamma and delta though? gamma comes before delta in the alphabet.
Scott Birch: Delta signifies change. Deltas are mostly like to shift socio-sexual profiles in their journey through life. This is mentioned in the video.
Captain Memo: Still why not describe gammas first since that makes alphabetical sense? And how does Delta signify change? It’s a letter.
Scott Birch: Google is your friend, “Captain”.
Captain Memo: I did that. It signifies difference between quantities in a mathematical sense. I guess you could steelman voxday and say that it’s about change. But why reverse the two letters in the presentation? It seems to me that he doesn’t know the correct order. Or maybe he did this because he wanted to shit on Peterson last for more effect.
VD: Because a) the labels are irrelevant and b) it serves as useful Gamma bait. You can always count on the Gammas to sperg out on the irrelevant details just to show what Smart Boys they are. The hierarchy is what it is. The behaviors exist. It’s not a freaking test of your knowledge of the alphabet, FFS.
You can always, Always, ALWAYS count on a Gamma to completely miss the point in search of a way to publicly demonstrate that he is a Smart Boy. If the Gamma is not arguing that the Alpha-Beta hierarchy has been disproven due to new research on wolf packs, he is obsessing over whether an alphabet that not one percent of the English-speaking population knows is being correctly cited in order.
I couldn’t help but laugh at the additional Gamma tell, as if it was needed. “It seems….”
Every single time.
The production team and I are pleased to announce Voxiversity Episode 009: THE SOCIO-SEXUAL HIERARCHY
The bestselling author of THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST and ON THE EXISTENCE OF GODS explains the socio-sexual hierarchy and the five primary ranks into which it is divided.
This interview is taken from a British dating show on which a convicted murderer appeared as a contestant. It’s interesting to see the similarity to the way gammas talk total nonsense about themselves.
How would you describe yourself?
John Cannan: ‘I think a ruff would suit me. Tights and sword, I can see me on some bridge, on some galleon, being a pirate – yes, I can handle that. Yes, I have a dislike of inflated egos – people who are, they look at me – “I’m great”, type. I don’t like that, I can’t handle that sort of inner weakness.’
That kind of pretention?
JC: ‘Yeah, I don’t like that at all. I just like just normal, average people.’
What do you look for in a person? What attracts you?
JC: ‘I think apart from the physical side, again I think somebody who’s pleasant, who’s natural, who’s relaxed, somebody who’s calm – just pleasant, someone nice.
You’re not worrying about if they’re career orientated?
JC: ‘No; no, no; no, no. As somebody who’s career orientated myself, I couldn’t blame them for that. No, not at all.’
Do you admire any famous people, past and present?
JC: ‘Yes, I’ve admired a few. People like Gandhi, philosophers like Bertrand Russell. Present day people like Prince Charles, who’s socially aware. Physically, somebody like Stephanie Beacham.’
Who’s that?
JC: ‘No, it’s actually… I think she’s in Dallas, or from Crest or something. No, joking apart, somebody natural, nice, pleasant, somebody with character, a little personality.’
Practical?
JC: ‘Practical, yes. Just somebody normal – somebody who’s easy and relaxed to be with.’
Now what about TV comedy programmes, is there anything that you like?
JC: ‘I’m a little bit dry as regards humour. Dave Allen, Benny Hill is OK.’
How dare you say Benny Hill?!
JC: ‘It’s a bit slapstick, I know, Benny Hill is OK – or he used to be, not so good nowadays, but he used to be. Yeah, that type of… mainly dry humour.’
Now, do you have any ambitions for the future, or do you feel like you’ve achieved your ambitions already?
JC: ‘I’ve achieved them. Basic, financially I’ve achieved them.
So you’re just going to curl up and keel over then?
JC: ‘No, no, not at all. I’m just looking now – I’m in a sedimentary period, where financially and career wise, I’ve achieved what I’ve wanted to achieve, I’m just now looking for what, the next thing to achieve.’
I’m always suspicious of people who use words improperly, such as the use of the word “sedimentary” when he meant “sedentary”. Keep in mind that the man was completely unemployed at the time. And on what planet was Benny Hill ever “dry humour”?
One thing I’ve learned over half-a-century on the planet is that the small things matter more than most people believe. Even the smallest error that reveals a pretense can tell you a great deal about an individual.
I never bought into the “men reject me because they are intimidated by my awesome wonderfulness” line to which so many feminist old maids resort. And if a recent study is to be believed, it turns out that when smart, highly educated women are being rejected en masse by men, it’s not their intimidating intelligence that is the problem. In fact, when they blame men for being intimidated by intelligence, it turns out that they’re probably just projecting their own feelings onto their male counterparts.
