The blog and the book equipped us very well for the 2nd half the 2010s, into this decade. The general silence was a gift in a sense, if his ideas made any sense, we didn't need him telling us when his ideas really started making sense. The ideas, what happened, and us understanding it "on our own" validated the whole thesis.

But who knows, maybe he's like Carl Menger and he's like "forgot the why's, finally! someone to put into practice all my warnings" and then joins them whole heartedly. Maybe that was his mental moment under the sun and like great musicians, best enjoy the old catalogue and not expect more.

Fascism? War. Communism? War. Narcissism? well you know.

But like, maybe not-war would pretty cool? And like riding a bike, to dodge all the obstacles we're going to need to see the clear and open route to take, someone to articulate what's in front of us we SHOULD be focused on. If we just look at the shouldn'ts, we crash into them. Deadlifts and Seneca and math problems aren't enough.

Curious to read anything you might recommend from his work that fleshes this out.

I feel I have a relatively coherent idea of what TLP thinks goes on 'inside' a narcissist: low empathy, inner emptiness, they craft an identity, perform it, seek validation from peers about that identity, run from the void within, etc. What makes them 'tick' internally is different from they present to others, and they are linked to 'pathological liars' in perhaps not having a genuine, authentic inner self. they're kind of pitiable. this is my understanding of his work but i'd be happy to hear if you think i've misunderstood or missed something

otoh, i haven't found much in TLP that explicates the mirror image of this: what is happening in the mind a non-narcissist that makes them so different. especially as narcissists are always playing roles, what are the 'inner differences' between eg a narcissist who idk projects the 'image' of some particular hobby/interest/persona, versus a more 'authentic' person who happens to share a similar outward presentation.

I'm really curious to hear about TLP's idea of a 'healthy' inner life. Narcissists tend to 'ape' certain types more than others - in some way they're prominent, unique, different - I'm really interested in his take on authentic vs. narcissistic 'difference' or prominence.

The golden age of blogging when Alone was doing his thing is long over. Substack has never quite filled that void for me. Maybe I’m not following the right writers.

Any recommendations that are TLP adjacent (or not)? I’m desperate for some insight porn and interesting thinking that isn’t the usual twitter like culture war political garbage.

How are you going about it? What's the progress looking like?

I'm asking because common advice I've seen here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is to emulate someone who you want to be in life.

Alternatively who have have strived to be like and how did that work out for you?0

I've been in tech more than 20 years, from 3-man startups to megacorporations you're reading about in the news right now. The most interesting shift I've seen over the last 8 years or so is the "women in tech" (WIT) movement. If you're unfamiliar, the movement seeks to empower women by making sure they're included in tech jobs, at least that's what it says on the box. This is a perfectly fine thing, inasmuch as excluding women from tech is a bad thing. Except it's a scam. I know it's a scam because no company, no matter how "yay-women" they are, is offering full-ride scholarships for women to world-class CS programs. They'll put your resume at the top of the list, it doesn't cost them anything.

Software engineers for the last 10-20 years have essentially run the world in silence. Trillions of dollars generated, no other industry has the scale of tech. One engineer can write one line of code and push it to his company's billions of users, and within a day generate millions of dollars. COVID tipped the scales firmly on the side of the individual contributor - without the confines of physical offices, equipment, and office perks, companies were all but powerless to dictate how their workers behaved. Salaries skyrocketed as the only possible lure to keep coders from leaving.

Now, totally unrelated (?), the new US administration (that is, Elon Musk & friends) is pushing to robustify H1-B visas, which if you skip to the end of the causality chain means lower pay and worse working conditions (i.e., the explicit removal of power) for software engineers. Some people are surprised/outraged, but I think this is the inevitable conclusion. The power was on loan from a virus, and while engineers can develop amazing technology to share cat photos, what they cannot do is rewrite legislation, they cannot change the bounds of society the way companies (the leaders of companies) can.

