A couple of weeks ago, I sat down and I wrote a fairly long, intricate essay entitled “What is The Red Pill?“, I was somewhat puzzled that I had to do such thing but I decided to write it out, if for nothing else to make the distinctions and delineations clear in my own mind. To me it was always very clear from the Matrix quote where the metaphor comes from:
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
The options being, that if you elect to take the blue pill, then you wake up within your illusion, and believe whatever you want about your world. If you take the red pill, you see reality and truth. Of course, this is based on an axiom that there is such a thing as objective reality which which we can measure and interact with to determine truth. Which I tend to think is accurate, because that is the basis for much of people’s lifestyles these days, from the TRT they take to make up for their testicles not producing enough, to the scientific work that had to be done for me to be typing this on a computer, in an air-conditioned room, and being able to talk to the world. We can identify the truth defined as :
The quality or state of being true.‘he had to accept the truth of her accusation
- 1.1 also the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.‘tell me the truth’‘she found out the truth about him’
- 1.2 count noun A fact or belief that is accepted as true.‘the emergence of scientific truths’‘the fundamental truths about mankind’
However, then I got into a debate at a party with a mentor of mine, where I pointed out the distinction between facts as in the natural sciences, meaning the density of materials, the interactions of chemicals under given conditions, biological laws, and the Laws of Nature. As opposed to “facts” as in the social sciences, politics, popular vernacular and journalism, that are not so much facts, but a mixture of data and interpretations in a nice ratatouille of hodgepodge.
His response to me, as he swished some nice Cremant around in his glass, funnily enough was:
“[Carl], you have to have an IQ of 125 just to understand that distinction”
I didn’t think much of his statement at the time, however as I’ve let it swish around my mind much as the Cremant in the glass, the statement has made me understand quite a lot more about the social sphere of the human species, and some of our sub-processes so to speak. Based on the IQ Bell curve, approximately 91.1% of humans cannot understand the difference between the law of gravity and a post-grad report in sociology based on survey methodology with a sample size of 30 people.
The law of gravity is somewhere in the 90% range true (there are probably details about it that we do not know of yet or are unable to measure) and the post-grad survey if I’m being generous is perhaps 80% true of the sample where the data was collected, however it is perhaps 8% true of the general population, it could be as low as 0.8% of the population or even worse. Yet both of these are regarded by 91.1% of people as equivalent facts.
The goal of science if one were to ask most humble scientists with a degree of Dunning-Kruger defense, is not to necessarily give us 100% iron clad truth, it’s to give us the closest possible approximation of objective reality. For instance, viruses are smaller than bacteria, so we discovered bacteria earlier than viruses. This was a revolution at the time because before that people the most accepted explanations of why people got sick was “bad smelling air” and “punishment from God“. Once we knew of bacteria, it was possible to theorize that there were even smaller organisms that made us sick, which wasn’t commonly accepted, yet was our closest possible approximation based on extrapolating from data we had and were able to measure.
This is why I like this comic strip from back in the day:
Degrees of Truth
In one of my earliest econ classes, my professor made a statement that I wrote down verbatim, because I think it encapsulated much of the problem with economics as a field, especially in the popular media. My professor’s statement was:
“As economists we make judgments of value, not value judgments”
What he meant by this statement was that an economist can tell you the economic consequences of producing more guns vs. more butter, but he cannot tell you whether producing more guns is good or producing more butter is bad. Many popular economists have fallen into this trap, most recently and most high profile is Paul Krugman, who’s political and social preferences frequently influence his economic judgment when he writes for newspapers. However, the same could be said for Mises, Rothbard, and many others. They mix their economic logos, with their pathos and ethos.
This is a pretty human thing to do, if I gave each of my readers $100, I would most likely have as many opinions on how to best utilize that $100 as I have readers. Some would prefer to save it, some to invest it, some to consume it. Plus, everyone would have preferences for what savings method, what investment opportunity or what to buy with the money. These are all based on individual preferences. You may see some patterns in the preferences, and you may be able to create a probabilistic model based on big-data to identify groupings of preferences in aggregate and on various group levels, but it could never with 90%+ accuracy determine what an individual’s preference would be.
In my essay on “What is the red pill” I attempted to draw a distinction between the different areas that permeate this space, and that have become more balkanized in the past couple of years, especially since the 2016 election.
A) The descriptive praxeology that describes the reality of intersexual dynamics.
These are the contents that seek to describe the mechanisms at play, and their given effect. For instance, describing the mechanics of hypergamy and solipsism and how they influence the mating market.
B) Various perspectives on how one should utilize the information from A.
These are those contents that seek to describe how to put yourself in an advantageous market position to exploit the core mechanics. For instance, how to deal with hypergamy in an LTR, what to do to maintain her preference for you as her chosen partner, and how it affects her mate choices.
