Red Pill Logic: The Good Boys

Some men go through life in a very predictable pattern, always seeking validation for their pro-social behavior. Whether it be as children when they follow the directions of parents, teachers, other adults, or when they grow up and adopt the familiar narratives that so many men fall victim to in their journey through life. In my time in academia I saw many of these men, often seeking predictable safe degrees in engineering, business, accounting, that they had been planning to do for most of their life. Their time prior to college had often been spent getting the best grades possible, maximizing their extracurricular activities, keeping up their perfect attendance scores and otherwise maximizing their chances of getting into a “good” college.

A majority of them had a life-plan laid out that went something along the lines of get into a good college, get a solid degree with good grades, intern with one of the top companies available, graduate, get a job with this company, work their way up the corporate ladder, be rewarded with a beautiful sexpot wife, 2.4 kids and a beautiful home. This goal was their motivation and they put their nose to the grindstone every single day to make it a reality. However, as is often the case with plans, in their meeting with reality few if any hold up.

As Mike Tyson once said “Everyone has a plan ’till they get punched in the mouth.”

The trouble that such men often face, is that rather than designing their own path in life, they accepted the various narratives that they had been presented with while growing up and then permitted their super-ego to govern their life, for years if not decades. The “Good Boys” are convinced that there is an inner morality to the world, and that the social narratives present the good way to live, thus if one lives according to the narratives, one will be rewarded for one’s good behavior. This world-view is embodied in the concept of karma, where good things come to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Continue reading

Gendernomics: The Margin of Safety

The margin of safety is a concept that has been popularized by various value investors, among them Warren Buffet and Seth Klarman, which is centered upon reviewing investments from a risk averse perspective. While many investors tend to review their investments from the perspective of growth potential, future market potential or various macro-centered models, these investors seek to find characteristics in the investment that acts as protection should their valuation be flawed, or future expectations not materialize. The earlier examples tended to be centered on assets that the company held that could be liquidated in order to ensure that the loss they had to take was minimal.

As time went on, investors such as Buffet changed their focus to alternative margins of safety, such as company reputations, market positions, barriers to entry and various other less tangible elements. For instance, the major margin of safety in the Coca Cola Company is the market position and brand recognition that the company has spent decades building since its inception. This concept of the margin of safety is very applicable in the sexual market place, and one of the major arguments in this post deals with how women are naturally wired to seek margins of safety in their market transactions. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Models of Attraction

Within marketing purchasing models serve as tools to determine how consumers make decisions regarding purchases. If one can deduce which model consumers rely on when they make their decision, the product and presentation can be tailored so that it fits well into this model, and stands apart from the competition. The models can be broken down further into models for quality, pricing, positioning and various others, in second-order consumer analysis. An example would be that if customers value perceived quality as the most important characteristic of a product, which component factors make up “quality”.

I touched on such models in “Gendernomics”, where I argue that female attraction is based on a weighted compensatory model, rather than a straight-up non-compensatory model. This differs from the male model, that at least for short-term mating appears to be very close to a ranked model of sorts. This has some overlap with the manner in which humans make purchase decisions within a marketplace under various forms of limitations. Buying decisions differ based on the nature of the purchase, we cannot make a full system 2 decision every time we decide on what drink to get with a meal, and we cannot make a system 1 decision when it comes to making investments or purchases with long-term consequences.

As I wrote this, my view of the female models somewhat changed as one cannot explain both sets of female sexual strategy with a single model. As a result of this I found myself refining the concepts I used in the book, in order to create a better construct for the female sexual strategies.

Non-Compensatory Models

This is the most simple model of those I speak of in this article, for this model one simply lists the various product preferences in a sheet, assigns a score to each characteristic, and the product that scores the highest “wins“. This is quite similar to short-term mating choices for men, that tend to lean heavily towards beauty as a proxy for fertility as the chief characteristic of decision-making. Such models are often created in order to simplify decision-making, and frequently fail to take into account trade-offs between options, fail to collect all the relevant information and relies heavily upon one or two main characteristics. Within Non-compensatory models there are 4 primary categories, conjunctive, disjunctive, lexicographic and elimination by aspects.