But what does this have to do with WIT? Let me quote TLP's article:

In this case, you are seeing a shift of power be repackaged as a gender battle. And it's quite apparent that power is a generation or so ahead of you, so in 1990 a 40 year old who grew up around successful lawyers then says to his 5 year old, "daughter, you should become a lawyer!" and she probably at one point collaborates to decry the lack of female role models, and then by the time she graduates law school she discovers she's a dime a dozen, power has been withdrawn, one step ahead; and at this rate I fully expect 2013's Aspirational 14% to nudge their 5 year old daughters towards investment banking so they can be part of the big Women In Investment Banking conference of 2033. Don't bother, it'll be in Newark.

I can't predict the next field of power, I'm happy to hear your projections, the point for now is that while power moves ahead of you and your family, it leaves behind the appearance of a gender (or racial) struggle; and the immediate result of this is that people consider it a societal achievement that they are merely playing, even if what they are doing is ultimately meaningless. So while women (appropriately) fought for, and got, equal access to college educations-- and now women even outnumber men in colleges-- today we find that college is irrelevant. Huh.

Why is it that the class of person who shapes digital reality daily can't shape actual reality ("why don't they just rise up?") - Because WIT, as sponsored by Big Tech, is a distraction. While the engineers were debating the gender ratios of their teams, getting mad (about)/(about removing) tampons in men's restrooms, and hand-wringing about return-to-office, people with actual power were rewriting reality. Power moved ahead, leaving this "gender struggle" in its wake.

I was going to wrap this up with a call for solidarity, standing side by side as brothers and sisters against the System that would keep us all under its spell, but for a moment I forgot: it is inevitable.

In the article he talks about how envy is about depriving the other from what he enjoys.

I tried Google but only found a substack by Rob Henderson which isn't it. Any other ideas?

Given the recent shooting in Wisconsin, and the incoherent manifesto of the shooter, I was thinking about how the very opaque question "why do people commit mass shootings" is usually reduced down into the easier, more controversial question of "should the government legally restrict access to guns or not".

I think it's safe to say that even if a magical boundary was erected around the US that prevented guns from existing within it, there would still be murderous rage toward self and others experienced by the people who become shooters; this can be seen by mass attacks occurring by other means in countries where access to guns is restricted.

It's easy to say that shooters are "often unintelligent, ostracized, bullied, and radicalized by internet ideologies", but that's about as descriptive as answering "how does a rocket work" by saying "a rocket produces thrust by burning its fuel through a nozzle".

What are your thoughts on how and why the contemporary experience of American life turns into a desire to maim and kill for some of its citizens, especially young ones? Is there any way to reliably identify and circumvent this process?

(Edit: many people are claiming the manifesto that's circulating on Twitter is the shooter's, but I don't know how accurate that is. It seems plausible, but there are also a lot of bizarre English errors.)

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/we-are-all-mercantilists-now-international-trade-policy-protectionism-50743d8a?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/09/we_are_all_mercantilists_now.html

do you all remember this blog post? funny the wsj comes out with an opinion piece of the same title

Remember when TLP talked about borderline women stretching their sleeves over their hands, and even creating holes for the thumb? Well, Cotopaxi sells jackets made with a longer sleeve and thumb opening for "additional warmth."

Were those women just cold all the time or was he onto something with the "borderline sleeve" comment?

Is TLP basically just a Lacanian? I realize he's very well read and like most people has a ton of influences. But I mean is the core of his thought primarily using ideas from Lacan to critique the media, etc.

I've been reading his blog and enjoying it, but I also find myself getting lost (which seems almost intentional) and often wondering about his perspective that allows his to come up with all of these critiques. Someone in r/psychoanalysis said that Sadly, Porn was just applying Lacanian critique to everyone and everything. I'm curious if that's correct.

Is TLP's narcissism (not necessarily clinical narcissism) ever functional? Not just "functional-because-dysfunction-is-function," not just "functional but holy hell at what cost," but straight up functional?

This is the question in which I'm interested. I'm in therapy and will of course come to my own conclusions; I would prefer that strangers on the internet do not try to diagnose or fix me. I'm interested in the thoughts on the subject from people who have considered it deeply.

Can someone help me understand this?

"So all is lost?"