C) Various individuals and groups that utilize A as part of their foundational material, but who have added other elements to build a full individual or group ideology.
This includes all the content that brings in philosophy not pertaining to strict epistemology and logic applied specifically to the area of intersexual dynamics, such as conservativism, liberalism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism and various religious or spiritual doctrines. (List not exhaustive)
D) Various hucksters, cult leaders, scam artists, con-men, and opportunists who utilize the brand to benefit themselves only.
This includes the content that only seeks to exploit the branding side and that add components that are not related to intersexual dynamics to build a value proposition to make a sale, or to encourage a group identity where they can elevate their position to one of high status.
A is in this case, the most truth and fact oriented, it’s based on attempting to more closely align human perception and the objective reality of intersexual dynamics. B, is the second most fact and truth oriented, as it seeks to apply the knowledge gained in A, to the world, both as a means for bettering the individual’s lot in life, and as a means of field testing through experiment the theories generated in A.
C is where it starts to get a little bit muddy, because this is where other things start to be included that are not necessarily truth oriented. A mixing of truth and preferences starts to occur here. The most obvious example of this is applying intersexual dynamics truth generated under A), to achieve a desired end-state for society. In this case politics and the descriptive praxeology of intersexual dynamics are mixed, to create a cocktail that is part subjective preference and part truth. This is where you hear the talk about “We have to create tribes to fight feminism” or “We have to create our own communities in order to protect our kids and wives from outside influence“.
Finally D, is where it goes haywire and it becomes “Red Pill in name only” and play off subjective preferences and value judgments more than one does judgments of value in order to establish a cult or make a sale. This is where most of us get the comments in our comment section like “So you’ll accept the intersexual dynamics Red Pill but not the [insert their MY TRUTH] pill with little if any truth-based backing.
Most people who operate in C and D like to pretend that they are operating in A and B, in the same way Gender studies likes to pretend that the “facts” generated from their discipline is the equivalent to the facts generated in physics, biology and chemistry. Always discern in which area someone is operating in:
Are they dealing in Facts or “Facts”
Truth or “Truthiness”
Summary and Conclusions
When I made my way back to the manosphere, it was in search of truth. I wanted to understand what had gone wrong with my application of old school PUA techniques in LTRs over a period of almost 10 years. I got that answer pretty swiftly. When I started contributing to this space with my writing my goal was to help clarify and support the truth of intersexual dynamics by using statistics and data on the subject from disparate sources in essays like Book Value, this culminated in the publication of Gendernomics which is a book based on this work. Identifying the source of data, applying economic principles to it, and making judgments of value about the outcomes.
However, I do recognize that there is a much larger market for a complete “identity makeover” rather than just learning the truth of intersexual dynamics. It was one of the things I struggled with when some very good friends of mine decided to get on the Jordan B. Peterson “Meaning” train, which lead me to write “Beyond Red and Blue Pills” and a few other essays, outlining why I thought that as in my view “The Red Pill” is about the truth of inter-sexual dynamics and applying that truth, it was not realistic nor possible to create a moral system or a system that would give meaning to it. In fact, doing so, would replace “The Truth of Intersexual Dynamics” with “MY truth of Intersexual Dynamics“, and would be as nonsensical as trying to find morality in nuclear physics or meaning in chemistry.
Morality is to a large degree subjective, even though most of us can agree on a certain number of points such as not stealing, killing and raping. By large morality deals with acceptable human interaction, some people view taxation as good, some as theft. Some view minimum wages, labor unions and employee welfare regulations as good things, some view them as government intrusion into the right of individuals to negotiate their deals freely.
Meaning is perhaps even more subjective, in that if you view it as synonymous with Maslow’s “Self-actualization” in the top of the Hierarchy of needs, as you move of the hierarchy you move from highly objective (we all need food, shelter etc) to highly subjective “What makes you feel like you have made the most of your life and your gifts?”
This is no different than when one tries to create a religion or ideology based on “The Red Pill of Intersexual Dynamics“, it becomes a mixture of “Is” and “ought” because an ideology or a religion always contains subjective elements to a large degree. Even two comparable ideologies can have differences in terms of their preference on various scales including taxes, and public services.
In my view “The Red Pill” needs to remain firmly within “Is”, as in determining the reality of intersexual dynamics. Based on that truth, men can develop strategies and tactics for navigating the sexual market place. Most men want and need better, more fulfilling relationships with women regardless of race, creed, economic policy, political philosophy, religion and much else. Bundling the red pill with political philosophy, religion, economical preferences, race and so on will have 2 effects:
A) It limits the persuasiveness vis-a-vis men who do not share those preferences. Let’s be honest, does anyone need the red pill more desperately than progressive white knights?
B) It reduces “Truth and Facts of intersexual dynamics” to “Truthiness and “facts” of intersexual dynamics”. It goes from biology to gender studies.
Is this really what we want?