Interview with “T,” Part 2

Share & Comment

Last week I sat down with T from TheRawness.com and we talked for so long it turned into a two part podcast. If you haven’t listened to part one be sure to listen to it here before listening to part two.

Some of the topics we cover in part two are: the human bio-diversity movement, intelligence and IQ, scientific racism, the man-o-sphere, identity issues, Alfred Adler, racism and shame, feminism, tactics versus strategy in relationships, the age of narcissism, and the paradox of progress. There I had to cut things off and end it.

WARNING: There is a no fluff zone. We get really theoretical at times.

Specific references and links to articles and books we’re talking about are below.

Length: 44 minutes, 18 seconds

Listen to it above or you can download it directly below. Right click the link below and click “Save As” and then a location on your hard drive.

Download Part 2 Here

You can subscribe to the Postmasculine podcast on iTunes here.

People and Articles discussed in Part 2:

Previous podcasts:
Dan Andrews: Starting a Web Business
Clarisse Thorn: Polyamory and Pick Up Artists

Print Friendly

Did you like this article?

Every couple weeks I send out a newsletter with new articles and exclusive content for readers. It's basically my way of keeping in touch with you and letting you know what's going on. Your information is protected and I never spam.

Subscribe below to stay connected.

14 Comments

Leave a Comment

  • Reply

    GrandHighExalt

    2 months ago

    Glad you guys got into the HBD brouhaha.    I wish you guys had mentioned the dispute about whether IQ actually is what people think it is, rather than get into a conversation of nature vs nurture.

  • Reply

    gabe10

    2 months ago

    This is awesome guys, as always. Would trying to hook Brene Brown for a collab in the future be a realistic idea? I know she’s pretty high profile now, but I could see her supporting your guys’ cause if she knew about it. :)
     
    Btw T., I’m looking forward to your commentary on the state and additional causes of narcissism in modern culture. Less defined social circles within cities due to population density and increased means of transportation and communication and the resulting paradoxes of choice and isolation come to mind. I’m going to get on top of reading Daring Greatly and The Denial of Death and see what they say.

    • Reply

      gabe10

      2 months ago

      I actually have to retract my statement. I don’t want to be rude and imply you guys have the same exact cause. You’re obviously on your individual, though related, paths.

  • Reply

    SocraticSpirit

    2 months ago

    If you’re into Earnest Becker, you guys might want to check out Sources of Significance by Corey Anton.  Corey Anton pursued a dual Communications/Philosophy Phd at Purdue.  He was most concerned with the implications of Earnest Becker’s anthropology.  The book is concerned with the question of why Earnest Becker as a thinker was so optimistic about the possibility of positive human transformation in the beginning was his career but why he became such a pessmist while writing and after publishing his work “Escape from Evil.”  The book asks if it is possible to explore the foundations of Denial of Death, identify the roots of Becker’s optimism and pessmism, and reconstruct it.  He uses a naturalistic, existentialist re-interpretation of ancient Stoicism, called “Neo-Stoicism” to do so.  Here is the link:  http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Significance-Rejuvenation-Philosophy-Communication/dp/1557535612  
     
    Corey Anton also has a great youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Professoranton

  • Reply

    yournotwillersreally

    2 months ago

    To what extent is narcissism involved in some deeper human adaptive trait that actually allows more options in mating? In other words could narcissistic traits offer an evolutionary advantage. In the way that deception and lying appear to give advantages.
     
    I note that Mark often talks about “honesty” and I think for personal reasons this is a happier way of being. To have congruence between your inner thoughts and implicit self-esteem and your outward behavior and explicit self- esteem. That it is better for your own well-being to be like this. Simplistically put, to not pretend your something your not. My m8 sums this up with the line “its not who you are, its who people think you are”, which while potentially horribly self-defeating maybe can actually work when used functionally, at least in the sexual realm.
     
    My problem with it is that perhaps for many men this means they are largely fkcd, or literally not fckd! That their current natures don’t lend themselves to having options with women due to women tending on average to select based on triggers more associated with “cocky” or confident men. Can we all be confident men? Is that even possible?
     
    That if they just be themselves and try to build their value in an honest way, while their well-being may be better off, they may not actually do very well with women. And that developing more “machiavellian” personalities while perhaps hurting their overall well-being has the trade off of increasing their success with women. From what I see around me “cocky” works, and while it would be better to just be “confident” and self-contained for a lot of men this may just not work, that it is easier and cheaper to build machivellian traits as opposed to honest, transparent  male value.
     
