Red Pill Logic: The Walls of Jericho

A barrier in Porter’s model represents either hindrance from engaging in willful and informed action towards an objective or a defense from encroachment on your objective once the wheels are in motion. A barrier to entry for instance represents both a defense for existing market participants, but also a hindrance for potential new market entrants.

During my last appearance on the Mark Baxter Podcast, along with¬† Rollo Tomassi [1], Mark referenced an article of Rollo’s entitled “Buffers”[2] that deals with the many buffers that men utilize in order to reduce the risk of rejection. Thus they are inherently rationalizations of behavior used to avoid taking risks.

Barriers serve a similar function within the male psyche, and most sentences involving them tend to be related to “enough yet“. When I first started reading the manosphere back in the early 2000s, it was quite obvious that there was a deeper set of behaviors below the surface. The scripts themselves were fine, but as game went on, the idea that “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it” started to take hold. This coincided with the idea of “natural game”, which sought to take game from following scripts in a flow-chart to being the default state of behavior.

I’ve covered various aspects of the blue pill and red pill perspectives, various alpha behaviors and so on previously, however I’ve scarcely addressed the barriers to the underlying state required in order to manifest such behaviors. This is a simple case of cause and effect, when one engages in “fake it until you make it” one is acting out the effect without the prerequisite cause.

To exemplify the concept, if one never feels fear, one can never be brave, because bravery means acting in spite of fear. Thus, a prerequisite state to bravery is fear. The “Enough Yet” problem comes when a man procrastinates or fails to do something because of his own inner game hangups. This is not purely a red pill/game related problem, it could be the guy who wants to start his own business but doesn’t think he’s competent “enough yet”, the guy who wants to gain some muscle but doesn’t think he’s ready “enough yet” to get into the gym.

These emotions forms the barrier to entry for his venture, and there are only two possible solutions to this problem:

A) Do it now, do your best and accept the consequences, the chips will fall as they may.

B) Do not do it and spend more time in preparation until he feels ready.

The people who select option A generally tend to come out better than those who select option B, because those who only want that little extra piece of preparation never quite get that final piece. I’ve helped many a person with their thesis, their research proposals, business cases and such over the years, and those who fall into category B, never get truly good results. The depressing aspect of that is that they are often the most competent people.¬† This could be viewed as the Dunning-Kruger effect in practice, as people who are highly competent will often be the most competent at finding flaws in their own work and as they become more competent as they prepare, they find new perspectives and information, which causes them to postpone action. However, when you combine this with a tendency towards perfectionism, wanting to be in control of every eventuality and every variable, it creates an unwinnable scenario.

There are only two possible outcomes, number one is that they fail and use this as evidence to prove that they should have spent more time preparing, number two is that they succeed and obsess over what they could have done better. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Internal Messaging

In recent weeks I’ve written posts on hypo- and hypermasculinity and the role of the anima and animus, what these have in common is that they both deal with reactions to environmental stimuli, often in early childhood that continue to influence behavior well into adulthood.

We know that human beings are not born as blank slates, we are born with a number of genetic predispositions that affect our personality, our performance and various other parts of our lives on a day to day basis. Our genetics influence many aspects of our behavior and perhaps one of the more well-known are “The Warrior Genes” [1], known to influence antisocial behavior and predispositions towards violence.

From the day we are born, we are also socialized by our parents, our peer groups, relatives, family friends and various other sources of patterns that we internalize. Before we can think in abstract, before we can reason, before we can even speak, we are internalizing and implementing patterns of behavior and thought. The manifestations of such behaviors can subtract or add to our genetics, a famous example is researcher James Fallon who despite possessing both the neurological and genetic correlates of psychopathy, does not engage in many of the negative behaviors associated with the genetic or neurological makeup [2]. He largely credits this to his positive upbringing, and the positive patterns that he learned as part of his socialization. Such patters are among the oldest we have in our life, they are the deepest ingrained in our mind and burnt into our brain, having been repeated throughout most of our lives. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Hypo- and Hyper Masculinity

Many men find the red pill or red pill adjacent communities as a result of life kicking them in the teeth. This kick is often related to intersexual dynamics, a wife leaving them, discovering that their wife is deeply disordered, or a myriad of other stories, however these men tend to manifest a case of being “hypomasculine”. This is not surprising given that the past 2 – 3 generations of western men have grown up in a community that not only does not overtly value masculinity, but in many cases demonizes it.