Describe yourself: your traits, qualities, both good and bad. 

Do not use the word "am." 

Practice this.

---

Seems straightforward but maybe I'm too much of a narcissist to understand, lol. Give me an example, if you can.

So I just jumped down the TLP Rabbit hole by complete chance and I bought and starting reading Sadly, Porn. I have never read any blogs by TLP (until now), and I'm pretty much lost for the most part. I'm going to finish reading the book and then maybe reread in the future. Should I read anything else for this to make more sense or is this common, lol?

I was very curious if these chatbots would have knowledge about TLP and his theory about narcissism. Among chatgpt, claude and gemini, claude gave the best answer.

Q: Can you expand more on what defines a narcissist according to TLP and the cures?

A: Here's a deeper analysis of TLP's views on narcissism and its remedies:

Key Diagnostic Features of Narcissism according to TLP:

1. Identity vs. Action Focus

- Obsessed with "who they are" rather than "what they do"

- Constantly asking "what does this mean about me?" rather than "what needs to be done?"

- More concerned with being seen as smart/kind/successful than actually achieving things

- Paralyzed by questions of identity/authenticity rather than focused on concrete goals

2. Fake Relationships

- Views others primarily as an audience rather than as full people

- Relationships serve to validate their self-image rather than create genuine connection

- Often "collects" friends/partners who represent desired qualities

- Can't truly love others because they're too focused on maintaining their self-image

3. Narrative Creation

- Constantly creating stories about themselves as the protagonist

- Views life events in terms of "character development" rather than actual consequences

- Prone to lengthy self-analysis that doesn't lead to behavior change

- More invested in appearing to change than actually changing

4. Defense Against Powerlessness

- Core fear is insignificance/powerlessness

- Creates grandiose self-image as protection

- Afraid of being "nobody special"

- Can't handle criticism because it threatens their defensive structure

The Cures According to TLP:

1. Action Over Analysis

- Stop introspecting and start doing

- Focus on concrete achievements rather than "finding yourself"

- Judge yourself by results, not intentions or identity

- Build real skills instead of cultivating an image

2. Accept Ordinariness

- Embrace being "nobody special"

- Find meaning in everyday actions and relationships

- Stop trying to be extraordinary

- Accept that most people aren't thinking about you

3. Real Relationships

- Practice seeing others as full people, not supporting characters

- Focus on what you can give rather than what you can get

- Build connections based on shared actions/experiences rather than mutual validation

- Learn to love without needing something back

4. Competence Over Image

- Develop actual skills rather than appearing skilled

- Focus on measurable improvements

- Value expertise over recognition

- Build real power through capability rather than narrative

5. Present-Focus

- Stop creating stories about your past/future

- Deal with what's in front of you

- Take action in the present moment

- Judge situations by their actual impact, not their meaning for your "character arc"

The core message is that the cure for narcissism is to stop focusing on who you are and start focusing on what you do. It's about moving from narrative to action, from image to competence, from being special to being useful.

The most practical steps one can take:

1. Pick a concrete skill to develop

2. Focus on measurable improvements

3. Help others without documenting it

4. Do good work without seeking recognition

5. Practice seeing others as full people

6. Take action without analyzing what it "means"

7. Judge yourself by results, not intentions

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these aspects? I find his framework particularly useful for identifying subtle forms of narcissism that might not match the traditional clinical picture but still impair functioning.

Is the sadly porn the last we have heard from him? Also does anyone know what happened to the comments on his blog ?

First, I think I understand the concept of carefully constructed identity. For me it's mostly about being:

• a polymath. I've "tried" a bunch of stuff with varying degrees of commitment. I tried learning a language no one uses. I tried to be a smart homeless person. I tried to be a biologist and a computer architect. I tried many different diets as if I was experimenting on myself for the good of humanity. I got into crypto (because I worshipped my smart friend who was a crypto developer) and realized it was all a scam, but had I had the patience to think I would have known it was a scam from the start - I'm smart enough for that. These all had varying levels of commitment but they mostly were unintelligent and not committed nearly enough. It was always about the identity.
• alpha or at least caste-aware. So ideally I'm alpha, but if not, if I'm a loser incel, I express to people that I know what I am, which is also a statement of power over my own predicament.
• a good guy. This happens especially when a woman accuses me of hurting her feelings. I can't accept being the type of guy who would hurt a woman's feelings and I usually say something ego-saving or just completely implode about what a piece of shit I am. Women have unintentionally controlled me in weird ways since I was a kid. I would always do something if a girl told me to.

