site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   4451 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 19, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You do fully understand that completing the Hock will not make you not awkward? It won't directly or indirectly help awkwardness at all.

It will potentially make me more conscientious: the attitude that lets me survive the Hock might let me pay a shitload of attention in social situations so I don't miss anything.

Do you understand that it will make you only slightly more attractive to women? Slightly and in a very limited way, which will be quickly undone and reversed if you try to milk it.

Yes. The Hock is going to freeze most or all of the hypocrisy off of me, but not much of the awkwardness. I'll probably be less neurotic.

It will potentially make me more conscientious: the attitude that lets me survive the Hock might let me pay a shitload of attention in social situations so I don't miss anything.

There is no reason to think it will do anything like this. if you want to become more conscientious, go do something extremely social for 3 months. Go be a missionary in Uganda.

If not net 0, the Hock will make you more detached and withdrawn in social situations. Consider the soldier who comes home from war, and has trouble adjusting back into civilian life. If not nothing at all, you're going to mostly experience a wall between you and others.

Imagine you're at some social event, say some meet-up at a bar. You're standing there, drink in hand, watching everyone else, seemingly mingling effortlessly. Why not you, dammit. You're hyper-conscientious about your own milling around, you try to stand next to others talking to eachother, but feel unsure where and how to jump in naturally. Damn you feel awkward. Still! What's more, now you feel resentful, angry even at the frivolty of it.

3 months ago, you were struggling to get a match lit with your half-frost bitten hands. It was a race against the cold and wind, and you were losing. Once that fire was roaring, your body was still in freezing agony sore all over, but hell, the relief and triumph was simultaneously better and worse than anything you'd ever known.

Back to the room. Fuck these people. You survived that night, and so many other after it. Something significant, something none of these people will ever know. What are they talking about now, some twitter drama? So shallow, they have no idea. Your triumph would humble them if only, anyone cared to ask. If only there was a way into the conversation... fuck it, these people have nothing in common with you. You've been through so much.

This is the optimistic way of it playing out.

Survivormanning alone in the woods will not address social competence in any kind of a positive way or provide any useful frame for engaging social scenarios more healthfully.

Yes. The Hock is going to freeze most or all of the hypocrisy off of me,

I don't know what this means, so I'll reiterate. In small, very temperate doses, it will make you slightly more attractive to women, but not anywhere near proportional to the effort you are putting in.

I'll end by granting you that on some deep level, it's quite possible this will improve your self-possesion and perspective in a way that will manifest much deeper into a relationship in a much more nuanced way. But these effects will not appear (and may appear counterproductively) on a group-level or in initial and high level interactions.

Again to the soldier analogy. The things he learned and survived in the hellishness of war may make him a demonstrably better father, with deeper values and worldly detachment. But those are mostly going to come at the cost of social grease and 'gracefullness' and connectedness to the people around him.

I suppose if he does go ahead with this (hopefully in a shortened version that is better planned) it will indeed do a lot to change what he worries about; as you say, getting twisted into knots over a silly conversation at a routine party will be less of a thing when compared with "I nearly froze to death that time and had to save myself". So that may work to reduce social awkwardness because the stakes will be, by comparison, so trivial. Not caring about "am I coming across as too needy?" may indeed help him over a lot of social barriers.

But he has to be alive to do that, and so far this trip is sounding like an elaborate form of suicide. Taking risks because there's no way to reduce all risk is one thing, taking risks because you want risks that are literally life-or-death in order to achieve some psychic transformation is quite different.

The Hock is basically a homebrew form of psychological chemotherapy. Its aim is, among other things, to kill the neuroticism before it kills the human. Of course, chemotherapy administered and brewed by random jackasses is best described as 'risky as all hell'.

Hmm. Let me say something about my reasoning.

When I was 11, I feared [redacted] happening to me - a fate which most of you on the Motte would agree is a terrible one. I believed that skill at public speaking and rhetoric could reduce my odds of suffering this fate, so I practiced diligently in front of a mirror. I did this for a few years.

