site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3950 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 23, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there a term, or a study, or an article you can recommend, for this variety of narcissistic behavior I've noticed recently: the narcissism of pretending that you would be completely incapable of doing something. An illustrative example:

We're all familiar with the tough-guy fantasist narcissism of men who believe that they would have been great on D-Day or at Gettysburg, guys who are cocksure they would have been heroes given the opportunity. We've all rolled our eyes at men who are certain they would have been extraordinarily brave, with no proof.

Lately, I've been rolling my eyes at men who claim they would have been extraordinarily cowardly. Men who say "Man I would have been useless in the civil war, pissed myself and run away LOLOLOL" or "I probably wouldn't have made it off the boat on D-Day."

Because they probably would have been average. If they were drafted by the government, they probably wouldn't have had the immense courage necessary to run away. If they went to boot camp, they would have been pushed through it like everyone else, gotten stronger and learned to do what they were told. In battle, they probably would have followed orders and done what they were trained to do, at a bang average level. Maybe not great, but they would have been within a standard deviation of average.

There's something about this kind of extravagant self-deprecation that annoys me, gets under my skin. It dehumanizes the actual men who did (and continue to do) these kinds of things. It's a cheap effort to claim to be extraordinary, with no effort or evidence.

Wait, you hear this level of self-emasculating, and you’re bothered by the inaccuracy?

Anyway, I think it’s just plain old countersignaling. Especially because

we’re all familiar with

the archetype they’re subverting. No one takes a Navy SEAL copypasta seriously, so there is alpha in taking a relatively surprising position. As this enters the cultural awareness, and becomes a meme of its own, we’ll start to see—oh. Yeah, the counter-countersignal is already getting merchandised.

Charitably, these comments are less self-deprecation and more praise for the heroics or achievements of others. If there's any narcissism, it's in the need to be seen as publicly signaling one's respect, and inability to just say it plainly.

I guess it's in vogue among progressive circles to be a failed man? Look at me, I am non-masculine and therefore non-threatening. I distance myself from masculinity (which is toxic), therefore I am one of the good ones. I don't know what the term for that would be, but that's my guess anyway.

It's not narcissism, it is a cry for help.
These are people who give up on things at the slightest sign of trouble. "I have no spine, and so it is okay for me to give up", is how they justify whatever rut they're stuck in. "I can't quit this job I hate, to start my own company. I can't get in shape. I can't move out. I can't. I can't because I am not like those brave-hearts of WW2 who are dead enough that their superiority over me does not make me feel insecure." It is them allowing themselves to just 'be'. All initiative is for the brave, and in peaceful times like these, they find way to forgive their inaction, as if it isn't a sign of weakness.

Alternatively, it is an attempt at humility. "Yes, I am a highly accomplished person in my field through immense sacrifice, dedication & hard-work. Now, my white-collar elitism naturally lends itself to snark towards blue-collar folk. But hey, the blue-collar workers face real adversity. I could never survive such adversity." It's accomplished people saying, "I have all the social acclaim, so I'll pretend to not have certain traits that blue collar people pride themselves over, so you don't feel intimidated by me." Sometimes it is a real attempt at humility, other times it exists to reinforce your place among the elite.

If they went to boot camp

A lot of men today (including myself) can credibly say they wouldn't have been allowed in or made it through boot camp.

The 40s version of themselves obviously was more likely to have done so have but that version doesn't exist so why center them in any discussion? If I ask what you'd do on the Titanic it's not interesting to swap in a median English male of the time is it?

Finland has a conscription, with a possibility to obtain a deferment, a release or a possibility to do a civilian alternative. The last stat I managed to find was that, in 2016, 72 % of men who had turned thirty at the end of that year had completed military service. In 2008 that was still over 80 %. So at least a large amount of Finnish men are provably capable of going through a boot camp, and probably at least some share of those who chose a civilian alternative would have also been capable of doing it if push came to shove.

You might say they’re overwhelmingly sisu-fied.

It's not quite Weaponized Incompetence, but is possibly related.

I don't know of any studies but I certainly recognize this pattern. I don't think it's any flavor of narcissism. More along the lines of 4-d chess signaling.

I've noticed this type of signaling among more lefty types who want to come off as more "refined" than those brutish right-wing riff-raffs and their reverence for unsophisticated virtues such as courage,masculinity or just strength in general.

Or it could be some sort of costly signaling with the intent of "I'm so secure in my masculinity that I can proudly announce myself to be a pussy and not take a status hit, if anything I might gain status from it!".

I don't know of any studies but I certainly recognize this pattern. I don't think it's any flavor of narcissism. More along the lines of 4-d chess signaling.

Nothing 4D about it: I just don't want to sound like Mark Wahlberg.

Obviously I could assume some version of myself that matches the median person then (of course, I'm not really talking about myself then am I?) but I can't be sure everyone will read it that way can I?

Lossy communication but I assume the instances FiveHour is talking about aren't men making level-headed assessments of themselves and concluding what they (given time machine, not average man of that time) would have done. To me, it seems to come off as more performative.

Except it doesn't work if you're just average, just like crossdressing, its just cringy and annoying.

Just a particularly annoying version of Main Character Syndrome, right? The most likely outcome for anyone dropped into something like D-Day is that they'll behave approximately like the other people and only be remember in the sense that the performance of the aggregate group was remembered. Main characters though, they're valorous or cowardly or otherwise exceptional in a way that stands out.

When I read the D-day line, I assumed it meant “would catch a bullet” rather than “would freeze on the ramp.” Sort of an acknowledgment that he’s not the main character. “Oh, I’m definitely one of the extras.”

Oh, that would be a fair enough sentiment. I read it as not having the courage to get off the boat rather than, "yeah, I'd wind up being the poor sap that eats a bullet before I can even get to the damned beach". Might have been primed by how the post was written.

Yours was my intended meaning.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats