One of the most interesting things about the seduction community and the red pill is the development of the methodologies and theory. Unlike most research projects where strictly controlled conditions and smaller samples are often used for exploratory theory, the red pill took the form of a decentralized grounded theory project. What this means in practice is that a very large group of motivated men, got together, developed theories and then field tested these theories. Over time this built a theoretical framework that outlined many of the major concepts that are now considered foundation material:
- Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks
- The War-bride dynamic
- Cocky & Funny
- Ovulatory shift
Field-testing thus serves a very important role within this community, in that the field reports from hundreds if not thousands of men who have attempted to implement the theory into their life both helps give confirmation, but also gives feedback on new concepts that need to be developed. For instance, the reason why Style’s “Who lies more, men or women?” opener became the most used opener back in the told PUA days was that not only did it work for Style, it also worked for thousands of other men. It worked so well, that it actually became a casualty of its own success, because it became so well known even among women, that by using it, you betrayed the fact that you were one of those “game guys“.
The more accurate a given concept in theory is, the more accepted it becomes in the greater community. The more consistently a man can produce theoretical concepts or verify theoretical concepts, the more central his work becomes to the space. Chateau Heartiste became one of the most influential blogs in this space precisely because of almost unprecedented contribution both theoretical and in terms of field reports. For a group that has no real gatekeeping mechanism like for instance science does, this combination of contribution over time, verification of theories, and field reports are the only gate that exists.
In academia, gatekeeping takes the form of degree requirements in order to ensure familiarity with both methodology and the theoretical framework of the field. This is to ensure that people who seek to contribute are familiar with both the research that has been done within the field previously and the methodology for expanding, or challenging that knowledge. My favorite example being when John Forbes Nash, a brilliant mathematician was chided by Einstein for wanting to amend relativity without studying physics. Once one gets past that gate, peer review and replication/verification studies for a second barrier.
Researcher 1 conducts a study, that is then submitted for publication in a journal, in order to qualify for publication it must be peer-reviewed, meaning that other researchers within the field read and critique the study. Then once it has been published, other researchers within the field conduct verification/replication studies to see if they get the same results. If many replication/verification studies are conducted that confirm the findings of the original study, the original study is strengthened.
If we compare this to how it works in The Red Pill community this is similar to how things used to be:
- Someone makes an observation in the field and generates a theory. (The research)
- The theory is published on a blog or forum. (Publication)
- Other men critique the theory in comment sections or forums (Peer review)
- Other men test the theory in the field and report back in field reports (Replication study)
Over time, some concepts become deeply ingrained in the theoretical framework of The Red Pill, and the experimental framework of game. For instance, some linked concepts are DLV and DHV, shit-testing and hypergamy. A man in a game situation attempts to maximize displays of higher value, and minimize displays of lower value, shit-testing is a female’s natural response to verify if the man’s value to her hypergamy. LMR (Last minute resistance) is also part of this cycle in that it arises as a response to doubt about a man’s value, in essence the positive consequences vs. the negative consequences for the woman resulting from the mating encounter.
A man approaches a woman and begins the seduction process. Throughout the interaction he displays a mixture of DHV and DLV that taken with the other aspects of the interaction leads to the woman forming a judgment of his value, to confirm her judgment she engages in “shit-testing” which is really congruence testing, which is the woman seeking to answer the question “Is the value I assigned him correct?“, it’s a form of due diligence. If he fails the tests the interaction ends soon thereafter, should he pass the tests the interaction continues down the path towards the close. Once the isolation is complete, and the man and woman are alone with sex being the next logical step, the woman may exhibit Last Minute Resistance (LMR), which exists as a second-layer of congruence testing. Thus, both shit-testing and congruence testing is a results from doubt. The foundation theory that underlies this interaction is hypergamy.
As with many if not all of the core concepts, the theoretical construct of hypergamy is testable in reality, however as with a lot of research it’s easy to miss variables that have an effect. For instance, it’s impossible to do controlled tests in detail of many concepts because the same man cannot approach the same woman and do one test using game, one test not doing game. It’s also very difficult to account for all the involved variables.
For instance, lets say a man starts lifting, and builds his physique, this will also give him additional confidence. If he sees his mating success increase, is it due to physique, confidence, both and in what proportion? These are good questions, but I’m afraid that they are questions to which we’ll never be able to find a satisfactory answer. Not because I doubt in our ability to either identify these factors in individual cases, and not because I think we would be unable to identify the important choice criteria in aggregate, but because the “I need to know exactly for this particular girl” perspective is unlikely. A probabilistic estimate could be generated, but not clear cut strategy guide.
There are always individualized variants and influences in play in each individual woman that means one can never be certain. It goes back to the same as the argument with big data predictive analytics, if we study one person closely, odds are we can predict their preferences and thus their behavior to a large degree. If we study a population closely, odds are we can predict the populations preferences and thus behaviors. However, we cannot predict the preferences and thus behavior of all the individuals in the population.
