An Update on Gendernomics

As many of you are aware, Gendernomics has not been available for purchase for the past 3 – 4 months. I took it down to do a little bit of work on it in preparation for the launch of Gendernomics: Building Value which is the follow up title.

I’m happy to announce that the original Gendernomics and Gendernomics: Building Value will be available again on Amazon.com, hopefully next week.

There haven’t been many changes to Gendernomics, just fixing a few issues with the previous version, however both books will be featuring new cover art by Rian Stone.

For those of you who are interested in what Book 2 is about a gentleman by the name of Jack Napier was kind enough to do a preview for me on youtube where he reads the introduction to Gendernomics: Building Value

 

He is very talented when it comes to doing audio and I’m grateful that he took the time to create the above clip.

Gendernomics: Building Value is currently being read by some of the highest profile men in our little corner on the internet and barring feedback that will require a lot of fixes, I should be good to put both books back up by the end of next week.

Best regards

Carl

 

Meta: Game and Manipulation

Ever since I got into game many years ago, I’ve been told that “Game” is manipulating women to have sex with you. When I looked up the term “manipulate” I found two definitions that are both applicable to this context:

  1. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly or unscrupulously.
  2. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skilful manner.

The former is clearly what the critics of game are referring to with their accusation, and I can understand their perspective. After all Game is a collection of tools that allow men to become more successful in the sexual sphere and in relationships, thus one could easily argue that a man who employs game is not being his genuine self, he is using a framework in order to be a better version of himself or a different person all together. Continue reading

Hypergamy and Looks

I have a lot of respect for Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male, for all the criticisms he has levied at him on a day by day basis, there is very little use in attempting to deny the contributions that he’s made to our collective understanding of female sexual selection. However, on some occasions, I find myself wondering if the sheer volume of legendary essays he’s produced over the past decade contribute to the fact that critics and fans alike, fail to understand some of his more salient points. He’s sheer proclivity and productivity can on occasion make it difficult to grasp the salient points.

Very few places is this more obvious than in discussions of hypergamy and looks. Rollo himself authored two great essays on looks that I would recommend for all men the classic “Looks count” and “Have a look” however Rollo also authored many essays on the concept of Hypergamy, which is a fancy word for saying “Women are looking for the best reproductive deal at all times” (I would link various essays by Rollo on Hypergamy but I only have 2k words to write this essay).

Many men seem to read either both sets of essays or merely one and then make their conclusion “Looks do no matter, I’ll get fat, dress like shit and skip my shower” or “Looks are everything, if I was born 5 ft 8 and with red hair I’m fucked”, neither of these are correct.

Just for the sake of proving once and for all that the red pill is not a cult, I will point out that I disagree with Rollo’s quote from “Looks count”

“Your bulletproof Game and charming personality wont make you look any better when your shirt comes off.”

In that in my experience, one my shirt comes off, the girl is already naked and there is no going back. However, this is a digression from the main point of this essay. The way I view it, hypergamy is quantitative, “Does this guy measure up?”, “Does he have enough value to be inside me?”, “Is he tall enough for me to ride him?”.

Looks are qualitative, “Is this my preferred way of scratching my itch?”. On a recent Red Man Group episode Jon from Modern Life Dating explicated this in the statements “OMG that guy has a pink jacket I want him to fuck me right now” vs. “OMG that guy has a fucking pink jacket, he has to be gay”. It’s very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that as long as you are high enough SMV, have a strong enough frame, show enough dominance traits and so on, a woman cannot help herself. Women become mesmerized in the presence of high value men. However this is not the case.

Having a high value will grant you more mating opportunities, you get shot down less, you get laid more however you can never hit that 100% hit ratio. If it was merely a qualitative judgment by the women, then it would naturally follow that if you hit high enough value, then all girls would find your irresistible. However, this is a phenomenon in poorly written literotica novels more than a facet of reality.

This is where the qualitative aspect kicks in, some girls like musicians, some girls hate musicians, some girls love men in uniforms, some don’t, and female preference is the difference between a “Hell Yes” girl and a lukewarm prospect. Women do not see men who are lower than them in SMV, a man who is lower than a woman’s self-perceived SMV may as well be invisible. However, women do see men who are at the right SMV level, yet do not quite hit the spot. This is where “He was hot … but …” comes from.

Women have preferences in the same way men have preferences and being “hot enough” is not enough, if the man has a specific preference for a given type of woman. You can be a perfect value for a woman, but not be “her type” and this is the major challenge with developing “bullet-proof” frameworks to help men become successful in the sexual market place.

We can teach you the game, get you lifting, sort out your diet, get rid of those trash shoes and cargo shorts, however we cannot guarantee that the specific look that your particular one-itis is looking for will automatically land you in bed with her.

That’s why I think the Red Pill catch phrase has to be akin to “We cannot get you that girl, but we can get you those girls” because we cannot promise that you will get that one girl you really want, but if you do what we tell you, you will get plenty of other girls for whom you fit their model.

Summary and Conclusions

To summarize in this rather short rant, there are general, quantitative things you can do in order improve your position in the sexual market place. This would be the business equivalent of improving general product quality, service deliverables and so on. Then there are qualitative things that you CAN do in order to improve your results in the sexual market place, which relate to differentiation.

