Monthly Archives: November 2017

PUA/Game: Life Is a Shit Test

You’ve seen one woman, you’ve seen them all. AWALT. No doubt that world over. Surely it’s in the chromosomes somewhere. Of course they are not all alike in all ways and many differ greatly, but if you have known enough females in life, you keep seeing the same patterns over and over. So in some ways, they are all the same. But so are us men.

Females make us insane, but I don’t think God screwed up when he made them.

Females are like a test. Think of them like high school, the SAT, getting through college, getting a Masters Degree, landing a good job, scoring some tough achievement in life.  That’s what a good woman is like. She’s a tough nut to crack, but it’s not supposed to be easy. You want universities to have hardass standards for advanced degrees, right? Well then you should want hot women to have hardass standards for us men. They pick the best and weed out the rest, just like with all the other examinations/degrees/shit tests/competitive clusterfucks in life. Life’s an odd’s game. Some win, some lose. Even in socialism or Communism, you never get rid of the competition. No matter how much you even everything else out, women will still winnow out the best men. There is no sexual socialism and there will never be any.

So life is an IQ test, but it is many other things too.

First, foremost, and forever:

Life is a shit test.

Once you get that, you’re redpilled for life no matter your economics or politics or anything.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman

PUA/Game: The Honeybees

I saw her a year later with some of her teenage girlfriends at carnival and I had to admit she was nice enough. We both sort of smoked a peace pipe. I went over to her booth and bought something from her. She was 17 years old, sitting at a desk with two of her friends at the carnival.  She saw me long before I saw her. Those eyes like daggers, but soft, more inquisitorial and penetrating than menacing. The love had still not faded. Perhaps it never would. I was 21, at the carnival with my friend MJ.

I went over She must have told her friends, “Hey I fucked that hot guy,” because as I left I saw three teenage girls heads all buzzing together making those honeybee sounds they do when they talk about boys, men and sex. I call them the honeybees. Bzzz bzzz bzzz. By the way, when you move on a girl and you see her and her friends to the honeybee maneuver, take note of that. Those heads buzzing together are saying, “Who was that hot guy?” If you dated a female and you see her later and her friends start doing the honeybee maneuver, take note of that too.

Those heads buzzing together are saying, “You messed with that hot guy?  What happened? Was he any good? Tell us all the gruesome details. And if the girl you interacted with looks proud even if you just dumped her ass, take note of that too. She’s saying, “Yeah he’s hot as Hell and we had a hot sexual time, but he’s as bastard and an asshole.” Maybe. She’s also sort of bragging about you. You tell if you look at her face. It has that proud look on it, see?

I have mostly seen the honeybees in girls and young women aged 17-20, but I assume you can see them at all ages, assuming the Woman hasn’t completely killed of the Girl yet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Girls, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

On the Seventh Day, God Created Redheads

Here. 

And on the seventh day, God created redheads. One of the things that the White nationalists are on about is this panic button issue, “Imagine a world with no gingers!” Gingers are what they call redheads in the UK. I will be dead in 20-30 years, and there will still be plenty of redheads around. And then there’s hair dye.

I remember in grade school, everyone hated redheads. It was “the ugly redhead,” boys and girls both. Not sure what happened in high school, but I think something changed.

My first redhead was a 16 year old girl. Her name was GR. God I hope she doesn’t read this. She was really in love with me, but I broke her heart in one of the worst moves of my life. But it had to be done. My heart wasn’t in it. I wasn’t attracted to her. I wasn’t into her. Being with her sexually was actually psychologically painful. My heart was driving my head and there was no resisting its orders. When in doubt, follow your heart. That’s called intuition. A life without intuition is a 180 IQ genius bumbling in the dark, feeling  his way along the edges of a cave without a flashlight, hoping he doesn’t fall into a lake. When you have logic but no intuition in life, like so many humans, you really are driving blind.

The heart knows things that the mind can never understand.

– Rene Descartes, famous philosopher.

Heard of him? He’s the guy who invented the phrase, “Don’t put Descartes before the horse.” Clever fellow.

Back to the girl. The 17 year old redhead.