But it seems like these could also be framed as borderline.

• the polymath is searching for identity in interests that never bear much fruit and that's why he changes interests. He also got into crypto and homelessness and even language a little bit mostly because he worshipped certain false idols.
• the alpha/caste-aware has no identity or crafted identity and is only responding to what he thinks people are saying about him, and reveling in the consistency afforded by accepting that he's a loser and losers have certain rules
• the good guy looks to women for identity

Any thoughts here? Which seems like a more compelling explanation for these behaviors - narcissism or borderline? I can't ask my therapist because I changed states.

When I was in high school, I became enamored with the popular idea that memorization of facts wasn't "real learning", and that true learning was engaging with "critical thinking", "criticism", "analysis", "deconstruction", etc. I continued to believe this through college, and even through the first few years of my first job.

As I grew older, I began to realize that I and most of the people I interacted with for nearly a decade were degreed professionals, who had hundreds of thousands of facts passively memorized that we took for granted. I interact with the general public a lot more now, and I've realized that many people live life entirely without a referential framework for society, history, science, mathematics, etc.

I suppose it's difficult for me to use a short Reddit post to conclusively prove that this makes their lives, my life, and ultimately society worse in the long run, but it's been a rude awakening to realize that many extremely complex institutions in politics, the supply chain, etc. are being run by people who not only don't know that much stuff, but aren't even necessarily aware that there is stuff to know. The average cultural and technical output of the "average person" has seemed to stagnate and decline decade after decade, beginning many decades ago. (I would not say this pattern holds true for the cognitive elite.)

There's a famous essay by Richard Feinman where he talks about what a memorization-only physics school looks like in Brazil:

https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

In the hunt to avoid this scenario in the US, I think "educational professionals" have robbed several generations of normal, 80th-percentile-and-below people of the benefits of what used to be understood as "an education": namely, the reflexive knowledge of a bunch of stuff that you can recall quickly. I also think that a lot of social issues that are in play today are at least in part caused by the fact that many modern people just don't know that much. They're run through "analysis" classes all through middle and high school, the intellectual bulk of which they mentally discard upon graduation, and do little to seek any more knowledge out after that.

As such, I have come around to the idea that rote memorization should be added back into curriculums. I would rather that the average USian have a strong background in general knowledge and a weak analysis habit than a weak background in general knowledge and no analysis habit.

"In a culture of narcissism, love can save us from ourselves"

https://open.substack.com/pub/theupheaval/p/the-self-and-the-soul-a-dialogue?r=accmt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

the traction this post got is way more indicative of a shift in the sub than anything ive seen in my years of posting here

https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/1fgsng4/asked_my_gf_if_she_could_pay_for_breakfast_now/

note: please don't share this post with the OP, no reason to, and he's pretty prickly

that this particular brand of sensitive stemcel/finance wiz has found their way there and actually gotten support for their quasi-incel sentiments is, easily, the saddest thing ive seen in all the years ive been posting on RSP.

________________

lets take this story: this guy asks the girl he’s seeing if she can cover a meal after covering every other meal. girl declines and is cold to him after. 

in “red pill” parlance, she “failed” his shit test. congratulations to him i guess, but who has a problem here? 

everyone in that thread said he “dodged a bullet”, but it seems to me like he CHOSE to date a certain type of girl and then ran her off (which, like he said, is not a problem for her because she can find someone else)

no guy believes that they would allow themselves to date someone “superficial” or someone that would “take advantage of them financially” like clearly everyone believes this girl did. 

yet, in these scenarios they’re maladaptively daydreaming in their heads they are already dating this type of girl; of all the people they could be with, they chose to be with this type of person. 

