The End of Subjectivism—The Begin of Individualism

“Как для астрономии трудность признания движения земли состояла в том, чтобы отказаться от непосредственного чувства неподвижности земли и такого же чувства движения планет, так и для истории трудность признания подчиненности личности законам пространства, времени и причин состоит в том, чтобы отказаться от непосредственного чувства независимости своей личности. Но, как в астрономии новое воззрение говорило: «Правда, мы не чувствуем движения земли, но, допустив ее неподвижность, мы приходим к бессмыслице; допустив же движение, которого мы не чувствуем, мы приходим к законам», — так и в истории новое воззрение говорит: «И правда, мы не чувствуем нашей зависимости, но, допустив нашу свободу, мы приходим к бессмыслице; допустив же свою зависимость от внешнего мира, времени и причин, приходим к законам».
В первом случае надо было отказаться от сознания несуществующей неподвижности в пространстве и признать неощущаемое нами движение; в настоящем случае — точно так же необходимо отказаться от несуществующей свободы и признать неощущаемую нами зависимость.”

Лев Толстой

It is amazing how Leo Tolstoy anticipated Fauceir Theory 😉 Well not actually the theory itself, but he made an exceptional point for the development of this theory and all scientific theory in general. He discovered the law that scientific progress requires relativization, the transition from subjective measures to objective ones. And by that the realization comes naturally that the measures are relative.

It was the demolition of the subjective measure of motion (acceleration felt by our inner ear) and its replacement by objective criteria that enabled scientists to appreciate the heliocentric solar system. It was the reference frame introduced by Einstein that allowed for a relative measuring of time (at least in the positive direction), and it is Fauceir Theory that now promotes to a relative measure of everything, including but not restricted to, physical values such as mass and time. The speed of light is no longer a constant and time exists in various (actually unlimited) frames. Only few of them point into the same direction.

Admittedly, that challenges all what we feel about our Universe, and it is hard to grasp it. Though I don’t think that physicists are the main adversaries of Fauceir Theory. The most rigid resistance stems from social scientists. Because it is feared that by accepting the absolute relativity of everything, society is deprived of all moral and ethical bonds and without those bonds a society is destroyed.

Maybe Leo Tolstoy forefelt that and he became fearful. Maybe that explains his decision not to follow this train of thought but instead to become a faithful believer in God later in his life.

It was interestingly an other Russian philosopher, Ayn Rand, who pushed this idea further into the social direction. Accepting the problem she offered a solution, egoism, and as a matter of fact egoism makes people behave rationally and predictably. Egoism is rationalism in a personal relationships, and rationalism is the only acceptable answer to the dethronement of ideologically determined ethical and moral values.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Empathobesity—The Dynamics of Social Symbiosis and Parasitism

Social parasitism is a recurrent topic on this website. I tackled the question how such parasitism is unaware to those who contribute. Also the phenomenon of the evolution of a social parasite’s defense system was illustrated. In a recent article Heartiste, raised an other aspect of social parasitism. The systems theory’s well known fact that a symbiotic relationship can become parasitic (and vice versa).

This dynamics of a relationship’s mutuality, of course, is true for all relationships social included. Empathobesity is a role model. The concept describes the rise-and-fall process of Western societies by the impact of empathy.

As well as the process can be divided into rise and fall, the two phases are characterized by (1) a distribution of wealth, education, and power which translated into higher productivity and considerable ingenuity, and (2) growing inequality, declining education, and concentration of power which translates into stagnation and genuine ingenuity became replaced by just fancy but useless innovation such as ringtones. The two phases of the process even have a biological, population genetics, implication. While in the first phase the more prosperous people had more children, it is now the other way around, so even the genetic basis of ingenuity is in decline not to mention the schooling system and psychological and sociological research that supports a propaganda of educating the imbecile to become geniuses.

No doubt, this process was propelled by empathy mostly arising from Christian religious believes, and we owe those Christian ethics a great deal of our wealth and prosperity. The major question is why did the growth of prosperity came to a halt. The answer lays in the dynamics of relationships. Institutions that sprout from the grounds of Christian ethics like political parties and organizations and charities entered their parasitic stage of behavior. All these organizations have in common that they spread their political agendas by the help of creating empathy like the Christian Church did.