A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found that women did not want exceptionally clever or handsome men. But the same did not hold true for men – who are not put off by extreme levels of intelligence or good looks, they found.
Researchers asked hundreds of people what they found attractive in a potential romantic partner. Participants rated four qualities – good looks, cleverness, kindness and being easy-going.
They were asked to say how attracted they would be to potential partners who were, for example, kinder than 1 per cent of the population. They were then asked the same for 10 per cent, 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, 90 per cent and 99 per cent of the population. For each percentage, participants rated the partners on a six-point scale from ‘extremely unattracted’ to ‘extremely attracted’.
The results showed that the more the quality was present, the more attractive the person was as a partner – most of the time. But for females, partners lost their appeal at the top of the scale for some traits.
Women said a partner would be more attractive if they were more intelligent than 90 per cent of the population. However, attractiveness decreased if the person was more intelligent than 99 per cent of the population. The same drop-off was seen for physical attractiveness and being easy-going, according to the findings published in the British Journal of Psychology.
Being in the top one percent of intelligence myself, and having been friends with a male Calvin Klein model, I can attest that as far as women are concerned, there can definitely be too much of a good thing. I remember one very attractive girl who was – to my point of view, inexplicably – focusing her attention on me rather on than my much better-looking friend explaining that she wanted to be the pretty one in the relationship.
This may help explain why so many very handsome men wind up with women who are relatively plain by comparison, although the fact that very good-looking men tend to be lazy and prefer being pursued by moderately attractive women to exerting any effort competing for their beauty peers also plays a role. And actually, if they are at a disadvantage, that laziness is probably justified. I found it interesting that my model friend usually dated girls who were not all that pretty and wound up marrying a woman who is cute, but not particularly striking.
The thing about intelligence is that it’s very hard to ascertain by those who aren’t within a standard deviation or so. Most people can’t do much better than “pretty sure he is smarter than me” and midwits can’t even manage that. So, men with IQs over 137 will only tend to disattract women whose IQs are above 130 or so, which is not even two percent of the female population.
He began badly:
(I don’t know what’s your overall opinion about Donald Trump. But, if you mainly support him…)
Don’t be fooled by the fakes.
What I don’t know (being new to this blog, and not having time to read all the posts) is what is the overall opinion of Vox about Donald Trump (being Vox a Patriot, and given the fact that most Patriots support Donald Trump).
And, I just thought that my observation was, nevertheless, an interesting one that I should make – just in case anyone (including the readers of this blog) is not aware of this type of schemes played by the establishment.
A classic Gamma entry. He doesn’t know even the most basic thing about the blog, the blog owner, or the blog readership, but he just thought that his observation was an interesting and necessary one that he should make in the event that these people about whom he knows nothing don’t know it. So helpful!
To which I responded:
Don’t Gamma. No one here likes Gammas. That is Gamma thinking. As a general rule, don’t share unsolicited information. If someone wants to know, they will ask.
Of course, operating as he was in ignorance, the Gamma promptly apologized and stopped annoying everyone, right? No, of course not! Pass up a chance to talk about himself and his motivations? Perish the thought!
You’re immensely wrong, in the evaluation you make of me.
The reason why I shared this type of knowledge (and have posted maybe similar comments in here) was to *Warn* people, about this kind of things, so that they don’t fall in this (and other) kind of traps, put out by the establishment.
And, as with any (important) warning that everyone thinks that they should make, when in doubt if people are already aware of such facts, the best option is to always make such warnings, just in case. (Like, if you know there’s a seller in your city that is scamming people, and you see someone that is heading for his shop, your natural reaction is to go warn the possibly ignorant buyer.)
That’s all there is.
The overall majority of my comments are made up of information that I consider to be of interest to (and important to share with) other people, about different aspects of the powers-that-be. And, I always post them to try to “enlighten” people. I’m not the kind of person who likes to listen to himself. I come from a “citizen journalist” background. And, it’s within the same journalistic spirit that I continue to make posts and comments. To inform people.
But, if you don’t like to receive unsolicited information, then I will stop doing it on your blog.
Let me be perfectly clear. I don’t like to receive unsolicited information. I don’t want people to share their Very Special Opinion or Very Important Advice or Very Breaking News From An Underground News Site That No One Reads Like The Drudge Report here. I ask very smart people for advice on a regular basis. If I do not ask you for your advice, then obviously I don’t want it. Because if I did, I would ask for it.