Next time I saw her,  it was a year later, and I saw the Honeybees.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Babes, Photography, Women

PUA/Game: Freud’s Eternal Question: The Hamster Wheel, Strong Emotionality, Female Self-Delusion – Self-Annihilation Drive, and Feminism

If you start to figure out females, pat yourself on the back. You’re better than 75% of both men and women in that regard. Even Freud could not figure out these endlessly baffling, complex and mystifying creatures.

What does a woman want?

– Sigmund Freud, father of modern psychology.

And yes, the fact that females don’t even understand females is seriously pathetic. Misogynists take note. Here’s one more weapon for your arsenal!

But it’s probably not as bad. Most people are not as evil as their enemies say they are, and the MGTOW’s and redpillers overestimate their opponent, a natural human tendency. Remember the Missile Gap? Remember the SALT Talks? North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are current cases. It must be a natural human tendency:

  • Always grotesquely exaggerate the danger and evil of your opponent.

So the charge like so many misogynist beefs is probably false. Actually women probably really do understand women, if they have any sense anyway. No wait. Well, anyways. Moving right along.

Women probably understand women as they understand so many things, but women spend most of their lives blinding themselves to cruel reality because it doesn’t line up with their fairy tale dream of what life is. These self-delusions that women are constantly spinning as, frankly, a defense mechanism, are what is known as the hamster wheels.

So women are not really stupid. More that they are in general self-deluded. The delusions or hamster wheels were created typically by emotions, and women are extremely emotional. So the wild emotions are like your pet rat on the wheel. They’re the fuel that powers the hamstering.

The strong emotions created the delusions (as a defense mechanism) because the truth about life is so awful that many women find it horrific, and they just can’t handle it. Really none of us can handle life (men mostly just fake it), but men are much more like to say, “If life gives you a shit sandwich, eat it whole!” Women shrink back remarks like that, being the Tender Sex. And with their natural tendency towards depression and even annihilation, worldviews like that rapidly tumble them into depression that often becomes suicidal. Almost all women will become suicidal at some point in their lives. Suicidality is nearly a feature of the feminine. I have had enough girlfriends to where I almost wonder if it as an actual drive towards self-annihilation.

On the other hand, we males are born with a drive to annihilate others, so maybe the born suiciders level out the born homiciders and somehow harmony is created.

The takeaway point here is that all the female hamstering and self-delusion is a defense mechanism, probably against depression and suicide. One can hardly fault women for creating defense mechanisms against such things, and there’s an excellent argument that such defenses are necessary.

So they make up the fake reality and call it real. In general, most women cannot tease apart the fake reality from the real reality in all cases, but the best women can tease it apart in 80-90% of cases. These are the women you want in your lives. The more wild hamstering and self-bullshitting with no capacity for reflection at all, and the more problems you are going to have with that women, in my opinion. You will have problems with her if you choose to live in actual reality while she chooses her hamster world.

That’s a recipe for endless fights and outrages. She probably also thinks you are a scum or you’re evil. Women look at men who see life as it is and say, “Wow! Look at how that man thinks! He’s scum! He’s so evil!” This is because in our world people who do not buy the pretty lies about life (usually created by women) are regarded as evil. This is because in the reality of the Hamstering World, the way it is set up is that anyone who refuses to see the reality of Hamster World is simply evil. Hamster World is a nice place full of lots of pretty little lies. Anyone who refuses the reality of this beautiful world in favor of a worldview which is much more evil (even if it is grounded in reality) is seen as having an evil worldview.

People with evil worldviews are bad people. Assholes, bastards, pigs, wankers, creeps. We’ve all been called them all. Being called those names is the price you pay for being a man who sees the world as it is really is – a shitty, lousy, down and dirty rat race dog eat dog jungle full of dangerous apex predators of both sexes. Notice I said of both sexes. This is important. Women call us predators, but all humans are predators. More importantly, all men are predators due to their male imperative. However there is also a female imperative that makes women just as predatory as men. Both sexes are preying on each other. Our prey is our needs. This goes for both sexes. Dog eat dog, and eat or be eaten. I choose to eat, thank you very much.

We see Hamster World in women’s politics first and foremost, such as feminism. Feminism is simply the worldview of women, which is largely constructed of self-delusions created to make the world seem like it is the world women want to live in instead of being the pretty damn lousy world that women really do live in. This is why feminism is so nuts and irrational. It’s also why it is as devious and conspiratorial as the Protocols. Feminism is a philosophy with a based on massive self delusions about how the world works, so it literally cannot be rational, and the psychological drives pushing the Hamstering logic make it crafty, conniving, devious, deeply unfair, and somewhat wicked.

2 Comments

Filed under Depression, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Mood Disorders, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

There’s a Little Bit of Woman in Every Girl

And vice versa.

I get called pedophile all the time for saying this, but it’s just true. If stating facts makes me a pedophile, I guess I must be a pedophile then. Shrug. Really it’s not pedophilia. It just means you understand females pretty well. Notice I said females. Because when you say women, you miss part of the equation.

There’s a little bit of woman in every girl. And there’s a little bit of girl in every woman that’s still alive. The ones that killed their Girl are technically alive, but they’re as good as dead.

Until you can see the woman in the girl and the girl in the woman, you will never really understand females. The fact that so many women fly into wild outrages when I say this proves something that I have been saying for years now: Even women don’t understand women!

4 Comments

Filed under Girls, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Psychology, Women

A Hypothesis for the “Unifying Theory”

After I spent five decades or so on Earth, I started to notice a curious thing. Humans, life, nature, maybe everything, seems to strive towards balance. You get +2 on one side of the divide, and what to you do, some other process pops up to counter it with just about -2 on the other side of the divide. The greater the extremes, the  more radical measures are implemented to keep them in place. You get +200 on one side of the divide and at first, life is confused. It tries different ways to counteract it, -2, -25, -50, but none of this really works. Somehow life or the mind figures out that the only way to counteract a +200 is with a -200.

+2 + -2 = 0

+200 + -200 = 0

I kept seeing this over and over and it made me wonder.  What’s so great  about zero. We non-mathematicians in Late Capitalism regard zero with disdain. Why would anyone try for that. At worst it’s awful and at best it’s just middling to mediocre. You ever see someone jumping up and down yelling, “I’m a zero!” Of course not. So why the constant drive towards zero? I am thinking maybe the zero is an illusion. It’s not really zero. Maybe it’s stasis or harmony or peace and end to oppositions or something of that nature. The opposing forces have canceled each other out,  and now we can kick back and enjoy, or deal, or whatever.

This “strive towards balance” which I still do not understand, seems to be the goal of most human psychological mechanisms and interactions with other humans.  We’re all trying for the zero, the sweet spot. Not too much and not too little. Just right. Call it harmony. This drive in humans is so strong and seems to be so strongly reflected in actual natural processes themselves (the balance of nature) that one wonders if there is any universal drive or theory driving at least all living things: it is simply the drive for some sort of harmony or balance.

And this interminable and unstoppable and seemingly rooted in the universe incessant and insistent drive for harmony or balance may itself be the closest thing to what to the Holy Grail of the Physicists:

The Unifying Theory

I would add that this physicists’ holy grail, the  “unifying theory” is also what drives all religion, philosophy, and art. I once characterized the goals of all human scholarly and artistic endeavors in all of the sciences, social and physical and all of the arts, as:

The Search for the Perfect Relationship 

And I am thinking just now that the Search for the Perfect Relationship and the Unifying  Theory have some relationship to each other. Either they are the same thing or the one is the search for the other, or the quest is the goal and vice versa. A lot more thinking to do on that one.

Over and out. Over and over and out.

8 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Science

Game/PUA: Brains – IQ – Creativity – Artistry – Genius or the “Brains Coefficient” As an “Additive Factor” in Game

Sure, life is an IQ test. Linda Gottfredson has proved this many times. She even has some papers on this topic. It’s a well validated scientific hypothesis and passes the common sense smell test once you throw the PC room freshener out the window.

Yes, life is an IQ test, but IQ won’t get you laid.

Well, wait, it might. My IQ actually gets me laid or at least nowadays it does, and it has for some time now, but maybe only since I was ~40. It really picked up in my late 40’s. Older women actually get turned on by smart guys, assuming they have some other things going for them (see below).

