Prometheosophy: I own all of philosophy, and I’m giving it away to everyone – for FREE!

Everything I say lately seems to both encapsulate and elucidate everything else I’m saying: Ds failed against Dc then, but Di can beat Ci now, then deliver the goods to Ds.Photo by: Faris Algosaibi

I think I have everything – all-the-way corralled if not yet all-the-way branded:

I think I own philosophy.

I’ve thought that since 2012, and I think I was right then. I think I’m a lot more right now, and I have grand plans about where things might take me from here.

This summer has been especially fecund, but every day seems richer to me than the day before: I’m learning so much so fast that I don’t even bother to document most of what I’m overwhelming poor Cathleen with – and even she is not getting the full daily payload.

DISC-my-way is the game theory of humanity. I’ve said that all along – since way back in the misty depths of 2014 – and I’ve demonstrated it every way I can think of since then. I keep getting better at making those points, I think, but what I’m getting even better at is simply seeing DISC in real-time.

I can narrate the mothertongue politics of every interaction while it is happening. I can DISC anyone on sight, many to all four priorities, and then I can predict where in an interaction the conflict will erupt. I can tell you in detail – and for three or more generations of descendants – why Dsci is a better profile for a father than is Dsic.

I don’t have a file of things crazy people say, but, even so, I manage to say a lot of the things crazy people say.

Like this:

I think I understand humanity so much better than anyone ever has that the most appropriate statement I could make on the subject is to scale it:

I understand humanity.

So far, no one else does.

I’m not special, just early. Reality was here all along. But reality has been here the whole time I’ve been talking about this, too, and yet I’m the only one who has been talking.

I think that’s a mistake – (more…)

Posted in Splendor! | Leave a comment

Sister Mary Elephants all the way down: Why the victims of Ayn Rand end up so bitchy and repressed.

It’s funny that Ci’s insist that DISC cannot be true with pitch-perfect Ci fit-pitching – but that’s what Ci’s do when their compliance displays run up against defiance.Photo by: Isengardt

The Ayn Rand Institute has been paying special attention to me lately. I’ve been on their radar since I started picking on them for being champions of the worst of all genocides, abortion.

(Ci Blind? If you just had a rejection reaction – dismissal by scoff, grimace, wince, etc. – you just might be at war with reality.)

But they’ve really tuned in since I started telling them precisely why their lives are so miserable, their romances so unsatisfying and their nurseries so barren.

They’re all Ci, of course, and big-O Objectivism is a Ci Blindness cult: You are accepted – and acceptable – to them and to yourself – to the exact extent you deliver the expected Ic displays of compliance in response to the implacable Ci compliance displays of anyone above you in the hierarchy.

As we just saw with James Damore and Google, every compliance display is in fact simply a demand for either fear or fascination in response, so there is actually nothing of either mamalian empathy or abstract human conceptualization in play, nothing but those two purely-reptilian currencies.

In that respect, there is no such thing as an authentic big-O Objectivist: It’s all a Kabuki theater of Ayn Rand-imitation. They can’t officially know anything she didn’t know – which was a lot, starting with her own ugly Ci habits of mind – and they cannot permit themselves to say anything she wouldn’t say.

Which leaves them sputtering about me, as you might guess. I’ve told them several times how I’m putting them on tilt, yet they can’t stop themselves from tilting away anyway. Poor Yaron Brook hasn’t had a settled gut in more than two years, and I can only imagine what Pope Sneakoff is hearing from the donor base:

“You talked me into killing all of my children and you turned me into an hysterical, vituperative repulsion-bot?!”

That isn’t happening, of course. Ci Blindness is its own best protection against (more…)

Posted in Love and marriage, Splendor!, The DISC of family | Leave a comment

What the upside of integrity? “The strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.”

James Damore, the now-fired Google engineer, fought Ci with Di. He lost the battle – but he won his own soul, while all the cowards around him lost a little more of theirs.Photo by: Rendy Cipta Muliawan

Remember the kid’s story, “Who bells the cat?”

They re-enacted it yesterday at Google.

The mouse lost.

Ci versus Ci, of course, so the higher-status compliance display won. As we’ve discussed, you can’t fight Ci with Ci.

The best part of “Who bells the cat?” – and of Henrik Ibsen’s “An enemy of the people,” which is quoted in the headline – is the saga of the brave and solitary hero of the all-but-hopeless rebellion.

