Re:The toll of dating app burnout
by orangepurple on Thursday September 01, 2022 @12:47PM
(#32679148)
I stand corrected. However, the question "What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" has criteria WW outlines in "40 Differences in Treatment Between a Sub5, Normie & Chad." The theory isn't extremely rigorous and well defined.
The point isn't whether the criteria are knowable or not, the point is whether one is aligned with them, in terms of views/faiths/beliefs about how to live one's life. Better to think of it as a lens, perspective, frame, etc. which is neither true nor false, but instead accepted or rejected. In other words, it's a moral question.
> looksmaxx, moneymaxx, surgerymaxx
> daygame, nightgame, warm approach
The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in terms of truths/untruths, from which the knowledge presented in the chart arises.
The problem isn't that it's ideology; the NYT is equally ideological (ironically I had a far more visceral negative response to the angle of the OP article than to the above chart). The problem isn't even necessarily that it's TRP/manosphere ideology, but that it's treated unreflexively.
The question that immediately comes to mind is "why are the only categories 'sub5', 'normie', and 'chad'? What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" Same goes for the proposed actions: what worldview must I assume so that these action-words "make sense", are coherent?
I can't speak for everyone, but when I personally dig into these questions, the answers I arrive at don't align with the other ways I elect to live in the world. I'm not saying the chart is "wrong", but rather that it's not relevant, for me at least.