Friday, 22 May 2009

Following The Shiny Thing

Also known as stimulus hopping. This occurs when certain members of the population (stimulus junkies) are transfixed on chasing after stimulus. Coincidently, these people also form the basis of any strong economy since they are most prone to the constant buying of shit they don't need. The current recession is actually a downturn in the activities of stimulus junkies.

One hallmark of a stimulus junkie is the constant fiddling of a cell phone. They take it out even when they are not using it and just start playing with it. Its no surprise that there's a large market for empty cell phone cases which look like real cell phones.

Stimulus junkies treat the cell phone the same way a sick person would carry around an oxygen tank. For them it's a matter of life and death.

Little gadgets with bright blinking lights and cute ringtones are the shiny things that dumb people can't do without. It prevents the unimaginable fear from ever coming true - the fear of having nothing to do. Imagine being stuck somewhere with only your thoughts to keep you company. The horror!

The nice thing about little gadgets is that they are portable, so anytime you feel the reality of your surroundings start to set in, you just take out your shiny thing.

However, following the shiny thing isn't just about small gadgets. It permeates into other areas of life such as human relations.

Entire bodies of knowledge have been developed to exploit the follow-the-shiny-thing tendency in the opposite sex. Take for example, the popular book known as "The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed". The book teaches basic strategies such as Bait-Hook-Reel-Release and Cat String Theory to capture and keep a woman's attention. It is said that the more attractive a woman is the more these techniques will work on her. And it's true, but it can be restated somewhat: The more time and effort a woman spends on looking good, the more invested she is in getting male attention, and is therefore the most insecure and vulnerable when exposed to the sting of possible rejection (also known as the stimulus of rejection). The premise is that you give these women a taste of something and make her work for more. As an analogy, it's basically like taking away her cell phone and then giving it back periodically, in exchange for a kiss, blow job, sex etc.

Another example is a book created for women known as "The Rules". It teaches women the same basic strategy of playing hard-to-get using similar techniques of manipulation and withdrawal. It's also a very effective means to garner male attention from those men who are the most neurotic and get off on the chase. In this case the shiny thing is the woman's lack of attention which the man desperately tries to win over. And of course, the attention is strategically doled out in prescribed amounts to get the man to go crazy for you. The techniques are not as well codified as those in "The Mystery Method", but nevertheless can be very effective in attracting the most neurotic Don Juans who confuse high price with high quality, and who chase after the name brand, not the person.

It is interesting to note that the authors of both books frame the techniques in a rather positive light. They call it making yourself a "challenge" so that the person doesn't lose interest. But nowhere do they say that people who respond to such things are among the least socially savvy of anyone. It's basically smart marketing for dumb people. Their approach is, don't fix the deficiency, use it to your advantage.

The basic root of the problem is the consumerist mindset, where even human relations are treated as disposable. If there is a slight flaw in the packaging the "product" is overlooked, and if the price of the product goes up (or it's threatened to go up) they want it more. As long as there is room for people to become even dumber this trend will continue unchecked.

It's a downward spiral for fools. And those who seek to make money off these fools will be pulled down after them.

One can only hope that the day will soon come when people will start leaving the shiny things at home.

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Putting Their Kids Pictures on Facebook

Dummies everywhere are putting details of their kid's birthdays, doctor's visits, first swimming lessons, and other details they would never share with a stranger in public, on Facebook. All someone has to do to see it all is add them as a friend (and sometimes not even that). Women are the most guilty of this. They like to expose details of their personal lives for all the world to see. Too bad they fail to see the mixed message behind this.

The mixed message is that, on the one hand you shouldn't talk to strangers, but on the other hand it's okay for strangers to read about you on the internet.

"Gee I don't know this person but I'll add them as a friend anyway. I already have hundreds so what can it hurt".

To dumb people, an anonymous threat is apparently not as bad as a threat in broad daylight (i.e. strangers). If anything, dumb people are not consistent.

But the kids will no doubt have serious questions when they see themselves plastered online.

"Mommy, why am I on Facebook?"

"Because I'm an idiot dear. Now run outside and play. And don't talk to strangers."

Of course, this spells trouble in the event that something bad does happen. And it will, sooner or later. There are just too many dummies posting details of their kid's lives, so an incident is bound to occur eventually. And once it does, the dummies will be up in arms demanding that Facebook be taken down. There may even be a movement that forms: Mothers Against Facebook, or something similar.

But I have a feeling, the most that will come of it is some sort of change to Facebook's terms of service, which may include a disclaimer saying something like: "If you have kids and are stupid enough to post details of their private lives, don't blame us if something bad happens".

