In Part 1 of this series I outlined some of the major aspects of biology and evolutionary theory that impact our present sexual market. The Red Pill Praxeology  is the study of human action and conduct, and in order to do this, a requirement is a foundation. An approach frequently utilized by Enlightenment philosophers was to view humans as non-constrained by human-created influences. For instance, when one formulated natural law  one attempted to formulate a law determined from nature, which is universal and exists independently of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large. Positive law being the human-made laws that oblige or specify an action, and describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group.
In a coming essay I’m going to talk about culture and social mechanisms and their effects on an aggregate level, however for this post the goal is to continue to describe the biological framework that serves as a foundation for the red pill praxeology, but to tie the biological principles in the first essay together with red pill theory. This is done through utilizing the literature established in the first essay, expanding this into a short theoretical framework, followed by an exercise in the hypotheses that serve as part of it’s ongoing development.
The Red Pill Praxeology and Biology
The stated goal of the Red Pill Praxeology is to lay bare the mysteries of intersexual dynamics. The lowly origin of the theoretical framework comes from the observation that the hypotheses they had been told about intersexual dynamics were not working. Men got rejected when asking women out, they bought drinks only for the woman to leave them 15 seconds later at the bar, they went on date after date but never got laid, they developed their listening skills, they developed their feminine side, and did everything they were told to do, yet the expected results and the actual results greatly differed. This lead many men to conclude that the hypotheses about intersexual dynamics were not correct, because the predicted result and the actual results did not match and when observations are made that contradict a theory, one must amend the theory.
The original pick-up artists took a novel grounded theory approach in which they made observations, formulated hypotheses and tested these out without judgment in the field. For instance, Mystery’s “peacocking” is a strategy inspired by the fact that the male Peacock in fact handicaps himself in terms of survival because he becomes easy pray by growing his magnificent tail, thus if he was able to survive with such a handicap he must truly have amazing genetics. Mystery’s outfit likewise made him an obvious target for shit testing from women and AMOGing from men, however his ability to pass such shit-tests and AMOG attempts meant that he demonstrated higher value.
Much of the knowledge gained by the seduction community followed this pattern, observe naturally successful men in the environment, create a theory based on observation, formulate hypotheses to test the theory and document the result in field reports. In essence, they would observe the men who were reproductively successful within the environment, identify the fitness cues they displayed through deductive logic, create a theoretical version of the sexy son, and then mimic it. This resulted in a theoretical framework and a methodology that permitted men to become more reproductively successful over time. However, it was only later that men started asking the question why these techniques worked.
Seeing as game had been applied successfully in many different countries, locations, by different men, in different cultures, social classes, contexts and situations, there had to be a common denominator. There is no denying that game requires some contextual adaptation, such as day game, club game, online game, however the same underlying principles appear to work largely independently of context. If this was not the case, there would be a game variant for every country, and occasionally a game variant for different cities, or social classes.
Thus, when one starts to strip away these factors, that include culture, social, psychological, and various others, one was left with biology as the underlying mechanism. Once this was identified, it was possible to identify relevant theories and hypotheses. David Putt’s recent article  for instance that demonstrates that male intragender competition was most likely conducted by threat or force, and female competition through attracting mates, supports an earlier essay on this blog on why women slut shame. Bateman’s research from 1948 supports the hypothesis that for men the most reproductively impactful strategy is to be a “Sexy Son”, and that males inherently have more reproductive variability than females .
The identification of biology as a fundamental driver of present sexual selection permits us to analyze behaviors in terms of historical selection pressures. For instance, the fact that women appear to cope better with the loss of a mate, sometimes referred to as the “War Bride” dynamic, is theorized to have come from the fact that in more violent times, most tribes would murder the men, but permit those women who best assimilated to their new living situation to survive and reproduce, thus this trait gave increased fitness and spread through the population. Cuckolding on the other hand could have emerged as a reproductive strategy that permitted women to diversify the genetics of their offspring, resulting in risk mitigation, in that rather than putting all their eggs in one basket, two children with different fathers gives genetic diversification.
The Hypothesis and the Hypothesis Test
One of the things that crossed my mind as I was writing another upcoming essay was that if one starts from the premise that the goal of evolution by natural and sexual selection is to arrive at those organisms that are optimally adapted to their environment, furthermore that the tools at its disposal is genetic variance and such variance is greater in men. One could hypothesize that as one man can impregnate hundreds of women in a year, yet one woman may only be impregnated by one man each year, the former gives access to a large number of experiments, and the latter filters away those that are unsuccessful.
