Archive

Archive for the ‘Reason’ Category

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 8

August 18, 2014 30 comments

As I mentioned in my previous post of this series – an open license to rob, abuse, torture and murder all those “others” is an essential and integral part of all successful organized religions and ideologies. Let me explain that concept with a simple example.

Why does Islam, today, have more followers than Buddhism? Now this question assumes that you believe that Buddhism is a religion, which some of its believers might find objectionable. But the main question still stands- what makes a religion like Islam more attractive to average dumbfucks than any given school of Buddhism? In my opinion- it comes down to one particular promise that the former offers which the later does not. Well.. Islam officially, and functionally, sanctions the robbery, abuse, torture and murder of “unbelievers”. Buddhism merely sanctions looking down on those “unbelievers”.

One offers the promise of personal enrichment through the guiltless looting, abuse and murder of “others”- while the other merely allows its believers to point and snicker at those pesky “others”.

It is important to note that mainstream flavors of pre-enlightenment era Christianity were as covetous, regressive and brutal as Islam appears today. If you do not believe that statement, I suggest that you read up on the many and very bloody Catholic-Protestant wars waged in the 16th century Europe. I should also point out that Christian doctrine was used to support and justify the genocide of many millions in the Americas during the age of “discovery”. Even 20th century wars such as WW1 and WW2 used religion-based concepts (most notably nationalism) to motivate simpletons into sacrificing their lives by the millions for causes that had nothing to do with any improvement of their own lives.

Capitalism, Communism and other secular organized ideologies are no different. Do you really think that all those who imprisoned, tortured and killed millions of others on the “orders” Stalin and Mao did so because they believed in the principles of the Stalinist or Maoist flavor of Communism? No! They just did it because they wanted to! The belief systems, books and official orders were merely a guilt-absolving justification to do what they always wanted- but never had the balls to do on their own accord. Organized religion and ideologies are about providing a sophistic and plausible sounding justification for acting like a total sociopath but without having to accept any personal responsibility or culpability for their actions.

The guilt-transference mechanism of an organized religion or ideology allows its followers to kill in its name as their day job, then go home to their families in the evening and act as if they did nothing unusual or wrong.

Now imagine what would happen if you overwhelmed and subjugated a true believer and then asked them to account for their past actions. For starters, almost every single will claim innocence. Some will tell you that they were acting in accordance with the dictates of some god, prophet or leader who is almost always conveniently unavailable or dead. Others might claim that they were following the most recent edition of some ancient “holy” book of questionable authorship and full of editing and continuity errors. Now imagine how those very same people would react if a person robbed, abused, tortured and murdered scores of other people on the basis of voices in his head, third person accounts of hallucinations and the contents of old comic books. So, what is the real difference between a mentally ill murderer and a person who kills in the name of an organized religion and ideology.?

A mentally ill murderer who believes that he is god is far more honest and possess significantly larger balls than the pathetic piece of shit who has to hide in the shadow of a socially acceptable belief system and defend his actions through misdirection and sophistry.

I was initially going to devote this post to a discussion about the more insidious organized secular religions (nationalism, capitalism, feminism) of our era- but felt it was necessary to first shine some more light on the original dirty secret underlying all organized belief systems. You will therefore have to wait for the next post in this series to read about my thoughts on contemporary secular religions.

What do you think? Comments?

John Oliver on Ferguson, MO and Police Militarization

August 18, 2014 3 comments

One of the best piece of journalism on the ongoing clusterfuck in Ferguson, Missouri.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 7

August 17, 2014 10 comments

Towards the end of the previous post in this series, I had asked a bunch of questions about why seemingly diverse belief systems were so functionally similar.

Why are they so devoted to the creation and enforcement of arbitrary rules, regulations, mores and rituals? Why are they so devoted to creating very elaborate fairy tales, explanations and justifications for their supposed “authority”? Why are they so interested in encouraging conformity and unquestioning hierarchic obedience? Why are they so interested in destroying the individuality and personal happiness of their members? And why don’t they tackle real problems or make the lives of their followers materially better?

But perhaps the even more important question is-

What kind of person would willingly believe, defend and enforce such systems of belief? And why?