    For the heterosexual male is a “take it or leave it” approach to women and sex, ie your not that emotionally invested in it even possible?
     
    Bit of a ramble there and possibly going off topic too, be interested in any thoughts on it.

    • Reply

      postmasculine

      2 months ago

      @yournotwillersreally Narcissism is evolutionarily adaptive in that it’s a psychological defense mechanism. 
       
      I.e., you rarely find narcissism in humans who have developed in an emotionally stable environment. Where you find it is in people who need it to survive their surroundings at a young age.

      • Reply

        yournotwillersreally

        2 months ago

        @postmasculine
         
         
        Im not sure what “emotionally stable environment means”? Does that mean most of human history was emotionally unstable, it seems like it would have to have been given human behaviour. Are wars and violence and other negative things in people to be accounted for by lack of emotionally stable environments. Isn’t this suggesting that there is some “normal” way of life. And if we just followed normal/natural ways people would be well rounded people?
         
        Perhaps it comes down to the following, when human primal drives are catered for in full or near to full then there will tend to be less compensating behaviours, but given that evolution seems to have hierarchical structures that have evolved in order to select higher quality genes by male intra-competition and sexual selection doesn’t his mean in the musical chairs game of life some people will INEVITABLY fail? And that compensating behaviours inevitably develop to try to “beat the system”. Mimicry as a way of “faking” high gene quality, in the way PUA’s are “faking” high value and pressing womens complex age old triggers.
         
         Maybe I’m mixing narcissism up with other things here, I was thinking more of all that Dark Triad stuff that some Game people talk about. That having the ability to be “manipulative” either consciously or unconsciously gives you an edge. Pressing peoples buttons etc, and that women on average have certain types of buttons that certain types of males are more likely to be able to press.  
         
        For example, I was out with friends a month or so ago. Everyone knew each other, and there was one couple in the group. The woman in the group seemed to enjoy one of the guys more, he seemed to be “in her space” more. He seemed to be pressing buttons that are alien to me. He was messing about with her, what Id call being cocky. It was all playful but he came across as being dominant to me and she seemed to like it, the smiles were oozing out of her.
         
        What my point is if it could be shown that on average women tend to have buttons of the type x,y.z. And that men who on average have characteristics that allow them to press x,y and z do better with women, it would be preferable for men who don’t have those characteristics or have them only mildy to “mimic” that behaviour or if possible become that kind of man. Effectively that one can choose to be true to ones self so to speak but that this may mean far less options as a sexual being. There is basically a huge incentive for the male, and humans in general, to be deceptive due to higher value males being necessarily rare. A game where everyone is giving off the idea that they are ACTUALLY high value. In other words our narcissistic age is the direct result of sexual mating strategies, amplified by capitalism. Everyone has to try to be, or act like a winner so to speak. Hence people like myself creating fantasy worlds in my head where I am of high value, or people projecting onto ideologies in order to give themselves high value (see feminism, Marxist socialism). I think your way is advocating transparently developing higher value, trying to max out on your potential and doing it openly.
         
        The golden question is of course what x y and z are, which is complex thing. I suspect my views on x y and z over the years have been far too closed in order to let myself off for my own failings. However it does seem to me that there are trends that are better to follow.
         
        Im rambling, apologies in advance if this is all over the shop, or even worse boring! Its all very interesting though and I enjoy reading your blog.

        • Reply

          postmasculine

          2 months ago

          @yournotwillersreally An emotionally stable environment is an environment where a child’s needs for food, comfort and security are met on a regular basis — i.e., having parents (or somebody) who takes care of you and comforts you with some regularity. 
           
          I’m sure many people throughout human history had their needs met sufficiently, regardless of when they were born and grew up. Being a peasant on a farm in the Middle Ages, you grew up in a household with your extended family and both of your parents working at home for instance. There was little extra, but there was always food on the table at least. 
           
          And yes, manipulative behavior can give one an edge in social or political situations. But so can authentic behavior. 
           
          It’s a HUUUUUUGE stretch, and the fundamental flaw of thinking in evolutionary terms to assume that, “since X is useful sometimes, we must be evolutionarily designed to do X.” 
           
