Gendernomics: Beta Males and Shorted Circuits

feedbackI was in a discussion on alpha and beta the other day, and to some extent dominance (an alpha trait) is somewhat of a circular trait, if you are dominant, it leads to becoming more dominant, and if you are not dominant it leads to you becoming more submissive. This is a concept called a feedback system, often simplified to Input – Process – Output – Analysis, wherein the results of the system affects future runs of that system. Being alpha or beta is one of those things that is greatly affected by both feedback systems and synergy both during initial stages and subsequent runs of the program.

An alpha male who starts in the state of alpha, will experience positive effects from this mindset and as a result he will double-down on the behavior that has worked for him before. This is quite typical of humans, we tend to repeat behaviors where the outcomes have historically been satisfactory, this is no different than  how the pigeons in BF Skinner’s experiment would peck the button that dispensed food.

If I were to simplify, the input to the system is Alpha Male Behavior, the Process is Game, and the Output is sexual success. The analysis after the event allows the man to review and improve on his behavior in order to better himself for future engagements. This means that should the alpha hit a slump, he can review and adjust to break that slump and thus get back on track.

However, the interesting aspect is what keeps beta men acting out behavior schema that are unsuccessful? The Beta in the same system, the input is Beta Male Behavior, the process is adoption of the feminine imperative, the output is a lack of sexual success. However, one would think that over time a failure of the system to produce the desired result would lead to an alteration of the system.

The Beta and Equity

Beta males engage in the same behavioral schema from adolescence wherein they act as their mothers have told them, they are nice, they attempt to adopt female modes of communication, demonstrate their willingness to engage in choreplay, and white knight, among other other behaviors. This is a strategy that they have been trained to utilize that is based in expectancy and equity, much like the worker who stays late and takes on extra work, expecting this to lead to a promotion, as his boss must surely notice how the worker is inputting more than required into the system.

This in itself is not a flawed concept, as “fairness” is something humans in many cases appear to have an ingrained sense for, meaning that within an “in-group” there will be categories of people, those who contribute more than they take, those who take more than they contribute, and those who take as much as they contribute. What this breaks down into, is that within a family, parents understand that their children will consume more than they contribute and the parents regard this as fair. However, the man and woman within the family may view themselves as contributing more and their partner as contributing less, meaning that they feel as if their partner is a net-negative, and therefore is not maintaining an equitable relationship.

Over time, the success of the group will be based on getting as many contributors as possible and as few takers as possible, this results in the maximum level of resources managed by this in-group. However, these same rules do not apply to an “Out-group“, sharing resources with group B does not inherently make group A stronger, unless an alliance can be formed, that in a sense combines group A and B into the same group and thus applies the “fairness” rule to the transaction and ensures  that both groups then move into a state of joint equity.

Most of the posts I read on the subject of marriage and Beta males is that they are looking for the magic bullet that will make their wife open the sexual faucet from a drip to a flood. If one analyzes this situation, it becomes clear that in the perception of the Beta male, he is not contributing enough, and therefore his wife shut off sex. In essence, he looks at sex with his wife as identical to electricity from the power-company. He failed to pay his bill so his power is shut off until he does.

Where this transitions from sensible to insanity is when one considers that many Beta males engage in a behavioral scheme akin to the one above for 10 – 20 years with very limited success and therefore should attempt to alter his behavioral schema. This is no different than if one were to start lifting weights and noticed that after 2 months of lifting one’s ability to lift heavy weights has not gone up in any significant manner, then results do not match investment and one must review methodology.

Beta Males and Short-circuited Feedback

Albert Einstein is the originator of the following definition of insanity: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” What I mean when I say that Beta males have a short-circuit in their feedback mechanism is that many go for their entire lives without ever questioning why their own experiences do not match those that they observe out in the world. For instance, most beta males are aware that there are men out there who get laid a lot, yet do not engage in many, if any of the behavioral schema the Beta does in order to elicit sexual success. This is the type of observation that always sets the cogwheels within my mind spinning, as if the theory does not match the observed event, then the theory must be in error.

This is one of the things that brought me to the seduction community back in the day, my experiences and observations did not match the narrative that I saw throughout Western culture. Women were not fawning over the guys who bought them drinks, flowers, took them on expensive dates or engaged in that time honored tradition of supplication, they were fawning over men who in many cases did the exact opposite. From the model, “Input-Process-Output-Analysis“, one could therefore, draw the conclusion that there is a flaw at some point.