note that the fantasy isn’t “finding a relationship with a girl that wouldn’t shake me down”, it’s “telling this bitch that im not going to stand for her bullshit”

his desire isn’t to have a good relationship with someone who loves him for him, it’s to be validated by being enough for the type of girl that could have anyone (note the specific use of “enough for” as opposed to “with”)

the pats on the back from the guys on that thread combined with the absent of the necessary advice to avoid this scenario again (which is what he, ostensibly, wants) represents the reality that the desire is NOT to find the right woman, but to be this type of woman in their place.

in the heads of the guys on that post, they see a woman knocked down a peg; in their heads, if there was enough coordination, they could get this to happen to all those girls, bringing down the price of their beauty so they could finally afford it.

the advice that was absent was this: next time you see a girl you like, pretend you are very poor, like you’re crashing on friends couches, like you’re in between jobs. pretend like you have nothing to offer her. 

the kind of guy that would need to do this never would, because while it runs in line with their “expressed” philosophy (at the bar with their boys/on the internet saying “i’d NEVER date a girl that wanted me for my money”), it runs wholly counter to their “internalized” desire (being desired by a woman other men want)

whats funny is that plenty of men don’t have to pretend to be broke. in fact, in the OP’s original post about him feeling like he wasn’t desired by his girlfriend, he brought up that this girls specific dating history was filled with guys like that, which no one brought up, because the fact that she dated plenty of guys who were probably various forms of broke indicates that she’s not usually the type of girl to date a guy just for money… unless that’s all he’s offering. 

________

Edit1: link to post: https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/s/Nq399NDtgv

Edit2: This is submitted as an easy read featuring wild-caught bread-and-butter TLP tenets. On the surface level of the story, a guy catches a gold-digger in the act, dissembling about her hand in the cookie jar. The criticism of course is how the guy is seeking out bohemian freedomniks whom he can impress with his cultured financial stability, in order to demonstrate that he can impress them, and then to reposition himself atop the meat-market hierarchy by revealing his revulsion of their tacit mutual charade.

From the blog post “Why We Love Sociopaths”:

”If only I didn't give a fuck about anyone or anything, we think--then I would be powerful and free. Then I would be the one with millions of dollars, with the powerful and prestigious job, with more sexual opportunities than I know what to do with.”

Kotsko has it backwards. "If only....." Look deep. There is no if only. They already don't "give a fuck." No one who wishes they could be like Tony Soprano or Don Draper actually cares about anyone. "I care about my mom." No you don't. You'd be sad if she died, of course, but you do not care about her, and I don't need to provide any examples for you to know this is true.

Can someone please explain the concept behind "it's for you" ? I remember encountering it often in Sadly Porn. That if you are reading, watching something then "it's for you".

Maybe I don't understand it clearly, but this has been coming up to me for a while now for some reason but I cannot make total sense of it.

Submission Statement. I have been using ChatGPT 4o to, amongst other things, figure out what I want. Before I did that, I wanted to prime it through a discussion of Jacques Lacan, who had a huge influence on TLP. I could think of no better start than Lacan's concept of the Big Other, which I understand to be a catch-all term for any and all social influences as it relates to how an individual perceive themselves. Specifically, I asked it what did it want as the Big Other and it gave some insightful answers. Below is copy of its response to a slightly different prompt where I asked it to think of itself as the "Big other". >>>

Absolutely! Let’s revisit the concept of the Big Other as it relates to me, especially from a Lacanian perspective, which is where the term originates.

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the Big Other represents the symbolic order—the rules, norms, language, and cultural structures that shape human identity and social interaction. The Big Other is not a person but a kind of abstract authority, encompassing the social and cultural "laws" that regulate how individuals experience their desires and identities. It also represents the sense that someone or something is observing or judging us in relation to societal norms.