In conjunctive models the person uses minimum cutoff values on desired attributes. An example would be a consumer that looks at a car, and requires a score of at least 6 on gas mileage in order to consider a car. In disjunctive models the consumer is willing to trade-off certain features for other features, a low-carb dieter for instance may be willing to accept a lower protein content if the fat content improves. In the lexicographic model, the person will buy whatever product scores the highest on the most important attribute, for instance the comparison may start with gas mileage, if more than one alternative remains, he may then consider driving comfort, and so on. Finally, the elimination by aspects approach is a mixture of the lexicographic model and the disjunctive model, as the consumer ranks the characteristics by importance but also adds in minimum values.

Models of Attraction

When one studies human male attraction, the visual nature of it is quite central. This does make evolutionary sense, as things like hair, teeth, figure and various other visual queues are also fertility cues. Over time, men who were better at seeing these visual cues, would have had a higher number of offspring who shared the preference for the very visual cues that are linked with higher numbers of offspring. This can be likened to a lexicographic model, where the male first considers fertility cues, then he may go on to consider other characteristics if there are more options remaining.

The female model on the other hand is more difficult to nail down, but based on the book “A Billion Wicked Thoughts” that based on search engine data describes it as a detective agency, appears to be an elimination by aspects model, where characteristics are ranked by importance, but also have certain minimum values. In essence a woman’s mind works off the statement “You must be this tall for me to ride you“. This correlates very well with the concept of “hypergamy”, the tendency of women to always prefer a mate of higher value than themselves, which arguably serves as a form of risk-mitigation. After all, if a mate is 2 – 3 points above your own value, then it follows that if your value increases or theirs decreases, you there is a some leeway, in addition to a margin of error in judgment.

This can be likened to the concept of a “hurdle-rate” in investments, where a prospective investment must promise a return over a certain rate, often the cost of capital, but it may also be another hurdle in order to be considered. However, this is also simplified, as if we break it down, short-term mating vs. long-term mating are different decisions. While one may argue that for a woman, a short-term mating decision will have had potentially long-term consequences back before birth control as out of wedlock children would have been a major risk, this risk appears to be acceptable for women provided the long-term rewards are great enough. Thus, the existence of dual-models for women based on whether the decision undertaken is a high or low investment decision follows.

For the long-term decision the elimination by aspects model, with weighted criteria appears to be the valid one, as this reflects a high-investment and high risk prospect. After all, she is exclusively promising her fertility/sexuality to a single male, thus, she must ensure that this is the one who promises the best deal according to hypergamy. This is the model that is the source of the hundreds of traits women claim they want in a man that fill page after page of magazines. This outlines every trait she thinks/should want in a partner according to social programming. This also correlates nicely with the system 1 vs system 2 style decisions that I wrote about in an earlier article.

However, for short-term mating as I outlined in the article referenced in the last sentence, the circumstance of mating would dictate that there is not sufficient time or data for the woman to conduct an analysis of the man. Thus, there must exist a secondary model that women utilize to make decisions regarding short-term mating. In this case, it would make sense if this reflects a similar model to the one utilized in general by men, as short-term mating would have to reflect a focus on capitalizing upon a rare opportunity to secure high-value genetic material. When it comes to short-term decisions, social proof such as a man being seen with other women she deems her equal or superior, serves as a guarantee that other women have evaluated the man and their evaluation serves to support her own. In the same regard, a woman who observes a man being treated poorly by such women, will conclude that he has been evaluated by them and found wanting.

Triggering Models

As I wrote in the earlier article on system 1 vs system 2 type decisions:

If one looks at the central points of “Beta Game“, it is very much a system 2 oriented approach. A beta volunteers plenty of data to the woman and dates often take the form of job-interviews where the Beta is attempting to logically convince the woman of his worthiness as a mate. It is as if he is reading a user manual for her about him.