I don’t want to credit IQ too much. In a nod to the social constructionist IQ haters, maybe it is “the brain that I have created via decades of hard work via the use of this IQ tool” that gets me laid. I’m also creative, and women love to fuck artists. And the best writers are artists, especially if you write in a literary, poetic or “beautiful” way. If she falls in love with your prose, she’s yours, for now anyway. She may acquire your bed and maybe even a ring later on.

  1. Romantic love makes women horny.
  2. Artists make women feel romantic.
  3. Feeling romantic causes love.
  4. Cycle back to step one.

You do the math. It’s not hard. A 5th grader could figure out a basic equation like that.

Actually I would say that while my brain does get me laid, it does so late in life. It did not so much earlier in life. Sure I was smart as Hell earlier in life, but I spent most of my life imitating a stoned out, half retarded surfer as that was what got you chicks on the beach. As a young man, I spent a lot of time pretending I was stupid. I remember a sibling even criticized me for that. I shrugged my shoulders. I was trying to get laid. I wasn’t trying to win the Nobel Prize. Priorities, men, priorities!

As you get older, you run into smart women (and even girls) who actually want to fuck your brain. She will be fucking your body of course like everyone does, but she’s really fucking your brain. I have actually had women tell me this. As in more than one. They actually said, “I want to fuck your brain.” And they didn’t even know each other. Maybe there’s something to Jung after all.

She may confuse your brain with your body if your Game is good enough. I have run into this lately and it is a form of false signaling where a hot brain is serving as a “falses marker” for a hot body, but like all spells and forms of magic, that can’t last. I’d give it 6 weeks – 3 months. I have been running into this lately with young women.

My brain + probably my Game somehow casts a spell on them to where they confuse a sexy brain with a sexy body. Alas, I no longer look sexy. I am being attacked by an advanced artillery weapon called Time. I swear it’s better than Saddam’s Supergun. The last few years they’re not even shooting shells anymore. They feel more like Scud missiles. Over the next couple of decades, I assume I will start getting hit by even more advanced weaponry, even tactical nukes. They shoot the damn nukes at you for ten years, and then it’s nuclear winter, and you drop. And they have the audacity to call that shit “golden years”! Golden years my ass!

I may still have some good looks. Women my age say I look fantastic. I have 45 years of Game under my belt, so that’s got to count for something. And lately I have been either acquiring or faking some minor fame and status. Power is a cruel joke. Money is an afterthought. But you don’t need them anyway. You don’t need all four factors below and Factors 1-4 tend to bleed together anyway in endless circling arguments and cycles like vines of ivy. At some point, it’s hard to tease them apart or even say what’s what. I would call all of 1-4 something like “Macro Status Factor.” Face it, all 1-4 bleeds into this beast called Status.

I would say that yes, brains can get you laid if they are combined with Looks and Game. Brains then would be an “additive factor.” And it would help if your brains tended more towards the creative side as opposed to some dry number cruncher because artistic genius makes women’s bellies tingle. Also the Brains would probably have to be combined with Looks + Game both. Either one alone won’t cut it. Looks + Brains doesn’t seem like it will cut it. Game + Brains doesn’t seem like it will do much good either. But I could be wrong. YMMV.

So Brains/Artistic Talent/Creative Genius alone? Not really.

But Brains/Artistic Talent/Creative Genius as additive factor? I would say so.

We know full well that you need:

  1. Money
  2. Fame
  3. Power
  4. Status
  5. Looks
  6. Game

to get women.

Barring the first four, you absolutely you need 5 and 6. Either 5 or 6 alone don’t really cut it. And if you obviously have only 5 and 6, any scrapings of 1-4 you can get are great. You can even fake it.

Additive factor(s):

  1. “Brains factor”

Into this brains factor goes the whole mess called IQ, your “created mind”, artistry, creativity, genius.

And speaking of things marrying into each other, this Brains Factor, if cultivated well enough, can indeed form a part of your Game in a sense.