That would be the Nazarene – or Luke Skywalker – or a zillion other brave and solitary heroes.

The worst part of those kinds of stories? The cowardice of the mob.

James Damore, the now-fired Google engineer, had plenty of supporters within the company. Mostly men, some women. Just no one with any balls. As usual.

A choice is Driven when you are prepared to walk away from everyone else to pursue it.

It is Incandescent when you are prepared to be seen as no one else is willing to be seen.

How can you tell when it’s both?

Look for a striking display with lots of room around it. You may not be stronger just for having stood-most-alone, but you will be plenty lonelier. Cowardice loves company, and it loves that huddled, supportive companionship far, far away from courage.

How much is this like the sacrifice of the Nazarene? And if it is, which community is to have been healed by this holy atrocity? Keep in mind that the original telling of “Who bells the cat?” is about reconciliation with subservience – Winston Smith learning to love Big Pussy.

This is a holiness spiral, so the details don’t matter. What is being defended is not some body of ideas but the social status of the idea-embodiers: “You dare to question my authoritah?!?” Ci civilization is a Cautious tyranny because escape is blocked under Cautious control. Accordingly, acquiescence to Ci tyranny is expressed in Incandescent displays.

Translation: Whatever your authentic (more…)

Posted in Splendor! | Leave a comment

Feeling supervised? Hunted? Haunted? Hounded? I think you’re in a Ci state of mind.

A Ci life is Narcissus in the hall of mirrors: Your preening fakery alienates you not just from self love but from all love.Photo by: Axel Rouvin

When I was young and stupid, I used to think totalitarianism had an insuperable cost-control hurdle: The problem, as I saw it, was not just Juvenal’s quandary but that each prisoner in a police state would impose an overwhelming burden in overhead and staffing expenses. Plus which, innovation leapfrogs regulation, so I used to say, “They can’t enslave us if they can’t catch us.”

What’s wrong with that analysis? It assumes that the guards and the prisoners are different people. “Who will guard the guardians themselves?” What if you could get the guards to do it to themselves? Continuously. For free.

Each prisoner his own guard! Now there’s a manifesto for the totalitarian age. “Constable, incarcerate thyself!”

But the twentieth-century totalitarians couldn’t manage that. They gave us The Big Lie – forcing you to mouth known lies to demonstrate your subservient compliance, then changing the Big Lies all the time, to spotlight any deviationism. And they gave us Political Correctness – self-selected full-time volunteer Big Lie-enforcers. But as every brave act of anti-totalitarian defiance demonstrates, human beings cannot be ruled from the outside.

But they can be ruled from the inside…

Who is most-totally enslaved by a totalitarian creed? Not its victims but its victimizers. They need the doctrine to rationalize their ever-newer, ever-more-gruesome emotional wounds – the proceeds of seeing themselves behaving monstrously in their service to the dogma – but they need it simply to feel right about themselves. What they are, by then, IS the doctrine, and what they must police most vehemently is their own deviation from it.

Suppose you have a moral ideal. And suppose you say you subscribe to it in every particular. Guess what I know about you? You don’t measure up. How do I know that? Because no one who claims to subscribe to a moral ideal ever manages to live up to it in every detail.

So now what? If your moral ideal is a religion, you and other (more…)

Posted in Love and marriage, Splendor!, The DISC of family | Leave a comment

Love husbandry: Marriage dies by the snarl – but it thrives in the light of a loving smile.

A good marriage makes everyone better: Thriving seeds ever-more-abundant thriving. You breed by breeding, but you breed your ideas with your good example, too.Photo by: Hamza Butt

Picking up from yesterday, let’s put a finer point on what we’ve learned so far.

So it doesn’t get lost, here’s the big news:

I can quantify love and marriage.

I can troubleshoot and optimize any social relationship – but so can anyone else who works my way.

What matters most in the pursuit of human thriving is that you and your best-beloved can work together to get better at being best-beloveds to each other: You can get better as a couple at being encoupled, better at best-beloving.

Better egoism through practical ontology. How cool is that?

So we looked at every potential DISC cross yesterday, even though many of those are unlikely as marriages. The active pursue the passive, the dominant lead the submissive – pins poke cushions – so most marriages, both better and worse, will be D or C men pursuing S or I women.

O, sweet mystery of life: At last I’ve found you! Green is the color of thriving, and those green marriages are full of love – and full of loved ones. Looked at that way, you can see the goldenrod as a sort of weediness – and the red as barren turf.


