Okay I misconstrued your initial comment. You are actually describing the Big Man the way Nietzche described the ancient Greek scholar-warrior-king: I am truth. Fully integrated in himself, his community, and his place in the cosmos.
I would love to watch it for Forrest Whitaker, but I'd be too busy screaming advice at the TV to Garrigan like, don't go to Uganda. Actually, don't even go to Africa. And if you do, don't get involved with the personal household of a 6'4" illiterate dictator.
Miranda Devine recently interviewed Dr. Gad Saad on her podcast, "Pod Force One." It's well worth the time to give it a listen. As far as the Big Man's "female intuition," Saad talks about Trump's ability to quickly get a read on other leaders he meets and to intuit their strengths and weaknesses.
It's a helpful observation, I can totally see it in Trump. What about Musk, does he have it, or is his style masculine confidence and aggression plus the vision and charisma that inspires his teams without him making these clever personality judgements?
Musk seems more like an autist with especially bad judgement of women. It’s difficult to imagine him being as successful before the hyper-specialized 21st century.
Note that of all Trump’s countless interactions with women only one (Stormy Daniels) ever landed him in hot water.
Yes that sounds right, you also see it with his 'soft-porn' promotion for Grok image creation capabilities that Musk enjoyed so much. Someone with better relationships with real adult women would surely realise that this isn't the wisest way forward. Still, I love his work.
It's interesting to hear Bill Maher talk about his dinner with Trump last year - he clearly enjoyed his company and more than once I have heard him say that Trump is a good listener and has a sense of humor about himself, both traits that Maher clearly didn't expect. I sort of feel like his jabs at Trump are now more out of a sense of obligation to poke at the biggest target of them all rather than really heartfelt, which is really how all entertainers ought to treat public figures.
My dad had a friend in finance who dealt with Trump in the 80s and 90s and hated his guts as someone who would try to bully and weasel his way out of various commitments, which I can believe. On the other hand, he also had a reputation for being very kind to ordinary employees or working people. Seems like he still operates that way in regards to people he views as having power or something to extract versus people who are not really in the game.
I'm not convinced this is a "feminine" trait, and obviously not a uniquely feminine one. Authoritative men are often attributed with the ability to "read the room." Macho attorneys know when to zero in for the kill. Gamblers, dealmakers all pride themselves on their theory of mind and ability to intuit.
Supposedly intuitive women are also remarkably obtuse about people who are sirens-blaring, red-flag-waving trouble to their dads and brothers: predatory alpha males, death row inmates, deranged transgenders, for example. This is the case so often I'd actually describe the callow Nicholas Garrigan character as the one with the feminine trait, easily manipulated by the predatory, seductive Amin.
What distinguishes the Big Man from the plain ol’ Alpha Male is presumably his hyper-sensitivity to perceived slights and ability to emotionally manipulate underlings.
Agreed, but then the feminine traits are hyper-sensitivity and manipulativeness instead of the positively associated "intuition."
I can actually think of more examples of women being callow than women being intuitive. It's easy to imagine a fictional Garrigan's male relations telling him Amin looks every bit the pictorial encyclopedia entry for Murderous Dictator while the women assure him of how much good he can do as a missionary doctor.
Women aren't being obtuse about such men. They're playing "let's you and him fight." They're in effect manipulating men they suspect of being of weaker into conflicts with domineering men to test them.
Macho attorneys, dealmakers, and dictators may be masculine in many respects, but as Steve suggests, to the extent that they are exclusively focused on persuasion, manipulation, and winning zero-sum social status games at the expense of objective goals external to human emotions and minds, they are paradoxically highly feminine. Amin basically had no intention or understanding of properly governing a country according to objective measures or principles of good government. He was wired to exclusively focus on dominating any and every social situation.
Their objective goals are to win the trial, game or deal and crush your opponents, which seems a highly masculine trait. Again, the stated premise is they have "female" intuition, but that's not really holding up so what I'm reading is yhey have female manipulativeness.
"Winning" or "crushing your opponents" is the masculine part. The feminine aspect is the nature of the contests. The trials are won by manipulating juries, deals are won by pulling one over the counterparty, Amin dominates social interactions with bombast and charisma. The masculine version would be trial by combat, creating a better widget or more efficiently, Amin having to personally fight every man to hold his position, etc.
Men are going to be the top performers in any competitive endeavor. The masculine "winning" and "crushing your opponents" aspect that men monopolize plays a role even in games that prioritize intuition and social skills.
Also of course, gambling, trial practice, real estate development, etc. aren't exclusively or necessarily "feminine" competitions. There are top gamblers who are purely objective numbers guys, top trial lawyers who succeed on the strength of their investigative and logic skills, real estate moguls that are hardnosed business numbers guys.