3 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Intelligence, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Writing

PUA/Game: Fake, Transitory or “Synthetic” Alphas and Game Theory

There are a lot of guys around LA faking fame and status on Instagram right now. I don’t know what they do. Ride skateboards, play in bands, rap, who knows. But for money, they don’t do shit. None of them have a nickel. They just pretend they do. They have made a brand for themselves, but it’s fake. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes. There’s really nothing there. The brand is all illusion, farce, charade, even fraud in a sense. They are getting women like crazy. It’s all a big scam.

They aren’t really Alphas. Instead they are like creatures in the animal world who mock some marking for evolutionary benefit. The critter looks like poison or a branch or whatever. There are many snakes that have evolved to look very much like rattlesnakes. Sort of like wannabe gangbangers, these serpentine critters look just dangerous enough to keep a lot of predators at bay.

These guys on Instagram are doing something similar.

Imagine if animals had “Alpha” markings that attracted females. Maybe only 20% of the species really have the “Alpha” trait. But 50% of the species developed the “Alpha” markings. 40% of them are the real Alphas and the rest are Beta critters who put on Alpha wings to fake the females into mating with a fake Alpha.

Now I am not saying these Instagram guys are fake Alphas. They’re just guys running another form of Game at the end of the day. But their Game is not sustainable, so this makes me  doubt that they are natural Alphas. Once that fake fame fountain dries up, and it will, they will be left holding the bag.

There are Natural or Pure Alphas. And I am convinced that many more are the more “synthetic” varieties. Not that the difference matters a lot. At the end of the day, it’s how well you do that counts, not how you did it. You can’t compromise success.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships

The Case for Splitting off Multiple English Dialects as Separate Languages

Here (on Italian dialects – actually many of which are separate languages).

One can make an excellent case that AAVE (Ebonics), Bayou/Cajun English, Deep South English, Appalachian English, New York English, Newfoundland English, and of course Jamaican creole and Scots are separate languages. Even Scottish English and Geordie probably qualify.

A recent study found only 54% intelligibility for Standard English speakers of Geordie. The speakers were L2 English learners in the Czech Republic, but they scored 100% on the “home” test, which was a test of a US television English. Another study found 42% intelligibility of Scots for native speakers of US English. Having heard Hard Scots spoken by the Scottish underclass, I would say my intelligibility of it was ~5-10% at best or possibly even less. It was almost as bad as listening to something like Greek, and one got the feeling listening to it that you were actually listening to some foreign tongue like, say, Greek.

At any rate, 42% and 54% very well qualify both Scots and Geordie as separate languages. Scots is already split, and it sure would be nice to split Geordie, but to say people would get mad is an understatement.

Scots and Jamaican creole are already split off. There is a lie going around the intellectual circles that it is still controversial in Linguistics whether Scots and Jamaican Creole are separate languages. In fact it is not controversial at all.

I have been listening to English my whole life as an American, and I still cannot understand Bayou speech, hard Southern English, Newfoundland English or the hard forms of Appalachian English or New York English. There are some very weird forms of English spoken on the US Atlantic coastal islands that cannot be understood by anyone not from there, or at least not by me. Gulla English in South Carolina is already split as a creole.

Generally the criterion we use is mutual intelligibility. Also if you can’t pick it up pretty quickly, it’s a separate language.

A speaker of hard New York English came to my mother’s school a while back, and no one could understand him. They still could not understand him after three months of listening to him – this is how you know you are dealing with a separate language. He finally learned how to speak California English, and then he was understood.

I have been listening to hard British English my whole life, and I still cannot understand them. I even had a British girlfriend for 1.5 years, and I still could not understand her on the phone. She went to my parents house for dinner, stayed a couple of hours, and my brother said he didn’t understand a word she said.

You can make an excellent case that the harder forms of British English (or Australian English for that matter) are not the same language as US English. The problem is that if you tried to split them off, everyone would go insane (including a lot of very foolish linguists), and there would be a wild uproar.

Generally we use 90% as the split between language and dialect. Less that that, separate language. More than that, dialect. We use this criterion to split languages from dialects everywhere, yet if we tried to do it for English, the resulting firestorm would be so ferocious that it would not be worth it, but it would be perfectly valid scientifically. Even the very well-validated split of Scots has driven the English-speaking world half-nuts.