          The fact is most human behaviors are evolutionarily advantage *some of the time* and there are always counter-examples.

        • Reply

          yournotwillersreally

          2 months ago

          @postmasculine
           
          The question could be asked though, is authentic behaviour on average a more effective way than deceptive behaviour? Of course authentic behaviour can work but my point is that, on average “faking” behaviour may work better, particularly for lower status males who may sabotage themselves by transparency. I’m not saying it does just that it could make sense that we lie simply because lieing works better than telling the truth. Why else would we be even capable of lying? And of course not simply direct lying but sub-conscious deception that most of us are completely unaware we are doing anyway.
           
          For example all the “clever clogs” blogs on the internet. Ricky mentioned in the first podcast how he battles with that, the buzz of being in the clever group I’m thinking. On the face of it they may appear to be advice for people about themselves and the world, but what if these are surface explanations and they are actually are in-group, self-selecting higher value places. That is, we tune in to feel “superior”, we “get it” which gives us a sense of being in higher class. You see it more obviously in people who bang on about spelling and grammar.
           
          It could be easily argued that “deception” in nature is selected for. I’m sure you would find lots of animals that engage in deception. Isn’t the whole idea of “mimicry” in nature, faking high value?
           
          I realise there are big question marks over what you can conclude from evolutionary psychology, and also how it would be nigh on possible to falsify some of the theories, however it seems to me that everything is in some way rooted in our biology, however complex the connections are.
           
          Im not sure I was clear enough with the x, y and z thing. Im just saying that women, in general have preferences, they may be rooted in biology via culture or not, and that men who naturally or consciously deliver on that will do better. What they are is open to debate. Those that study it are more likely to do better, and have more options. The taller thing, the earnings thing these are all too obvious to me to be not based in evolution. Why do women continue to choose taller men? Isnt that whole “masculine energy” thing about tapping into that primal male? Assertive, capable of dominance etc etc. It all fits too nicely for me. Im not just not seeing these shy guys out there, being chased by women lol. Perhaps its more changeable and malleable than I think.

        • Reply

          postmasculine

          2 months ago

          @yournotwillersreally Saying everything is rooted in biology is tautological and doesn’t really tell us anything useful. It’s like saying “All colors are rooted in the physics of light.” 
           
          Well, OK, but that doesn’t tell me how to appreciate a Picasso painting. 
           
          Research time and time again has shown authentic communication to be more beneficial AND more effective. Manipulative behavior is sometimes beneficial in the short-term but rarely in the long-term. 
           
          But I think you’re just not framing the question correctly at all. EVERYONE is capable of manipulative behavior and authentic behavior. EVERYONE engages in both behaviors. So it’s not like there’s a manipulative “gene” and some people have it and some people don’t. Manipulation is a by-product of having language and interpersonal communication. 
           
          Sure, there are probably genetics behind the levels of empathy various people feel and how ambitious some people are. But it’s a stretch to say that because some people are born with a lower capacity for empathy or with more ambition that they are therefore born manipulative.

        • Reply

          Halo Effect

          2 months ago

          @yournotwillersreally@postmasculine
          Sorry for deleting and reposting this so often. No edit button lol. yournotwillersreally, it seems like your thoughts are a bit confused here and there. I want to say a lot of stuff, but the comment would be way too long. I’ll say this.
           
          Evolutionary psychology is irrelevant to this discussion. Women are attracted to certain traits. It is utterly irrelevant whether they are attracted to those traits because of evolution or because a magic, pink elephant-fairy made it so.
           
           
          Let’s say I have a cat and I want the cat to come inside before I go to bed. I want to attract my cat into my house. I have observed that the cat comes to my house quickly when I put a plate of nice, fresh fish on my doorstep. If I put a broccoli on the plate, the cat does not come.
          My method to get the cat inside my house is to study evolution to determine why this pattern that I have observed happens. What happened in the evolution of cats for them to want fish and not broccoli? What advantages does fish have compared to broccoli? I want to have answers to these questions, because I want the cat inside my house. Why does the cat want fish? Why, why, why?
          This is the same as you having the goal of being more attractive, observing that certain traits are attractive to women, and then contemplating the evolution of the human species as if that would somehow bring you closer to your goal.
           