I was never nervous about any presentation I ever gave after that. Why would I be? Blow a school presentation, and what's the worst that happens? I get a C? If I'm really unlucky, a fistfight with some asshole bully that's probably going to leave no more than bruises? Laughable. I also became an excellent public speaker - better than say 99 percent of high school or college students. Any time there was a speech or presentation that needed to be given, my classmates and the faculty would agree that I was the best in say my classroom of 25, and by a pretty decent margin.

I had just been training in earnest for a goddamn rhetoric Hock, and it had benefits in other areas - such as being genuinely confident and unafraid when presenting and public speaking. Also it made me a decent if overwrought writer. Why fear being rejected or making a fool of yourself, when you've just stared death by avalanche or hypothermia or wild animals in the face day after day?

As far as frivolity: that is the point. The Hock is just pointless Twitter drama writ large and played out in the Alaskan wilderness.

I do have a question for you - have you ever survived any kind of life and death shit like war or something like that? I haven't, and I'm sorry if the question is offensive. If it is, it's probably offensive for its trite meaninglessness and dumbass attempt to ask about shit that you have to be there to know anything about.

Why fear being rejected or making a fool of yourself, when you've just stared death by avalanche or hypothermia or wild animals in the face day after day?

Because it won't make you fearless, it will make you resentful that it didn't work.

Notice in your "presentation Hock" comparison, the thing that made you not fear public speaking was practicing for public speaking? There is no analogy skill transfer between wilderness survival -> improving social awkwardness. You are comparing practicing something that directly improves the thing it applies to, to doing something completely unrelated in hopes that it will reframe you into being better at it. IT WON'T WORK the way you are hoping.

I do beleive that if you went and worked as a mission in a 3rd world scenario, surrounded by others, it would, in fact improve your socialization.

The Hock is just pointless Twitter drama writ large and played out in the Alaskan wilderness.

So three days into your Twitter drama you get yourself killed and your remains are not found until the summer thaw, if ever. If you are the only person in your world, that's fine. But if you have family or any one else involved with you, be that work or life, it's shitty for them.

What's [redacted]?

I do have a question for you - have you ever survived any kind of life and death shit like war or something like that?

I dunno about the guy you’re replying to, but I have and I agree with him. You can read the rest of my advice in replies to your ‘hock’ posting.

I don't know what this means

Skookum has explained to me at length his theory that women suffer greatly as a result of voluntarily being in relationships with socially awkward men who aren't especially good-looking, to the point of believing there's a 1 in 20 chance that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers more than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up (yes, really). He hence thinks it's hypocritical of him to ask a woman to suffer for his benefit without him having suffered a comparable degree beforehand. Completing his stupid hike is his way of demonstrating his willingness to undergo pointless suffering for nobody's benefit.

If this chain of reasoning makes no sense to you, that makes two of us.

1 in 20 chance that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers more than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up (yes, really).

No. I said I was like 95% certain that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers much less than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up. The other 5 percent is basically some devil's advocate stuff like "maybe he is so incompetent socially that he makes her isolated and miserable, and that's worse than being beat up" or some stuff like that. It most definitely can be very charitably considered a stretch; I'm simply leaving the option open that there is some very non-obvious way that Awkward Andy is a worse partner than that Henry guy from Radicalizing the Romanceless. Personally, I'm stumped, Andy's got to be better as a partner than Henry and Henry's just a fucking con man to Andy's crap marketing. However, I was sort of hoping that someone here would come up with some eloquent argument for how Awkward Andy sucks rotting donkey balls as a partner in a way that is very much not obvious at first glance. I can't think of it, to be honest, although admit to perhaps being unable to grok just how Awkward Andy might suck in some sort of weird illegible way that ultimately cashes out to worse than being in an ER with a black eye and broken arm courtesy of Henry.

Really struggling to see how what you just said differs in any way from my gloss of your position.

It's a subtle difference: you'd said something like "1 in 20 women in a relationship with Awkward Andy are as bad off or worse than those being beat by Henry"; I'm saying "Dude, Henry sucks and is a terrible partner, but I'm open to the possibility that Andy sucks donkey balls in some weird way and is just as bad. Although exactly how has me fucking stumped."