As you will soon see, the answer to these questions is intimately linked to the existence of all organized religious and secular belief systems. The answer will also allow me to elaborate on a concept found in some of my previous posts- aka the “useful idiot” class. So, who are these ‘individuals’ that make up this class? How numerous are they and what are the real driving forces behind their apparently strong beliefs, even if holding those beliefs results in them acting against their best interests?

I am now going to dissect two contemporary secular proto-religions to help you comprehend the defining characteristics of the “useful idiot” class. Let us start with HBD aka Human BioDiversity aka racial realism aka the latest version to put a rational face on racism. In case you wondering, the feminine equivalent of this belief is known as Feminism- and I will tackle it a bit later on in this post- or the next.

So why are some people interested in promoting the belief that one group of people are somehow ‘better’ or ‘more deserving’ than another group. I mean, would we be having this discussion if their claims were actually true. To put it another way- Have you heard of Steve Sailer or Mencius Moldbug types write an endless stream of posts supporting the “revolutionary” idea that the earth is spherical (an oblate spheroid, to be more precise). Why do we not have self-styled “revolutionary” authors writing endless posts that supposedly provide yet more evidence that fire is hot and ice is cold. The answer is quite simple- the experimental evidence that support some ideas is so overwhelming that it is basically impossible to make the contrary case. Now this does not imply that all minority ideas are wrong- as we know that most people once believed that the earth was flat and epidemics of infectious diseases were manifestations of divine wrath. But in both cases, experimental evidence almost always supported what would later prove to the correct explanations.

Does that hold for HBD? and more importantly- why is there is such a large gap between the claims of HBD promoters and reality? and what does that tell us about the motivations of those who believe in it?

Let me explain.. The absolute majority of those who promote or believe in HBD are mediocre to less-than-mediocre white men. I cannot resist pointing out the irony of HBD promoters like Sailer panhandling on their HBD-promoting websites or writing paid articles for groups that want to promote those ideas. Why would a white man with a ‘high IQ’ have to panhandle on his website. Then there is the question of whether any of these ‘high IQ’ white men have achieved anything in their lives beyond writing make-believe articles on white racial supremacy. If not, why not? Why is a ‘high IQ’ liberal race realist like Robert Lindsay always on the cusp of destitution? Why does RooshV have to go to poverty-stricken areas of Ukraine to find “traditional” women? Why does Matt Forney have to go to the Philippines to find “feminine” women?

The pathetic lives of, and lack of achievements shown by, the vast majority of whites are in stark contrast to their exorbitant claims of innate racial superiority.

The answer to this apparent dissonance lies at the heart of organized religious and secular belief systems. To put it simply- organized belief systems prey on the insecurities of people who can appreciate their own inadequacies but lack any ability to overcome or rise above them. The belief that ALL whites are innately superior to other races is comforting to all those mediocre to less-than-mediocre whites (the absolute majority of whites) who know, but will never publicly acknowledge, that they are sad and pathetic losers. HBD is therefore best seen as a bunch of fairly tales or ancestral myths that makes listeners feel better about themselves.

But why are the fairy tales and ancestral myths of HBD so problematic? What harm can come from reading comic books, performing cosplay or LARPing? Well.. the big difference between fantasy role-playing games and HBD (or any other organized ideology) is that those who engage in the former know that their make-believe world is not real. They do not write laws and regulations to run real-life societies based on the contents of comic books and role-playing game guides. In contrast to that, HBD believers and promoters want to run entire societies on the basis of their own special collection of bullshit myths. In that respect, HBD is no different from political Christianity, Islam, Capitalism or Communism.

Like any other organized religion, those who espouse HBD can be divided into two categories- a small number of leaders and a multitude of followers. Now it is obvious to almost anybody that the opinion leaders of HBD are in it for fame, money, ego and perhaps power. But what about the followers? What do they gain from it? Well.. as I said before, the devout followers of all organized ideologies are usually barely average to less-than-average morons with almost no independent sense of self or personal identity. Movements such as organized religions and ideologies give them a powerful if totally fabricated personal identity. But that is not all.

Adopting a fabricated personal identity allows them to hurt more vulnerable people and feel alive, while outsourcing their conscience and better judgement to some priest, leader, prophet or book. Basically, it allows them to be a full-blown sociopath without talking personal responsibility for their actions.

