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.

Pro-Social Behavior

Perhaps the most obvious narrative is related to behavior that is a benefit to the social group that the man lives within, for instance being a hard worker and tax-payer is pro-social. This is because the man is not only producing the product of his labor for society, his salary also helps finance public goods regardless of his need for these or not. These public goods are intended to increase the overall happiness within the social group, in an ideal world, perhaps this man could utilize the money he pays in taxes to obtain goods that would cause an overall increase in happiness for him.

One could take two men, one is the worker outlined above, the other earns money to live through a life of crime. The former will help contribute to maintaining the rule of law through both law-abiding behavior and assistance in financing law-enforcement. The latter will negative affect the rule of law through breaking it at his leisure, and as one does not pay taxes on ill-gotten goods, he is not financing law enforcement.

Thus, social narratives are largely based around pro-social behaviors, children are encouraged to say their prayers, eat their vegetables, listen to authority figures and follow the rules. The “Good Boys” do this and frequently go above and beyond in the way they conduct their lives. The social narratives are in their most reduced form, a set of guidelines for how to live a morally correct life, with the promise of rewards following those who are “good boys”. A society that explicitly encourages anti-social behavior is one that will not last very long, as the basic social contract is based on advantages gained through organizing in a social group.

Intersexual Dynamics

The “Good Boys” are very often classic Beta males who buy into the various intersexual narratives that society seeks to ingrain in them from birth. These narratives historically served the same purpose as the pro-social narratives, as there is such a thing as a pro-social intersexual dynamic. Our ancestors recognized that the family unity, and on a slightly larger scale, the tribal unit was the foundation of any group. In a way any nation can be broken down into component groups ending with the family as the smallest unit. Pro-social intersexual behavior is the foundation of the family unit and thus it was encouraged and rewarded throughout history.

Such pro-social intersexual behavior includes the principles that are central to most religion, such as fidelity, loyalty, honor and duty, by ensuring that a great majority of men could have a wife, one ensured that they would have children, by ensuring that men had children one secured their future investment in the social group. After all, it was widely recognized and enforced that a man had a duty to support his wife and his children. Likewise it was enforced that in exchange for the man’s labor, the wife and the children would follow his lead. When a man was seeking to marry a woman, he would ask her father for permission prior to proposing, and if permission was granted, the wife would move from the house of her father to the house of her husband.

This helped ensure that future families be stable, and in the best interest of the involved parties as the wisdom of both extended families carried much weight in the process. However, as we depart our history, the changes that in many ways began with the first wave of feminism, and have been part of an ever increasing feedback system, started to take on dramatic effects. First, divorce became much more commonplace than it had once been, where a woman or man in an unsuccessful marriage could seek a divorce if certain conditions were filled. This was then replaced by no-fault divorce, where no conditions must be met except “I want a divorce“. Sexual freedom went from the ability of a woman to not be damaged goods if she had a long-term relationship or two, to what the manosphere today refers to as “riding the carousel” and an epidemic of single-mothers.

However, one thing that didn’t change much were the narratives presented to the “Good Boys”, the soul-mate myth is still sold in our culture through what has been called “The Disney Narrative”, that encompasses “Happily ever after”, that consists of both building the foundation for oneitis, that elevates a woman onto the pedestal, but also the idea that marrying the “right woman” is the key to a fulfilled life.

The “Become a man” narrative, that has changed from the old order where once a man married he was expected to also take care of the best interests of his wife and children, to a narrative in which the man must put his own best interests last in a hierarchy that he enables through his labor and duty. A man would in history be expected to be responsible for his wife and his children, to do the work required in order to fulfill this duty, and in exchange he would be the family patriarch. This is the narrative that is still presented to the “Good Boys” yet the reality differs, as the husband has become the source of comedy in our popular culture, and little more than the enabler of his wife’s delusions.

Nature, Nurture and Rewards

In the present debate about “Biology Vs. Social Constructs”, it is often ignored that society itself is a social construct of sorts. Human drives towards reproduction, resource hoarding, loyalty to blood, nutrition and security can exist independent of a society, however a society cannot exist independently of these drives. As with most drives, they can be exploited towards positive gain or they can lead to the downfall of civilization. Thus, there is a need to curtail, control and channel these drives towards pro-social ends, which is how various narratives are born.

Morality is a social construct that through defining behaviors, thoughts and actions as good or bad, form the foundation of the narratives. Nature is vicious, the strongest organism or genes survives, through being better adapted to their environment. An organism that requires something that no longer exists in it’s environment will have to either adapt or die out. An organism that has an incremental advantage over other organisms will slowly defeat them in the game of evolution until the other organisms are either dead or adapted.

