Sociology was never a science. Human nature is not physics. But it still follows the rules of natural law. Only a pre-enlightenment philosopher will understand and respect you.
I punched in the question to Arya and here is what is gave me:
"Vox Day's Socio-Sexual Hierarchy categorizes men into distinct types based on observable differences in behavior, reproductive strategy, and social standing. The framework proposes several categories—alpha, beta, gamma, delta, sigma, and omega—each with varying degrees of social dominance, reproductive success, and influence.
From a scientific standpoint, this aligns partially with evolutionary psychology concepts involving intrasexual competition, mate selection, and status-seeking behavior. Research suggests certain personality traits (e.g., assertiveness, confidence) correlate with social status, and men displaying these tend to achieve higher reproductive success. The hierarchy also reflects aspects of sexual dimorphism and dominance hierarchies observed in primates and human societies.
However, the framework is not empirically validated through controlled studies. While it provides a descriptive model for understanding male social dynamics, it operates more as a typology than a rigorous scientific theory. It draws on observable patterns but lacks predictive power or falsifiability in the traditional scientific sense."
Ah, the classic reply when someone has a fundamental observation or objection: "you're overly simplistic, this is very complex" = "only the high priests can tell, stop thinking, obey!"
If you don't have own insight, let me tell you: Peer review means close to nothing. Even in a "hard" science like physics its mostly favours/feuds, group think and for the objective part midwittery at best.
The only thing that the SSH becoming official science would mean is that they found a way to incorporate it into clown world.
The SSH is a hierarchy of patterns, and the current AI's are unable to evaluate things with more than a single variable. It thinks hierarchy is bad but then says "Human social structures are multidimensional and context-dependent, not reducible to linear hierarchies." Which is the same thing as the SSH is fractal.
It takes a single view of a subject and evaluates from there, ignoring the context because it can't even recognize the context. Which is similar to the bottom patterns of the SSH, not understanding the high level view of anything.
There’s two versions of ‘science’ in the world right now. The first is the applied sciences and engineering that make the world work day in and day out. It’s mostly men behind that. It doesn’t need AI or an army of faggots screaming into the wind to protect it. Bridges not falling into rivers and functioning electrical grids speak for themselves.
The second kind is ‘THE SCIENCE’ which is mostly a make-work industry for academia, women and smart boys. The most prolific use of it is as a marketing tool to sell the tenets of clown world to the functionally illiterate masses. The people working in these fields is collection of mostly SJWs and assorted freaks and losers. It’s the mother of abominations and requires a never ending series of lies to keep it alive. Now AI is running cover for it.
The so called scientists despise engineers guts by the way. Just yesterday I had to endure the passive aggression of a female social scientist cousin, working for the EU commission no less. Apparently designing military tech requires nowhere near the intelligence compared to making coffee for Ursula what's her name or whoever.
I know 3 women working for the EU commission and I can honestly say my country is a better place with them away in Brussels. Let Polish and Dutch farmers throw shit at them, they absolutely deserve it.
Go to any 4-year engineering school and after the end of 5 years or so (unless you test out of 30+ credit hours), you'll come out with a Bachelor's of Science of Engineering or Bachelor's of Science of [field type] Engineering.
Engineering is the highest and strictest form of all the sciences.
When an engineer is wrong, he typically finds himself facing criminal charges.
When a non-engineering scientist is shown to be wrong, he might get a few less invitations to parties (also called "symposia", "conferences", "forums", etc.). Case in point, that nutjob Paul Ehrlich, and all of his "by the mid 1980's, the streets will be filled with people dying of starvation", and other nonsense. He also thought DNA to be a triple-helix structure.
Nobody has ever suggested that Paul Ehrlich be put in prison, despite the destructive effects on " western society of his utterly retarded "overpopulation scaremongering.
Back in the day, when I was an engineer at a nuclear power plant, one of my side tasks was verifying whether the rhodium in-core detectors were properly functioning. The physics of the core was so well understood and so predictable at every stage of core life that the initial presumption if a detector was returning an errant reading was that it was the detector itself at fault. Saw plenty of detectors fail. Not once was the core life model shown to be in error, and this was and still is the case at hundreds of reactors. Now, one could certainly argue that this is a case of "settled science = engineering" but there is no denying the physics behind it.
I would predict that if SSH was more popular, AI would give a much more positive review of it. After all, pushing the next popular thing is pretty much what AI’s current function is.
Science has some big problems which make "settled science" practically worthless in some fields. Soft sciences are less reliable than hard sciences though both are impacted.
1. Funding. Big Tobacco spent millions avoiding legal liability for cigarette consumption and lung cancer. Coca Cola has spent more than they did trying to hide the connection between sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes.