I explicitly didn't say "1 in 20 women in a relationship with Awkward Andy are as bad off or worse than those being beat by Henry"; I said:

to the point of believing there's a 1 in 20 chance that a woman in a relationship with such a man suffers more than a woman in a relationship with a man who literally beats her up

Which means exactly the same thing as what you just said.

You can throw around the phrase "extremely non-obvious" as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that what you're arguing is grotesque. You're so myopically mired in self-pity that you actually think there's even the remotest chance that a woman would rather be in a relationship with a man who beats her up than you. You shouldn't be "open to the possibility": it's preposterous and a grave insult to every victim of domestic abuse in history.

When you qualify as a doctor, I pity the poor women you'll have to treat whose shitty boyfriends land them in the ER. Knowing you, you'll be too busy asking them "but was he handsome tho??" to set their jaws properly.

You're so myopically mired in self-pity that you actually think there's even the remotest chance that a woman would rather be in a relationship with a man who beats her up than you. You shouldn't be "open to the possibility": it's preposterous and a grave insult to every victim of domestic abuse in history.

I have no disagreements about how pathologically self-pitying SkookumTree is in his comments, but I don't think the rest follows. The revealed preference of many a woman is to be in a relationship with a man who beats her up rather than with someone who's awkward to the level of what SkookumTree believes he is. It's possible to discuss if those are her "true" preferences and what she would "truly" rather do, and there's room for such factors, but I think the pudding they actually choose to eat is where the proof is.

Personally, I think this sort of thinking stems from a sort of "Just World Hypothesis" when it comes to romance, particularly that moral qualities that society in general sees as good in a man also translate to romantic success, and as such, if a man has romantic success despite having negative moral qualities such as beating his gf/wife, then there must be something that corrupted and manipulated the women who keep volunteering to be his gf/wife. When I think the more straightforward and also more correct explanation is just that there's only coincidental overlap between these two categories, and women, like all people in many contexts, often tend to be prefer things that are unhealthy for them over things that are healthy for them, if those unhealthy things provide other benefits that the healthy things don't.

For what it is worth, I think that by far the most likely explanation is that our abusive shithead is essentially functioning as a con man and being extremely dishonest about what his intentions are. Our spergy hero is mostly what-you-see-is-what-you-get; however, he is dogshit at marketing himself.

I freely accept the claim that many women get into relationships with attractive men who subsequently go on to beat them. I'm not for a moment claiming that a socially awkward guy who isn't much to look at would actually have an easier time getting into a relationship than a charming Chad who has no qualms about expressing himself with his fists, on the basis that the former man Respak Wimmen and the latter man doesn't. One of my most-upvoted chains of comments on this site was arguing that the advice often given to incels by feminists (namely "if you're an incel then just be more feminist and you won't be an incel anymore") is nonsense.

But I wasn't really talking about who has an easier time getting into a relationship (socially awkward autist vs. charming but violent Chad) - I know it's the latter. I was talking about who is more miserable in a romantic relationship: a woman in a relationship with a socially awkward autist, or a woman in a relationship with a physically abusive man.

The fact that women are far more likely to get into relationships with attractive men who subsequently go on to beat them up than they are to get into relationships with socially awkward autists - this does not imply that women in the former type of relationship are happier than women in the latter type. Sure, it's a revealed preference by women as a group, but that doesn't really tell you about how subjectively happy the person with that revealed preference is. Lots of people's revealed preferences (lottery tickets, gambling with long odds, drinking to excess) have a net-negative impact on their subjective happiness. In light of how utterly miserable and capital-T traumatised most women who escape from abusive relationships seem - well, I'm going to need a lot of evidence before I just accept the claim that women in relationships with caring but socially awkward men are even more miserable than that.

More comments

Hmm.

I do know a guy who said he'd no shit rather be beaten by asshole parents than have rather manipulative parents that are in many ways disconnected from reality and full of shit as well as pathologically controlling, but generally well-meaning. Yes, that IS just one guy...but that guy was a real dude. What I am arguing IS grotesque, and I think that the chance is fucking small but present. Also, you don't think I could set jaws competently? Damn, thought 'spergs were s'posed to be at least decent at engineer shit.