I'm actually puzzled. The headlines tell me Trump got some sort of deal worked out in Greenland but the articles don't have any specifics. Again, Trump the Manhattan property developer bullying and bluffing his way through multi-party deals seems a lot more explanatory than Trump the Ugandan military dictator, preying on his helpless supplicants like some Pharoah.
What is strikes me as feminine about "big man" Trump is not his intuition but his "taking everything personally" pettiness, his thin-skinnedness.
This just isn't how I think of actual alpha-maleness. I don't see George Washington feeling compelled to get into some tweet war with critical nobodies the way Trump does. Can't see Tom Brady feeling the need to snap back at some pipsqueak who thinks he's not the GOAT. Nor Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods. Same with captains of industry. Don't see Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Bezos or Elon or earlier, Carnegie or J.P. Morgan this thin skinned. Would Ceasar be firing off a tweet storm when some provincial yahoo was insufficiently pandering?
To me the key characteristic of maleness is *doing*. You are what you actually *do*. (I'm for instance a boring dad-provider type. I don't pretend to be a big swinging dick anything.) Men who have to make a lot of noise are kind of a joke. Real men just "walk the walk". At least for white men.
Real men's accomplishments speak for themselves, so they do not act like 16 year old mean girls constantly hen pecking to keep status.
I think you're right about Bill Gates or Bezos. Washington lived in a time too different from the present for a good comparison, but at least from what I've read, Jobs and Elon do seem to be more narcissistic, akin to Trump. Although obviously they have very different personalities and public images than The Donald.
"I don't see George Washington feeling compelled to get into some tweet war with critical nobodies the way Trump does. Can't see Tom Brady feeling the need to snap back at some pipsqueak who thinks he's not the GOAT. Nor Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods."
Michael Jordan brooded over the slightest diss and used it to motivate himself to titanic heights of competitiveness.
While the main character is largely fictional, he was based in part on Wilson Carswell whose son is Douglas Carswell the first UKIP MP in the UK and now runs the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
Brilliant teasing out that contradiction in Amin's psychology. The whole intuitive manipulation angle isn't gendered so much as it's about social dominance through reading micro-expressions, which is huge in zero-sum power struggles. I've seen corporate execs use similar tricks to climb without real competence beneath it, and this framing puts words to somthing I noticed but never categorized well. The weird part is how charisma can override obvious red flags
Dominic Cummings' concept of "chimp politics" comes to mind. Evaluating the demeanor and appearance of others has been evolutionarily significant for a longer time span than evaluating whether a technocratic proposal's details are actually sound and likely to succeed.
Haile Selassie's title was "By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings of Ethiopia, Lord of Lords, Elect of God." Must be a rule: the longer the title, the shittier the country.
I've long felt that, contrary to all the comparisons to Hitler and "fascism," what Trump resembles most is an African dictator -- specifically Jean-Bedel Bokassa of Central African Republic, who spent a sum equivalent to the country's entire GDP on a ceremony in which he was crowned Emperor of Africa, complete with gold throne, crown and 30-foot ermine cape made by Napoleon's tailors.
Specifically, the corruption -- the crypto shitcoins and shameless self-dealing -- is of a distinctly African character.
What this precedent portends for us as a country is not comforting.
I get the impression that all you voters ¹ "like" your guy (or in the case of the dems, sometimes, gal) because you hate your inagined enemies. You feel powerless so you hate, and you imagine that *your guy or gal* with fix your problems.
They never do but you never get the picture.
_______
¹ I'm proud to say that I only voted once and my reasons for doing so Are impervious to critique. Otherwise I am proud of never having voted.
Authority is “I decide what is true, right, or worth doing based on my own integrated judgment.” This requires intuition.
Then there are 8.5 billion authorities out there, which is impossible, so the contest for authority goes to who has the most kinetic firepower.
Exceptionally few people achieve internal authority.
Why would anybody else care about your "internal authority?"
For many reasons, but you're not likely to become "a Big Man" without it.
Okay I misconstrued your initial comment. You are actually describing the Big Man the way Nietzche described the ancient Greek scholar-warrior-king: I am truth. Fully integrated in himself, his community, and his place in the cosmos.
Yes.
Except no one can achieve significant firepower individually. Thus authority requires being able to convince others to lend you their firepower.
Yes and I misconstrued the first comment, supra.
Much as I admire Forrest Whitiker, I have not seen this film. Time to remedy that!
Me too!
I would love to watch it for Forrest Whitaker, but I'd be too busy screaming advice at the TV to Garrigan like, don't go to Uganda. Actually, don't even go to Africa. And if you do, don't get involved with the personal household of a 6'4" illiterate dictator.
Definitely worth a watch. Far better than the crap nowadays.