“Alpha Game” on the other hand, is very much a system 1 approach, focusing on arousing emotions, impulsivity and rapid decisions. Alpha game is in a sense the cheat meal a person has because they found themselves in a situation where they could not resist, whereas beta game is the tupperware box of carefully prepared chicken breasts and broccoli.

The same behaviors that cause a woman to leverage her system 2 or 1, are the same that cause her to engage the short-term vs long-term mating model. This is a reflection of the man’s behavior towards her. An observation that can be made about “Beta Game” is that it reflects the old statement “Women use sex to negotiate a relationship, men use a relationship to negotiate sex“. This reflects a deeply held belief among many men that women only have sex in relationships, and require the courting step as a precursor to intimacy, when it can be observed that women are more likely to mate with an alpha and then try to negotiate a relationship from that.

If one looks at the concept of a “shotgun wedding”, something that has occurred and still occurs to this day, it is quite clear that this was not as uncommon as the public narrative would want to suggest. The term for “shotgun wedding” in Japanese translates roughly to “oops-we-did-it marriage”. While the motivations for coercive marriage has been many throughout the world, it has historically been related to restoring the honor of the woman, or ensuring that the child has a father, which makes me wonder how many Alphas found themselves getting a ring on their finger with a shotgun aimed at their back, with the bride-to-be exhilarated that her gambit worked.

Summary and Conclusions

The discussion regarding female short-term vs long-term mating behaviors are not new to manosphere in any regard. They have been around since the first couple of men saw that women seemingly engaged two different behavior sets depending on their perception of a man. Game evolved as a methodology to leveraged the observed behavior and was then field-tested for accuracy. Last week’s post and this post, are tentative evaluations of what characterizes the underlying models that govern these two models and what triggers the preferred use of one over the other.

If one assumes that the two are linked in a causal relationship where system 1 engagement leads to the woman employing a simple lexicographic model, whereas system 2 engagement leads to the use of the elimination by aspects model. This would be supported by manosphere staple principles such as not waiting for sex (it signals that the woman is engaging her system 2 and elimination by aspects model), not spending money on a woman prior to sex (triggers system 2) or appealing to her emotions (jump-starts system 1). Then it follows that one could analyze various game theories, and tactics through the lens of which system of decision-making they appeal to, overtly qualifying yourself means she has to actively evaluate the information you are presenting to her, and thus would lead her to engage her system 2. Leading her off on a journey filled with emotional excitement would appeal to her system 1.

The error often made in Beta game, apart from appealing to her ability to be logical and utilize deductive logic, is that they sub-consciously sense her various hurdles and attempt to live up to them, in effect altering themselves to fit her model, rather than framing the interaction in a manner which triggers the opposite reaction. A woman senses if a man adapts to her, or if she must adapt to him, in the case of the former that serves as a warning signal to engage system 2 and the elimination by aspects model, in the case of the latter it triggers system 2 and the simple lexicographic model.

Gendernomics is now available on Amazon.com

Sources: 

[1] A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Oni Ogas

Red Pill Logic: Willpower and Consistency

As with many other men in the manosphere I engage in near constant self-improvement in one or more areas of my life, and one that that I’ve discovered is how important consistency is in order to gain progress. Perhaps the best example is the influx of people who start using a gym right after new years chasing their resolutions only to drop out a few weeks to a few months later.

They may get a little bit of progress, but they never end up losing as much fat or gaining as much muscle as they desired. This is our innate wiring screwing us over in a way, because historically speaking the people who survived were those who had programming that ensured the biggest energy surplus over a longer period of time.

The other day I saw a tweet by Ed Latimore regarding how underrated consistency is as a value.

This tweet, in addition to inspiring this post, got me thinking about some of the great books I’ve read so far this year that deal with diet, nutrition, training and general self-improvement, and what tends to get in our way when attempting to reach our self-improvement goals. Furthermore, what principles have I adopted over the years in order to remain consistent on various paths of self-improvement. Continue reading

Gendernomics: The Cover and the Content

Don’t judge a book by its cover” is an old metaphor that seeks to remind us that we should not judge the quality of something based on outwards appearance alone. This is a very classic “System 1” error [1], wherein one makes a rapid judging based on information that is easily available. A good analogy I heard was that Sherlock Holmes is an example of pure system 2, slow, deliberate and logical, whereas Watson is system 1, quick, emotional and superficial.