I actually have a post in my drafts where I split English into ~10-15 different languages, but I have been terrified to post it. My post splitting German into 137 different languages did not go over well with the Net linguists (who are mostly loudmouths, fools, cranks, and idiots), although a major Germanist, a professor at a big university in Europe wrote me when I was only at 90 languages and said, “I think you are right!” Still, if I try to split English, I may ignite one Hell of a damned firestorm, and I’m just too chicken.

4 Comments

Filed under Australia, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Britain, Canada, Caribbean, Dialectology, English language, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Jamaica, Language Families, Linguistics, North America, Northeast, Regional, Scots, Sociolinguistics, South, South Carolina, USA

Fake Controversies, Fake Settled Questions, and Ideological Authoritarianism in Modern Linguistics, with an Emphasis on Mutual Intelligibility and the Dialect/Language Question

There is a lie going around that the dialect/language question is controversial in Linguistics. It really isn’t. Most linguists have a pretty good idea of where to draw the line. If you don’t believe me, study the internals of the Summer Institute of Linguistics change request forms for languages. The field is a lot more uniform on this question than the cranks think. Hardly anyone thinks Valencian is a separate language. Romagnolo and Emilian were split with zero controversy. All it took was a few authoritative statements by the experts in these varieties to settle the question. There were 5-10 experts writing in on Valencian and they were all in agreement. In other words, the language dialect question is what is known as a fake controversy.

Really the only controversy about this question comes from nationalists and language activists.

Sadly, many linguists are nationalists, and their work has been poisoned by their ideology for a long time now. Some of the worst ones of all are in Europe. Linguistics in the Balkans and Poland has been badly damaged by nationalist linguists for a long time, with no sign of things getting better. Similar nonsense is going on in of all places ultra-PC Denmark and Sweden. Bornholmian and Southeast Jutnish should have been split from Danish long ago. In fact, Jutnish was split, but Danish nationalist linguists pathetically had it removed. The many langues d’oil have never been listed and probably never will be. No doubt this is due to the state of Linguistics in ultra-nationalistic France. There are easily 10-15+ langues d’oil that could be split off.

Greek linguist nationalists have raised their ugly heads over splits in Macro-Greek.

Bulgarian Linguistics is all nationalist and has been lost in retardation forever now. No, Macedonian is not a Bulgarian dialect.

There have been some ugly and ridiculous fights in the Baltics especially with Estonian and Latvian, neither of which is a single language. I doubt that Estonian and Latvian linguists are comporting themselves well here given the fanatical nationalism that overwhelms both lands.

There are easily 350-400 language inside of Sinitic or Chinese according to the estimate of the ultimate Sinologist Jerry Norman. The real figure is clearly closer to 1,000-2,000 separate languages. Chinese nationalism is mandatory for anyone doing Sinitic linguistics. No one wants to bring down the wrath of the Chinese government by pulling the curtain on their big lie that Chinese is one language. I am amazed that SIL even split Chinese into 14 languages without getting deluged with death threats.

Arabic is clearly more than one language, and SIL now has it split into 35 languages.  This is one odd case where they may have erred by splitting too much. That’s probably too many, but no one can even do any work in this area, since Arabists and especially Arabic speakers keep insisting, often violently, that Arabic is a single language. Never mind that they routinely can’t understand each other. We have Syrians and Yemenis at my local store and no, the Syrian Arabic speakers cannot understand hard Yemeni Arabic, sorry. Some of the Yemeni Arabic  speakers have even whispered conspiratorially in my ear when the others were not around that speakers of different Yemeni Arabic varieties often cannot even understand each other and that’s not even split by SIL. I have a feeling that the Arabic situation is more like Chinese than not.

A Swedish nationalist wiped out several well documented separate languages inside of Macro-Swedish simply by making a few dishonest change request forms. SIL pathetically fell for it.

Occitan language activists wiped out the very well-supported split of Occitan into six separate languages based on ideology. They are trying to resurrect Occitan, and they think this will only work if there is one Occitan language with many dialects under it. Splitting it up into six or more languages dooms the tongue. So this was a political argument masquerading as a linguistic one. SIL fell for it again. Pathetic.