That is why a significant minority of humans can enthusiastically rob, abuse, torture or murder other human beings in the name of some leader, prophet, book or god. That is also why the zealous and devout members of belief systems as diverse as Christianity, Islam, Capitalism and Communism resemble each other so much. The true believers of all organized ideologies tend to posses average to below-average intelligence and derive most of their personal identity from a belief system rooted in one particular set of adult fairy tales. It is also important to understand that an open license to rob, abuse, torture or murder “others” is an essential and integral part of all successful organized religions and ideologies.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss how all of this applies to other organized secular ideologies such as Feminism.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 6

August 13, 2014 10 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made the point that all organized ideologies (religious and secular) are based on a rather peculiar and seemingly universal human need.

All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of those labelled as “others”.

But why do most humans require some pseudo-rational explanation and sanctification for doing what they always wanted to do. Compare and contrast this urge to other ones like the urges to eat and drink. Why do we not construct elaborate legends, explanations and rituals to explain and justify our urge to eat when we are hungry or drink when we are thirsty? Why do we not require “holy” men and “prophets” to justify the sexual desire evoked by a young and attractive woman?

So why humans require ideology to justify the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of “others”?

An other way of asking this question is- Why not just abuse, rob, murder and enslave others because you felt like it? I should also point out one more odd facet of this behavior. Humans do not seem to require religious justification and sanctification for violent (but normal behaviors) such as hunting animals for food or killing dangerous animals. Nor do they require such justification and sanctification for killing other human beings during the course of highly localized conflicts where the issues they are fighting over are highly personal in nature.

Then there is the question of whether abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of “others” is always associated with religious-type beliefs. Well, let us answer this question by having a look at the religious-type beliefs of hunter-gatherers. You might have noticed that almost all the religious beliefs of hunter-gatherer are about personal connection with “other worlds”, “forces of nature” or some version of a “life force”. While different aspects of this set of beliefs have their own names such as Animism, Panentheism, Shamanism and Totemism- it clear that they are centered around individual and personal spiritual experience.

Now contrast this to traditional religions, aka the organized belief systems that came into being with the advent of agriculture and the first kingdoms. Let me frame that question another way- What are traditional religions about? Let us start by asking that question about old-timey Judaism. Is it really spirituality? Well, if you look at history- the answer is a big NO. Old-timey Judaism is basically a set of largely arbitrary rules, regulations and the accompanying legalisms that are meant to enrich a few at the cost of the majority of its believers. Christianity is and was no different. After an initial run of perhaps one hundred years where it did try to recreate the individual and personal spiritual experience of pre-agricultural religions, it quickly became old-timey Judaism-lite. This ossification and transformation was almost complete by the time it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Islam has, from its inception, been largely about abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of those pesky “others”.

Nor is this tendency restricted to monotheistic religions. Hinduism, in all its forms, is nothing more than a systems of laws, regulations and customs about caste. Yes, you heard that right- Hinduism contains (and offers) nothing more than arbitrary rules, regulations and some fairy tales. While it makes tall claims to morality and spirituality, it practitioners display a level of materialism, greed and pettiness that is unmatched by any group except east-asians. Let us now turn our attention to the organized religious beliefs of east-asians. While I could write a lot about this subject, it is very easy to summarize their core beliefs. All major and most minor east-asian religious-type belief systems are about rituals, rules, regulations, mores, encouraging unquestioning obedience to “authority” and destroying the individuality and personal happiness of its members.

So why are the core beliefs and modus operandi of major religious (and secular) belief systems so similar? Why are they so devoted to the creation and enforcement of arbitrary rules, regulations, mores and rituals? Why are they so devoted to creating very elaborate fairy tales, explanations and justifications for their supposed “authority”? Why are they so interested in preventing anything approaching an individual and personal spiritual experience among their followers? Why are they so interested in encouraging conformity and unquestioning hierarchic obedience? Why are they so interested in destroying the individuality and personal happiness of their members? And why don’t these belief systems tackle real problems or make the lives of their followers materially better?

I have partially answered the last question in a fairly specific context in one of my earlier posts. The next post in this series will, among other things, discuss a more generalized version of that explanation.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 5

August 10, 2014 22 comments

In the previous post of this series, I put forth an idea on what might be the real factor underlying religious zealotry.

They just want an excuse to screw over somebody else while simultaneously feeling righteous about doing it.

