When selecting research methodology for a research project, the budding researcher is often caught between two paradigms, positivism and phenomenology, both have their own strengths, and they also have their own weaknesses. The best example of the power of positivism is the census, the sample size is literally “every person in the country”, and we get data that is 100% applicable to the whole population of the country. When you employ positivism, you aim to identify objective truth, with general applicability, meaning that you need a sample large enough for your data to be applied to the general population.
The major limit of positivism though, is that it’s purely a quantitative approach, and seeks to establish things as hard facts, and to discover the causal relationship between those as hard laws. The role of the researcher within positivism is as an observer, a data collector and interpreter of quantitative data .
The five main principles of positivist research are summarized thus :
There are no differences in the logic of inquiry across sciences.
The research should aim to explain and predict.
Research should be empirically observable via human senses. Inductive reasoning should be used to develop statements (hypotheses) to be tested during the research process.
Science is not the same as the common sense. The common sense should not be allowed to bias the research findings.
Science must be value-free and it should be judged only by logic.
Interpretivism arose due to a desire among some researchers to go beyond what can be established quantitatively by positivism, and introduce a degree of interpretation into the study. For this reason it focuses more on qualitative methods and seeks to find the meaning in the data. One can break down interpretivism  into multiple areas, but the one must applicable to The Red Pill is Phenomenology . Phenomenology as a research paradigm is focused on experiences, events and occurrences with disregard or minimum regard for the external or physical reality. It also has issues with analysis, interpretation and lower levels of validity and reliability than positivism.
See the table below for the compare and contrast:
The Red Pill Theoretical framework is very much a work that leans more towards positivism than interpretivism. A core axiom of much of the work is that there is a single, tangible, objective reality in which we all live. The goal of much of the work is to explain and predict behavior within the sexual market place.
The focus of interest is what is general, average and representative of women (especially) and female behavior, and which laws that govern the sexual market place, regardless of time, context and values.
The desired information is how women (as a group) conduct themselves in the sexual market place, and the laws that govern their behavior.
I’d argue that the one place where The Red Pill could be argued to deviate, is in the rigid separation between the subject(s) (women) and researcher, as much of the research data is generated by field observations. Most of this data is also not strictly quantitative, but rather in the form of descriptions of interactions in text.
This data can be quantified if one so desired, for instance, a field report into a given opener, could be formulated as a hypothesis, could quantify success or failure as 1 and 0, and be plugged into a dataset generated by all the field reports on that same opener.
However, this is also where the methodology of praxeology comes into play, the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom, that permits the drawing of conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. The major difference between praxeology and positivism being how one generates data and draws conclusions, the positivist relies on data sets and statistical inference, the praxeologist relies on observation and logic.
The Red Pill Context
I wrote that rather dry introduction, mainly to establish the paradigm within which generation of red pill knowledge exists. As perhaps the red pill writer that utilizes the most quantitative data in my writing, my goal has always been to establish what is the objective reality of the sexual market place. Secondly, how men can take advantage of this knowledge and apply it to their life to reduce the gap between their present situation and their desired future state.
The two major areas where the red pill is often criticized, is in
A) Truth vs. My Truth where people seek to intermingle non-objective theories, perspectives, values and so on with the objective truth of The Red Pill, I spoke about this at length in my essay “What is The Red Pill” which is concerning people who desire to mix politics and The Red Pill, Religion and The Red Pill or morality and The Red Pill.
B) Objective knowledge vs. Interpretation, which is what I hope to tackle in this essay.
For instance, when it comes to “context” the idea behind a law, and absolute knowledge is that it’s valid across all contexts with some caveats, for instance the law of gravity is equally true on the Moon and on Earth, however the effects of gravity on you is different depending on whether you are on the Moon or on Earth. Hypergamy is equally true in the United States of America and in Poland, however the manifestation differs based on social norms, religious affiliations, group hierarchies and so on. Much of our older social order was in fact created to direct sexual energy towards productive endeavors and away from non-socially desirable consequences.
Men, completely unrestrained by social codes, genetic heritage, norms and so on, would simply fight each other until there was only one, then the women would mate with that one man. It’s like Highlander, but for fucking. It’s slightly more complex than that, but human tribes from all over the globe have a history of granting mating privileges to men based on merit. This system is no different than the laws passed after The Great Depression to restrain the worst aspects of capitalism. A stable society cannot exist if 70 – 80% of men have no chance to mate, and 20 – 30% of the men have huge harems. The amount of men unable to find a mate has to be kept rather low, simply because a society where more than perhaps 30 – 40% of men are idle, with no chance to mate, will at worst result in revolution and at best in the departure of productive men from the workforce. This is what we’re seeing in parts of the West where productive men, who are unable to mate in their native countries expatriate to other countries where they are more sought after.