No one has talked much about these matters in the field, but a man named Harold Hammerstrom has written some excellent notes about them. He also takes the language/dialect question very seriously and has proposed more scientific ways of doing the splitting.

SIL was recently granted the ability to give out new ISO codes for languages, and since then, SIL has become quite conservative, lumping varieties everywhere in sight. This is because lumping is always the easy way out, as conservatives love lumping in everything from Classification to Historical Linguistics, and the field has been taken over by radical conservatives for some time now. Splitters are kooks, clowns and laughing stocks. One gets the impression that SIL is terrified to split off new tongues for fear of bad PR.

As noted above, the language/dialect question is not as controversial in the field as Net linguist cranks would have you believe. SIL simply decides whatever they decide, and all the linguists just shrug their shoulders and go back to Optimality Theory, threatening to kill each other over Indo-European reconstructions, scribbling barely readable SJW sociolinguistic blather, or whatever it is they are crunching their brains about.

SIL grants an ISO code or refuses to grant one, and that’s that. No ISO code, no language. The main problem is that they refuse to split many valid languages mostly out of PC fear of causing a furor. Most of the opposition to splitting off new languages comes from linguistic hacks and cranks who exist for the most part on the Internet.

Most real linguists don’t seem to care very much. I know this because I talk to real linguists all the time. When it comes to the dialect/language split, most of them find it mildly intriguing, but hardly anyone is set off. You tell them that some dialect has now been split off as a separate language or two languages merged into one, and they just perk up their ears and say, “Oh, that’s interesting.” Sometimes they shrug their shoulders and say, “They (SIL) are saying this is a separate language now,” as if they really don’t care one way or another.

Linguists definitely get hot under the collar about some things, but not about the dialect/language question which is regarded more as a quizzical oddity. Most linguists furthermore care nothing at all about the mutual intelligibility debate, which at any rate was resolved long ago by SIL way back in the 1950’s. See the influential book by Cassad written way back then for the final word on the science of mutual intelligibility. Some enterprising linguists are finally starting to take mutual intelligibility seriously, but even they are being much too wishy-washy and unsciency about it. A lot of very silly statements  are made like “there is no good, hard scientific way to measure mutual intelligibility, so all figures are guesswork.”

There’s no need for these theoretical shields or hyper-hedging because no one cares. No one in the field other than a few nutcases and kooks  on the Internet even gives two damns about this question in the first place. The mutual intelligibility question is actually much less controversial in the field that the linguist kook loudmouths on the Net would have you believe.

We have more important things to fight about, like Everett’s resurrecting of the hated Sapir-Worf Hypothesis, Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (defended pathetically by the Old Guard and under attack by the Everett crowd who everyone hates), not to mention Altaic, Joseph Greenberg’s poor, regularly pummeled ghost, and mass comparison in general.

The field is full of many a silly and pretty lie. One for instance is that Linguistics rejected the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis long ago, and now it is regarded as a laughing stock. Actually that’s not true. Really a bunch of bullies got together and announced very arrogantly that Sapir-Whorf was crap, and then it become written in stone the way a lot of nonsense our field believes does.

If you back over the papers that “proved” this matter, it turns out that they never proved one anything thing. They just said that they proved Sapir-Whorf was nonsense, and everyone fell for it or just got in line like they were supposed to.

Not to mention that Linguistics is like an 8th Grade playground. Let’s put it this way. If you advocate for Sapir-Whorf in academia, I pray for your soul. You also damn well better have tenure. I don’t know how anyone advocates for Altaic these days. I would never advocate for Altaic or even any remotely controversial historical linguistics hypothesis without tenure. The field is out for blood, and they burn heretics at the stake all the time. We’ve probably incinerated more wrong thinkers than the Inquisition by now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Chinese language, Comparitive, Danish, Denmark, Dialectology, Europe, France, Germanic, Greece, Greek, Hellenic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Nationalism, Occitan, Poland, Political Science, Regional, Romance, Semitic, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Sweden