I have also hinted at this idea in one of my older standalone post. Note that this rationale is not unique to traditional religions and can be seen among ardent followers of secular religions such as communism and capitalism- well, pretty much every single ideology. Here are a few examples of what I am talking about..

Many devout Christians believe in concepts like heaven and hell, but have you ever met somebody with any evidence of their existence? Isn’t it odd that a drug like DMT provides a far more realistic spiritual experience than a lifetime of studying the bible and praying to an entity nobody in their right mind has ever seen? Why was the belief of people in a christian god almost always rewarded with drudgery, poverty, disease and incessant wars? But far more importantly, was everybody always too stupid to realize that there was no god? And why are evangelicals who claim personal communication with god so preachy about the sexual lives and behaviors of other people while indulging in those very same behaviors themselves? Why are overtly devout Christians not interested in solving problems that might actually improve the lives of their fellow human beings? Why devote so much mental energy to something that has never provided any material benefit?

Now let us turn to Islam. Isn’t it odd that so many of its followers obsess about supposed insults to their prophet even when doing so has no positive material effects on their pathetic lives? Does their beliefs put more (and better) food on their table? What about reducing infant mortality and morbidity? Does their god put indoor plumbing in the houses of believers? Does he provide them with electric power, air conditioners and HDTVs? Does fidelity to that belief system result in the faithful getting free high-end sports cars and SUVS? Did their god or prophet even instruct them to purify drinking water by boiling it? Isn’t it therefore a bit odd that so many of the believers of that belief system are willing defend the “honor” of an entity who has not manifested himself- let alone benefited his vocal followers to the extent of even a single slice of pizza?

Hinduism is no better. Has belief in any part of Hinduism resulted in the spontaneous appearance of even a single morsel of edible food. Has belief in any part of Hinduism improved the quality of drinking water, general sanitation or somehow reduced the spread of any infectious diseases? Has it improved the general health, life expectancy or life quality of its believers? Has belief in any part of the caste system improved the lives of its believers? Is there anything in Hinduism beyond stupid rules about caste, ritual pollution and some bullshit stories. I should point out that other religions are no better in that respect. Isn’t it odd that most followers of this supposedly spiritual religion are among the most greedy, deceptive and selfish assholes you will ever have the misfortune of meeting. Then there is the peculiar problem of how a mostly illiterate people can maintain fidelity to a religion whose texts were and are still mostly unavailable or nonexistent.

Secular religions are no different. How many people who defend capitalism (especially financialism) have actually benefited from it pre-WW2 pure form? Note the choice of words “actually benefited from it” as opposed to “barely managed to survived under it”. What about libertarianism? Have you seen real life examples of the scenarios described in Ayn Rand’s fairy tales? The same holds for state communism- though to a lesser degree as it did actually benefit (at least initially) most of those who lived under it. My point is that followers of secular religions display the same outcome blindness as those who believe in traditional regions.

But why are the vast majority of devout followers of any religion, traditional or secular, so blind to the outcome of their beliefs? Why are they so persistent in their beliefs- especially in the complete absence of validation of those beliefs. Why would they willingly and enthusiastically structure their lives around beliefs that offer no measurable utility? Even a normal 8-year old child understands that people who habitually renege on their end of the deal are untrustworthy. Yet most adults exhibit great certainty about the existence of an invisible all-powerful friend who has never made a single slice of pizza materialize before them. One possibility is that most adults are stupider than an average 8-year old. It is also possible that belief in god, religion and ideology is a defense mechanism against nihilism and the fear of uncertainty. However neither of the previous two explanations account for the central, and most important, feature of all traditional and secular religions.

The one common feature of all religions, traditional or secular, is unrelated to belief. It is about what they seek to rationalize and justify. All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of others. Initially they seek to do that to those who don’t believe in their fairy tales. However sooner or later, they run out of unbelievers and turn on themselves and start persecuting their less-faithful members. That is the real reason why religions that gain followers (such as islam, capitalism) become more extreme as they do so.