If you’re a “citizen-journalist”, if you feel the need to “enlighten” and “warn” people, that’s just fine. Go do it on your own site and stop trying to hijack everyone else’s microphones.
Back in October 2016, a website designer named Allen Ayler deigned to offer his assistance to Infogalactic. I turned him down because I did not like the way he approached me. After he angrily demanded on Gab that I make our email discussions a matter for public discussion, I did so. This was how it ended, or so I thought.
Guys, I admitted already that my initial “dignify me wit a response” was too pushy, however it wasn’t an insult like his response was when he proceeded to throw at me by insinuating I am a “diva big dog.” I took offense to that, and proceeded to unload and make myself look ridiculous. I apologize for my unprofessionalism. I was not necessarily approaching this like I typically do, since in my mind I wasn’t “applying” for a job. Regardless, I should have kept my demeanor and offense in check.
That being said, I will retain that I have zero interest in working with anyone who says, “If you can’t deal with the fact that the big dogs on this project are insanely busy, you won’t fit in. There simply isn’t space for divas and egos on the team” to people trying to help. It’s a completely asinine and hypocritical response, and was uncalled for. I am honest enough to admit my fault, yet all I hear is unaccountability and yet more insults from Vox. I can tell you, if you didn’t insinuate I was a diva ego we would be square and I would never have popped off. I would have apologized for my pushy request for a response after getting ignored and dicked around for two weeks.
But let me dissect this a bit, you say an alpha just doesn’t respond to gammas, and gammas just use baseless insults and never stop messaging looking for revenge, right? How does that differ from you posting my info so you can have your biased minions seek me out and attack me? Basically you are taking the weight of the gamma work off your shoulders and having every here do it for you. Gammas use baseless insults, but nearly everyone who simply disagrees with you, you call a gamma, yet that is not a baseless insult in and of itself?
Everyone clearly sides with Vox here, yet I didn’t open up the dialogue with insults. I may have been a tad pushy after getting ignored for two weeks, but at least it was not an insult.
Another thing, in the professional field, when someone responds to you by saying, “If you can’t deal with the fact I am busy then…” Basically what it says is, “I am important than you.” And when you have people offering to give their time and services way for free, it’s pretty offensive.
So yea, you dicked me around and ignored me for two weeks, my request for a response was not an insult (but yes it was pushy), but your reply actually was insulting, and oozed of self-importance, as I have outlined. Now all my responses after your reply was totally unprofessional. I make no lies or excuses about that. And yes I do regret the way I asked for a response, but not because I want to join the team, but because we are playing on the same #MAGA team, and we really need to stick together at a time like this instead of create divide. Now, if there is any empathy and rationality in you, Vox, then you will accept my apology and hopefully at least acknowledge that your response to my pushy request for a reply was also a bit too harsh. That is all I ask for.
Also, since you proved me wrong about your website traffic, I will humbly remove my false review claim that you are being dishonest about it. I really do try to be a man of integrity, it’s too bad we got off like this. I hope this gesture can help show that.
To which I replied on Oct 26, 2016: No worries. It’s over and done with as far as I’m concerned. I also publicly accepted his apology at Alpha Game.
But of course, nothing is ever over when a Gamma is involved. Hadley wins his bet. Today, 15 freaking months later, I received this pair of emails in quick succession, both completely out of the blue.
ugh… hey deluded big dog, your site looks horrid. LMFAO. And your wife is a slut cunt bitch, btw.
Cheers,
Allen AylerHow mentally and emotionally stunted to you have to be to make it part of your life’s missions to paint yourself as an “alpha”? LOL still hilarious to this day.
Cheers again,
your #1 gamma, fucking dork child.
How very professional. The underlying reason here is that Gammas never forget a crime against them, and by crime, they mean anything that causes them to feel humiliation. And once humiliated, they never stop looking to seek revenge for it and take the shot that will restore the balance of the universe. Needless to say, I feel entirely justified about my decision to keep this gentleman well the hell away from Infogalactic and every other project in which I have any involvement whatsoever. This is why an understanding of human socio-sexuality is so important. You simply cannot permit Gammas in any position of importance and it is vital for every project leader to avoid relying upon them for any critical matter.