For instance, All Women Are Like That (AWALT) is often criticized from the perspective of “You are saying all women are the same” when what is meant is that “All women have this underlying capacity to varying degrees“. AWALT can be seen as saying “Always treat a bomb as if it is armed” while some people strawman the position as “The bomb is always armed with 1 second on the timer“. Again, other people like to argue that all bombs are not bombs, some of them are just clocks wired to a pack of sausages.
When dealing with individuals, once must always keep in mind that one is dealing with an individual. When applying probability or heuristics generated from a group to an individual person one must always be careful to not shoehorn the person into the dataset. For instance, if 5% of girls have BPD, it would be erroneous thinking to treat all girls as if they have BPD, however treating them as if they could have BPD until proven otherwise may be advisable because of the large negative effects a woman with BPD can have on a man’s life.
As you interact more and more with an individual, the more precise your reading of that individual will become, and judgments can be made about how much she conforms to the mean. Meaning, below average, above average or average. This is perhaps the greatest error, viewing things as binary when most times they exist on a Likert scale. The question isn’t “Is she hypergamous“, it’s to what degree does she manifest hypergamy on a scale from 1 – 7. The question isn’t “Is she crazy”, it’s “How crazy is she on a scale from 1 – 11“.
This idea with women as “either-or” is the biggest source of superficial criticism of The Red Pill there is, a man finds the red pill, reads “AWALT” as “100% of women are the same“, practices that, naturally has some success with it, gets into an LTR, starts to see that women are individuals, with their own personalities, traits, preferences and perspectives and reverses to No Women Are Like That, because of emotional investment.
However, I think the most important thing here is to remember how and why the seduction community and The Red Pill came to be, exactly because men had been told a lot of things about women.
- All women are just looking for that special someone
- There is a soul mate
- Women and men are the same
- Open communication
- Men and women love identically
- Just be yourself
Men acted in accordance with these axioms and got very poor results, ranging from men never achieving sexual success, being zeroed out, being cheated on, and so on. If we look at the type of advice that most men are given when they come of age:
- Buy her a drink/gifts
- Show her she is special by going for an elaborate first date
- Take her to the dance and buy her flowers
- Just be yourself
- Don’t escalate towards sex
- Tell her how you feel
Most men who come to this community have tried all of these things and have not achieved the results they desire, so they are looking for a different way, a way that works. I’ve spent some time lately reading the “Married Red Pill subreddit“, a subreddit that should come with “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here” tagline. It’s filled with men who have followed all the advice above, and now find themselves being served with divorce papers, living in dead bedroom relationships, and have no idea what the hell just happened. I give the contributors on that subreddit all the credit in the world for taking the time out of their day to explain the following to these men:
They lived a certain way that they had been told would give them the results they desired. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Summary and Conclusions
It’s very tempting to be taken in by things that sound good. When Rian tells men that the secret to relationships is “You gotta hate her a little bit“, while funny, it does not sound good. Telling someone to focus on themselves and what they want more than on their partner and what their partner wants, does not sound good either compared to the mainstream advice. Especially since all the mainstream advice is centered on how men need to identify with- and be subservient to women.
Telling someone “All women are human beings with flaws, driven by biology shaped over millions of years of starvation, warfare, infant mortality, death in childbirth and thousands of other factors. Which means sometimes they do shitty things for no reason” sounds worse than “Girls are made of sugar and spice and smell nice“. However, saying so is no different than saying “The human male was shaped by millions of years of evolution as hunters and warriors“, it’s just a statement of fact.
“Only women, children and dogs are loved unconditionally” sounds a lot worse than “If you find the right girl she’ll love you unconditionally”
“I guess she wasn’t the one man” is much better consolation than “What did you expect? You got fat, lost your job, and stopped showering.”
Often this is done because theories and frameworks within the red pill and PUA are only judged on 1 criteria, how useful they are as tools. Where usefulness is determined by their efficacy in getting a man to his desired outcome. If a man wants to get laid more, he cares about whether the technique, method or theory will help him do so, he does not care if some would judge it immoral, destructive to western civ or blasphemous. This also used to be what was the gatekeeper in this space, how many men verified and found your contributions to be useful in getting their desired outcomes.
In the end, I still think this is the ultimate gate in this space, “How useful is your content for men in building the lives they want“, however such a gate is easily eroded by the introduction of the non-quantifiable. Lifting is quantifiable, approaches are quantifiable, number closes, dates, k-closes, f-closes and notch count are quantifiable.
How good of a man you are, how god fearing you are, how much you contribute to the maintenance of Western Civ, are not quantifiable, they are qualitative judgments, they can make you feel good, but that’s about it. Ultimately though, I think that’s what a lot of people want, they want the rush of telling everyone they are going to start going to the gym and lose 50 lbs on social media and getting likes, but they don’t really want to stop eating pizza and start going to the gym.