What is more likely for a person in the above-3σ range is a life full of hurdles, misunderstandings, anxiety, depression, and marginalization. The more removed from the average, the more likely a person will fail to find their place in society.
There are too many to name. The “picker-upper of women”, obviously, are intellectual losers. Almost worse are those who do not necessarily write such stuff themselves, but support the “PUAs” and their deranged teachings.
Guys like Eric S. Raymond, James A. Donald, Miles Mathis, even Christians like Vox Day, let alone absolute no-names like Leo Joseph Buchignani III (koanic/Leo Littlebook)
What did they achieve in life? Often enough, they did not even write any books, and if they did, they are hardly worth our attention, nothing that rivals the great thinkers of the past.
Without the internet, they would not be able to feel so important. No one would read their blogs and comment. They are not more important than the rest of us.
They write blogposts, so what? All this online self-worship is basically the definition of a loser, too. Which they don’t want to admit they are, especially compared to the greats of the past.
Their constant nagging of men who are bachelors is getting old and tiring. We’ve got it now, I think. Not everyone’s life would be better off if he married. I have linked to the writings of Nils M. Holm several times now. If you’re above average in terms of intelligence or an outlier in other respects, life will become more tiresome. To quote Holm:
What is more likely for a person in the above-3σ range is a life full of hurdles, misunderstandings, anxiety, depression, and marginalization. The more removed from the average, the more likely a person will fail to find their place in society.
He also wrote, quite fittingly:
You may find a partner, but never feel any connection to them, because they do not share your interests, your values, your empathy, your sensitivity, etc. Many relationships of high-IQ people are uneasy compromises at best. The alienation they first felt at home and then at school and in later life extends also to their closest connections.
So regarding this topic—relations between the sexes—, all those know-it-alls usually are wrong. Rather read Schopenhauer or nothing at all about this. No one should have to suffer having to read on and on about how anonmyous men online beat their own chest about how attractive they are to women – and then put down other men they do not know because of some supposed superiority that online exists within their deranged value system.
I’m sure there are criminals who boast about their crimes – who cares? That’s awful. Defending sexual promiscuity is repulsive, and playing “alpha male” online is ridiculous.. We, the small minority online who cherish good breeding, reject this anyway.
As an aside, they most likely would never lecture Christopher Langan, who was single for most of his life until he married at almost fifty years of age. I therefore do not care at all about what intellectual flyweights like the jim.com guy James A. Donald or Leo Joseph Buchignani III (koanic/Leo Littlebook) think.
Times have changed anyway, and so has the way men and women meet and treat each other. This has been noted already in 1987 by Allan Bloom in his The Closing of the American Mind, where he writes that a kind of cynicism has entered in matters of love. Even down to the level of language: calling it “relationship” instead of “love affair”, for example (I would reject both, obviously). One student scoffed: “what do you expect me to do, play guitar under some girl’s window?” (This student’s parents were divorced.)
Yet, even Hegel, an awful writer, composed poems for his bride. German Catholic author Joseph Pieper was rather flabbergasted, too, when female students in the US told him that they live promiscuously. To which Pieper replied something along the lines of: “Sex without love? That’s horrible! Why?”. To which they replied that it’s “too much trouble to say no”!
Despite Gómez Dávila being a kind of genius—without a doubt one of the most important writers of the 20th century—he did not puff himself up.
Don Colacho:
The twilight of certain lives is possessed not of the pathos of a sunset but of the fullness of midday.
Virtue has become less rare than good breeding.
Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre.
We live because we do not view ourselves with the same eyes with which everybody else views us.
Only he lives his life who observes it, thinks it, and says it; the rest let life live them.
Good breeding seems like a fragrance from the 18th century that evaporated.
In societies where everybody believes they are equal, the inevitable superiority of a few makes the rest feel like failures.
Inversely, in societies where inequality is the norm, each person settles into his own distinct place, without feeling the urge, nor even conceiving the possibility, of comparing himself to others.
Only a hierarchical structure is compassionate towards the mediocre and the meek.Virtue has become less rare than good breeding.
We spend a life trying to understand what a stranger understands at a glance: that we are just as insignificant as the rest.