Nature cares little for “fairness” as it’s core value is “competitiveness”, a non-competitive organism or set of genes is what evolution deems evil, and a competitive collection of genes or an organism is what evolution deems good. Evolution constantly experiments with various mutations and changes, thus it is never finished.

In comparison, human systems of morality are often based around “fairness” and by extension that which is just. However, justice or fairness are human conceptions, not natural conceptions. Even though one can often observe human children as having a strong sense of fairness early in their development, and that this most likely is part of our construction as social animals, it is often concentrated on fairness in terms of outputs not inputs.

If one views human systems of morality, the major systems are duty, consequence and virtue, where the narratives to the “Good Boys” are very much centered on the first. This system asserts that good behavior leads to rewards, perhaps the most obvious one being that Christianity rewards good behavior with a seat in Paradise. This is typical incentive theory at play, where a person behaves in a certain manner with an expectation that this behavior will be rewarded in a fashion that he desires. This is the very dynamic that is the foundation for many married men who more or less ask their wives “What do I have to do to get laid more?”

However, this view of morality is at odds with the manner in which nature works, nature doesn’t care about intent, it cares about consequences. Did or did not a given set of genetics have positive consequences or negative consequences?

Summary and Conclusions

The narratives the “Good Boys” adopted as their guiding light in the world are not necessarily wrong, it merely means that along the way there was a schism between the behavior society requires of humans in order to function well, and the institutions that it utilizes to reward or punish those behaviors. Society is quite Skinnerian, in that it seeks utilize narratives in order to encourage pro-social behavior and a set of rewards and punishments in order to further encourage “Good” behavior.

The fundamental problem many recovering blue pill men and blue pill men in general tends to face is “I did everything right, why didn’t I get the rewards I was promised“. Many find themselves awakening when they realize that despite behaving accordance with “best practice” as told to them through the blue pill narrative, Chad Jerkboy is getting laid more. Despite being conscientious, dutiful and loyal workers, Patrick the Psychopath who started years after them is in the corner-office and despite being the perfect husbands and fathers, their wife hit them with a surprise divorce.

The most basic level this can be reduced to is a cause-effect hypothesis. The “Good Boys” are following the hypothesis that if they act in accordance with the narratives that society raised them to believe in, this will cause them to be rewarded with good jobs, good marriages and good lives. However, as the social mechanisms that governed this cause and effect relationship have reverted to an earlier form, which is arguably a form closer to nature, this hypothesis is now an erroneous one. Our societies in the West has changed from one based in deontological ethics to one based in consequentialist ethics.

What this means is that no longer are rewards and punishments doled out on the basis of following rules, but rather the consequences of actions. We have gone from a society where status, esteem and other rewards are not based on “What is good” but on “What works”. After all, what good is following a rule if the results of following it are not to your liking?

Gendernomics is now available on


17 comments on “Red Pill Logic: The Good Boys

  1. Holly says:

    Interesting Disney narrative. I have to admit, it made me softly chuckle.

    When did women stop at becoming the exception than the rule? How would these two look to men nowadays.

    Another question, please. When did women break up with their boyfriends or husband because he lost his job??!! Our daughter and I find this terribly shocking as we were discussing it yesterday.


    • I don’t understand your first question.

      For your second question here is an article on the topic with a link to a study that did confirm that the man losing his job increased the chances of divorce. I’m suspecting this began in the 70s or 80s and was further exacerbated throughout the 90s and 2000s.


    • stan says:

      I was at a college reunion/homecoming type event in the early 90s (not mine), a group of women in their early 30s from a top sorority were catching up. All were attractive, some very much so. One was describing what had happened to one of their friends. She was hot, she’d married a hot guy, they were madly in love, and both started out with great jobs, etc.. But his job didn’t work out. He tried a couple of others without success. “When it became clear that he was a loser, of course, she had to get a divorce.” The rest of the group (8 or so) all nodded their heads as they heard the story.

      “Of course.” She’s hot, he’s a loser — divorce city. “Of course”. It’s what one should expect in that case.

      Note — I knew about half the women. I would bet that all or most had been raised in a Christian church and all had said marriage vows of their own promising to love for richer or poorer.

      I wondered what they’d all be saying in 15 years when the story was about one of their sorority sisters whose mean, rotten husband left her for a hot new trophy wife after she’d raised their 3 kids. Apparently the deal is they trade looks for bucks. If he doesn’t consistently perform in providing the bucks, she divorces him. If he performs, but she no longer has the looks, it’s on outrage for him to divorce her for non-performance of her end of the bargain.

      Actually, a pretty stupid bargain from a woman’s perspective. A lot of guys will thrive financially over time. Not very many women hold onto their looks for decades.


