The Status Remains Quo
Behavioral patterns are virtually impossible to permanently change
A number of people who trouble to familiarize themselves with the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy do so with the objective of improving their social or sexual status. While I personally regard this as both a waste of time and essentially missing the point of utilizing a tool that is best suited for analyzing the behavior of others, there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.
Except, of course, for the small issue of it simply not working for most of the men most of the time.
I had a bit of an epiphany about the generally static nature of a man’s SSH, which is to say, his behavioral patterns that define his social and sexual statuses, over the course of observing men and women alike continuing to make the same obvious mistakes despite being specifically told how to avoid making them, again and again.
If, for example, you are a young man who has been repeatedly told not to leave his shoes in the middle of the living room, there is a very high probability that the next time you sit down on a couch in the living room, you will remove your shoes and leave them there. Unless you are actively reminded - at which point you will no doubt wave your hand in an irritated manner and declare that the reminder was unnecessary - one way or another, you will find a way to leave your shoes lying there in the middle of the living room again.
Those who are given to contrary speech will deny, negate, correct, and recontexualize statements by other people, and they will deny being contrary even as they are doing it! It’s one of the most insensible behaviors I’ve witnessed, but it’s as reliable as it is remarkable: if you tell someone who is being contrary to stop being contrary, they will respond by telling you that they aren’t being contrary.
Don’t take my word for it, test it out for yourselves.
It’s just as hard for a liar, or a serial exaggerator, or a gaslighter, to stop doing what they habitually do. I suspect this is because they don’t consciously realize what they are doing until after they have done it.
Which suggests that if you are going to attempt to modify your behavioral patterns, you are first going to have to engage in a fairly deep dive into what they are, and you are almost certainly not in a sufficiently objective position to do so or to understand what the underlying basis for the pattern is.
For example, I used to regularly irritate people by reminding them that I am highly intelligent. I wasn’t doing this to self-inflate my ego or to be competitive, but was engaging in what was usually a futile attempt to get the other person to stop trying to explain things that were either a) obvious or b) incorrect to me. I thought I was being reasonable and polite by doing this, because I was refraining from correcting them in the cases where they were wrong, and instead of casting any judgment on them, I was only referring to myself.
For example:
MIDWIT: Do you think Gammas evolved to be dishonest?
SIGMA: No, because human beings didn’t evolve. The math doesn’t work.
MIDWIT: You just don’t understand evolution!
SIGMA: My IQ is 150. What are the chances of that?
This did not prove to be an effective approach. Somewhat to my surprise, I eventually discovered that nearly everyone would rather be called retarded and wrong than have to listen to me praise myself. (That’s how they heard it, you understand, that’s not at all what I intended or how I saw it.) My interpretation is that the average individual would rather hear a negative subjective statement about themselves that they can readily dismiss than a positive and objective one about someone else that they cannot dismiss so easily.
Interestingly enough, I’ve since learned that an even better response is to simply say nothing. Just ignore the statement altogether. I’m not the Reality Police, so it’s of zero concern to me if someone possesses an imperfect understanding about anything. Since most people aren’t actually interested in discourse, much less criticism, but merely want to hear themselves talk, you can simply let the retardery flow until it finally runs out.
MIDWIT: Do you think Gammas evolved to be dishonest?
SIGMA: (silence)
MIDWIT: I mean, maybe that’s how they managed to pass their inferior genes on, you know, by lying to the cute cave girl about how many cave bears they killed.
SIGMA: (silence)
MIDWIT: I just think that might explain it, anyhow. I mean, there has to be some reason why Gammas are dishonest, right? Anyhow, how do you think the France-Spain game will turn out?
SIGMA: 3-1 Spain.
MIDWIT: No, see, I think Mbappe’s going to have a big game!
SIGMA: I think Nico Williams is very dangerous on the left wing.
You can always tell them they’re wrong and retarded if they absolutely insist upon receiving some sort of response from you. The point is that since you don’t know what you’re doing, you don’t know how other people receive what you’re doing, and you can’t control their reactions by your intentions, your chances of reliably modifying your behavioral patterns in a positive way are not exactly high.
Infatuation with the SSH is like climbing up the signpost instead of going the way it points.
Its painful. I think thats why most people will not 'improve' themselves.
Although discomfort would be enough to describe some of it, realisations of how attraction and status works brings it on like a ton of midwit baffle garble.
Girls you venerated, like shining Angels in human form, suddenly becomes just base humans. Just like yourself.
Muscles, shining cars and Alpha braggery turns them on. Not your friendly overtures, professed honesty or tear soaked shoulder.
Even if realisation hits it might lead to a state of perpetual bitterness. Like someone lied to you all your life.
Rather than facing that you simply lied too or fooled yourself, you retreat to a position of offended victimhood. Some MGTOWs come to mind.
Either way, like Vox already written, most people are dead end stuck.