Sir Edward Burne-Jones, design and figures; William Morris, design and execution; John Henry Dearle, flowers and details, The Arming and Departure of the Knights, Holy Grail tapestry #2 woven by Morris & Co. 1891-94, wool and silk on cotton warp, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
The last post looked at social groups - in general and especially online. The context is a dimwit Gamma pattern on a comment page, so the specific topics branch off that. Need to understand social realities to see how moron detection works in practice. The next theme is high-status socialization - some generalities in this post, more specifics in the next. At that point I can get into Li’l Turdling in detail.
First point is the difference between mass vs. organic socialization. Real life social groups tend to be limited in size with defining parameters. The House of Lies was built on comprehensive narrative centralization and control. Mass media and the illusion of national and world stages. High status figures here are globalist elites and ticket takers, so entirely beyond accessibility to the vast majority. The internet changed this with a dizzying mix of beast narrative and organic voices in an interactive format. The artificial media delusion where [staged popularity = Good!] plus an anonymous open stage. Excellent for inflammatory topics. But catnip for poseurs. Think about it - reinvent yourself freshmen year in perpetuity but without the balloon-popping physical realities.
Jean-Léon Gérôme, The Duel After the Masquerade, between 1857 and 1859, oil on canvas, Walters Art Museum
What happens is that social knots form organically in the churn. As they do any time huge groups of strangers are thrown together. No point in partially listing venues - they’re endless and we all know what I mean. Unlike media, this aspect of internet culture actually is organic. The same natural patterns and profiles show there as in real life. So in the spirit of the SSH, status needs a universal metric. How about…
Status = high desirability + low accessibility
Basic supply and demand transposed socially. The bigger the discrepancy, the higher the status in those it resonates with. Here’s where scale does come in. The broader the desirability, the more universal the status positions. It looks better graphically.
High A & D are things of near-universal popularity. Fads, media… anything that elites and plebs both enjoy. In these cases, it’s an individual choice to proceed.
Low A & D are rare things that suck and are irrelevant here.
High A & low D is low-status garbage culture, unwanted socio-legal requirements, and the like.
High D & low A is high-status. People want it but most can’t have it. Those who do are elevated socially. With some consequences.
Repetitive, I know, but it is essential to remember that desirability is entirely driven by human subjective preferences. There is no ironclad mathematical logic why something attains high status when it’s not necessary for life. Recognizing this changes understanding social behavior from projected “deduction” (internal process) to empirical induction (external process). Gammas fixate on what they think “should be” based on their delusional reasoning. And not everyone wants what the masses do - we’re dealing in aggregates. Delusional projected taste is as valueless as delusional projected reasoning. Gamma bleating can have a point, but social meta-patterns ensure no one cares. Leave out individual status for now and stick to group socialization for simplicity. What makes a social context high D?
Victor Gilbert, An Elegant Evening, around 1890, oil on canvas, private collection
The simple answer is social reward. The categories are endless, but anything desirable is going to be personally rewarding in some way. The relative status comes from the supply. The harder it is to participate, the more access registers as desirable. And those with it, high-status. In many cases, external conditions take care of this. Barriers to entry and relative scarcity make elite positions scarce. They have to be. They’re few in number and have countless aspirants. Likewise things requiring extremities of skill or knowledge. Organic social groups aren’t that different - they seem so because the skill-sets and try-outs are informal and loosely defined. Status dynamics remain D over A, but self-selecting and policed. In real life, this includes all the formalities, rituals, discourses, styles, structures & other visual markers that determine fitness & inclusion. Easy enough to observe given some access, but are hard to impossible for outsiders to simulate. The more exclusive the group, the more of a barrier these forms present.
Oleg Nikolaev, The Knights of Malta, 2017, oil on canvas, private collection
Some context. My read and react isn’t a superpower. Nor does selecting which personal dimensions to share have anything to do with posturing or making up stories. It’s just conscious compensation for instinctive deficiencies. Visualize it as a Venn overlap between self & situational awareness. Something has to mesh, or there’s no point in trying to engage a group.