Will write more about this connection in the upcoming part of the series.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 4

August 2, 2014 34 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made an observation about the fundamental precondition necessary for most humans to take abuse from another human.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Many readers might not like the idea that most (if not all) supposedly complex and ‘rational’ human behaviors arise from such an odd thought process. Moreover, the very suggestion that a lot of human behavior and social mores are driven by such ‘un-noble’ considerations will offend many more. But the unintuitiveness or offensiveness of an idea or concept does not make it untrue. No amount of wishful thinking and sophistry can alter the reality of the earth not being the center of the universe. Similarly quantum mechanics is not particularly intuitive or satisfying to us, but is extremely relevant to understanding semiconductivity. My point is that an idea or concept must be judged by its ability to explain a phenomena, make verifiable predictions AND stand up to scrutiny. Does the concept proposed at the beginning of this post fulfill those criteria? Well, let us see..

As you might recall, one of the questions posed in my previous post concerned the relative lack of sexual activity in the lives of most chronically single women in developed countries. While there are many popular sophistic and plausible sounding explanations (or even repudiations) for this phenomena, it is clear that chronically single women are not having anywhere near the amount of the sex they want to have and, more importantly, could be having. Now there are those of you who might say that this validates some bullshit “evo-pysch” mumbo-jumbo about women desiring only “alpha” guys. But desiring is not the same as having it and a lot of men fantasize about young attractive women when they are having sex with their old wrinkly wives. Clearly the converse is feasible as demonstrated by female prostitution.

So why would an average looking woman make herself sexually unavailable when a much better looking woman would have quality sex with almost any man for a reasonable hourly rate.

Some of you might attribute this behavior to their need of maintaining personal ego, social image etc- and there is something to be said about that. But such factors can account for only a minority of rejections as most men are not very ugly, very short or very poor. Clearly there is much more to this behavior than maintaining their own social status and here is a clue- most woman are a bit too enthusiastic about criminalizing paid sex. The rather strong urge among women to criminalize paid sex has been traditionally interpreted as a response to competition. To put it another way, the conventional narrative suggests that women see sex workers as competition for the overpriced services they themselves offer- like “established” cab companies protesting about non-traditional rideshare services such as Uber. But is that really the case?

The argument that paid sex is real competition only holds true if the vast majority of women in that society are in long-term marriages or similar long-term relationships. But that has not been the case in most developed countries for the last three to four decades. To rephrase it- paid sex is not especially competitive with short-term or casual sexual relationships, if they are readily available. But it is clear that such short-term relationships are not available to most men- and this poses an interesting question.

Why would a person want to disrupt an event they do not want to participate in, especially if it does not affect their material interests- one way or the other.

A better understanding of this irrational behavior can be obtained by looking at the issue of religious fundamentalism- especially as it applies to zealots who try to enforce their own standards on those who might not share the former’s bizarre beliefs. Take the issue or religious taboos against certain kinds of food (pork, beef etc) or drink (alcohol, coffee, tea etc). Have you ever wondered why most muslims are so offended by others eating pork, or most hindus offended by those who enjoy eating beef, or muslims condemning those who drink alcohol or observant mormons doing the same for coffee and tea? What is going on? While sophists will try to make up “facts” to justify such arbitrary beliefs, it is clear that eating pork or beef is not associated with any measurable negative effects. The same holds for the moderate consumption of alcohol or caffeinated drinks. But why are religious zealots so resistant to reason? Here is an idea..

They just want an excuse to screw over somebody else while simultaneously feeling righteous about doing it.

It comes down to making oneself feel powerful by abusing those you can without stressing your cognitive dissonance. In the upcoming part of this series, I shall write more about the very strong connection between the need to believe in organised religion and desire to abuse or hurt other people- even if doing so results in no material gain.

What do you think? Comments?

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 3

July 13, 2014 38 comments

In the previous part of this series, I briefly talked about my theory about why married women almost universally seem to lose interest in sex with their husband. I also made the observation that this particular behavior is conditional to the options of the man in the relationship, especially his ability to leave it. But why would that be so? Why does the ability of a man to leave a relationship easily make it significantly harder for the woman to deny him frequent sex? Let me put that question in another way- why does the mere presence of an ‘out’ option make for the guy have such a drastic effect on the willingness of the woman to have sex with him? Clearly, the ‘out’ option does not add inches to his height or dick, muscle mass to his body or make him more handsome. So what is going on?

