This advice is already paying dividends. It is harder than I thought it would be to stick to it, but it is by far the easiest way I know of to walk away from the gamma mindset.
Sadly this speech pattern has some limits for the younger generations as young men raised by single mothers will often display this same problem. They tend to either be quite and not say anything or follow the female patterns.
Fortunately the non-gamma minded will change their speech patterns as they are around other men, even if those other men had the same problem. At least that has been my observation.
I'm a traditional man who talks too much. LOL. But, I also find many men flat out boring and dull to talk to. Like, often, dumb.
But, I can barely understand my wife of 35 years at times as she wanders, stops to explain what I didn't know we were talking about, tells me of a boo boo, then takes her tale up again.
I have A FEW of the traits but when talking to men we always do fine and understand each other.
You need a translator for my wife and her sisters and mom.
Not so funny observation: if you were versed in forensic linguistics in the early 90s, it became more difficult to determine if unattributed text was from a man or a woman as we marched toward the height of feminism.
Over the last 10 or so years I've learned to talk less and less. Especially with females, as they will typically take up any empty space in a conversation. It's like the audible version of the wall of text.
A certain emotional incontinence is associated with gammas in particular. This comes through in written contexts in several of the ways you list, most prominently by changing the subject of an exchange to try and score points when the original point has been lost. One which you haven't listed is outright denial that something was said. This is particularly telling in written exchanges where the evidence it was said is literally there in black and white. Often followed by continued ludicrous denials when that fact is pointed out.
Other tells of note not listed are (for men): (1) Use of teen girlisms like 'lol', 'obvs' (=obvious) etc (2) Use of cliched, overused expressions or insults (eg 'dumbass') as if they were devastating ripostes. Use of these imply a conformist, feminine mindset incapable of originality, and a sure sign there is a gamma on the other keyboard
Would the whole "oblique reference to some thing the person they're talking to almost certainly has never heard of" thing fall under an attempt to redirect the conversation towards oneself? Far too often you see gamma sorts say "this is like what Goku did to Frieza in the Ultra Shin Mega Death Lord Arc of Dragon Ball Z!". It comes off as them really hoping you'll engage in a lovely, fruitful discussion over something you have absolutely no interest in and that is of no relevance to the initial topic.
"At the time I refer to I was a nineteen-year-old lieutenant in command of a platoon, and my part of the line was easily recognizable from the English side by a row of tall shell-stripped trees that rose from the ruins of Monchy."
That is the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the author's preface to the English edition of "Storm of Steel". He goes on in similar fashion, with long sentences, multiple neo-parentheticals and clarifications, self-references, multiple levels of detail, and tangents.
Does Ernst Junger write like a girl?
Here is Oliver Cromwell from his speech to the Little Parliament on July 14, 1653.
"If I should look much backward, we might remind you of the state of affairs as they were before the Short, that is the last, Parliament,-in what posture the things of this Nation then stood: but they do so well, I presume, occur to all your memories and knowledge, that I shall not need to look so far backward. Nor yet to those hostile occasions which arose between the King that was and the Parliament that then followed. And indeed should I begin much later, the things that would fall very necessarily before you, would rather be for a History than for a verbal Discourse at this present. "
Is Cromwell low status?
Someone intellectually dishonest could perhaps engage in the kind of aggravatingly heavy-handed pilpul which asserts that because Junger and Cromwell aren't low status girlie men (true), therefore their language isn't low status girlie language (true), and thus it follows that their parentheticals, clarifications, logically-unnecessary explanations, tangents, self-references, and so on don't count.
What's actually going on here is that men of a certain character and a certain age whose first language is English have convinced themselves that Hemingway was a good writer of manly disposition, and thus they consciously or unconsciously have modeled their idealized version of male speech on Hemingway's writing. In fact Hemingway was a poor writer of unmanly disposition who happened to write about manly things from a purely secular perspective and thus was able to publish as a part of Max Perkins' stable of anti-American drunks who scrupulously kept religion out of their fiction.
It is true that there are feminine- and masculine-textured forms of speech and writing, and the passages you quote above are exemplary. However, what makes writing masculine or feminine is not something that can be reduced to a list of bullet points.