Reading a context determines whether or not I can hang as well as if I want to. There are limitations in my station, morals, location, personality, and so forth that make some circles inaccessible, no matter how well understood. Status is in the eyes of others, and I can’t compel acceptance of an obviously poor fit. Nor do I want to. Non-Gammas don’t struggle with the irony that visibly striving to fit is counter-productive. And I’m not drawn to situations where I don’t belong for any number of reasons. It may be the uncaring that came from working through childhood alienation or recognition that I’m happier with solitude than too much role playing. Places that aren’t accessible usually aren’t desirable. Usually. The stuff of dreams has to come from somewhere.
Stanislav Yulianovich Zhukovsky, Kuskovo. The Front Lobby, 1917, oil on canvas, private collection
Most people don’t spend a lot of time worrying about group status dynamics. I suppose longing for dreams unrealized is normal. But organic social groupings form naturally, with people tending to fall into their lanes. A group of middling, rank and file dudes having a good time aren’t obsessing over what the elites are doing. They wouldn’t be comfortable at Davos. Their complaints tend to be symptoms of their status and not the status itself. Lack of money or opportunity, mundane activities, slatternly or otherwise low-tier women, failed parenting, etc. A desire for higher status indicators without changing their familiar lives. It is an indicator of their status that the connection between outcomes and inputs elude them. Self-respect takes effort. Navigating landscapes takes humility and sustained attention. All of which can be done without, as long as you don’t fixate on group status dynamics. Gammas go awry for a number of reasons, but inability to accept that low-A exclusion pools naturally include them is a big one. Frustrated desire → resentment → hate isn’t a pattern that needs elaboration.
Simplifying here. The second order problem for Gammas is having their make-believe terms rejected by higher status people. Situational and self awarenesses failing in unison. The point is that the unique Gamma obsession over lack of high status fit is an unpullable thorn.
Jan Matejko, Stańczyk, 1862, oil on canvas, National Museum, Warsaw
Internet socialization is a bit different. There are no complex interactive semiotics and visceral reactions. Everyone starts as a cipher to a degree - no way to call up real-life resumes or bios. Personal claims can be assessed logically or for entertainment value, but not really fact checked. Theoretically, anyone can claim anything. In practice, SSH carries over. Which is why Gamma pretense is unconvincing. The transparent lies, unpleasantness, incoherence, and lack of experience shine forth regardless of fable. Just as it’s not a surprise to find out the charismatic, funny, decisive guy is a successful Alpha in life. So what sets A & D in a world with no velvet ropes? Another simple answer - high-status groups are more appealing for all the reasons more attractive people improve any social activity.
As noted in the intro, this all became apparent because my cognitive makeup forced an analytic approach to social matters. It’s not manipulative or sociopathic because my motivations are honest and morally clean. I don’t misrepresent. It’s the only way to meet sincere personal social needs when society is counter-intuitive. And it is often unsatisfying, but what is the choice? I function logically because a +4 SD IQ sees second-order necessities as obviously as surface perception. But my instinctive nature is an unproductive mix of emotion-driven Byronic Romanticism and narrative contempt. I crave dopamine and pushing my abilities to the breaking point. Pre-conversion, the hedonism was almost self-immolating, and the parade of experiences not worth sharing because no one believes them. I could never do Spockian detachment instinctively. There’s all the self-actualization stuff any healthy psyche needs. Career and resources. True friends and allies. The aesthete and physical culturist in me adores female charm and beauty. Who wouldn’t seek the the most desirable venues for their social needs? Those are, by definition, high-status.
Christine Comyn, Golden Dress, 2004, giclee
My process was made possible by physical attributes with high SMV in the abstract. The value of this became obvious, hence thousands of tortuous hours honing body as well as mind. Discipline and commitment register as high status. Likewise endless functional strength, endurance, durability, and a yoked physique. There’s no point in false modesty - that’s low status and potentially dangerous. Not understanding my own attractiveness + not understanding females meant some very costly learning experiences. The relevance is that superficial acceptance buys time to read the codes. The opposite of tap dancing in while spraying nonsense to “impress” everyone. If you’re attractive, you don’t have to say anything and interest builds while you’re learning. You can blow the aura anytime - there’s no hurry. Not that I was ever an It boy. I wasn’t. I dislike most mass socialization and find the majority of people tedious and unintuitive. The point is that my observations come from having the A to read and react to the D when I saw value in it. In real life, attractive, capable, amusing, and interesting company. Online, the internet version.
