I have a casual interest in religious conversion as an empirical psychological phenomenon. The philosopher William James makes the case for studying religious experience empirically in one of his books published over a century ago—The Varieties of Religious Experience—so the idea has circulated for quite a while.
I think we might have an example of an internet figure undergoing an Augustinian sort of spiritual crisis documented online, namely the pickup artist Roosh Valizadeh. Roosh has posted and said lately that he doesn’t enjoy his sexual conquests as much as he used to. Just the other day he posted “Junk Food Sex,” where he recounts his reaction to one his Polish pickups:
Early in the summer I met a Polish girl on a weekend night. I convinced her to have a drink with me in a different bar and then two hours later I invited her back to my place. We had sex all night long. I had four orgasms with her, and each one felt immensely pleasurable, but the following day I had a weird feeling, almost as if I did something wrong. I ignored this feeling and contacted her again one week later. She returned to my apartment, and during the sex act I felt powerful bodily satisfaction. While I was laying my strokes inside her, I savored the fact that I could sleep with a girl 13 years younger than myself, but after my orgasm completed, and our bodies remained still, the same negative feeling came forth within me.
Now, this sounds familiar if you have read autobiographical accounts of religious conversions, like the ones quoted in James’s study. And especially if you have read Augustine’s Confessions, where Augustine after having several sexual relationships in his youth, famously prays, “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet,” because he feels the conflict between his waning sexual desires and his growing “spiritual” yearnings in his middle age.
If Roosh does “go Augustine” on us after his youth of debauchery, I will find that fascinating to observe.
Are there any indications that Roosh is interested in religion or high-end spirituality? If anything, I’d expect him to go not Augustine, but Ecclesiastes.
Roosh has posted essays about the classical literature he has read and thought about, which shows an openness to a philosophical view of life. That can overlap with spiritual thinking to some extent.
Roosh has posted and said lately that he doesn’t enjoy his sexual conquests as much as he used to
Yup, that’s pretty normal. People tend to pursue casual flings out of a desire for sheer novelty, and plenty of them start pursuing longer-term goals after that desire is fulfilled. This is one reason why the widespread fear that casual sex might “ruin” folks and deprive them of any enjoyment of long-term relationships is almost certainly misguided.
When our allegedly unenlightened ancestors shamed sluts, shunned bastard kids and married their daughters off as young virgins, it turns out that they knew their business after all.
BTW, I find it curious that at least some of us consider paleonutrition a guide towards a modern healthy diet, but then turn around and call paleocognition bad names like “cognitive biases.”
No, we have only some correlations where obvious third factors (e.g. IQ) are involved. If you want to take this approach, just being black strongly “damages … ability to form stable marriages”.
It seems that “correlation != causation” hasn’t been repeated enough X-/
P.S. Not to mention that “stable marriages” doesn’t look like a terminal goal to me. If that’s all you want, just forbid divorce.
No, we have only some correlations where obvious third factors (e.g. IQ) are involved. If you want to take this approach, just being black strongly “damages … ability to form stable marriages”.
There’s evidence for that as well, but notice that ~60 years ago blacks were much better at forming stable marriages than today.
If that’s all you want, just forbid divorce.
And it used to be forbidden, or at least much harder. Once widespread premarital sex started undermining marriage, pressure was exerted that made divorce no longer forbidden.
I’m a very big fan of freedom defined as “ability to make meaningful choices”.
Specifically with respect to divorce, I think that its absence makes for stable marriages where two people hate each other. Sometimes loudly and violently, sometimes subtly and poisonously.
I am also a big fan of NOT black-and-white worlds.
“Ultimately lead to less freedom”—how do you know that? Can you show me some probability distribution of outcomes? How certain are you of it? What is the probability that you are making a sign error?
What do you consider “normal”-IQ and “reasonably” financially successful? Yes, high IQ and wealth can mitigate the problems of growing up in a broken home. However, putting most below-average IQ people on welfare is no something that is compatible with maintaining a high-freedom state.
This slo-mo poking isn’t terribly exciting. Do you have a position you want to take, maybe quote some facts in its support? It’s not like this discussion will affect real-life policies, so can we at least make it a bit more interesting?