The problem is that while Gammas are often very knowledgeable and detail-oriented subject matter experts, they are socially fragile, emotionally volatile, and can seldom bear to take any criticism or endure any reaction to their advice or assistance other than enthusiastic acceptance. To make matters worse, they are often ambitious and pursue responsibility, only to shirk it once they have it and try to avoid making decisions or actually doing anything due to their crippling fear of failure. Think about John Scalzi and his successful decade-long pursuit of a big book contract, which was promptly followed by his inability to deliver books on the contract’s schedule. That is a textbook example of Gamma success gone awry; if events proceed according to form, Scalzi will probably blow up the publishing arrangement in some way long before delivering the final book.
Gamma is not an insult per se. It is a clearly defined, demonstrably observable male behavioral pattern. The relevant fact of the matter here is that this pattern of behavior is familiar and predictable, because that is simply how gammas tend to react in certain specific situations. And the reason that gammas get called out so often for it here is because non-gammas don’t behave this way and therefore don’t require being addressed in a similar manner.
Every gamma would do well to recall four things:
Not when it comes to the media. The God-Emperor needs to remember this and go back on the attack:
President Trump defended his mental health again at a press conference on Saturday, saying his Ivy League education, television fame and 2016 election win are proof he is more than competent to run the country.
Responding to claims in Michael Wolff’s new book Fire and Fury that White House insiders worry he is suffering mental decline, the president fired back and said he was never interviewed for it – hours after declaring himself a ‘very stable genius’ on Twitter.
‘It’s a disgrace that he can do something like this,’ said Trump said of Wolff, who he called a ‘fraud’ as he attacked the libel laws in the United States at a Camp David press conference attended by GOP leaders.
‘Libel laws are very weak in this country. If they were stronger, hopefully, you would not have something like that happen,’ said Trump who had defended his intelligence just moments before.
‘Only because I went to the best colleges, I was an excellent student, came out and made billions and billions of dollars and became one of the top business people, went to television and was a tremendous success, as I am sure you all know and ran for president first time and won.’
‘And then this guy who doesn’t know me, doesn’t know me at all. Who said he interviewed me for three hours in the White House, it didn’t exist, it’s in his imagination.’
‘He was never in the Oval Office,’ said the president who blamed ‘Sloppy’ Steve Bannon for bringing him into the White House.
Trump then dubbed the biography ‘a work of fiction’.
Earlier on Saturday, Wolff, who is a contributor to the Hollywood Reporter, gave that publication a follow up interview on Saturday in which he said he knew Trump was apoplectic with rage over the book.
‘I hear that the president is very angry, or, let me be precise: I hear that he is truly bouncing off the walls,’ said Wolff to the magazine.
The journalist’s book – ‘Fire and Fury’ has already shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller’s list and portrays Trump as an imbecile who never believed he would win the 2016 election. The book also severely questions the president’s ability to carry out his job and casts aspersions on his mental acuity amid suggestions from White House sources he might be losing his mind.
This is a classic gamma attack on an alpha. The gamma doesn’t have any actual power, so he lies about the alpha, thereby angering the alpha, and provoking him into a response that the gamma then smugly claims to be a victory. And you know this guy Wolff is a total gamma by the way he asserts that no one in the Trump White House reads books because they hadn’t heard of him. I read, edit, and write books and I’d never heard of him either. That’s a phenomenal example of gamma posturing combined with self-serving gamma logic.
The problem that Trump has here is that it doesn’t matter how intelligent and mentally stable you actually are, or how accomplished you are, you’re never going to look either smart or mentally stable by stating the obvious. It always comes off as a angry, bewildered, overmatched unfrozen caveman claiming “me am too smart!”
It’s considerably more effective to call out the gamma directly, openly mock him, and engage in direct conflict with him by utilizing objective measures. Trump should have a) compared his SAT scores with the journalist’s own scores while b) having the Secret Service dig up Wolff’s history of mental health issues and calling them into question. The chances are very high that Wolff, who is a known fabricator, has been on some sort of medication for depression for years and is doing little more than projecting his own mental instability onto the God-Emperor.
Gammas always, always, always rely upon nebulous insinuation and provocation, and they always, always, always retreat from any form of conflict that can be objectively measured by outsiders. For example, this is why the site traffic comparison is so damaging to Scalzi; there is simply no amount of dancing, twisting, redefining, or obfuscation that can permit him to credibly claim victory somehow which his gamma nature psychologically requires.
This also demonstrates why a knowledge of socio-sexuality is crucial in understanding how to appropriately respond to attacks. Wolff is absolutely delighted with being angrily denounced in general terms. That, to the gamma, is exactly what victory over an alpha looks like.
We know Trump isn’t a sigma because he didn’t simply smile and publicly ignore the book while having both Wolff and his publisher audited by the IRS and investigated by the DEA.