Red Pill Logic: Dialing It In

Back when I was about 7 or 8 years old, my uncle decided that I was old enough to finally learn how to shoot a gun. So, he grabbed an old 30-06 he had, iron sights and all and we went outside for my first training session. I was exited to learn how to work a gun, but at the same time I was kind of annoyed that he picked the old 30-06 over one of his more interesting guns, that had red-dot sights, scopes, were semi-auto and looked more “military”. When I voiced my displeasure to him, he responded with “Son, you couldn’t hit the broad-side of a barn from 3 feet, you have to master the basics first”. What followed were a lot of sessions where I learned gun safety, we practiced trigger pulls, handling recoil, aiming, loading, unloading and a lot of other basic skills. I did eventually get to fire the guns that I found the most exiting, but I learned the most mastering the basics with that old rifle.

Like many men, I’m a bit of an equipment geek when it comes to my hobbies, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve realized that the underlying principle that my uncle told me when I was a kid holds true for most of it. Master the basics, in simple manageable steps first, then you can move on to more advanced equipment and techniques. A simple example would be that before you can handle the recoil of semi-automatic fire, you need to learn how to handle the recoil of single-shot fire.

I found myself thinking of this after having a conversation in a gym not far from my hotel with a gentleman who was there for the first time. The guy had obviously done his research, because because when we started talking training he started mentioning super-sets, drop-sets, breaking down into body-part splits, isolation movements and the likes. The trouble was that he didn’t know the difference between a deadlift and a dead-hang pullup. He had done all his research, read up on a ton of different routines, and made the error of thinking that making something complex would ensure progress.

This made me think about the 3 stages of self-improvement that I devised a while ago and that I use as a short-hand roadmap for any change process. This is based on the fact that in the beginning just making small, simple improvements will get you great results, but diminishing returns kick in and over time you have to dial in your skillset more and more in order to improve further. In essence, this is about going from the big picture all the way down to little details over time. Continue reading


Red Pill Logic: A Diagnosis of Oneitis

This essay was left in the draft folder for a while, but a question relating to it came up in the last 21 convention podcast, so I decided to finish it up.

In medicine, a syndrome is a set of signs and symptoms that are correlated with each other, and the word itself stems from the Greek word meaning “concurrence”. For instance, “metabolic syndrome”, which is rapidly gaining in market share around the world, consists of increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, abnormal cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels [1]. Normally, I’m skeptical of the pathologizing that takes place in much of public discourse, as it appears to have become quite common to utilize it as a rhetorical gambit in order to paint perspectives different from one’s own as stemming not from reason but from underlying psychological or physiological conditions. However, in this case, I found it to be quite an apt description of the phenomena that this post aims to describe, namely a combination of signs and symptoms that are correlated with blue pill thinking, and especially with oneitis.

Perhaps the most interesting factor in the the oneitis disorder is that actually being in a relationship with the woman is not a pre-requsite to trigger the disorder. In fact, many of the cases that I’ve observed are by men who exist outside the woman’s sphere of awareness, the “secret admirer” type, who builds an elaborate fantasy about a woman who has no idea that he exists. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Untangling Variables

One of the more challenging tasks when doing research is the removal of superfluous variables. In the simplest terms you want to study one independent variable, meaning a variable that you or nature manipulates, and measure the change in the independent variable to the change in the dependent variable. For instance, if you want to understand the relationship between protein intake (independent variable) and lean muscle gain (dependent variable), you want to manipulate protein intake and measure the change in muscle gain.

However, reality is rarely this simple,there are other variables besides protein intake that affects lean muscle gain, such as resistance training, overall calorie intake and calorie expenditure, hormone levels, and various others. Which is why most modern analyses use multiple variables. For instance, if you wanted to determine what effect protein intake had on muscle gain, you would need to determine what effects other variables had on muscle gain, so that you could isolate out how much of lets say a 3 lb muscle gain in 6 months was due to protein, and how much could be attributed to other variables.

These are based on a mixture of our experiences and what we have been trained to do, and in some cases they make perfect sense, in other cases not so much. In some cases a person has intuitively correctly identified relationships between independent and dependent variables, and thus has an innate grasp of influence and outcome. In other cases a person has made a connection that makes no sense, this is quite interesting when observed in people suffering from delusions, in that their logic can often be sound, but is based on a flawed cause and effect relationship.

This is a major challenge for trained and experienced researchers, and it’s even more of a challenge for people who are not familiar with logic and epistemology, because our minds are constructed to make cause and effect determinations on the fly all day, every day. Athletes have a reputation for making sometimes hilarious cause and effect errors that lead to things like a team not washing their jock-straps for the entire season on a winning streak, various pre-game rituals and so on. Continue reading

Of Islands and Archipelagos

On a recent podcast I did with Rollo Tomassi and Rian Stone, hosted by Anthony Johnson from the 21 Convention, I found myself annoyed at having my perspective called out as being one of nihilism. As I reflected on why this was, I found myself returning to the definition of nihilism, which is the philosophical position that life lacks inherent meaning. Calling someone a nihilist seems to be the insult du jour as of late, I won’t pretend to understand why, but it’s on the surface a very effective rhetorical gambit while engaged in a debate concerning ethics or morality. After all, what someone considers meaningful is often tied to higher aspirations and lofty ideals such as morality, creating a better world or the likes.

However, in general it seems to rear its ugly head when one’s analysis of a prescribed course of action is a negative one. For instance, if one calls an approach mired in idealism as being idealistic given the present climate, one is likely to be called a nihilist due to one’s perceived denigration of aspirational ideas, when in reality if one aspires to something unrealistic, it is a dream not a plan of action.