I have a casual interest in religious conversion as an empirical psychological phenomenon. The philosopher William James makes the case for studying religious experience empirically in one of his books published over a century ago—The Varieties of Religious Experience—so the idea has circulated for quite a while.
I think we might have an example of an internet figure undergoing an Augustinian sort of spiritual crisis documented online, namely the pickup artist Roosh Valizadeh. Roosh has posted and said lately that he doesn’t enjoy his sexual conquests as much as he used to. Just the other day he posted “Junk Food Sex,” where he recounts his reaction to one his Polish pickups:
http://www.rooshv.com/junk-food-sex
Now, this sounds familiar if you have read autobiographical accounts of religious conversions, like the ones quoted in James’s study. And especially if you have read Augustine’s Confessions, where Augustine after having several sexual relationships in his youth, famously prays, “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet,” because he feels the conflict between his waning sexual desires and his growing “spiritual” yearnings in his middle age.
If Roosh does “go Augustine” on us after his youth of debauchery, I will find that fascinating to observe.
Are there any indications that Roosh is interested in religion or high-end spirituality? If anything, I’d expect him to go not Augustine, but Ecclesiastes.
Roosh has posted essays about the classical literature he has read and thought about, which shows an openness to a philosophical view of life. That can overlap with spiritual thinking to some extent.
Reading books is a quite different activity than seeking spirtual experience.
Yup, that’s pretty normal. People tend to pursue casual flings out of a desire for sheer novelty, and plenty of them start pursuing longer-term goals after that desire is fulfilled. This is one reason why the widespread fear that casual sex might “ruin” folks and deprive them of any enjoyment of long-term relationships is almost certainly misguided.
Actually we have empirical evidence that women’s premarital sexual adventures damage their ability to form stable marriages:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html
When our allegedly unenlightened ancestors shamed sluts, shunned bastard kids and married their daughters off as young virgins, it turns out that they knew their business after all.
BTW, I find it curious that at least some of us consider paleonutrition a guide towards a modern healthy diet, but then turn around and call paleocognition bad names like “cognitive biases.”
No, we have only some correlations where obvious third factors (e.g. IQ) are involved. If you want to take this approach, just being black strongly “damages … ability to form stable marriages”.
It seems that “correlation != causation” hasn’t been repeated enough X-/
P.S. Not to mention that “stable marriages” doesn’t look like a terminal goal to me. If that’s all you want, just forbid divorce.
There’s evidence for that as well, but notice that ~60 years ago blacks were much better at forming stable marriages than today.
And it used to be forbidden, or at least much harder. Once widespread premarital sex started undermining marriage, pressure was exerted that made divorce no longer forbidden.
Yep. I have no wish to go back to those times.
Any particular reason? General belief that all change is progress and hence good? A dislike of stable marriages?
I’m a very big fan of freedom defined as “ability to make meaningful choices”.
Specifically with respect to divorce, I think that its absence makes for stable marriages where two people hate each other. Sometimes loudly and violently, sometimes subtly and poisonously.
Even if those choices ultimately lead to less freedom as society is forced to deal with the resulting mess?
I am also a big fan of NOT black-and-white worlds.
“Ultimately lead to less freedom”—how do you know that? Can you show me some probability distribution of outcomes? How certain are you of it? What is the probability that you are making a sign error?
At the moment all I see is mood affiliation.
Broken homes means the government winds up having to resolve issues that should have been dealt with in-family, e.g., now the government must decide a lot more child custody disputes. Not to mention that children growing up in broken homes are likely to wind up on welfare and other government assistance.
I am entirely unconvinced.
Is that true for normal-IQ reasonably financially successful (former) families? I don’t think so.
What do you consider “normal”-IQ and “reasonably” financially successful? Yes, high IQ and wealth can mitigate the problems of growing up in a broken home. However, putting most below-average IQ people on welfare is no something that is compatible with maintaining a high-freedom state.
This slo-mo poking isn’t terribly exciting. Do you have a position you want to take, maybe quote some facts in its support? It’s not like this discussion will affect real-life policies, so can we at least make it a bit more interesting?
“were doing something that, according to some evidence, has one positive consequence” is not the same as “knew their business”.