Thus empathobesity well characterizes this process. It is empathy that became obesity. Like obesity empathobesity results from doing in excess what is essential. If you don’t eat you starve, if you eat too much you become obese. Obesity like malnutrition is a disease, and both can kill you. The same is with empathy. It is essential to keep a society flourishing, but to much of it causes dangerous metabolic consequences.

The parasitic abuse of empathy has a long history and it has it re-birth again and again.


The young man on the streets of Prague creates empathy, but does he deserve it. Please take a closer look. His sneakers are as new as the ones of the bystanders and his backpack and his clothes aren’t ragged. He covers his face to not show that he is well shaved. My conclusion was he just wanted to create a feeling of empathy in visitors crossing the Carl’s bridge to pay for his vacation.

In a family, for instance, one member can force tho other into obedience by playing the sufferer. This is the trick played by men and women likewise, but only women showing such a behavior are supported by society. You can easily spot those women on facebook, for instance, by re-posting charity requests. The women don’t care the least about the poor chap who asks for help, but it is a test for her male followers who will qualify to become enslaved by her empathy trap.

But empathy parasitism is not restricted to personal relationships and personal contact like beggars. Whole institutions support on it. Charity organizations, Environmental protection groups, churches, and political parties all use to employ the human social instinct of empathy for their egoistic purposes.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

A Hare Krishna parade in Prague. They would offer me a rose but in return they would have demanded my whole pocket full of money. An other type of social parasitism.

But empathy is not the only social behavior pattern (fauceir) that is abused by social parasites. Here follow some other examples of social parasitism:

  • A security agency that creates security risks to enforce their power and influence.
  • A news agency that creates new just for a good selling headline.
  • A health organization that creates a disease to have more patients to cure.
  • A company that creates a monopoly to increase revenue.
  • A scientific community predicting a disaster, such as an epidemic, to obtain more funds.

The faces of social parasitism is manifold, and what once has been a respectable institution can become a social parasite. This is made clear by the term Empathobesity when empathy in political realms becomes an obstacle of social advancement at best but in its worst case scenario become morbid leading to death of a culture. So many culture died already. They all died because they succumbed to their specific social parasites. BTW biological organisms die the same way.

Well from a fauceir historical perspective there is nothing wrong with that. Fauceir Theory has a non-partisan view. Nobody can avert the death of an organism. That’s true for biological organisms and social organisms likewise. Death and the subsequent degradation is the prerequisite of a life circle going on. If the Roman Empire hadn’t been degraded some thousand years ago we would not have the level of culture that we enjoy in Europe today.

Thus what can be done practically, is to prevent the dying social organisms to take to much human vitims, to destroy intellectual achievements and other natural resources.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Essence of Fauceir Evolution

Here go some quotes:

Evolution is not just about species [1] but includes all types of fauceirs [that form resources PN].

Evolution is not just about natural selection [2] but a set of optimization rules [including decotectulization and adaptation, for instance PN].

—– Mato Nagel
[addendum by the author]

[1] Darwin, Charles, 2008, On the Origin of Species. Rev. ed. Oxford World’s Classics. New York: Oxford University Press. (

[2] Wallace, Alfred Russel,1870,Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. London, New York: Macmillan and co. (

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Male intelligence and female preferences

This is actually a comment on Do women find bright men sexy?

Heartiste writes in his Dating Market Value Test For Men that only slightly above average men have an advantage. I would agree with that as it not only is consistent with my own experience but also coincidentally is found by a mathematical model of democratic election. Finally, it seems quite logical that higher intellectual capabilities are not perceived as an advantage but as a threat. According the Dunning-Kruger effect, we all are incapable to correctly evaluate capabilities that are more favorable than ours. We cannot understand a more intellectual person, and everything that we cannot understand we use to fear instinctively.

Fortunately, if women are capable to select slightly more intelligent men this is of evolutionary advantage over many generations, as these INDIVIDUAL decisions sum up over the generations.

Unfortunately, that is not true with democracies, as COLLECTIVE decisions always cut down over the generations.

The mathematical effect on variance is as follows: the former will increase variance, the latter decrease towards idiocracy.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Social science dilemma

This is actually a comment on this post.