This is, besides its obvious gynocentrism, perhaps the fundamental problem with the SSH. A hierarchy is an ordered system; what makes a hierarchy is not. Your addiction to thinking in terms of a system architecture is why you typically make cogent observations but end up being wrong. Since you clearly don't take your own advice, this doesn't appear to have had a negative outcome for you, but you end up giving other men who look up to you very poor advice. The way that a man helps other men to "man up" is to provide an example, not recipe.
The statement "Female status in the social and romantic domains isn't consistent" and the assertion that male status, is, is obviously backwards. In fact real male hierarchies, not ones made up on the Internet, are always situational, based on demonstrated competence at a specific task. To use an example from my own life, since I need to make this about myself in order to check all of the weak, girlie-man bullet points up above, I have a friend about 20 years younger than I who is a very good fly fisherman. When he comes over to our place, he defers to me and asks for my advice about his career, finances, and his relationship with his girlfriend, because in the hierarchy of life experience I have already made all of the mistakes he is going to. When we go out to the river, he is clearly in charge, because in the hierarchy of catching salmon I am a greenhorn and he is an expert.
Nobody seriously respects and follows another man because of his success with the ladies. Plenty of leaders of men have been considered unattractive and effeminate. For example, Francisco Franco was short, socially awkward, and considered to be an effeminate mama's boy by his fellow officers. He fathered only one child. He was also highly respected by the other officers and his men, because they pretty much all considered him a military genius.
In contrast, a woman's position in the social hierarchy does match with her ability to attract a capable man. I was going to explain further but my daughter wants me to read her a book. I do want to state, because it's come to my attention that some bloggers don't understand this, that I have absolutely no interest in starting a conversation. I do not mean to assert that I am more intelligent or more successful than you. My purpose in writing this comment is simply to correct an egregious error in your thinking, which is intelligent but wrong. I will never read these comments again, I have no interest in your reply or explanation, and if you reject my charitable criticism, I don't care. I do think that you are intelligent and observant and, most important, honest, which is why I am taking the time to point out that you are wrong, and why you are wrong. I think that if you stop putting every thought into ordered boxes and simply use your honest intelligence to observe and comment on reality, you will be a more effective public intellectual.
"In fact real male hierarchies, not ones made up on the Internet, are always situational, based on demonstrated competence at a specific task"
Irrelevant. Innate SSH becomes more obvious in a situation where both are about equally knowledgeable or care equally. Who dominates then?
"For example, Francisco Franco was short, socially awkward, and considered to be an effeminate mama's boy by his fellow officers. ... He was also highly respected by the other officers and his men, because they pretty much all considered him a military genius."
Again, irrelevant. He was recognized as a military genius, sure. But that is independent of how he'd be regarded by people who didn't know this about him, since any SSH rank could be a military genius. In addition, he was a religious Catholic, which would put severe limits on any dalliances with women, especially married or divorced ones.
The Valley Girl version, especially from men, is egregious.
Thinking about this some more: Simply ending both sentences with the upward pitch that normally accompanies a question, especially if exaggerated, is an appeasement behavior. Even when the individual is experiencing a verbal attack, it's counterproductive at best; dysfunctional at worse. For those who've trained rescue dog; they'll recognize it in the bitch who rolls over and widdles at every little thing.
For women a better response is the boring meander, in sincere and pleasant tones. It doesn't win any arguments, but it does drive the would-be bully away. I wonder if low-status men can use this? I suspect not.
Sperg-mode with a flat, pleasant aspect, sticking only to the facts at hand, at a slightly lower voice register than usual, is also a way to frustrate verbal attacks might work.
I love the guy, but you just described the Jordan Peterson Podcast
The final boss of the female mode of communications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOjKRtZL5Y8
You forgot the incredibly annoying "vocal fry" and "upspeak"
up-talking. definitely. definitively.
This advice is already paying dividends. It is harder than I thought it would be to stick to it, but it is by far the easiest way I know of to walk away from the gamma mindset.
Sadly this speech pattern has some limits for the younger generations as young men raised by single mothers will often display this same problem. They tend to either be quite and not say anything or follow the female patterns.
Fortunately the non-gamma minded will change their speech patterns as they are around other men, even if those other men had the same problem. At least that has been my observation.
I'm a traditional man who talks too much. LOL. But, I also find many men flat out boring and dull to talk to. Like, often, dumb.
