Whenever the phrase 'evolutionary psychology' is used in a blog post it makes me physically cringe.<p>One of the greatest problems in the social sciences is the apparent inability to distinguish between cultural influences and fundamental genetic influences. A whole host of so-called 'evolved behavior' is really little more than cultural norms that people have adopted and now view as natural and normal. Claims that these behaviors are genetically hardwired and subject to natural selection like other traits are largely unsupported. The whole field is highly questionable and has little real value or scientific rigor.
Fascinating. Obviously makes one self-conscious about posting on a public forum that tracks status with points.<p>I really like the idea that the point here is not happiness, but to try and minimize the damage to others from our own narcissistic tendencies.<p>I will just add that the opposites of envy and resentment are admiration and gratitude. I believe cultivating the mindset of admiration and gratitude is healthy response to these dark tendencies.
<i>>"A common belief is that people turn to porn because they can’t find sex or intimacy in real life. Teach turns this logic on its head: people don’t want sex or intimacy in real life. Thus, porn."</i><p>The article dedicates a large chunk to consumption of porn or practice of certain kinks as an example of that theory, but there's not a mention of a very obvious fact, namely that plenty of couples do those same things including together, and they don't fall into either category presented in that quote.<p>The entire argument looks at behavior through the lens of people who, by definition, already have reasons to be very envious which is tautological. Honestly it just sounds like one more book in the "angsty man self help" genre.<p>edit: just saw the top comment under the post after writing this one and couldn't agree more:<p><i>"People protect themselves with the smokescreen of "everybody" or "people". Every claim Ed Teach makes in his book about his fellow human beings is actually a revelation of who he is, not of who everybody else is. And as for his claim that "No one ever asks, 'Am I the narcissist who's hurting my family?'" then he is either a liar or has had very limited social experience."</i>
What a strange, rambling, yet somehow-compelling read.<p>I can't say I got anything specific out of it, and maybe I'm just posting this so that others will waste the same 30 minutes of their lives that I, now, can never have back.<p>But I can't help feeling somehow like it was worth the time.
The parts about sex, envy, and denial read like incel philosophy, written from another perspective. I.e. “women aren’t sleeping with me, because they want to deny me the pleasure of sex.”<p>Overall the impression is that Teach sees everyone as being like the main character in <i>There in there Will be Blood</i>: <a href="https://youtu.be/cHuSRHxBgUg" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/cHuSRHxBgUg</a>
Such an unblinking read. My only fear is that we are more likely to think this is really about someone else, and not keep these insights only reserved as a tool for introspection.<p>Even if some hard parts take one by surprise or resonate, sure, reflect, and then I think it's impossible to both recognize those parts and then do anything like them again. That's what makes it amazing writing, when you can't unread it.<p>Edit (later): There is something about psychology that pathologizes everything equally. There came a point where I started looking at what he meant by deprivation, and he makes it into a negative-moralization of wanting to be desired. What makes his analysis so compelling is that it logically lands every single time and does it so satisfyingly because it is predicated on a single basic inconsistency, and <i>when your system is inconsistent you can prove anything in it.</i><p>Taking the basic human want to be desired by others, pathologizing it into a negative extreme, and then producing these parables that reduce to the characters not disproving the pathologized negative definition of their normal desire, is absolutely his hustle. Maybe I should thank him for letting me know that I was the sort of person he thought he could fool! Love the writing, but when the game rails seep through it feels a bit weird.<p>However, if it's true that economics is the dismal science, I have the impression that psychology is the cruel one.
I agree with the people in the comment section at that blog who say Last Psychiatrist seems mentally unwell.<p>He struck me as a Holden Caulfield type back when he was running the Last Psychiatrist blog. Everyone being a narcissist seemed the conclusion one draws based on their own issues.
One of Teach’s most interesting challenges to the reader:<p>Describe yourself: your traits, qualities, both good and bad.<p>Do not use the word ‘am.’<p>Practice this.
Just a great read. I'm commenting to bookmark the post and commentary for myself.<p>Reading the room, I think I'm in the minority of those who think the author ('the last psychiatrist') is spot on about the psychosis of people. Particularly about an internal ledger kept in one's heads of who has sacrificed more or less, and the internal indignation people have about how their ledger with their children, friends or lovers are unbalanced and must be "balanced" in a twisted and covert way. Like depriving others of love and invoking envy in strangers lol - very much like the ethos of 'true money' of the original Bitcoin Satoshi's vision of 2009 corrupted into the FOMO and ngmi/wgmi cult of altcoins and ponzi's of 2022. A ledger of dollars and cents is actually a ledger about our collective unconsciousness of fear and loathing of capitalism and technology in the 21st century!<p>I loved the bit about people's true intentions of posting things on social media - it is deprive others of joy by acknowledging "I was there at the destination, at the party, on the beach" and "you weren't"; and how it causes a mass silent hysteria where one narcissistic injury leads to another - like a daisy chain or turtles all the way down of deprivation. It is a simple laugh with social media flexing but it is actually tragic when I see that when people use this motivation to make decisions about their careers, relationships and life goals - to move away from freedom towards security disguised as freedom.<p>I loved the blog's author's posting about Tony Soprano's clip in Dr. Melfi's office, about how he is envious of the "happy wanderer" and wants to "choke him out for no reason at all". I sincerely believe this is the ultimate jealousy of jealous people and narcissists - not someone who is as stressed as they're tryin' to keep up the daisy chain of deprivations and envy, but someone who is happy for "no reason at all" - and invalidates completely the empty status game and false self they've cultivated over a course of a life.
Aside: Clausewitz's "On War" was mostly a collection of notes posthumously published, not by any means a finished product. [1]<p>For such, stick to Sun Tzu.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War</a>
This is an essay / review of a book by The Last Psychiatrist - I didn't know they published anything after the blog ended, but I've seen their blog posts here and elsewhere over the years.
Obligatory link to ACX review: <a href="https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-sadly-porn" rel="nofollow">https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-sadly-porn</a>
The vulnerable narcissist vs. the grandiose narcissist. That is, the Hollywood-archetypal "nerd vs. jock", though I have also met some grandiose nerds in my time in addition to the vulnerable stock.<p>On a different node, I also see that accusing someone of "narcissism" can itself be an expression of envy. If you succeed, you can debilitate someone else with doubt and guilt to prevent them from pursuing what they want.