„The social sciences have developed in ways that are not necessarily to our advantage.“

Though they do have developed to the advantage of the money source, the government. That’s the fundamental rule of evolution: everything evolves to get the most of the resources. Admittedly that implies that government is not “necessarily to our advantage” which for most of you is difficult to digest.

“How to fix?”

Simply develop social science isolated from governmental support. BTW, if you keep your eyes open, you can spot a lot of social science evolving outside governmental control. As a matter of fact that’s where social science becomes most exciting.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Is There a Purging War – Part 1 Definition

This is a comment on this Aeon article, which ones again promotes the idea of a creative war. Last time it was clearly fallacious, this time the argument is rather intriguing though imprecise and implying fallacious thought.

The best way to analyze the phenomenon of war is again to adapt the fauceir position. War is conflict between social groups, collection of people that are united by some social contract. Usually war is conflict between states and/or organizations that strive for state like power. Sometimes this term is extended to include conflict between political factions and smaller groups within organizations or companies, especially if casualties are involved.

All these concepts have in common that they are only flat or descriptive. Fauceir Theory instead provides a functional definition based on fauceir hierarchies. According that two types of war may be distinguished.

  1. War between social groups at the same level of the fauceir hierarchy. This type of war clearly has the character of competition as we know it in free market economy.
  2. War waged from a higher ranking social group to suppress its elements. This type of war has many characteristics of enslavement. Sometimes also called war against its own people.

The amazing thing about these two definitions is that they are often confused to produce logically wrong conclusions. This is, I have to say, intentionally planned by ideologists.

For instance, the war against its own people is always justified by competition with other state like organizations. The most recent example is the war on terror that lead to substantial cutbacks in private rights and freedom worldwide, and to give the most horrible example remember the holocaust.

On the other hand, the own people often are intimidated by threads of war. As an example may serve the Social Democrats in Germany after WW1. They successfully prevented a revolution by coining the slogan “We don’t need an other war.”

Conclusively, if we were talking about the cleansing effect of war we have to state that only the first type, the competition between organizations bears progress. The other type is reactionaryism.

Admittedly, in any major conflict involves both types, so it is a well known fact that in times of external war internal repressions are common. People even the critical ones rally behind a leader if there is an external thread.

That said I think celebrating war’s creative power nowadays is equal to committing a fallacy as we don’t live in Rabindranath Tagore’s time any more. Our knowledge about history is broader and more detailed now. We ought to formulate more precisely to make our claims distinctive. After all celebrating Shiva as God of War was characteristic of a period of Indian economic and social stagnation.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Institutions are Fauceirs

This actually is a comment on a Peter Turchin post on institutions.

First of all I want to mention the new look of his social evolution forum. Looks great though I miss a little bit the sobriety of a scientific publication. Looks rather like a glossy newspaper.

Anyway, remarkable is his scientific thoughts slowly approach Fauceir Theory. Institutions are mere fauceirs, and comparing them with software, another typical fauceir, is just abstracting those analogies that make a fauceir a fauceir. Fauceirs are essential to describe evolution scientifically.

While in the realm of biological evolution it is still possible to get the big picture of evolution without fauceir because
(1) there are only a few fauceirs and you can name them personally,
(2) clades, biotopes and environments are relative stable and comparable in their influences on evolution.
This, however, is no longer true in the realm of social evolution. The main actors, such as laws, education, institutions, economic enterprises, change rapidly and so does their impact on evolution. They do so as pieces of software—the analogy is striking—which grow into one or several new projects. That dynamic process requires these fauceirs to be frequently re-evaluated.

In the majority of scientific literature, those evaluations of actors are made from the perspective of the government. Peter Turchin’s blog is no exception, and this comes as no surprise because most scientists are paid by the government. They work in governmentally supported institutions after all, but that makes those scientists dependable and ideologically imprinted and their work tainted.

In my recent post I demonstrated that a government is but an other actor in social evolution, so evaluating and defining social fauceirs from a state’s perspective only can lead to inconsistencies and even dangerous ideological flaws as we’ve seen with the propagation of war, for instance.

Hope this post helps a little bit further to open eyes.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at