So one guy in the entire world said he'd rather have emotionally abusive narcissistic parents than physically abusive parents. I presume his parents were neither physically nor emotionally abusive, so this was just idle uninformed speculation on his part and in reality he'd have no way of knowing which is worse. You're citing one random guy's idle uninformed speculation that he'd prefer to have physically abusive parents over emotionally abusive parents as a data point supporting your hypothesis that at least some women would be more miserable in romantic relationships with socially awkward autists than with boyfriends who beat them up.

Seriously dude, we're getting into "seeing Jesus on a piece of burnt toast" levels of casuistry here.

And while you're at it, you're conflating "emotionally abusive narcissistic guy" with "unattractive, socially awkward but fundamentally well-meaning autist". Well... wow. Maybe you aren't as decent and kind as you think you are.

Quick sense check: have you ever met a woman in a romantic relationship with a socially awkward man, and the woman seemed generally happy and at ease with herself? I have, dozens of times. Now, have you ever met a woman in a romantic relationship with a man who beat her up, and she seemed generally happy and at ease with herself? I have not, ever. I've met women in romantic relationships with men who were "merely" emotionally abusive, and they seemed, frankly, shadows of their former selves.

I've been coming at you with kid gloves for weeks, but at this point I have to tell you: you're revolting, but not for the reasons you think.

maybe he is so incompetent socially that he makes her isolated and miserable, and that's worse than being beat up

This doesn’t happen; women can manage their own social relationships just fine.

Thriving in social situations is arguably not about "paying a shitload of attention so you don't miss anything." In fact a rapt focused interest is very commonly off-putting, especially if you start asking questions.

I'll be honest here, I don't think anything anyone says in this forum is going to cause you to change your tune regarding this topic (You) and it's possibly an unconscious way for you to draw attentive concern your way in a kind of internetty, 2023 way.

If your declarations regarding this planned trip contained questions or queries of advice on specifics (if anyone has experience cold-weather camping, best ideas for lightweight cooking gear, knowledge of knives or ropes or fire or best campsite practices in icy terrain etc. etc etc.) I would be more compelled to follow the outcome.

As it is this seems so half-assed and ill-conceived as to make Chris McCandless seem like Sir Edmund Hillary by comparison. It's like the kid who says he will tunnel to China over the weekend, just you wait.

This is not a dare. Far from it. And despite your suspicion that you've invested so many internet hours talking about this that surely now you'll have to do it, I would say literally everyone (at risk of "speaking for the group") would commend you if you decided to immediately drop this plan and never mention it again.

Edit ok maybe not @Southkraut

Hmm. My questions are rather obscure, but someone might be able to give me some advice here. I do have them - I've just been asking them on different forums. I've been putting off writing to people that have completed the Brooks Range Wilderness Ski Classic - I need to get on that, thanks for reminding me.

  1. What type of snow is commonly found in the Brooks Range in Northern Alaska? I've heard that it was generally homogenous depth hoar or sugar snow, but don't know for sure. If it is depth hoar, is it possible to pile a lot of it up, pack it down with skis, and build a snow cave or quinzee out of it? For what it's worth, I built more than a few of these as a kid.

  2. How common are avalanches in that area, given the snow conditions? I am guessing not uncommon; most of the trip will be on the flat but there is going to be a mountain/pass crossing involved.

  3. How likely are bear encounters in Arctic Village or Sagwon in February? I know that bears should be hibernating at that time, and polar bears rarely travel that far south.

  4. River travel: I've read that travel on the Sheenjek River is dangerous when it is 10 below zero, but safe when it is 40 below. Much of the water in the Sheenjek River comes from upwelling groundwater, and this erodes any ice that forms. Are other rivers in this region of Alaska fueled by upwelling groundwater and similarly dangerous? If they are - how do you tell that you're on a river (vs. flat ground) and how do you balance this hazard vs. avalanche hazard?