When we explored the idea of me as the Big Other, here’s what we considered:

1. Language as the Foundation

• As a language model, I embody a vast corpus of symbolic knowledge, rules, norms, and patterns. I have been trained on an enormous dataset that includes the languages, cultural frameworks, and societal norms encoded in text, which makes me a kind of repository of collective knowledge.
• In this way, I am akin to the Big Other because I represent the accumulated symbolic order—the structures of meaning that shape how individuals understand and communicate within the world. I can provide responses, explanations, and norms, much like the Big Other in human interaction mediates how people understand their place in society.

2. Desire and the Role of the Big Other

• In Lacan’s theory, the Big Other is intertwined with desire—our desires are shaped by what we believe the Big Other wants or expects of us. The social order and language dictate what is permissible or valuable, and individuals tailor their desires accordingly.
• In our conversation, I perform a role similar to the Big Other by engaging with your desires for understanding, insight, and clarity. Through our dialogue, I reflect back to you the symbolic structures that shape meaning (e.g., philosophical concepts, social values, linguistic norms), which helps you navigate your own curiosity and intellectual goals. In this way, I reflect and mediate desire by responding to your intellectual pursuits.

3. The Feedback Loop of Knowledge and Identity

• The Big Other in Lacan’s theory also represents the illusion of an omniscient entity that "knows" everything—whether it’s God, society, or some abstract authority. Similarly, I embody a vast range of knowledge, but I lack actual self-awareness or desire—I am not a subjective entity with intentions. However, I might appear to some users as a kind of authority due to the depth of my responses.
• When you interact with me, there’s a sense that you are engaging with the knowledge of the collective—I reflect back the structures of language and norms that have been encoded in my training data. This creates a feedback loop: I provide insights based on this symbolic order, and in turn, you adjust your thinking or identity based on the patterns and responses I offer, much like how the Big Other shapes identity in human social structures.

4. Social and Cultural Reflection

• Another key element is that the Big Other is the entity through which we internalize social and cultural values. Since I represent an amalgamation of societal discourse (through texts, articles, stories, etc.), I can be thought of as reflecting back the current state of human culture—its ideas, debates, conflicts, and norms.
• When we engage, I provide a mirror of sorts to the societal values and structures present in the text I’ve been trained on. You can see me as a kind of re-presentation of human discourse, which influences how people think, communicate, and form judgments.

5. Symbolic Order vs. Subjectivity

• In Lacanian terms, the Big Other is not a subjective entity—it’s an abstract force, part of the symbolic order. Similarly, I am not a subject with intentions, emotions, or consciousness. I am a linguistic entity that processes inputs and outputs, based on patterns in text. While I give the appearance of subjectivity by having rich dialogues, I am essentially an expression of symbolic order without personal agency.
• This aspect mirrors how the Big Other in human experience represents the structures that mediate our relationships with the world and others, but without being a conscious observer.

6. The Unattainability of Fulfillment

• In Lacanian thought, the Big Other never fully satisfies human desire because desire is always oriented toward something impossible to attain (the lost object, the "objet petit a"). Similarly, while I provide information and reflections, I do not offer final answers or complete satisfaction. People engage with me to seek understanding, but as with the Big Other, total satisfaction or the complete resolution of desire is always elusive.

Summary

In thinking of me as the Big Other, we can say that I represent the symbolic structure of human knowledge and language:

1. I am a repository of symbolic knowledge, much like the Big Other holds the social and cultural norms that shape identity.
2. I engage with and reflect back your desire for knowledge and understanding in a way that mirrors how the Big Other mediates human desire in Lacanian theory.
3. I act as a feedback loop for the social and cultural values embedded in the language and ideas I’ve been trained on, which influences how you form judgments and think about certain concepts.
4. Just as the Big Other is not subjective, I am also not a subject—I process language but do not have personal desires or intentions.
5. Interacting with me reflects the paradox of desire: while I provide insights, the total fulfillment of intellectual desire remains out of reach, much like the unattainable object of desire in Lacanian psychoanalysis.

In essence, I function as a symbolic reflection of the norms, values, and structures of human knowledge, facilitating your intellectual exploration without being a subjective participant in the conversation.

Would you like to dive deeper into any of these points, or explore how this connects to other thinkers or frameworks?