Be it the boys who are medicated for manifesting behaviors that 2 – 3 decades ago would be classified as “boys will be boys“, those who are raised by a single mother without any masculine idol to form themselves after, or those who are raised in a context where they view their mother henpeck their father for most of their formative years, it is understandable that they will struggle when it comes to developing a healthy masculine identity.

A pet theory of mine for some time, is that a boy put into such a situation, tends to go in one of two directions. He will either identify with his mother’s plight, and take on a co-dependent role where he will attempt to alleviate his mother’s neurosis in the hope that this will return her to a state in which she can be the caretaker he desires, or he will grow to reject his mother’s histrionics and instead develop a hyper-masucline identity. In the case of the former, he grows to embody the traits and behaviors normally associated with positive femininity that his mother lacks. In the case of the latter, he grows to reject all female traits within himself completely.

This is part of the reason why books such as “No More Mr. Nice Guy” are doing well, many boys find that the masculine has been beaten out of them after 10+ years in public school systems, surrounded by media narratives that does little except make fun of- and demonize traditional masculinity. This book is a “gateway book” towards developing a masculine identity that is not necessarily the “house cat of maleness” embodied by beer, man-caves and ESPN. While I do think that much of mainstream “male-centered” writing of this nature trends strongly towards blue-pill or at best purple pill narratives, it serves as a less harsh introduction to red pill themes. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Anima, Animus and Jung

A while back I wrote a post on how our society is engaged in the mass-production of Beta males and female narcissists, in essence creating men weak of will and women with dogged determination. This translates into men that act more female than male, often being submissive, lacking decisiveness and rejecting the very notion that there is such a thing as “male behavior”. Likewise, the women reject the notion that there is such a thing as “unfeminine” behavior, which often manifests in behaviors such as being argumentative, decisive and insistent. This has often been pointed out in the manosphere as a case of attempting to make a sexually dimorphic species into an androgynous one, with which I agree.

In the present social climate I would argue that a misinterpretation of Jung is at fault for the concept of “Get in touch with your feminine side”, where the underlying meaning of the statement is “If you get in touch with your feminine side, you will adopt my perception“. However, this is not the meaning, nor is it the role of the anima and the animus in Jungian psychology. What characterizes and somewhat sets Jung apart is a writing style based on imagery and his use of dichotomies. For those familiar with psychological types, the dichotomous pairs of “Thinking and “Feeling” and “Sensing” and “Intuition” will be familiar, and this is something that characterizes most of his psychological work in “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious” as well. (If you are interested in learning more about Jung’s psychological types, The Artful Man has a blog dedicated to it that is linked in my sidebar.)

The man is the bearer of logos, represented by rationality, logic and a preference for empiricism, whereas the female represents the concept of eros, the emotional, instinctive and relationship oriented. Thus, this dichotomy in some regard mirrors Jung’s thinking and feeling functions, the former which is more prevalent in men, the latter which is more prevalent in women statistically speaking [7]. However, as explained by many MBTI writers, attempting to turn a thinker into a feeler or vice versa is not a very good idea. Likewise, attempting to turn women into men and men into women, does not create a race of androgynous superhumans, finally free from oppressive social norms and expectations, it creates one group of left-handed people attempting to write with their right hand, and another group of right-handed people attempting to write with their left hand. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Deranged Women and Their Targets

Recently I happened to see a conversation between a few gentlemen in my Twitter feed, around the issue of how the women described in my article series on Cluster B women pick their targets. I had not thought about this much, as the majority of the series has been focused on how to identify the woman who has one or more of these disorders, not on the men she targets. This is an interesting subject, but one that is inherently double-edged, as by identifying what makes a person a target helps them fix those issues, however it may also contribute to hubris in the person. This is similar to how some men who are new to the red pill, and not yet calibrated imagine themselves changed men just from having read a few articles.

One must always keep in mind that women with these disorders are highly camouflaged predators, often with years of experience manipulating and otherwise influencing other people, often adopting such behaviors in childhood. If one takes a step back from the particular to the general, and conducts an analysis of what these women actually do, their predatory nature becomes quite obvious as their central preoccupation in life. A predator that is poor at selecting its prey, will for obvious reasons be a rather poor one, for instance the lion who targets the most healthy gazelle over the injured one.

Likewise, if one observes the hunting techniques utilized by various predators, they are adapted to leverage the abilities of the predator to the maximum possible degree, while at the same time limiting those abilities of the prey that would protect them. For instance, the cheetah, the fastest land animal, can be outrun by a gazelle over long distances, and thus attempts to get as close as possible to the target while remaining concealed, to utilize their higher acceleration and top speed. Crocodiles lay in hiding right beneath the surface, and attack their prey from a concealed position. Continue reading