Coming around to Turdling Crossing. The HSF and I know each other socially through some related online spaces. The other SG is a closed social media community with above-average intelligence, morality, and decorum. It’s the only Twitter-type venue where I chose to make posts. Perfect example of what I just explained - mass socialization is off-putting. “Popularity” is a plebian metric pushed by the beast to grease the skids for its fake centralized media idols. Status is by nature exclusive. Low A, high D. Something aristocrats and peasants both enjoy doing - say a walk in the woods or a sudoku - is popular, not high status. A million rando “likes” count for less than the cat running to the door when I come home. A more exclusive, disciplined, intelligent community is more rewarding than equivalent time alone.
Frederic Leighton, The Star of Bethlehem, oil on canvas, Dahesh Museum of Art
In any social media community status is measured by quality engagement, following, post value, and contribution to the larger community. Accomplishment, not fake claims or unfulfilled longing and unhealable wounds. By the fruits. This one is closed, so the society is partly house rules, partly organic quality culture. My contributions cluster around cultural heritage and significant - if under the radar - speculative intellectual work. The second is not widely accessible for the same reasons my unfiltered nature isn’t. But the D of SG is that I don’t have to hide behind self-simplification. I can stretch my odd cognition to its limits, and a sub-section of people appreciate it. We’re also all aware that it’s special place and status also accrues to who aggressively preserve it. My skills let me cut up poor logic and smoke out subversives. Note again that status isn’t wishes. “Contributions” have to be objectively appreciated by enough of the group to have social value. If no one found me interesting or worthwhile to engage, I’d have no status, festering butthurt notwithstanding. Observable response, not irrelevant self-image.
The HSF is another engaging and popular community member who is much more involved in collaborative culture-building activities. I’m not a joiner - the SG sphere appeals because it’s a rare place I can do my own thing with people who get it. But core members of the group produce culture collaboratively. It’s something I and the rest of the community really value. A cornerstone of the D for a reality-facing outsider.
Colins Chadewe, Angels and Musicians from Rev. 15:1-3, Apocalypse de S. Jean, 1313, ink & colors on parchment, Bibliothèque nationale de France
These are the fruits. Perception of online personas develops from the accumulation of experience over time. Natural and organic despite digital. High status sociability starts with the simple fact that people who draw interest or attention have a finite amount of both. Like anyone else, they’re attracted to the most attractive people. Supply and demand creates an abundance mentality. And when social triage is always necessary, the idea of making cuts becomes instinctive. Most low-middling status personal dramas don’t even register when your identity isn’t dependent on anyone. Which reads as confidence, which reads as high status. It’s really as simple as being attractive in ways that other attractive people want to spend some limited bandwidth on. Because none of us have time or patience for people we don’t.
Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Bal du moulin de la Galette, 1876, oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
Gammas fixate on D without having the appeal for A for a host of pathological reasons. The negative reactions are objective and should be obvious, but too painful to consider. Cognitive dissonance gets fed back through the delusion bubble and comes out as pain and rage. And because it’s all imagined, there’s no pathway to resolve things. Just fester and obsess - sometimes for years - unless a new imagined enemy appears - and then it’s as if the old villain never was. Head-spinning to see. High status people don’t get it at first, because obsessing over people that you don’t fit with is bizarre. But it’s become apparent status can lead to a fundamentally different perception of the reality. More options than bandwidth = choosiness = high floor for minimal attention. A Gamma probably can’t fathom how inconsequential they are to high status groups. I recall the masses in my special boy college seeming like the blobs in a Monet painting. There’s no “clash”. The “jocks” aren’t out to get the “nerds”. It’s all projected one-way traffic. But the indifference fuels personal resentment greeted with more indifference … until lashing out seems to make sense.
Enter Li’l Turdling. Next time.
Ernest Moore, Rejected, 1898, oil on canvas, Sheffield Museums
Great reflection. Status is a strange thing in the U.S. Setting.
You have it, or you don't. It can be cultivated, but is a slow process.
My career (which when I was fallen I felt was all due to me) was of course derived from my fortune of being born in relative comfort and status. Being able to retain the status, even with out pure economics, is another aspect of status.
Now I have become an expression of my clan's greater *nobolesse oblige* which is healthy to accept.