I’ve somewhat avoided venturing into the discussion “Looks Vs. Game” that has been ongoing in the sphere since I first became familiar with it in the early 2000s. Back then, “game” was sold as the magic pill that would make a man into master seducer regardless of any other aspect of his life. This is very much understandable from a business perspective, as those men who relied on selling various game techniques had and still have every incentive to hard-sell game as the ultimate solution to the problem “I want to get laid more”. Of course, one could argue that this sales pitch was brutally and empirically proven wrong when VH1 aired two seasons of “The Pick-up artist“, where it became very clear that game cannot overcome a general lack of social skills, anti-seductive behavior patterns or various problems with a man’s appearance.  Even the “Game Guru” Erik Von Markovik, the inventor of the Mystery Method demonstrated in this program that game is not a magic pill.

This is not to say that game does not work, however it is to state in a reductio ad absurdum fashion that an 800 lb man who lives in his mother’s basement, hasn’t had a shower since the Clinton administration, and spends his days playing videogames could be the most proficient practitioner of game in the history of the world, yet would fail miserably in the sexual market place. Conversely that a great looking guy with zero game while he may be unsuccessful in some respects, would gain a higher level of success than the former. Continue reading

Red Pill Analogies: Part 1

Some of these first originated in my Twitter feed (@blacklabellogic) where I tend to drop them fairly regularly, and some I haven’t shared before on that platform for various reasons.

1. Sleeping with women you work with is like putting a TV in your gym, it distracts from why you are there, and impedes your progress.

2. Relationships are like a weed habit, you become complacent and get nothing done.

3. Crazy women are like cocaine habits, expensive as fuck, and it always ends badly.

4. Dating is like BBQ, if it heats up too fast, it always ends with something being on fire.

5. Crazy women are like the CIA, you think everything is cool until you realize she went through all your stuff, and cut the brakes on your car.

6. Having a blue pilled dating coach/relationship adviser is like having a naïve and trusting lawyer.

7. In the present legal climate letting a woman be responsible for birth control is like letting the state do your taxes.

8. A woman attempting to get you to have unprotected sex after the break-up is like trying to get you to burn the prenup prior to filing.

9. Having unprotected sex with a woman after the break-up is like putting all your cash in the bank prior to filing for divorce.

10. Self-deprecation to get people to like you is like doubling down on communism because you want to get rich.

11. Moral arguments are like Geometry class, you try angles, end up going in circles, but inevitably get stuck in a square.

12. Excuses are like shots of scotch, everyone has a few, some have too many, but truth is if you have too many, you won’t get shit done.

13. A woman treats her sexual history as an intelligence operative does his resume, it’s classified, if they told you they have to kill you.

14. A woman is a lot like a corporation, regardless of how shady, they always spin it as if doing a public virtuous service.

15. Game can be duct tape or a solid strategy. It either holds a bad product together, or drives a solid product to new levels of success.

16. Talking about game with a woman on a date, is like telling a guy how much you’re fucking him over in a contract before he signs it.

17. Being red pilled is like weight lifting, if you stop you inevitably backslide into a weaker version of yourself.

18. Equality defined by politicians is like “fair and equitable settlement” as defined by a pissed off ex-wife.

19. Having a long-distance relationship is like having a business where you think about getting money.

20. A man looks at a woman and sees her perfection in-spite of her flaws, a woman looks at a man and sees his flaws despite his perfection.

21. Marriage for men in 2017, is like an unpaid internship where if the employer is unhappy with the work performed, they can sue for damages.

22. A pre-wall woman’s actions in the sexual market place is like a cat chasing a laser-pointer.

23. Make-up, spanx and instagram filters are to women as fake ATM receipts, rented cars, and escorts as to men.

25. A man in the sexual market place is like a stable growth company, his value will increase from nothing during his lifetime.