2. Data Dredging / p hacking / fraud. Career and financial incentives require being published but peer reviewed journals publish 9x more positive results than negative results forcing many scientists to find a positive result in their data and draw a target around it for publication. Thus garbage in garbage out aka the reproducibility crisis.
3. Scientific Taboos and blacklists for scientists. If a Gatekeeper is known to be biased in one field it is reasonable to assume bias in unknown fields, destroying the credibility of the gatekeeper.
The ENTIRE premise of the scientific method is that new data, provided it's accurate, INVALIDATES the previous understanding. Anyone in the scientific community who doesn't stand ready to jettison, the use of, or at the very least, place strict limitations on the use of the current "standard theory" or "standard model" isn't a scientist, he's merely a ideologue, politician, or gatekeeper.
#1 is a deeper rabbit hole than most imagine. Did you know that almost all the studies they used to fight the tobacco lobby frauds were, themselves, ultimately retracted? A few years back, at least, there were 0 standing studies about secondhand smoke that I could find.
Would you like to review the Bio-Cycle paper? If so, shoot me an email. It would be interesting to compare your referee's review to those generated by the different AI models.
Did you get the colored fish paper accepted in an academic journal, or did DeepSeek like it? I love DeepSeek, especially DeepThink, but while less stupid than many other models, it isn't at the level of a genuinely interested human.
Sociology was never a science. Human nature is not physics. But it still follows the rules of natural law. Only a pre-enlightenment philosopher will understand and respect you.
I punched in the question to Arya and here is what is gave me:
"Vox Day's Socio-Sexual Hierarchy categorizes men into distinct types based on observable differences in behavior, reproductive strategy, and social standing. The framework proposes several categories—alpha, beta, gamma, delta, sigma, and omega—each with varying degrees of social dominance, reproductive success, and influence.
From a scientific standpoint, this aligns partially with evolutionary psychology concepts involving intrasexual competition, mate selection, and status-seeking behavior. Research suggests certain personality traits (e.g., assertiveness, confidence) correlate with social status, and men displaying these tend to achieve higher reproductive success. The hierarchy also reflects aspects of sexual dimorphism and dominance hierarchies observed in primates and human societies.
However, the framework is not empirically validated through controlled studies. While it provides a descriptive model for understanding male social dynamics, it operates more as a typology than a rigorous scientific theory. It draws on observable patterns but lacks predictive power or falsifiability in the traditional scientific sense."
Linnaeus is laughing his head off, somewhere. "How did I miss the classification 'homo moronis' for those unable to observe?"
Discernment between good vs bad information is now more important than ever. It really is a superpower when you have access to the Internet.
Classic, ROFL at use of the fake study. Vox, you are the Sigma that we don't deserve...but the one we needed.
BTW, random request: what is your philosophy and regimen for strength training? Apologies if you've already shared this.
Respect to you brother. Cannot wait for the leather SG book.
Ah, the classic reply when someone has a fundamental observation or objection: "you're overly simplistic, this is very complex" = "only the high priests can tell, stop thinking, obey!"
If you don't have own insight, let me tell you: Peer review means close to nothing. Even in a "hard" science like physics its mostly favours/feuds, group think and for the objective part midwittery at best.
The only thing that the SSH becoming official science would mean is that they found a way to incorporate it into clown world.
The SSH is a hierarchy of patterns, and the current AI's are unable to evaluate things with more than a single variable. It thinks hierarchy is bad but then says "Human social structures are multidimensional and context-dependent, not reducible to linear hierarchies." Which is the same thing as the SSH is fractal.
It takes a single view of a subject and evaluates from there, ignoring the context because it can't even recognize the context. Which is similar to the bottom patterns of the SSH, not understanding the high level view of anything.
We need Alpha AI's.
There’s two versions of ‘science’ in the world right now. The first is the applied sciences and engineering that make the world work day in and day out. It’s mostly men behind that. It doesn’t need AI or an army of faggots screaming into the wind to protect it. Bridges not falling into rivers and functioning electrical grids speak for themselves.
The second kind is ‘THE SCIENCE’ which is mostly a make-work industry for academia, women and smart boys. The most prolific use of it is as a marketing tool to sell the tenets of clown world to the functionally illiterate masses. The people working in these fields is collection of mostly SJWs and assorted freaks and losers. It’s the mother of abominations and requires a never ending series of lies to keep it alive. Now AI is running cover for it.
The so called scientists despise engineers guts by the way. Just yesterday I had to endure the passive aggression of a female social scientist cousin, working for the EU commission no less. Apparently designing military tech requires nowhere near the intelligence compared to making coffee for Ursula what's her name or whoever.