      • Shawn says:

        One thing you forgot. When the man divorces and trades up for younger hotter. The man still losses in the court system. Once a man makes it legal and then compounds that with children, the male doesn’t come out clean. Women don’t ever have to worry about (except extreme cases)


      • Our modern court system and state in general is set up for the benefit of women at the expense of men.


  2. SupDawg says:

    “Nature cares little for “fairness” as it’s core value is “competitiveness””

    But you started your these with the most competitive people being beta. So which is it? Those the compete are beta or those that are non-conformist?


    • SupDawg says:


      “Nature cares little for “fairness” as it’s core value is “competitiveness””

      But you started your thesis with the claim that most competitive people are labeled beta (Rat race if you will).

      So which is it? Are those that complete beta or those that are non-conformist?


      • The point is that “The good boys” are competitive in the way society tells them to be, which was fine back when society also rewarded that behavior. However, as society no longer rewards that behavior, and it is now up to nature to reward that behavior, the prescription and the results do not match.

        What is beneficial for society and what is beneficial to natural selection are two different things.


      • SupDawg says:

        Going to have to disagree with you there. Aside, I enjoy your writing.

        Data shows that educated men have 2.3 female to male education ratio in large urban environments. Hypergamy will get you laid (they don’t date down.) Education is linked to income etc. It may be a status signal, but it works, and that is all evolution cares about in a high cognitive load environment.

        From what I gather in the scientific literature, non-conformity is attractive when it’s slight. Hitmakers (book) makes the same argument. We want familiarity with a slight edge.

        Maybe society is not programming, but rather the evolutionary environment? That is the better argument.


      • Data also shows that educational attainment has a negative correlation with number of sex partners, in the extreme case was MIT where 42% of students identified themselves as virgins. Having a high paying job and a solid education will get you laid eventually, however as the beta bucks option, which is a case of glorified prostitution, and what I refer to when I wrote of the “good boys” who do everything right, only to find out that their princess wasn’t saving the best.

        A woman in her party years, cares little for a man’s job, money or educational attainment, those are the focuses of women who have reached their epiphany phase and are looking for a beta provider.


      • SupDawg says:

        Sure, no one is arguing for nice guy syndrome. Pursuing excellence in academics or in the social arena doesn’t mean you are a good guy though. Dark Triads do cooperate more than the social tropes on the interweb claim they do.

        “A woman in her party years, cares little for a man’s job, money or educational attainment”

        Ain’t this the truth.


  3. […] The average blue pill man learns that hiding his sexual intent is appropriate, he learns that he needs to buy drinks and pay on dates, he learns that he must build a life that he can invite a woman into  and many other things. These various scripts make up a “good boy”. […]


  4. Wild Man says:

    Though I mostly liked your article, it does contain one inaccuracy of import:

    “In comparison, human systems of morality are often based around “fairness” and by extension that which is just. However, justice or fairness are human conceptions, not natural conceptions.”

    There is alot of evidence for the existence of biological dynamics based on some mutuality, thus allowing for cooperative strategies to emerge (both intra-species-wise as well as from the ecological perspective). The correct understanding of the Darwinian perspective implies both competition as well as collaboration – in fact a competitive/collaborative polarity. And of course, said strategies supporting such cooperative dynamics have been selected for by way of the consequential sieve. And furthermore, to be clear, said cooperative strategies indeed still are, exploitive in impetus.

    You are implying that there is no comprehensive biological basis for human concepts like fairness – and that is untrue. Of course fairness does imply the element of self-interest is at play.

    If this is not correctly understood, then downstream from said misunderstanding, mis-judgments will abound, and that is a matter of import.


    • There is no denying that there is a lot of evidence for biological adaptation towards concepts of fairness (and various others)in nature. The meaning behind that sentence is that the organization of such impulses into cohesive systems that govern human interactions are not invented or enforced by nature but by humans.


      • Wild Man says:

        Hello Black Label Logic – thank-you for clarifying. I agree that the organization of natural impulses, such as cooperation, as contingent upon a sense of fairness, which in turn may be contingent upon a sense of trust, which in turn may be contingent upon a sense for the dynamic of self-interest, other-self-interest, and therefore the conditions of mutual interest, which in turn may be contingent upon the deepest root sense (with regards to biological priorities), namely the sense of self-preservation ……does inform the operation of cohesive human social systems – as represented by human concepts such as ‘morality’ and ‘justice’. (Note: I will clarify definitions around ‘sense’ below).

        But my point is that the entirety of human expression, and the operation of cohesive human social systems, find impetus by way of the organization of natural impulses.