Still, if I’m right about the relative amiability of DISC profiles, a distribution like this is going to fall out: Kind people make the people around them more kind, cruel people more cruel. This is obvious, of course. It is worth reporting only to make it that much harder to have affected to have pretended to have denied it.

As we saw last week, the ideal marriage, in the abstract, is Dsci/Sdic: Perfect lovers, perfect mates, perfect parents, perfect partners forever. They fit together in the way that all other organisms somehow manage to fit together without maps. Accordingly, they have the most and the best-raised children. When you hear people say, “You can’t fake good kids” – they’re talking about this couple.

But that’s a hard target to hit, and all (more…)

Posted in Love and marriage, Splendor!, The DISC of family | Leave a comment

Why is love, sex, marriage and family a battlefield? Ci Blindness. I have the math to fix it.

Human civilization is nothing but the answer to this one monumentally important question: How does a nice guy go about getting a second date around here?Photo by: Kevin Dooley

Well, I’ve had a fruitful fortnight: Robert Tracinski went all Irrational Hagiographic on Ayn Rand and I segued that into a math of marriage. That’s impressive to me, at least, like juggling knives and incidentally carving the Thanksgiving turkey. If I make it look easy, that’s because it is.

I’ve put all the new marriage posts into a new category, so you can read them all, if you want. I have a book here, but I have three books this Summer, plus a few movies and a lot of other stuff. I understand human motivation better than I ever have before – which means better than yesterday and much better than last week. When the rest of the world catches up, amazing things are going to happen.

How do I know that’s so?

Because I can trouble-shoot marriages – by DISC profiles.

The work we did yesterday, establishing a rank-ordering of relative sociability by DISC type, also gives us a quick tool for predicting the future concourse of relationships according to the DISC profiles of the people making them up.

Don’t call me Doctor Marriage. All I have so far are mad-scientist theories built from LegoNumbers™ – from scaled estimates of human priorities. But: Still: The fallacy of reductionism results not from reduction but reduction to the inessential. When you have reduced to the essential, what you have is not fallacy but formulae.

So: Let’s get formulaic and see if we really can map the dance of marriage.

Start where we finished yesterday, with a rank-ordering of relative sociability among DISC types:

Another heading for that chart could be “Relative Amiability” – who will be easier to get along with, going forward, in any recurring social context – marriage, home, work, play, world-at-large? Working from the bottom up, who will require special handling to keep the relationship alive?

Accordingly, yet another heading could be “Relative Marriageability” – who will be a better spouse, right out of the box (more…)

Posted in Love and marriage, Splendor!, The DISC of family | Leave a comment

Am I being unfair to the Cautious and the Incandescent? Let’s do the math.

You get into the same jams again and again – the snags that never seem to snag anyone else – because you respond in the same way to the same situations over and over again.Photo by: tacit requiem (joanneQEscober )

Yesterday, Cathleen cautioned me about being unfair to the high-C and high-I temperaments. I understand and share her concern, but it was fun being chastised in my own language, anyway.

Very few people are fluent in this notation system, so far, and Cathleen is by far the best of the bunch. That’s only fair: I’ve been making her talk to me in DISC-my-way for ten years now. She’s been there for every new idea, and she contributed a lot along the way – especially, as here, with beneficial resistance.

So: First: What you are is what you are. You chose your value priorities before you could choose reliably in fully-conscious self-awareness. You woke up as a human being already practiced in the habits of mind that have driven your choices ever since – and chances are all of this is news to you.

Your will is free, but your DISC predispositions are formidable, and they will express themselves from long-standing habit in every real-life circumstance where you do not explicitly, consciously override them.

You get into the same jams again and again – the snags that never seem to snag anyone else – because you respond in the same way to the same situations over and over again.

If you insist that I cannot possibly know what I’m talking about – typically a Ci chaos-rejection display – I can poke you with rhetorical sticks over and over again, until your rejection amplifies into outrage. Why would you be outraged if I’m wrong? Ahem.

As we’ve discussed, the Cautious and Incandescent temperaments can be mission-critically invaluable at work, but they are devastating to human social relationships.

Why are nerds so often celibate? Why is it lonely at the top? Too much aggression in the social strategy, too little reciprocity in the value pursuit – both of which imply too much reptilian empathy.

I can quantify all of this – in (more…)

Posted in Love and marriage, Splendor!, The DISC of family | Leave a comment