This is an example of sexual market value being in part contextual, a 5 in Miami can be a 10 in Boise. An American black man can be a 5 in the states but an 8 in Brazil. A white man can be a 5 in the UK, an 8 in South America and a 9 in Thailand. This is no different from how women in more patriarchal countries such as India and Pakistan get more STEM degrees than women in Western Europe and the U.S, it’s not because Pakistani and Indian women are more interested in STEM in this countries. It’s because STEM degrees offer more independence through being well-compensated and secure. This is called nuance and context.
Much of the time when people talk about nuance, and interpreting things from a wider context, what they are doing is engaging in a rhetorical move to shift from Position A in “What is The Red Pill”
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.
to positions B, C or D
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 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.
Moving from position A to position B is fine, but as you move further down from A, the further you move away from objectivity. Every man has to decide what his desired end-state is and how to utilize the objective information generated at A). Whether that is to maintain a long-term relationship, date multiple women or building himself a harem, for instance. Game resides firmly at B, so does the marriedredpill subreddit, and quite a lot of content on the red pill subreddit.
Once you reach point D), you are dealing with someone that is “Red Pill in Name Only“. Meaning that someone will amend the red pill to allow for more “context” and “nuance” but what is really being done is to hollow out the “Objective truth of intersexual dynamics“, to make room for “My truth of intersexual dynamics“, which is where the need for classification comes in.
Containers and Classifications
The need for classification comes from the need to tell one thing from another.
First of all, the idea that this movement is “binary” is provably wrong, if it wasn’t then there’d be no purple pilled dating coaches. Perspectives range from the socially constructed blue pill perspective to the objective red pill perspective. This could be arranged as a Likert scale, from 1 – 5, 1 to 7 or 1 – 10 or whatever, where the outer points on each end are the red pill and blue pill respectively. So if you are Blue pilled at 1 – 3, Purple pilled at 4 – 6, Red Pilled from 7 – 9, then this is not binary, it’s a scale where you are classified according to your perspective. Once you go from a 7 to a 6, you are no longer red pilled, but you are more red pilled than the guy at 4.
I do concede that we have gone from a medicine cabinet to a full-on pharmacy as of late, “Red Pill“, “Blue Pill“, “Purple Pill“, “Crimson Pill“, “Black Pill“, “God Pill” are all convenient ways to classify where people’s perspective on the sexual market place. Instead of having to explain at length that:
“This man accepts some red pill truths such as hypergamy but he’s also a firm believer in that when you meet the right girl that will work itself out” it’s easier to say “He’s purple pilled“.
“This man accepts the red pill truth in full, but he takes it a bit beyond what can be proven” it’s quicker to say “Crimson pill”
“This man used to accept the red pill truth in full but he hit the male epiphany phase now, found religion, rejected his old lifestyle, and believes that God will fix his life” much simpler to just say “God Pill”
These exist so that we can tell the difference between the different perspectives, calling someone “purple pill“, “blue pill“, “red pill” or “black pill” is not a value judgment, it’s a judgment of the ideas that person holds and/or espouses as pertaining to intersexual dynamics. To some extent it can be a warning, along the lines of:
“Hey man, I saw you talking to [Purple piller], keep in mind that he’s mixing his truth with the truth”
It’s no different than how Alpha and Beta are used, they are not judgments of a man’s inherent worth, they are classifications of attraction behaviors vs. comfort behaviors. Attraction requires building tension, comfort releases tension. There is no law that a man with a ton of attraction behaviors must always build and maintain tension, it’s fully possible for such a man to release tension and engage in comfort behaviors, what matters is proportion.
So, when a purple pilled coach tells you he has “The truth of intersexual dynamics”, from the red pill perspective, he has “His truth of intersexual dynamics mixed with The Truth of intersexual dynamics“. This is no different than how Erich Von Daniken’s “Ancient Aliens” theory is based on real proof and objective facts, such as the Nazca lines, Pyramids and leaps in technology throughout documented human history, these elements of his theory are [The Truth of human history], however his interpretation that aliens came to Earth and gifted mankind with technology and inspired them to build the structures is [His Truth of human history].
I find it very telling, that among the challenges to the red pill theoretical framework of intersexual dynamics, I have yet to see long form criticisms based on established facts when it comes to:
- Briffault’s law
- Bateman’s principle and the consequences thereof
Or the many other biological principles that underline the red pill which I briefly talked about in Basic Premises: Biology Part 1 and Part 2 heck, Rollo’s Year 1 writings have been around since 2011 on his blog, and before that on So Suave, and I can’t remember having read any long-form critique of any of his basics based on errors of facts, errors of reasoning or errors in methodology.
The case made against the red pill tends to very frequently be based in ethics, ideology, values, religion, emotions, ideals or other intangibles, and never it seems as part of a search for truth.