Good Men:

Alexander / DatePsych:

>I saw a few comments on “good men” and dating. We get a lot of the incel perspective on dating, but here is what I think is a typical dating trajectory is for “good men” and how I would define “good men” in this context: Good men: these are men who don’t have many serious vices, they tend to be (reasonably) fit, or working on it. They tend to have good educations, or are in school if they are younger. They are motivated and hard-working. They vary in moral and ethical beliefs, some are religious and some are secular, but they are prosocial. They have “good personalities” such that their peers and women like hanging out and talking with them, at the very least. They don’t have extreme and obvious red flags. They aren’t male models (few people are), but they are handsome enough that women do like them. They have attractive hobbies. They have had past relationships; they haven’t had an experience of perpetual fruitless struggle with dating. This is not the cohort of men that gets zero matches on Tinder. They can go to bars, talk to women, and get phone numbers. They go on dates with women from apps (if they use apps) and women that they meet in person. This does not mean dating is “easy” for them. Women don’t fall out of the sky into their laps. They have to put forth effort. The whole dating and courtship search can be frustrating and take time. They go on dates and they often find that someone who was a romantic prospect wasn’t interested in them after a date, phone number exchange, or Tinder chat. They are also selective themselves: they reject women and screen women out. Again, dating is not easy for these good men - there is a bit of luck in finding someone who they like and who likes them back. They are not desperate. They have had women who liked them, but who they didn’t like back for any number or reasons. They have had women they shared attraction with. And they have experienced liking a woman who doesn’t return their affection. Usually, after some period of dating, they will enter a long term relationship. It could be a month or a year, but they don’t stay single forever. During early dating, some of these men will have had sex without going on to form a relationship, some won’t, and it largely depends on how sociosexually open they are and the kind of women that they pick. They are not having a steady stream of casual sex, often because they aren’t trying to - they are trying to date. They want relationships. But they do occasionally have sex outside of committed relationships. They are not long-term celibates, unless they are just very opposed to casual sex and choose to be. These guys go on to get married. They also form long term relationships they don’t get married in. They get divorced and they get remarried. They have lots of different relationship patterns and trajectories. What I don’t tend to see them do: 1. They aren’t lining up to commit to any woman with a pulse. The average woman does not have a dozen of these guys waiting around for her. They have preferences. 2. They aren’t self-isolating into a schizo hole. That’s basically antithetical to the “good relationship haver” personality. 3. They aren’t lifelong incels. The “good men” are never perpetually rejected by every single woman they interact with.<

Values as Bets:

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/2024/07/values-as-bets.html

I like the idea that values (e.g. honesty, family life (having some children), productivity, etc.) are bets on what is best in life. Quite some bets are bad bets. Nevertheless, you cannot avoid making bets. You have to act. You have to play the game.

Values:

"Your values are a bet on what is best in life."

palladiummag

Search: Moral

https://meinnaturwissenschaftsblog.blogspot.com/search?q=Moral

The Sociometer and the Hierometer:

Rob Henderson:

"The psychologist Mark Leary and his colleagues have proposed that humans have a “sociometer.” This is a psychological mechanism that evolved to maintain self-esteem and social belonging. Everyone has a sociometer, and its purpose is to unconsciously monitor the social environment for signs of acceptance or rejection.

If our sociometer detects disapproval, you react with feelings that get us to correct our behavior and restore our esteem. Thus, you have feelings of foolishness, awkwardness, inadequacy, embarrassment, humiliation, and so on. These are unpleasant feelings. The experience of them or the prospect of potentially feeling them lead us to act in ways that increase our social acceptance and uphold our standing among our peers.

It's not quite the same thing as status. The sociometer is focused on communion, on getting along with others.

Then there’s the “hierometer.” This is a related but distinct psychological self-regulatory mechanism that tracks status. The hierometer’s function is to monitor our status and help us to navigate status hierarchies.

The hierometer is about agency (getting ahead), as opposed to communion (getting along).

This brings us to an interesting puzzle: Sometimes people will conceal their high-status accomplishments. People will give up signaling status in order to enhance feelings of belonging. Sometimes we want to avoid the envy of others, and downplay our achievements in order to better get along with the group. This isn’t the case for narcissists, though, who generally have no issue boasting about their achievements at the expense of feelings of belonging. Narcissists have an overactive hierometer and an underactive sociometer.

The hierometer tracks status, which is indexed by self-esteem and narcissism. It motivates us to be assertive to obtain social esteem. The goal is to boost our status.

The sociometer tracks inclusion, or belonging. This is indexed mostly by self-esteem, which regulates our affiliative behavior. The goal is to get along with others."

"people will sometimes conceal high status identities in order to better get along with others. This is expressed by humility, and the goal is to avoid envy and increase social acceptance."

"Communion is about getting along with others. Being understanding, cooperative, helpful, and so on. Agency is about getting ahead of others. Being assertive, confrontational, direct, imposing, and so on. People want to fit in and stand out. These two concepts capture these motivations."

"When we evaluate others, we implicitly ask ourselves, “Will this person help or hurt me?” and “Is this person capable of carrying out their goals?” We wonder how communal and agentic they are."

"A 2021 study found that frequent insults directed at men include: worthless, weak, poor, pussy, dumb, useless, scared. These attack their competence. And shithead, controlling, asshole, self-absorbed, and liar. These attack their moral character. For women, insults included worthless, poor, needy, disgusting, and annoying (attacking their competence). And slut, skank, gold digger, and shallow (attacking their moral character)."

[Siehe auch: Die hierarchische Sicht der Dinge]

Selbstwert:

Interessant ist, dass sich der Selbstwert einer Person sehr grundlegend verändern kann.

Schönheit:

Das Schöne Leben und die Schönheit schließen sich in manchen Stunden auf. Wir sehnen das zwar herbei, doch erzwingen lässt es sich nicht.

Jede echte Berührung mit der Schönheit verändert den Menschen.

Kultur & Natur:

Ich will, dass sich mir Kultur aufschließt: Über den wiederholten Besuch von Museen, über den Zugang zur Musik, durch das Lesen relevanter Texte, durch den Umgang mit bestimmten Personen.

Zusätzlich verbringe ich mehr Zeit in der Natur: Eine eigene Anregung, die sich dadurch einstellt, besonders an sonnigen Tagen tief in die Natur einzutauchen.