Friday, 15 May 2009

Acting Like Social Retards In Social Settings

One of the truly great ironies in life is how people will deliberately place themselves in social situations and then do everything in their power to avoid connecting with other people.

Bars and clubs are a good example.

Men and women both frequent these environments on a regular basis. But strangely, there are relatively few connections taking place in these environments. Many men just stand around looking at the women all night, while others aggressively try to pick women up. And the women, on the other hand, are generally closed off to being approached at all (with some notable exceptions).

However, a double standard is also at work. If a man shows unwillingness to talk he is encouraged to be social (e.g. "smile" more). But if a woman shows unwillingness to talk it is assumed that the men are inadequate or they need to rise to the occasion.

While this may have a positive effect on getting men to become more extroverted, it also has the effect of encouraging and reinforcing antisocial female behavior. Typically, this positive reinforcement goes unchecked through a woman's formative years, and a social retard is born.

To better understand this, consider the following analogy. A great many women complain that they never meet anyone because of lack of "chemistry". And this premise generally goes unchallenged in popular culture. As a result, many females adopt a passive ignorance and inability to look at themselves. So anytime things don't work out they can point to the "lack" of something outside their control. And this is conveniently called chemistry because it sounds romantic enough to be believable. But in reality, what is often lacking is inside them. They expect the fireplace to give them heat before they give it wood, and things never seem to work out.

Nowhere in the chemistry manual does it say that women need to look at themselves and make the effort, and that is the problem.

This same sort of passive ignorance occurs in bars and clubs. Bitchy, cold women adopt the social retard mindset and screw up their chances to meet anyone nice. Granted, sometimes it's a defense mechanism to avoid certain men, but too often it is universal unreceptiveness. Unfortunately, this unreceptiveness is rewarded and encouraged by guys who approach them anyway and who are so caught up in thinking with their smaller heads that they never pause to reflect on the sanity of the situation. So you have aggressive social retards (the men) trying to win over the passive social retards (the women), usually by using lame pickup lines, bragging, etc.

But an interesting phenomenon occurs when these socially retarded females see a man they like. They genuinely want to get to know him but since their frame of mind is so deeply immersed in the antisocial mindset, they actually sabotage their own efforts to make a connection. They may stand near him and hover in his proximity while simultaneously avoiding eye contact at all cost. And sometimes the guy will approach her, but then she will either bolt or her friends will cockblock.

In other cases, these women will make eye contact with a guy they like but from a "safe" distance. And if by chance he moves in to talk to her, she will bolt like before. Other times these women will make eye contact with the guy but will always keep a minimum (safe) distance no matter what. Other times they will pinch the guy's ass while walking by, and when the guy looks around to see who it is, all he sees is a girl walking away really fast. But usually they do this while with a group of friends, since it's better cover.

And of course, dumb men (especially those in the seduction community) will feel that this sort of behaviour is simply women's way of testing for the strongest males, and not a symptom of deeper psychological problems.

The truth is that socially retarded behaviour can only be overcome by marginalizing. Men who observe females exhibiting this behaviour should avoid them, such as not bothering to talk to them, and in some cases positioning themselves far away from them. It is only this way, that social retardedness can start to come apart, and the sting of introspection start to set in.

It's harder to be a social retard if it gets you ignored.

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Attacking Dissenting Movie Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes

Fanboys are up in arms when one of their beloved movies gets a negative review by a critic. It doesn't matter if the criticism has merit. All that matters to dumb fanboys is that the object of their (geek) infatuation is not embraced by everyone with the same love they have.

Dumb fanboys lurk the rottentomatoes site ready to pounce on critics that have dissenting views.

For instance, the latest movie Star Trek, which looks to be an excellent movie, has had very positive reviews for the most part. But the fanboys, in their geek-like determination to have 100% approval, mercilessly attack the intelligence, integrity, affiliations, and anything else they can think of to vilify those who dare to speak against the objects of their fantasy (and t-shirt collections).

Apparently, getting only 2 or 3 bad reviews out of 100 is enough to ruin any serious fanboy's day.

Of course, it's all ego-based. They identify themselves with something with geek-like passion and use their keyboards as weapons to snuff out any dissenters. It's not too different from how the flat-earth society once demonized round-earth believers.

Interestingly, there is a strong correlation between the level of hatred spewed and the nature of the screen name chosen by the fanboys, which is usually something from a video game or role-playing fantasy character, such as "Alien-spawn-galactic-hunter". Watch out for the venom from these guys.

It's funny, dumb fanboys will even go so far as calling movie reviewers bigots that hate those things that are different from them. And yet, these same fanboys display the same zero-tolerance towards alternate viewpoints. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.