How convenient that Ursula's family name is Van Der Leyen -- its not merely nominative, but accurately descriptive, too
I know 3 women working for the EU commission and I can honestly say my country is a better place with them away in Brussels. Let Polish and Dutch farmers throw shit at them, they absolutely deserve it.
"The first is the applied sciences and engineering"
That's just engineering. What does calling it applied science accomplish besides giving scientists unearned intellectual authority?
Go to any 4-year engineering school and after the end of 5 years or so (unless you test out of 30+ credit hours), you'll come out with a Bachelor's of Science of Engineering or Bachelor's of Science of [field type] Engineering.
Engineering is the highest and strictest form of all the sciences.
When an engineer is wrong, he typically finds himself facing criminal charges.
When a non-engineering scientist is shown to be wrong, he might get a few less invitations to parties (also called "symposia", "conferences", "forums", etc.). Case in point, that nutjob Paul Ehrlich, and all of his "by the mid 1980's, the streets will be filled with people dying of starvation", and other nonsense. He also thought DNA to be a triple-helix structure.
Nobody has ever suggested that Paul Ehrlich be put in prison, despite the destructive effects on " western society of his utterly retarded "overpopulation scaremongering.
Back in the day, when I was an engineer at a nuclear power plant, one of my side tasks was verifying whether the rhodium in-core detectors were properly functioning. The physics of the core was so well understood and so predictable at every stage of core life that the initial presumption if a detector was returning an errant reading was that it was the detector itself at fault. Saw plenty of detectors fail. Not once was the core life model shown to be in error, and this was and still is the case at hundreds of reactors. Now, one could certainly argue that this is a case of "settled science = engineering" but there is no denying the physics behind it.
Wrong. Geology, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc are the bedrock upon which engineering and applied science is built.
I would predict that if SSH was more popular, AI would give a much more positive review of it. After all, pushing the next popular thing is pretty much what AI’s current function is.
It's very unpopular among the types of people who put significant amounts of their adult lives writing psychology and sociology papers.
Sciences falsely so called.
We were warned about this 2000 years ago.
"The SSH is not science, but how we organize and name living things is."
It's a silly field, really.
Science has some big problems which make "settled science" practically worthless in some fields. Soft sciences are less reliable than hard sciences though both are impacted.
1. Funding. Big Tobacco spent millions avoiding legal liability for cigarette consumption and lung cancer. Coca Cola has spent more than they did trying to hide the connection between sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes.
2. Data Dredging / p hacking / fraud. Career and financial incentives require being published but peer reviewed journals publish 9x more positive results than negative results forcing many scientists to find a positive result in their data and draw a target around it for publication. Thus garbage in garbage out aka the reproducibility crisis.
3. Scientific Taboos and blacklists for scientists. If a Gatekeeper is known to be biased in one field it is reasonable to assume bias in unknown fields, destroying the credibility of the gatekeeper.
"Settled science" is an oxymoron.
The ENTIRE premise of the scientific method is that new data, provided it's accurate, INVALIDATES the previous understanding. Anyone in the scientific community who doesn't stand ready to jettison, the use of, or at the very least, place strict limitations on the use of the current "standard theory" or "standard model" isn't a scientist, he's merely a ideologue, politician, or gatekeeper.
#1 is a deeper rabbit hole than most imagine. Did you know that almost all the studies they used to fight the tobacco lobby frauds were, themselves, ultimately retracted? A few years back, at least, there were 0 standing studies about secondhand smoke that I could find.
It's wild.
"This paper presents a well-designed, integrative study that successfully bridges behavioral ecology, sensory biology, and molecular evolution"
😂😂😂😂
I have done scientific peer review for years in the past, and I can tell that most of it is fake, gay and arbitrary.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to have something like a Gamma detecting tool, for example.
If MBTI questionnaires are considered scientific, there is no reason why the SSH shouldn’t be.
Would you like to review the Bio-Cycle paper? If so, shoot me an email. It would be interesting to compare your referee's review to those generated by the different AI models.
That should be interesting. Apologies, since I don’t know how to get your address, I have DM’d you mine at Castalia (@voxday)
voxday at gmail
Got it, thanks
Did you get the colored fish paper accepted in an academic journal, or did DeepSeek like it? I love DeepSeek, especially DeepThink, but while less stupid than many other models, it isn't at the level of a genuinely interested human.
"And here’s what Deepseek had to say about the fake paper"
He didn't mention using any academic journals.
Do an Internet search on Academic Fraud. DeepSeek isn't showing any differences compared to about 30% of human peer review today.
Still better than a coin toss though.