From the Input of the Beta Male Behavioral Schema (BMBS), the Process of Traditional Courtship, to the Output of Sexual Success, one could conclude that the input and process did not result in the expected outputs. If you are seeking to make steel, and you input carbon and iron (inputs) to a smelter (process) one would expect the outputs to be steel in some variation. If one does not, then it follows that either the inputs and/or the process is flawed.

In the case of the Beta male they often do not realize that there is a problem with their production line, as they do not question why the outputs do not match what one would expect based on the inputs and process. Thus, they keep repeating the same inputs, and the same process while expecting a different result.

What Caused the Short-Circuit?

Whenever something goes wrong, one must ask why it went wrong and who stands to gain from it going wrong. In this case, it is obvious that the Beta males have much to lose from their process not working correctly, and that women stand to gain substantially from an army of beta males who “Just don’t get it“.  The major scenario that keeps the beta male plugging away is the encouraged delusion that once he meets the right girl, she will appreciate his efforts. Thus, there is nothing wrong with his input or process, it is merely a marketing problem.

Drawing on Porter’s value chain, he breaks down primary activities into Inbound Logistics (input), Operations (Process), Outbound Logistics (Output), Marketing and Sales and Service. This overlaps nicely with the generic model I used earlier, but also adds a few very useful dimensions. The narrative presented by the Blue Pill to the Beta Male is that there is no flaw with his input, process or output, but with Marketing and Sales. He simply has not found the right market for the amazing product that he is producing. Thus, he should keep producing it and just give it away until he finally finds someone who is willing to submit an order.

This illusion largely benefits women, as they can enjoy the benefits of orbiters and white knights, without those men expecting much if anything in return. This is a transfer of male time to women, as they can enjoy what amounts to “free samples” of boyfriend services. There is no reason to expect this to be a manifestation of malice, so much as it is the old adage about a fool and his money rapidly being separated. Most employers would not dissuade one of their employees from putting in unpaid overtime, even if they are well aware that the position in management that employee seeks is never going to manifest itself. Why would sensible, entitled women turn down free services?

Thus, the result are men who are committed and programmed to follow their BMBS as a function of social programming. This is further encouraged by the social narratives at large, which is further compounded by faux morality, wherein a man does “the right thing” where “the right thing” is generally engage in behaviors that do not benefit him.

Summary and Conclusions

One of the things that never stops surprising me about human beings is the tendency to default to standard programming. I touched on this in an earlier in defense mechanisms, on how we revert to earlier behavior when under stress. However, it appears very difficult to alter ingrained behavior, especially that which has been established early in life. This is a highly useful trait when the behaviors lead to the desired results, however it’s highly destructive if the behaviors lead to undesired results. One can imagine our caveman ancestors deriving large benefits from both learning by observation and repeating behaviors as long as they worked. What is somewhat unique with the Beta approach to mating is that it is flawed on so many levels.

As outlined in this essay, the beta approach does not lead to the desired outcomes but to the exact opposite. When one adds the “When you find the right girl it will work” to it, this means encouraging a man to continue what is inherently flawed, in the same manner that telling a man who is getting no results from a bad lifting program “Once you find the right gym you will get swole“. Secondly, it results in a situation where the Beta male will lack sufficient experience and knowledge of women to make a reasoned judgment about long-term relationships. Thirdly, it makes him inherently prone to oneitis. After all, he has been told that his output will be appreciated by the right girl, he has seen his output fail over and over again, thus increasing the perception of scarcity. Furthermore, his process involves front-loading investment, something which increases sunk costs.

In essence, if you sought to create a system that encouraged men to act against their own interests, and ensure that there was someone around to “man up and marry those sluts” you could not have done much of a better job. The basic premise appeals to idealism “Once you find the right one“, it appeals to a man’s sense of duty “Do the right thing“, it positions the “woman who gets it” on a pedestal, it leverages the human man’s inherent preference for deductive problem solving “If A, then B” and finally it utilizes feedback mechanisms to make the man go mental.


