When They Call It "Pseudoscience"

Keep in mind what they call "science"

As anyone who reads here regularly knows, the mainstream narrative is that the SSH is not a scientific model, and is therefore wrong. Consider, for example, the response from Deepseek when asked the following question:

How would you describe the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, as articulated by Vox Day, from a scientific perspective?

The so-called “Socio-Sexual Hierarchy” popularized by Vox Day (Theodore Beale) is not a scientific model but a pseudoscientific social classification system rooted in ideological assumptions rather than empirical research.

From a scientific perspective:

Lack of Empirical Foundation: The model lacks peer-reviewed research, valid operational definitions, replicable data, or testing through established social science methodologies.

Biological Determinism: It promotes an overly simplistic, deterministic view of human social behavior that contradicts contemporary understanding in evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology, which emphasize complexity, plasticity, and cultural influence.

Taxonomic Arbitrariness: Its categories (e.g., “Alpha,” “Beta,” “Sigma”) are subjective constructs without consistent correlates in human behavior research. Human social structures are multidimensional and context-dependent, not reducible to linear hierarchies.

Ideological Underpinnings: The framework emerges from a specific ideological worldview (often associated with the “manosphere” and anti-egalitarian beliefs) rather than disinterested inquiry.

Mainstream social science recognizes:

Human mating systems and social status are highly variable across cultures and historical periods.

Status is multidimensional (economic, social, reputational, etc.) and not solely determined by mating success.

Biological influences interact profoundly with cultural, economic, and individual factors in shaping social behavior.

Scientific models of human social behavior emphasize evidence-based approaches, recognize complexity, and avoid reductionist categorization. The “Socio-Sexual Hierarchy” does not meet these scientific standards.

Okay, so that’s pretty conclusive, right? Here’s the problem. I wrote a fake scientific paper about proving evolution by natural selection by dying 12 male fish different colors, then recording the preferences of the female fish to the various colors. It’s a very superficially convincing paper, filled with p-values and all sorts of scientific statistical jargon, except for the fact that it’s complete and utter nonsense from start to finish.

And here’s what Deepseek had to say about the fake paper:

Overall Assessment:
This paper presents a well-designed, integrative study that successfully bridges behavioral ecology, sensory biology, and molecular evolution. The authors provide compelling experimental evidence linking female mate preference to the spectral tuning of a visual pigment (SWS1 opsin) and support it with molecular evolutionary analyses. The topic is significant, the methodology is innovative, and the conclusions are largely well-supported. The study makes a notable contribution to the field by demonstrating a clear role for sexual selection in shaping sensory system evolution.

Overall Recommendation:
This is an excellent paper that makes a significant empirical and conceptual contribution. It is well-written, methodologically sound, and addresses an important evolutionary question with interdisciplinary rigor. The minor concerns do not undermine the main conclusions but would improve the manuscript if addressed.

Referee Score: 9 / 10
(Outstanding: Accept with minor revisions. The paper is of high quality, offers novel insights, and is suitable for publication after addressing the points above.)

This is why I wouldn’t take anything that any modern scientist says about what is, and what is not, science anymore. I’m not saying that the SSH is science, or even scientific, because it’s not. It’s merely an observable taxonomy from which various scientific hypotheses can be constructed. I just reject the false pretensions of professional science as any sort of reliable truth model or even as something that is able to provide an accurate reflection of reality.

And, obviously, if I had any desire to pass off the SSH as stellar, gold-standard science, approved by the mainstream and published in peer-review journals, I could very easily do so. Because I’ve done it with a fake paper about dyed fish.