        There is also a natural impulse for competition, which at root is also contingent upon a sense of self-preservation. Self-preservation operates by way of control of environmental parameters. For instance a very basic and primordial self-preservation script of said control is ‘membrane’. As such a sense of ‘self’ and ‘other’ is already implied by the operation of any self-preservation script. Also, the ‘control’ that is also implied by the operation of any self-preservation script, implies an impetus towards dominance. Dominance implies submission (by way of polarity). But the dominance/submission polarity may play out in more immediate time frames, or may be deferred. This I think is the basic root differences between biological imperatives implied by competition vs. cooperation, ….. competitive strategies seek to resolve the impetus towards dominance more immediately, and cooperative strategies seek to defer the impetus towards dominance for future resolution, in order to otherwise gain more immediate benefits by way of risk avoidance. But it turns out that said risk avoidance strategies sometimes have surprisingly powerful ancillary benefits – for said strategies sometimes allow for the possibility for synergetic and mutual benefits to arise that are exponential advantageous to all parties, supercharged win/win-style. For instance the symbiotic relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, by way of mitochondria, is a primordial example of the surprisingly powerful ancillary mutual benefits of said cooperative strategies.

        Now by the word ‘sense’ as I have used so far, I do no necessarily mean as contingent on sentience. Everything I have said so far in regards to the use of the word ‘sense’ could be understood, in pre-conscious, mathematical, or even mechanical terms. I am not arguing against the principle of sentience as an inherent element of life, but wish to pre-emptively deflect any secondary counter-arguments that some may make, around human vs. natural contingents. As such I am in fact arguing for the idea that all human contingents are based on and arise out of natural contingents. I am arguing for the idea, that clearly, the human realm is just an extension of the natural realm, and fully contingent there upon.

        When I say – “The correct understanding of the Darwinian perspective implies both competition as well as collaboration – in fact a competitive/collaborative polarity”, I am alluding to, more precisely ….. the mystery implied by the question, …..”where does the impetus towards self-preservation, that seeks environmental control, or dominance, as conditioned by the logic of ‘self’ and ‘other’, reside? In the “self’ or the ‘other’?” Ponder that and one will realize the competition/collaboration truly is a polarity – each implies the other and is contingent upon the other for operation-sake. And or course we see the evidence for the accuracy of this perspective everywhere. For instance – the cut-throat win/lose competition that occurred for electric power distribution systems between Tesla and Edison, was binary, had one winner, by way of selection by merit, yet provided exponential benefits for the larger group, because the beneficients of the competition were not binary.

        Or also by way of another example – more abstractly now, …… in the Darwinian sense, culture is contingent upon (as in “arising out of”) the collective of individual organisms. But at the same time, in this Darwinian sense, culture can be seen as the emergent property that arises out of the Darwinian dynamic of a species’ search of the available genetic combinatorial space, as said combinatorial space interfaces with ever-changing environmental conditions, with said search as biased towards adaptability (due to the specific variabilities of the search parameters – namely mutation, as well as the variability inherent to the various varieties of sexual and asexual selection). As such, in the Darwinian sense, the converse ordering is also implied (i.e. – the converse idea that – individual organisms are each contingent upon, as is in “arising out of”, the cultural collective …. which is this emergent property). It really is the “which came first – the chicken or the egg?” problem at it’s root. And since (science-wise) we don’t know enough yet about the nature of emergent properties – we still cannot answer the question and must consider that perhaps there truly is no accurate answer, because perhaps the assumption built into the question (that there truly is a primordial ordering in this respect) is flawed. Hence the mystery implied by the question “where does the impetus towards self-preservation, that seeks environmental control, or dominance, as conditioned by the logic of ‘self’ and ‘other’, reside? In the “self’ or the ‘other’? (or by way of the Darwinian sense – does it reside in the organism or species?)”

        Black Label Logic – I am just now getting familiar with your writing. I notice you take an economics approach to gender dynamics, that is novel, interesting and informative (informative by way of synthetic enlargement of the usual perspective on this topic). My assumption is that your approach seeks to uncover underlying (but perhaps hidden) patterns of natural source with respect to gender dynamics. As such I would be interested to know what you think of the natural pattern of competitive/collaborative polarity that I am alluding to here (given that such concepts would be a matter of import for analysis of any dynamical system, including gender dynamics)?

        Also, by way of a different topic, at the most abstract level – I am also wondering what the conditions are, that allow the competitive/collaborative polarity to arise, …… and my initial thoughts around this is that it probably has something to do with conditions that support the eternal non-resolution of system tendencies towards thermodynamic equilibrium, and my strong intuition is that said equilibrative-non-resolution parameters are most likely a hallmark of the concept of ‘polarity’ in general, and furthermore, my strong intuition is – that the principle of polarity and it’s operation, is a precondition of the deep mystery around the arising of, or formation of strong emergence (which consciousness perhaps may be a good example of).


  5. […] as these are the shared instructions they all agree upon. I touched on this previously in “The Good Boys“,  who are men that follow all the narratives that they have been told, only to find that […]


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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