As people have argued, there are many things that give people meaning in their life, there are men who find meaning through working 80 – 100 hours a week, day in and day out in a specialized area attempting to climb the dominance hierarchy. There are men who reject this pursuit in favor of more time with family, their interests or many other things. Continue reading

Of Lobsters and Serial Murder

In last week’s essay, I began an analysis of dominance hierarchies, that I will continue in this essay. I recommend reading last week’s first.

Humans have many explanatory frameworks, we use physics to explain the natural world, at the most base level these are explanations of what caused an observation to happen. A research framework comes in one out of two broad categories. It can try to explain the “What” of something, or the “Why” of something. In the case of the red pill, the old seduction community was very much focused on what, “What makes that guy more successful with women”, “What do women want” and “What do women actually behave like”.

In the red pill, most of the “research” as of late has been focused on the “why”, “Why do women pick the mates they do”, “Why do women prefer these characteristics in mates”, “Why do women require higher investment from these men before they’ll have sex, but less investment from this other group of men.”

As the observations were made, theories invented, and experiments conducted, many men came to the conclusion that the old framework (the blue pill) was flawed as an explanatory framework for intersexual dynamics. If one were to look at the blue pill illusion as an explanatory framework that seeks to explain intersexual dynamics and the human mating dance, there are simply too many observations that it does not explain.

  • Why do women divorce men who are loyal, conscientious, predictable, loving, high earners and intelligent?
  • Why are women “not happy” when they find themselves married to the type of man the traditional view would define as a catch?
  • Why do women prefer bad boys?
  • Why did this guy have to take her on four dates and didn’t even get laid, when she hooked up with that guy after knowing him for 5 minutes?

This means that there are observations for which the explanatory framework has no real explanation. Continue reading

Office Supplies and Dominance Hierarchies

When I started my first corporate job, two of my mentors who had a tendency to contradict each other, gave me the same piece of advice “Don’t dip your pen in the company ink”. This is a piece of very simple advice that helps protect a man who is about to enter a corporate environment for the first time. Back when I finished college prior to the Victorian Moral Panic that has swept across Universities in the last few years, you got used to mixing business with pleasure on a near constant basis. This is actually a major difference between school and work, as throughout your schooling there is really no clear-cut distinction between work-life (school) and private life (outside of school).

The distinction between work-life (corporate) and home life (outside of corporate) was a very clear-cut distinction for many years, that grew from the industrial revolution. Back when most people worked in agriculture, or hunting/gathering prior to that, there was no real split between “work” and “leisure”, because most days would be a mixture of both. With the industrial revolution came the factories, you came in the morning, left when the bell rang and came back the next morning. This was also the structure of more “white collar” professions, you came in at a set time in the morning, left at a set time in the afternoon or evening.

However, with the advent of the computer age, this has gradually changed. As constant connectivity has become ubiquitous, the line between work and not-work has been slowly worn down. Most modern corporations expect the employees to go the extra mile, for instance coming in on weekends, evenings and even to pull all-nighters in order to make deadlines. When you add in events such as Christmas parties, team-building events, conferences, travel schedules, and various other things, many employees may spend 50 – 70 hours a week in the office in some capacity, plus work from home, spend time together outside of normal work hours and normal work environments, therefore its unsurprising that the personal and business bleed together over time.

It’s also no great surprise that 38% of workers who were surveyed admitted to dating someone they worked with at some point of their career. 28% dated someone further up in the company hierarchy, and a whopping 18% admitted to dating their boss [1]. Women were more likely to date their boss with 35% of women who had dated someone at work (compared to 23% of men), dating up in the hierarchy. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Differentiation and Features

I had another essay building on last weeks essay on responsibility and accountability planned this week, but I saw a tweet that caught my interest and started me down the rabbit hole of sexual market value again. More specifically, how what constitutes a high quality product in the sexual market place.

Christian McQueen (@TheCadClub on twitter) recently tweeted out the following:

If this trend continues it’ll be very easy for pretty girls world-wide:

1. Be in shape

2. Don’t have grey hair (dye it if need be)

3. Don’t be a hateful feminist

You’ll have your pick of great men.

I’ve touched on this idea before in Gendernomics and previous essays, most particularly in Female Sexual Strategies Part 2. The gist of my argument was that if one has a market, where a need exists and the only options to satisfy that need are poor ones, then those poor solutions can still do remarkably well. This is a function of the contrast effect more than anything, in that if you’re 6 ft 1, and go out with a group of men who are 6 ft 3 and taller, you look short by comparison.

This comes down to the fact that people would rather have a need fulfilled to a minimal degree as opposed to not having it covered at all. If you have to drive in a nail, and you can’t find a hammer at a good price, you may use a wrench or a rock. You have a need you have to fulfill, a preferred way to fulfill it (want) but you will compromise.

As I’ve mentioned, I travel a lot for work, and this means that I also end up talking to a lot of random people on various means of transport and in general. One of the most interesting groups to talk to are women in their 70s, 80s and 90s, who have daughters and granddaughters, as they tend to lament the lifestyle choices of their offspring. This is because back in their day, before egalitarian equalism, it was common knowledge what men wanted in a wife, often embodied in aphorisms like

The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” – Know how to cook and take care a man.

Behind every great man is a great woman” – Know how to support your man and help him succeed.

I could extrapolate much from these simple sentences, however our culture contains enough examples of what type of wife or husband is undesirable in comics, literature and culture. Personally my favorite examples in comics is from Andy Capp and Bringing up Father, both demonstrate the dynamic of hapless Beta male with the domineering, harridan of a wife. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, this was a funny caricature, these days such comics appear almost prescient in how gender relations have developed. Continue reading