Comment of the Week winner is “anon”, who supplies a very apt metaphor to describe how successful, happy relationships are ultimately a pairing off of a psychologically beta, highly empathic woman with a less empathic, pack (socially) dominant alpha man.
This is like how a pet dog will check his owner’s face and look the owner in the eye every 10 seconds to see whether the owner is happy with the dog because the dog is behaving correctly, or if the owner is going to punish the dog for doing something wrong. A dog that is owned and trained properly by a male owner knows the owner is the alpha; the dog is beta. Both are happy.
In a relationship, the woman should be the beta. When the man is the beta, the woman is repulsed and confused. With a dog-owner relationship, when the owner is beta–like a single woman owner–the dog is confused and unhappy. You will notice, if you are a dog owner who walks his dog every day, that the dogs owned by single women spinsters are the ones who are nasty to other dogs; they are confused because the female owner treats them like a living furry teddy bear and never disciplines the dog properly.
I have just summarized all of CH’s teachings for you. I’m not even kidding. Read carefully and think about it.
In a dog-owner and in a woman-man relationship, the beta (submissive) will look at the alpha’s (dominant’s) face every 10 seconds and is very good at detecting whether the alpha is pleased with the beta.
I actually read a book about dogs one time and then I started noticing this. My dog looks at me every 10 seconds, looks at me in the eyes, and determines if I’m happy or upset with it. My dog never tires of working to please me.
As colorful summaries of the CH worldview go, this is as close to striking distance of core teachings as any.
COTW close runner-up is Mike, who has some insight into low SES versus high SES moral senses and ethical codes.
I’ll give my experience. I’m low SES but went to a high SES private school. Low SES people are more empathetic, and thus their interactions are different. My high SES friends cannot keep up with even normal (non confrontational) low SES interaction. They also run into issues with me because, as a lower SES person, manners and social behavior means a lot to me. The reciprocation just isn’t there with them when it should be, and when they don’t recognize protocol it comes off as disordered from my perspective.
They can be assholes, but many aren’t – as most are constrained by their SWPL ethics rather than any innate empathy. However, in some cases, their lack of empathy leads to a specific type of anti-social behavior that is a definite precursor to dysfunctional social behavior if not criminality.
Absent sociopathy, which is what Heartiste conflated with ‘normal prole criminal behavior’, the typical normal IQ (100) prole personality is less criminal prone than higher SES personalities. This is due to empathy. What makes up for that, in the statistics, are higher levels of low IQ individuals (<100), abuse or attachment disorders that screws personalities, and more culturally accepted violence as a means of resolving disputes amongst males. In black communities, that violence is amplified to much higher levels because it’s instinctual rather than cultural (empathy is shockingly low amongst blacks in general); hence the disparity in violence between prole white and prole black neighborhoods.
In other words, proles are nicer and more reliable friends but more unpredictable for dysfunctional behavior in groups. Higher SES individuals are more uniform in behavior but also in their lack of reliability and trustworthiness as friends and in business.
Here’s something funny that I’ve noticed: when higher SES individuals begin to engage in business in competitive environments, they find that those environments simulate lower SES threatening environments and thus they all of a sudden put more emphasis on loyalty and other prole social norms that depend on empathy for execution. There’s nothing more valuable to a high SES executive than the loyalty of his few truly prole underlings.
That last paragraph is astute. It gibes with my experience as well; when the heat comes around the corner, successful alpha businessmen who normally luxuriate in their social rank will quickly assume the attitude and slogans of “lower” ranking prole men, and emphasize as mike said, loyalty and teamwork (aka ingroup cohesion). It’s a microcosm for what could soon be happening at the national level, once lifestyle indicators really start to go south.