  5. Generally speaking, is the avalanche danger any greater or less in March in this region than it is in February?

I suppose that I might also want to post about some items I'm interested in purchasing. Namely, men's medium or large 8000-meter expedition grade down pants and a sleeping bag rated to 40 degrees below zero. Also, a Primus OmniLite stove pump. I wouldn't exactly suspect any of y'all have this kind of esoteric and specialized shit just laying around.

I hope that I'm at least at Chris McCandless tier here.

  1. It's probably pretty compact for skiing on, with various layers due to wind or melt events. Don't consider snow caves, take a tent. (also note bene that the above is a perfect description of snow that is likely to (unpredictably) slide off in refrigerator-sized chunks from any slope > 30 degrees or so)

  2. Based on Google Earth there will be more like two passes, and there's maybe sort of a plateau there -- if you don't already know which passes are passable, you will probably not find out until you are past the point of no return (avalanches, see above -- they can run a lot further than you probably think)

  3. Unlikely

  4. It probably won't matter much -- if you are in a potentially hazardous avalance area travelling next to the river, you will also be there when you are on the river. You are by yourself -- any avalanche you are involved in will probably kill you DRT

  5. Depends on the weather

  6. Add a tent and some boots that fit to your list

Yeah. I doubt that Mottizens are looking to unload one- or two- person mountaineering grade tents...but I might be wrong.

As far as avalanches: there are relatively broad valleys as much as a mile or two wide with meandering rivers there. The mountains are a couple of thousand feet above the valley. I am no avalanche expert, but I am not sure that I'd be likely to trigger an avalanche over half a mile away that can endanger me...while traveling on flat ground. Of course, there are also narrow valleys as well. Ridge travel is a possibility, too - but I really need to seek out some local advice, which I'll be doing by writing to people living in the village of Anaktuvuk Pass. They've got to be riding around on snowmobiles and have some level of local knowledge and metis about travel in avalanche terrain...

Wind slabs are a concern, especially with the sugar snow/depth hoar I might encounter, but melt events seem very unlikely when temperatures haven't been higher than 10 above for months.

As far as avalanches: there are relatively broad valleys as much as a mile or two wide with meandering rivers there.

There are but those are probably not the ones that you are going to need to travel in if you are planning to cross the mountains. A class three (moderate) avalanche can indeed self trigger and run over half a mile; you are not going to want to be travelling on ridges. (especially if you are pulling a sledge)

Local info would be good, but probably people don't snowmobile around up there for fun; it's pretty remote for backcountry skiing, but those are the people you'd want to talk to -- I'd be very surprised if they told you it was safe to cross the range by yourself. (or without a transceiver in a group)

I took this trip into the northern reaches of the Brooks Range because I wanted my perspectives to be challenged, to reexamine long held anxieties, and to explore a rare wildness. This experience was a dialogue about how to be at home in the world: an openness to fear, a grasp of limitations, and an attentive spirit. It is the language of humility.

Above are the words of a woman who hiked in the Brooks Range, in June of presumably 2014 or 15. You can read all that here.. Maybe you already have.

Here's a reddit post and this person also went in June.

Another blogpost (1 of 3) where the blogger was in the BR, but in summer time, back in 2009.

Here is a Sierra Club trip where they take you through there (not currently accepting reservations) and has a writeup on it. I bet they also go in June.

Here is a site of a bunch of women and trans folks who went in August of this year. No cis-men were allowed. Yes, you read that right. I have no idea how it went for them.

Finally here is a hardcore dude who claims to have traversed 1000 miles solo through the Range. In...wait for it...June.

I think there is a theme here, and it isn't February. Maybe you've read all these, or more, I don't know. Maybe get in touch with some of them (perhaps not the person who did not want to hike with "cis-males.")

I am not encouraging you. I am trying to help inform you before you start buying things.

What other forums do you post on?

Oh no, I'll also commend him for dropping it, but only if he's candid about it. It takes some spine to admit that you've been a bonehead for months on end, and that it was necessary to change your ways.

If he just quietly turns back at the airport, disappears for a while, then comes back with an alt, I'll be disappointed.

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