But, I can barely understand my wife of 35 years at times as she wanders, stops to explain what I didn't know we were talking about, tells me of a boo boo, then takes her tale up again.
I have A FEW of the traits but when talking to men we always do fine and understand each other.
You need a translator for my wife and her sisters and mom.
Not so funny observation: if you were versed in forensic linguistics in the early 90s, it became more difficult to determine if unattributed text was from a man or a woman as we marched toward the height of feminism.
I take it back; that is funny.
Very True...notice in the 90s, the hip writing style was Buffy-speak.
Over the last 10 or so years I've learned to talk less and less. Especially with females, as they will typically take up any empty space in a conversation. It's like the audible version of the wall of text.
> Talking too much.
> Talking too fast.
> Going into multiple levels of detail
ADHD men have these 3 traits but not many of the others. Not feminine or low status. Still annoying.
I do these 3 but not the self reference or any others.
I think my brain is bored and running ahead and gets out of control.
A certain emotional incontinence is associated with gammas in particular. This comes through in written contexts in several of the ways you list, most prominently by changing the subject of an exchange to try and score points when the original point has been lost. One which you haven't listed is outright denial that something was said. This is particularly telling in written exchanges where the evidence it was said is literally there in black and white. Often followed by continued ludicrous denials when that fact is pointed out.
Other tells of note not listed are (for men): (1) Use of teen girlisms like 'lol', 'obvs' (=obvious) etc (2) Use of cliched, overused expressions or insults (eg 'dumbass') as if they were devastating ripostes. Use of these imply a conformist, feminine mindset incapable of originality, and a sure sign there is a gamma on the other keyboard
Would the whole "oblique reference to some thing the person they're talking to almost certainly has never heard of" thing fall under an attempt to redirect the conversation towards oneself? Far too often you see gamma sorts say "this is like what Goku did to Frieza in the Ultra Shin Mega Death Lord Arc of Dragon Ball Z!". It comes off as them really hoping you'll engage in a lovely, fruitful discussion over something you have absolutely no interest in and that is of no relevance to the initial topic.
"At the time I refer to I was a nineteen-year-old lieutenant in command of a platoon, and my part of the line was easily recognizable from the English side by a row of tall shell-stripped trees that rose from the ruins of Monchy."
That is the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the author's preface to the English edition of "Storm of Steel". He goes on in similar fashion, with long sentences, multiple neo-parentheticals and clarifications, self-references, multiple levels of detail, and tangents.
Does Ernst Junger write like a girl?
Here is Oliver Cromwell from his speech to the Little Parliament on July 14, 1653.
"If I should look much backward, we might remind you of the state of affairs as they were before the Short, that is the last, Parliament,-in what posture the things of this Nation then stood: but they do so well, I presume, occur to all your memories and knowledge, that I shall not need to look so far backward. Nor yet to those hostile occasions which arose between the King that was and the Parliament that then followed. And indeed should I begin much later, the things that would fall very necessarily before you, would rather be for a History than for a verbal Discourse at this present. "
Is Cromwell low status?
Someone intellectually dishonest could perhaps engage in the kind of aggravatingly heavy-handed pilpul which asserts that because Junger and Cromwell aren't low status girlie men (true), therefore their language isn't low status girlie language (true), and thus it follows that their parentheticals, clarifications, logically-unnecessary explanations, tangents, self-references, and so on don't count.
What's actually going on here is that men of a certain character and a certain age whose first language is English have convinced themselves that Hemingway was a good writer of manly disposition, and thus they consciously or unconsciously have modeled their idealized version of male speech on Hemingway's writing. In fact Hemingway was a poor writer of unmanly disposition who happened to write about manly things from a purely secular perspective and thus was able to publish as a part of Max Perkins' stable of anti-American drunks who scrupulously kept religion out of their fiction.
It is true that there are feminine- and masculine-textured forms of speech and writing, and the passages you quote above are exemplary. However, what makes writing masculine or feminine is not something that can be reduced to a list of bullet points.