Miranda Devine recently interviewed Dr. Gad Saad on her podcast, "Pod Force One." It's well worth the time to give it a listen. As far as the Big Man's "female intuition," Saad talks about Trump's ability to quickly get a read on other leaders he meets and to intuit their strengths and weaknesses.
It's a helpful observation, I can totally see it in Trump. What about Musk, does he have it, or is his style masculine confidence and aggression plus the vision and charisma that inspires his teams without him making these clever personality judgements?
Musk seems more like an autist with especially bad judgement of women. It’s difficult to imagine him being as successful before the hyper-specialized 21st century.
Note that of all Trump’s countless interactions with women only one (Stormy Daniels) ever landed him in hot water.
Two ex-wives would disagree along with whoever else Trump paid off.
Yes that sounds right, you also see it with his 'soft-porn' promotion for Grok image creation capabilities that Musk enjoyed so much. Someone with better relationships with real adult women would surely realise that this isn't the wisest way forward. Still, I love his work.
Musk stuck it in crazy (Amber Heard). But at least he had the sense to get out fast.
It's interesting to hear Bill Maher talk about his dinner with Trump last year - he clearly enjoyed his company and more than once I have heard him say that Trump is a good listener and has a sense of humor about himself, both traits that Maher clearly didn't expect. I sort of feel like his jabs at Trump are now more out of a sense of obligation to poke at the biggest target of them all rather than really heartfelt, which is really how all entertainers ought to treat public figures.
My dad had a friend in finance who dealt with Trump in the 80s and 90s and hated his guts as someone who would try to bully and weasel his way out of various commitments, which I can believe. On the other hand, he also had a reputation for being very kind to ordinary employees or working people. Seems like he still operates that way in regards to people he views as having power or something to extract versus people who are not really in the game.
Segueing from Scotland to Greenland, but keeping with the Big Man topic: is Kaiser Wilhelm II the closest historical analog for Trump?
Although I don't think the similarity holds to the point that Maher would have enjoyed the Kaiser's dinnertime companionship.
Berlusconi
I'm not convinced this is a "feminine" trait, and obviously not a uniquely feminine one. Authoritative men are often attributed with the ability to "read the room." Macho attorneys know when to zero in for the kill. Gamblers, dealmakers all pride themselves on their theory of mind and ability to intuit.
Supposedly intuitive women are also remarkably obtuse about people who are sirens-blaring, red-flag-waving trouble to their dads and brothers: predatory alpha males, death row inmates, deranged transgenders, for example. This is the case so often I'd actually describe the callow Nicholas Garrigan character as the one with the feminine trait, easily manipulated by the predatory, seductive Amin.
What distinguishes the Big Man from the plain ol’ Alpha Male is presumably his hyper-sensitivity to perceived slights and ability to emotionally manipulate underlings.
Agreed, but then the feminine traits are hyper-sensitivity and manipulativeness instead of the positively associated "intuition."
I can actually think of more examples of women being callow than women being intuitive. It's easy to imagine a fictional Garrigan's male relations telling him Amin looks every bit the pictorial encyclopedia entry for Murderous Dictator while the women assure him of how much good he can do as a missionary doctor.
Big Men tend to take things personally.
Women aren't being obtuse about such men. They're playing "let's you and him fight." They're in effect manipulating men they suspect of being of weaker into conflicts with domineering men to test them.
Macho attorneys, dealmakers, and dictators may be masculine in many respects, but as Steve suggests, to the extent that they are exclusively focused on persuasion, manipulation, and winning zero-sum social status games at the expense of objective goals external to human emotions and minds, they are paradoxically highly feminine. Amin basically had no intention or understanding of properly governing a country according to objective measures or principles of good government. He was wired to exclusively focus on dominating any and every social situation.
Their objective goals are to win the trial, game or deal and crush your opponents, which seems a highly masculine trait. Again, the stated premise is they have "female" intuition, but that's not really holding up so what I'm reading is yhey have female manipulativeness.
"Winning" or "crushing your opponents" is the masculine part. The feminine aspect is the nature of the contests. The trials are won by manipulating juries, deals are won by pulling one over the counterparty, Amin dominates social interactions with bombast and charisma. The masculine version would be trial by combat, creating a better widget or more efficiently, Amin having to personally fight every man to hold his position, etc.
Is that why gambling , trial practice and real estate development are such female dominated professions?
Men are going to be the top performers in any competitive endeavor. The masculine "winning" and "crushing your opponents" aspect that men monopolize plays a role even in games that prioritize intuition and social skills.
Also of course, gambling, trial practice, real estate development, etc. aren't exclusively or necessarily "feminine" competitions. There are top gamblers who are purely objective numbers guys, top trial lawyers who succeed on the strength of their investigative and logic skills, real estate moguls that are hardnosed business numbers guys.