Many people, especially those who subscribe to the solipsistic mumbo-jumbo of evolutionary psychology, might say that a man who can easily leave a relationship is demonstrating his higher ‘status’ or “fitness”. But does reality support that belief? Who is more likely to be in a sexless marriage or relationship – a supposedly high status and financially secure guy or someone who plays drums in some semi-famous cover band? How can C- and D-grade celebrities pull pussy of a quality that staid multi-millionaires can only dream of? Why don’t large financial net worths make women wet and horny?

Some sophists might say that fame and celebrity are far more ancient “evolutionary” switches for female horniness than money or education. But there is a big problem with this assertion. Even intelligent and educated women do not marry rich and/or “highly educated” men because of any real physical or emotional attraction. All such marriages are, and have always been, shams based in the need for social approval and financial comfort for the woman. Remember that a woman married to a doctor or manager will cheat on him with a C- grade celebrity, but one in a relationship with a C-grade celebrity will never cheat on him with a doctor or manager.

While there are many possible explanations, such as this one, for why a minor celebrity can pull far more pussy than a billionaire- we are still left with one important but only partially answered question. Why do married women eventually go to great lengths for not having sex with their husbands- especially if he is not ugly, poor or otherwise downright repulsive?

A more complete answer to that question can be found by looking at a similar category of women- the ones who are chronically single and barely having sex.

One of the major falsehoods promoted by game blogs is the idea that almost all non-ugly and chronically single women are having lots of sex. While a minority of non-ugly and chronically single women do indeed have busy sex lives, the majority do not. Now, I am not claiming that the majority of such women are asexual or abstinent and there is every reason to believe that they have occasional booty calls and short-term flings. But none of this occasional sexual activity remotely approaches what they could have in an average non-marital relationship.

So what is stopping them from having such relationships? After all we live in the age where women have well-paying jobs, access to effective contraception and easy treatment of STDs- not to mention a much lower incidence of such diseases. Clearly, these women do not have to overcome real obstacles or face major risks to enter into such relationships- and yet they don’t. But why not? and what does any of this have to do with why married women have progressively less frequent sex with their husbands. Well.. it is connected, but understanding that connection requires you to ask questions that most would never even consider in the first place.

Would chronically single women spend most of their time on the sexual sidelines if they knew that their lack of participation had no negative effect on the sexual lives of men?

While there is no shortage of morons spouting some bullshit about women having little intrinsic sexual desire, how they want to concentrate on their careers or how modern dating is especially risky and full of frauds- a lot of these “common sense” bullshit explanations just does not add up. Let us first consider the claim that women have little intrinsic sexual desire. While that explanation may seem plausible at first, women buy too many romance novels and are a bit too willing to have sex with famous/good-looking men for that to be true. While female sexual desire is not a mirror image of its male equivalent, there is no doubt that it is similarly powerful.

The explanation that women are increasingly career minded is also based in bullshit since most human beings (men and women) work to live. Only the retarded and autistic minority (mostly “clever” men) live to work. Another plausible sounding explanation requires us to believe that “modern” dating is somehow significantly more riskier than it was in the past. However almost every measure of such risk based on real data suggest that people in the past were not much nicer, or much worse, than those alive today.

So what is really going on? Why would a significant minority of mediocre women choose to hang on the sexual sidelines? What do they gain from such behavior and how could it be enough to compensate for the obvious loss?

Well.. it comes down to ego, but not quite in the way most of you understand it. Some of you might think that rejecting men might be a psychological defense mechanism used by mediocre women to deny their own mediocrity. While there might be some truth to the idea that women are more status-obsessed and status-sensitive than men, repeatedly torpedoing your own sex life would be a really odd and expensive way to raise self-perceived status. Moreover, being single past a certain age (say.. 30) actually reduces their status within their peer group. But there is another psychological mechanism that can explain this behavior.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Confused.. here are is an example. Have you wondered why poverty-stricken whites in the american south were and are so willing and eager to abuse poverty-stricken blacks on behalf of their rich white masters? If you think about it rationally, the poverty-stricken white person does not experience any material gain from abusing the poverty-stricken black person. But they do gain in a non-material way. Specifically, the ability to freely abuse poverty-stricken blacks allows them to scratch their insatiable human itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others. Similarly people who belong to the lower castes in India experience great pleasure from abusing those of even lower castes. In both of the above mentioned examples, actively working against your best interests is preferred over working for it as long as the former comes with an ability to abuse even more desperate and needy people.

Will write more about this particular issue in the next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers