2026-03-26
Prestige among the ingroup, dominance on the outgroup
Disclaimer
Main
- See also: Dual strategies theory
- This is one of the possible stable modes of being:
- Get status in the ingroup for protecting the ingroup hence making them love you, get status in the outgroup by being violent against them hence terrifying them and making them respect you.
- This maps nicely on Geoffrey Miller's "tender defender" archetype, or the observation that access to sex is what makes some protest movements go mainstream (60s counterculture more popular than 50s anti-nuclear protests, some examples in Srdja Popovick's book)
P.S. The other thing that makes protest movements in general go mainstream is loss of job/income/equity.
P.P.S. This means that until job loss can be used as a vector for building the anti-ASI movement, the number one thing I should study is social ostracism and access to sex in the anti-ASI movement?
- Providing conditional access to sex or relationships seems like the primary way the anti-ASI movement can go mainstream, before any mass job loss has happened. Motherfucker, Geoffrey Miller is right about everything.
- Like, it seems likely that different factions in the anti-ASI coalition will regulate sex/relationships in different ways. Leftist radicals withold sex from non-lefists, and socially rightwing radicals withold sex from socially non-rightwing. This won't work it if you do it strategically. "I am deliberately going to withold sex from non-leftists." It will only work if genuinely dislike pro-ASI people to the point where you can't stand to be in a social circle where pro-ASI people are present.
- Job loss will probably unite all the political factions in the next 2-3 years, but until then, access to sex seems like the primary way to unite political factions.
- I am definitely biased towards people in age group 18-35 when I make this observation. People with kids are probably more amenable only to the job loss rhetoric. Also they are more amenable to groupthink - they are slow to change their political positions in general, for fear of breaking apart their family. Teenagers are often among the best targets for political radicalisation, not people with kids. (Although all this is superceded by - pick a demographic you actually understand and belong to, if you want to target your rhetoric towards them.)
- (All this primarily applies to terminally online politically polarised demographics, there are still moderate / apolitical people left in the US also.)
Update
- Side note - Maybe another reason I am curious about this question is to figure out, if I work on the cyberattack plan, will my future partner love me or fear me? I would prefer to be loved not feared atleast by my loved ones.
Subscribe
Enter email or phone number to subscribe. You will receive atmost one update per month
Comment
Enter comment