Gee, wonder what prompted Steve to write about this.
I'm actually puzzled. The headlines tell me Trump got some sort of deal worked out in Greenland but the articles don't have any specifics. Again, Trump the Manhattan property developer bullying and bluffing his way through multi-party deals seems a lot more explanatory than Trump the Ugandan military dictator, preying on his helpless supplicants like some Pharoah.
What is strikes me as feminine about "big man" Trump is not his intuition but his "taking everything personally" pettiness, his thin-skinnedness.
This just isn't how I think of actual alpha-maleness. I don't see George Washington feeling compelled to get into some tweet war with critical nobodies the way Trump does. Can't see Tom Brady feeling the need to snap back at some pipsqueak who thinks he's not the GOAT. Nor Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods. Same with captains of industry. Don't see Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Bezos or Elon or earlier, Carnegie or J.P. Morgan this thin skinned. Would Ceasar be firing off a tweet storm when some provincial yahoo was insufficiently pandering?
To me the key characteristic of maleness is *doing*. You are what you actually *do*. (I'm for instance a boring dad-provider type. I don't pretend to be a big swinging dick anything.) Men who have to make a lot of noise are kind of a joke. Real men just "walk the walk". At least for white men.
Real men's accomplishments speak for themselves, so they do not act like 16 year old mean girls constantly hen pecking to keep status.
I think you're right about Bill Gates or Bezos. Washington lived in a time too different from the present for a good comparison, but at least from what I've read, Jobs and Elon do seem to be more narcissistic, akin to Trump. Although obviously they have very different personalities and public images than The Donald.
"I don't see George Washington feeling compelled to get into some tweet war with critical nobodies the way Trump does. Can't see Tom Brady feeling the need to snap back at some pipsqueak who thinks he's not the GOAT. Nor Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods."
Michael Jordan brooded over the slightest diss and used it to motivate himself to titanic heights of competitiveness.
While the main character is largely fictional, he was based in part on Wilson Carswell whose son is Douglas Carswell the first UKIP MP in the UK and now runs the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
Brilliant teasing out that contradiction in Amin's psychology. The whole intuitive manipulation angle isn't gendered so much as it's about social dominance through reading micro-expressions, which is huge in zero-sum power struggles. I've seen corporate execs use similar tricks to climb without real competence beneath it, and this framing puts words to somthing I noticed but never categorized well. The weird part is how charisma can override obvious red flags
Dominic Cummings' concept of "chimp politics" comes to mind. Evaluating the demeanor and appearance of others has been evolutionarily significant for a longer time span than evaluating whether a technocratic proposal's details are actually sound and likely to succeed.
Haile Selassie's title was "By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings of Ethiopia, Lord of Lords, Elect of God." Must be a rule: the longer the title, the shittier the country.
cf. The Democratic Republic of Congo and The United States of America (we got lucky, lots of land, etc. Steve explains it well.
I've long felt that, contrary to all the comparisons to Hitler and "fascism," what Trump resembles most is an African dictator -- specifically Jean-Bedel Bokassa of Central African Republic, who spent a sum equivalent to the country's entire GDP on a ceremony in which he was crowned Emperor of Africa, complete with gold throne, crown and 30-foot ermine cape made by Napoleon's tailors.
Specifically, the corruption -- the crypto shitcoins and shameless self-dealing -- is of a distinctly African character.
What this precedent portends for us as a country is not comforting.
The critical difference is that Trump is doing some great things for the country at the same time.
Or so you enjoy imagining it.
I get the impression that all you voters ¹ "like" your guy (or in the case of the dems, sometimes, gal) because you hate your inagined enemies. You feel powerless so you hate, and you imagine that *your guy or gal* with fix your problems.
They never do but you never get the picture.
_______
¹ I'm proud to say that I only voted once and my reasons for doing so Are impervious to critique. Otherwise I am proud of never having voted.
Speaking as an occasional voter, I voted not because I hate my enemies but because my enemies so manifestly hated me.
Cf. https://www.stevesailer.net/p/what-does-affordability-mean-in-practice#:~:text=vast%20national%20campaign%20during%20the%20Great%20Awokening%20to%20convince%20Americans%20who%20aren%E2%80%99t%20black%20or%20transgender%20that%20Democrats%2C%20personally%2C%20hate%20you%2C%20each%20and%20everyone%20of%20you
The African dictator whose personal wealth actually decreased in office, and you might be on to something.
You probably believe that Tony Blair, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Obamas got rich selling books.
Trump is what he has always been: an exceptionally egotistical and aggressive real estate developer from New York City.
I enjoyed the Idi Amin columns in Punch magazine years ago. The heading was "It me again!"