This is, besides its obvious gynocentrism, perhaps the fundamental problem with the SSH. A hierarchy is an ordered system; what makes a hierarchy is not. Your addiction to thinking in terms of a system architecture is why you typically make cogent observations but end up being wrong. Since you clearly don't take your own advice, this doesn't appear to have had a negative outcome for you, but you end up giving other men who look up to you very poor advice. The way that a man helps other men to "man up" is to provide an example, not recipe.
The statement "Female status in the social and romantic domains isn't consistent" and the assertion that male status, is, is obviously backwards. In fact real male hierarchies, not ones made up on the Internet, are always situational, based on demonstrated competence at a specific task. To use an example from my own life, since I need to make this about myself in order to check all of the weak, girlie-man bullet points up above, I have a friend about 20 years younger than I who is a very good fly fisherman. When he comes over to our place, he defers to me and asks for my advice about his career, finances, and his relationship with his girlfriend, because in the hierarchy of life experience I have already made all of the mistakes he is going to. When we go out to the river, he is clearly in charge, because in the hierarchy of catching salmon I am a greenhorn and he is an expert.
Nobody seriously respects and follows another man because of his success with the ladies. Plenty of leaders of men have been considered unattractive and effeminate. For example, Francisco Franco was short, socially awkward, and considered to be an effeminate mama's boy by his fellow officers. He fathered only one child. He was also highly respected by the other officers and his men, because they pretty much all considered him a military genius.
In contrast, a woman's position in the social hierarchy does match with her ability to attract a capable man. I was going to explain further but my daughter wants me to read her a book. I do want to state, because it's come to my attention that some bloggers don't understand this, that I have absolutely no interest in starting a conversation. I do not mean to assert that I am more intelligent or more successful than you. My purpose in writing this comment is simply to correct an egregious error in your thinking, which is intelligent but wrong. I will never read these comments again, I have no interest in your reply or explanation, and if you reject my charitable criticism, I don't care. I do think that you are intelligent and observant and, most important, honest, which is why I am taking the time to point out that you are wrong, and why you are wrong. I think that if you stop putting every thought into ordered boxes and simply use your honest intelligence to observe and comment on reality, you will be a more effective public intellectual.
I was convinced by the original article, but you have totally demolished it. Thankyou.
Secret Dark Lord has arrived!
Gammas really do hate the SSH. Which is why most of them will never improve themselves.
No one reads walls of text.
I think laptops cause walls of text vs phones.
I don't think it's boys vs girls, but thumbs vs all 10 fingers and nothing better to do.
"In fact real male hierarchies, not ones made up on the Internet, are always situational, based on demonstrated competence at a specific task"
Irrelevant. Innate SSH becomes more obvious in a situation where both are about equally knowledgeable or care equally. Who dominates then?
"For example, Francisco Franco was short, socially awkward, and considered to be an effeminate mama's boy by his fellow officers. ... He was also highly respected by the other officers and his men, because they pretty much all considered him a military genius."
Again, irrelevant. He was recognized as a military genius, sure. But that is independent of how he'd be regarded by people who didn't know this about him, since any SSH rank could be a military genius. In addition, he was a religious Catholic, which would put severe limits on any dalliances with women, especially married or divorced ones.
to paraphrease the Lord Protector: you have talked here long enough. Go.
I wonder if the number of children you have are a marker in any way of SSH or just general maturity of men and women.
Yes if man confirmed paternity.
I think you're right.
The use of upspeak.
Men say " Yes, No, Maybe".
Women say "why, why, why".
The uptalk, or higher pitched "asking a question" sound at the end of a sentence, that is not, in fact, a question is very female, and very lambda.
When they do this I want to punch a brick wall.
The Valley Girl version, especially from men, is egregious.
Thinking about this some more: Simply ending both sentences with the upward pitch that normally accompanies a question, especially if exaggerated, is an appeasement behavior. Even when the individual is experiencing a verbal attack, it's counterproductive at best; dysfunctional at worse. For those who've trained rescue dog; they'll recognize it in the bitch who rolls over and widdles at every little thing.
For women a better response is the boring meander, in sincere and pleasant tones. It doesn't win any arguments, but it does drive the would-be bully away. I wonder if low-status men can use this? I suspect not.
Sperg-mode with a flat, pleasant aspect, sticking only to the facts at hand, at a slightly lower voice register than usual, is also a way to frustrate verbal attacks might work.
I use this mode (written) when being attacked in an email.