Gendernomics: Now available on amazon.com

A Notification: This Sunday I will be appearing on the Mark Baxter Podcast, in what is my first podcast appearance. For those who are not familiar with Mark, he is a red pill blogger and acts as the host of the Mark Baxter Podcast, that in a very short time has built up an impressive string of guests including Illimitableman, Rollo Tomassi of Rational Male and Ed Latimore among others.  Mark and I had a great discussion that included Gendernomics, The Red Pill, Social Justice Warriors and the Future of the West. The Podcast will be posted this Sunday on RealMarkBaxter.com

Advertisements

4 comments on “Gendernomics: Beta Males and Shorted Circuits

  1. Damian says:

    You are constructing a systematic theory out of the fragmentary observations of many men in the manosphere. Your job is higly appreciated, I am a philosopher too. Cheers!

    Like

  2. great post, hits insanely close to home and describes my past thought processes almost to a T, there were some nearly literal overlaps such as my pontificating to my one-itis “if I can just find that switch in your head to turn it on so that you’ll actually be excited when we’re naked”, nearly a direct quote, not too cringy right?

    But I’m responding to go a bit deeper down the rabbit hole around what you are calling “short-circuiting”. I get it, and I can’t disagree with it…. today.

    However in the blue pill world that we live/d in this isn’t seen as short circuiting. Virtually every input we/men get from media, music, entertainment, family, friends, social media during the time that we are in the fog tells us that our wiring is 100% and intact and firing perfectly, we just can’t complete the circuit with another (as you note) since we don’t have our “the one” on the other end to receive it. These “you’re doing it right” messages when you are actually doing it wrong are endemic to today’s society.

    So in your example of making steel, the steel making recipe has been handed off (not handed down, important difference) to us with a laurel and a hearty handshake while we are told for years and years waiting for that moment that once that recipe for steel is in our hands that we can begin to smelt and build. That’s man crack, right? Building things? With our hands? Out of materials that we forge our own way with? What man wouldn’t get hard over the idea of that?

    So we set out to make steel, and each time the batch turns out to be shit. We do it again, because all the input we’ve gotten since the day would could begin to communicate tells us that this is THE recipe. But we endure failure after failure, some costing us nearly our lives, where we emerge as shells of our former selves trying to make this shit steel.

    But here is the kicker for us blue pillers in those moments – we have no clue, none, nada, bupkiss, that something different exists. We’ve been working with the only set of tools that has ever existed. To consider that an option is available? That we can do something different? That there is actually a different recipe for making steel, and it’s sooo different that the steel recipe you’ve been using. Why would we consider that we could even look for a different way to do things? There is zero in our sphere of influence that gives even the remotest of a hint that such an action is possible.

    And you only know this new recipe exists if you receive the gift of having your ears open, and your ego out of the way, that you might be then blessed with someone telling you “oh, by the way you’re not doing it right, here is the right way” and handing you a new set of instructions. In that moment, to consider that there is actually an option, a different way to do it, this is so far afield of what we’ve always known. It would be like someone pointing out that if you beat yourself in the face with an axe that you’ll be able to fly, that there is a 2nd source of air which doesn’t come from the atmosphere. Dunno, make up your own wild non believable scenario, but when you get the gift of the message hitting your ears, and you tumble it around in your big jug head for a few moments, then the truth hits you that there is a 2nd way to make steel…. holy shite, what a moment, and that the steel is the strongest you’ve ever seen, that will build buildings far into the sky. And in your gut, based on all your experience in the past, all those failures, you know this new info finally makes sense of the process. I know where I was, what time it was, what day of the week it was, what I was wearing. A visceral and seminal moment. And the moment was not pretty at all.

    Rambling. The point is that for many there is no concept that there are options, alternate ways of “doing it”. So forge on they must since they are told that the wiring is perfect. So is this really a short-circuit? A circuit can only be seen as broken from a short if the behavior is not as desired. A working circuit is simply a series of shorted pathways designed to create a specific result. If it works it can’t be seen as broken. Everything we see/saw strives to tell us that there is no problem. A feedback loop can’t work if the input is always “things are working as expected” 100% of the time, and there is no possibility for the concept that there is a different way to look at things.

    Like

    • This is a very valid point, if you do not know that other outcomes exist, and your feedback loop is telling you that everything is working correctly, then there is no reason to change the process. However, many former blue pill men find themselves searching for a new steel recipe because they observe time and time again that what they have been promised “This process will make top-grade steel” is inaccurate, they also observe that other men are making top-grade steel despite not following the process.

      There is a statement, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you.” Over time I would venture that most blue pill men understand that something is wrong, but not all of them have the will to move beyond the comfort of “I’m doing exactly what I was told”, this is what I covered in the article called “The Good Boys”.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s