The hypothesis being that if one creates 100 different combinations genetics in man, giving rise to 100 different men with varying degrees of traits and behaviors, and then allow nature through natural selection and women through sexual selection to remove those that do not result in beneficial traits from the population, one is left only with those experiments that resulted in a competitive advantage. One can imagine this as constantly running March Madness bracket of men all competing to be the best adapted for survival and reproduction.
To exemplify (simplified) evolution may formulate the following hypotheses:
0 Testosterone levels have no effect on survival and reproduction in men
1 Testosterone levels have an effect on survival and reproduction in men
In order to test these hypotheses, it would create a group of men with very high testosterone, one group with very low testosterone and one group with normal testosterone (the control group). It would release these men into the free, and in the next generation one would see the genetic impact each group of men had on the gene pool. That group that had the highest impact, would have spread the genetics for their group to the highest number of progeny, who would then spread their genetics to the highest number of progeny in subsequent generations. Over time, the genetics of the group that had the highest reproductive and survival success would spread throughout the entire population.
Summary and Conclusions
As I stated initially, I elected to start this series with evolutionary biology, because in my view it’s the foundation of red pill theory and game. We are influenced by many other things, and naturally there is a degree of genetic variation between groups of humans however, I would dare to wager that distinctions here are smaller than those of culture or psychology. One would struggle to argue that our knowledge of biology is “Western Centric” however, this is an argument one could easily make about certain parts of the field of psychology or sociology.
Evolutionary theory, explains much of the behavior one observes in the sexual market place, from teenage girls screaming at famous men to get their attention, to the woman who switches mates after her present union ceased to be reproductively optimal, to the Alpha male 1.0 who finds himself divorced over and over again due to infidelity. These are adaptations that have been successful throughout our mating history. Whether these are still successful becomes more of a value judgment rather than a judgment of value, depending on what one utilizes as the metric for success. If one judges purely based on reproductive success, defined as maximally impacting the gene pool of subsequent generations then one can measure this quantitatively. However, if one were to measure by “contribution to to betterment- or decline of a social group” it becomes much more iffy. For instance, one could argue that high levels of reproductive competition leads to the betterment of the group through ensuring maximal genetic fitness, however on the other hand one could argue that increased conflict due to such competition would have a negative effect.
In essence, it breaks down to a case of “Is” and “Ought”. This is one of the arguments I’ve seen many times in the years I’ve read PUA and Red Pill writings, those who take the position that the praxeology should strive towards being the description of the reality of human mating, and those who wish it to be something more.
This is perhaps best illustrated by a quote by Friedrich Engels
“Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom.”
It is not my argument, nor the argument of many others with similar positions that one should accept human nature as is, and should not strive to rise beyond our lowly origin. It is however my position that the description of the underlying mechanisms must remain free of moral and value judgments, for this serves little purpose other than to again shroud it in mystery and human rationalization. There must be a wall erected between the descriptions of the knowledge, and suggested applications of the knowledge in order to ensure the integrity of both. Describing that women by large prefer men with low body fat and high muscle mass is different from telling men to eat plenty of protein and lift weights. The former is the “what” the latter is the “why” and the “how”. The cause and effect is quite simple, before one can know how to act and why one should act, one must know what to act upon.
This is not to say that one should discard the aspiration of becoming more than nature. Our history as a species and the development of our civilization is in many ways the tale of continued cycles of failure and success in controlling our nature. However, as I will cover in an upcoming essay, this is the specific role that social and cultural factors play, they exist to dress up our basic nature, and in order to control our basic nature towards non-natural ends.
It is an emperor and clothes situation in which we can attempt to dress up the truth in pretty words and lofty aspirations. We can seek to cover it up completely because to stare into it, means that it stares back at us. One can even refer to the acceptance of it as a form of moral nihilism whereby accepting that the mechanisms that shaped our development as a species have no inherent moral sense, one is preventing a more fruitful and beneficial time to come into existence. As was the argument of Mr. Engels and Mr. Marx who sought to sublimate human nature for what they envisioned would be an ideal state in which humans would be free to prosper. As an economist once said, “Communism would work amazingly well if it wasn’t for human nature”. To quote Albert Camus
“Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is”