26. A woman in the sexual market place is like a stock during the tech bubble, starting off massively overvalued, then rapidly diminishing in value when investors realize there is nothing more to it than a flashy powerpoint presentation.

27. A man with no male friends is like a general without an army.

28. A woman with no female friends is like an investment advisor without an office.

29. Social media adoration is to the female psyche as accounting fraud is to securities valuations.

30. A man’s view of the world is like a navigators view of the ocean, the more flaws there are, the more off course he gets.

31. A blue pill man in the sexual market place, is like an unarmed bear hunter wrapped in bacon.

32. For a man contacting an ex after a breakup, is like going back to the car salesman you told to fuck off and trying to get a better deal on the car.

33. For a woman contacting an ex after a breakup is like asking the guy you robbed to hold your wallet.

34. For a man dating multiple women is insurance that he won’t fall in love with the wrong woman.

35. For a woman dating multiple men is insurance that when she finds herself pregnant and pulls an “it’s yours” at least one of them is dumb enough to take her at her word.

36. A 20 year old woman in the sexual market place is like a brand new iPhone, a 40 year old woman in the sexual market place is like a 40 year old Nokia.

37. Dating a borderline woman is like buying a Samsung Note 7, inevitably it’ll end up blowing up in your face.

38. Dating crazy women is a lot like cheat meals, you can handle one, once in a while, but if it’s a daily occurrence you get no progress at all.

39. Women’s dating preference is like their preference in pets, cats are aloof, impossible to train and will eat your face to survive.

40. Men’s dating preferences is like their preference in pets, dogs are loyal, can be trained with a stern hand, and will guard your grave after you die.

41. Crazy women are like Kinder surprise, a soft, sweet outer shell, followed by a hard inner shell that can lead to death, and there is no telling what kind of crazy broken down toy is within the inner shell.

42. Going to marriage counseling is like attempting to work out a broken engine by talking to your car.

43. Women are like convicts in that the more religious they become the worse was their action prior to converting.

44. Dating a single mother is like inheriting a broken mansion with a lien on it.

45.  Red pillers are Neo, Purple Pillers are Cypher and Blue pillers are Agent Smith.

46. Being on a bad date is like being in the Matrix, in that you are just waiting for that one phone so you can get out.

47. Marrying a former party girl is like buying a car off Gary Busey, you know it’s been driven hard, and has some damage on it.

48. Your mother-in-law is what your wife will become, your father-in-law what you will become.

49. Approaching relationships like a blue-pill man is like approaching the tax collector as someone who just wants to help you.

50. Being honest in a relationship is like being honest during a police interrogation.

 

 

Red Pill Logic: Dangerous Habits

The past week I had a conversation with a gentleman regarding trouble he’s having sticking with his recently adopted low-carb diet. He explained to me that when he gets stressed his habit is to calm this stress through consuming a few different foods that are “Diet Kryptonite“, meaning that they consist of high levels of both fat and highly processed carbohydrate. As the conversation continued, I dug into his mind using the Socratic method, to ascertain where this habit came from.

This is one of those things that any man focused on improving himself should do every once in a while, sit down, outline habits you perceive as contrary to your goals, or unproductive and determine where they came from. As Scott Adams says, we are biological computers, and we often internalize small fragments of code that end up having massive consequences on how our operating system functions.

When I made my first attempts at self-improvement I failed quite spectacularly, often due to habitual behavior.  Thus, I found myself in the position of engaging in “Self-psycho-analysis” to try and determine the source of some of these habits that I’d ingrained over the years. Furthermore, determining where these habits came from so that I could avoid ingraining new ones that conflicted with my goals.

Seemingly innocuous messages that you received in childhood can stay with you for a long time, and continue to influence your behavior in a negative or positive fashion for decades. Some learn ineffective use of defense mechanisms, others self-sabotage, accept mediocrity, and never challenge themselves to go beyond their comfort zone.

Continue reading