          Or better yet, I disregard what I have observed my cat doing. Instead, I study the evolution of cats and try to figure out what the cat SHOULD want to eat. You could study the benefits of eating broccoli and argue that it might be advantageous to have broccoli in your diet and that, surely, eating broccoli should be selected for and that the cat should want to eat broccoli.
           
          This is the same as men who have (usually pretty arbitrary) ideas about the evolution of our species, and then argue that all women should behave and feel a certain way, because evolution says so. If a woman behaves differently from what their theory would predict, the woman is ignored or even judged as unnatural, while clearly, this only means that their theory was invalid.
           
          If you are interested in how personality traits evolved then you should read this article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.629/abstract It’s dense, but it’s cool and it will clear up some misconceptions about evolution.
           
          Other than that, you seem to confuse (personality) traits, like introversion, with behaviors (like saying something) and states (like feeling dominant at any particular moment). While it is either hard or impossible to change personality traits, that does not mean that you can’t behave differently than you are now. I have some friends who are so extroverted that they can approach every girl in a bar with ease. I am an introvert and that’s not natural behavior for me. But does that mean that I can’t approach women? No. I won’t turn into an extravert, but I can walk up to a girl and start talking.
           
          If you are currently not dominant, quiet, timid, etc. then that’s not how you ARE. It’s not unchangeable. It’s how you currently feel. Becoming more comfortable with yourself, reducing shame, achieving things, being respected by others, having girls be attracted to you, accepting yourself — all those things will affect your behavior, your state, your dominance. Dominance is not set in stone. It’s a relative thing. A chimpanzee might be the beta male at one point and the alpha male at another (I actually don’t know if this is true for chimps in particular, but you can observe it easily with humans. Whether you feel and behave dominantly depends on who you are talking with), with completely different behavior and hormonal activity to go along with it, while it’s still the same animal. It depends on the chimp’s appraisal of the situation and his value relative to others. It’s determined unconsciously. But it’s not a set-in-stone trait.
           
          If you could perfectly mimic a dominant, confident male, while not feeling like that, then this would be effective. The problem is that this dominance is made up of countless behaviors that are often very subtle and you may be either impossible to consciously manipulate the behaviors, or you may not be conscious of these behaviors in the first place. That’s why working on yourself until you ARE that confident guy is so much more effective than PRETENDING TO BE that confident guy. Behavior is incredibly complex and influenced by unconscious beliefs and hormonal activity and all sorts of things.
           
          But just because you’re not behaving a certain way now, doesn’t mean you can never behave that way. You see a guy acting cocky, and you don’t act cocky now, so you conclude that you can never be cocky. It’s like seeing a guy riding a bike, while you’ve never ridden a bike, and then drawing the conclusion that you can never ride a bike (unless you fake riding the bike… or something).

  • Reply

    olivherbst

    2 months ago

    Hi Mark, hi T!

    Just wanted to give you some general feedback to your podcast format:

    It’d be nice, if next time, you would talk less about posts you did and the response you got to them, but more about how your material differs and what your listeners can directly apply or should take into perspective. Who cares about those “dna, iq, white, black, asian supremacy” guys?

    Also, on a technical note, you both have got really good microphones. If you’d additionally be able to even the loudness, listening would be easier. Than I wouldn’t have to adjust my mp3player everytime T speaks loud or Mark speaks quietly. :)

    Keep up the good work!

  • Reply

    JohnnyK

    2 months ago

    I really enjoyed this. I kept thinking of the idea “you need to have an ego before you can lose it” in terms of implicit and explicit self esteem. My thought is, the more my ego structures are found lacking (ex: pick up, self help, HBD, etc), the less I hold identity within a dichotomy, and the more implicitly I begin to accept everything. So although you may criticize self help for superficial inflation of ego, its insufficiency, when confronted, is exactly what compels you toward implicit esteem. And the more compelling these structures, the more propelling they are in their lack.

    But then again, maybe this process is a symptom of high implicit esteem, and really, someone with low implicit self esteem, when faced with an illusory ego structure will avoid the necessary fall and dig deeper into defense mechanisms. I’d love to hear any thoughts on this Mark. And Happy Birthday.

  • Reply

    Stephen Florian

    2 months ago

    Yo, I really dig the podcasts, it would be awesome if you could produce them more consistently maybe weekly. Keep up the good work.

Leave a Comment