I wear a suit for work every day, some girls love a guy in a suit, some girls view it as the embodiment of male privilege, dominance and surrendering individuality for financial success. You cannot please both 100% of the time, however you can make a cold-read on a girl and estimate which group she falls into. However, if you fake your look for that one date, and she becomes a plate, that requires more work to maintain.

Thus, the point of this rant, is that even if you dial your sexual market value to 11, you cannot get every girl. Women have preferences, just as men do and this is what I think a lot of men are confused about.

“If I can make myself a 10, I’ll have every girl I want!”

No man, if you make yourself a 7 with the right look, you can get certain types of girls, if you maximize your SMV to 10, without a look you become the best toilet paper that doesn’t make a girl’s ass sore.

Alpha and the 1%

The longer I write and participate in this space, the more I’ve come to appreciate the definition that Roissy came up with for Alpha years ago, a simple, quantitative, outcome oriented definition [1]. The reason why I’ve come to appreciate this more and more is that it strips away all the unnecessary veneers that men like to add and leaves us with a single question “How attractive is he to women?” because, quite frankly that is all most of us are trying to do, define what women find attractive in men, then help men cultivate those traits in themselves in order to improve their standing in the sexual market place.

This is also the source for most of my irritation with what I tend to deem “trad-cons”, “moralists” or other groups, that unfortunately made their way into this space due to a few manosphere staple authors deciding to launch side-hustles as political pundits. Namely, their muddying of the waters when it comes to alpha. Continue reading

Tinder and Automated Analytics

Earlier this week as I was logging entry number 3000 into my Tinder statistics I found myself going a bit up in levels of abstraction. The type of work I’m doing with the Tinder statistics is very detailed and looks into specific workings of the algorithms and systems that Tinder uses in order to make the app work. One of the recent developments is a little piece of legislation called the Global Data Protection Regulation (GDPR for short) that gives people the right to request the data that companies like Tinder and Facebook have collected on them. Thanks to this, a gentleman was able to request all the data Tinder had on him, and as a side-effect we figured out what data they track on every user.

The classical personal information such as name, email, age, and age bracket selected is not very interesting, what is interesting is that they track among others:

  • Your swipes (Right and left)
  • How many people who swipe left and right on you
  • Matches
  • Messages sent and received
  • Profile completeness

The reason why I found this interesting, is that if we start to reverse engineeer how Tinder works, those tracked data are the perfect tool for it. Odds are that Tinder also stores other “match related” things such as time spent looking at a profile before swiping, how many of the people you match with you actually have a conversation with, we know they track how often you get reported, and so on. This becomes important later.

If we think of Tinder and other apps as a bar, we all know what a bar has to do in order to do well (sportsbars and cigarbars excluded), and that is get a lot of hot girls in the door. If your bar has hot girls, the men will follow and buy them drinks. The girls are attracted to “how cool the bar is” the guys are attracted to “how hot the girls who think the bar is cool” are. From this perspective, we can thus outline the 3 major success criteria for Tinder:

A) Keep the girls happy

B) Maximize your user base

C) Keep the men around

Just like a bars revenue is based on a mixture of cover charges and drink sales, Tinder’s revenue is based on advertising, subscriptions to Plus and Gold, in addition to sales of consumables such as superlikes and boost. In the night club analogy, sending a girl a super-like is the equivalent of sending a girl a drink, a boost is equivalent to the club promoter shaking your hand and taking you to your reserved table with bottle service.

However, the most important man in the bar is the doorman, you see, his job is to:

A) Maintain a good mix of men and women

B) Keep the creeps out

C) Get rid of any troublemakers.

A bar without a solid doorman rapidly becomes a very unpleasant place to be. In the same way, Tinder has to walk a fine line between maintaining their female user-base, maximizing their user-base in general and maximizing the revenue from subscriptions and consumables (which I assume are mostly bought by men).  How does Tinder do this?

Continue reading

Levels of Game

I’m not sure where the idea that I’m fundamentally against long-term relationships in general and marriage in particular began. While it’s true that I’ve cautioned men against marriage in many essays over the 3 years that this blog has existed, I can’t remember ever having said “Never under any circumstances get into a long-term relationship”. I have probably said “Never get married”, for the simple reason that as far as risk and reward goes, you can gain the same benefits, without many of the downsides from cohabiting with a private contract between you, or alternatively with a private marriage (a marriage without getting the state involved.

Once you have children with a woman, you are exposed to the legal system in terms of child support, and various other payments anyway, but a private marriage or cohabitation with separate finances can help build a wall that keeps an ex away from your assets. I’m of the position that once you have children, it’s your duty to support and raise them. Few men want to stop their children from having access to the opportunities presented by resources, what they do want is their former partner having as little financial influence over them, something that can easily be granted by modern family courts. I’d wager that most men would prefer their money going towards the betterment of their children, rather than to as financiers of their former partner’s hunt for a new mate.

However, to return to topic, the reason why I’ve argued a position that men should avoid monogamous long-term relationships in general and marriage in particular, is that I’m observing many young men seeking to cash out of the sexual market place early, influenced by the idea that if they find a “quality woman”, often cited as being young, nurturing, low notch-count, from a good family and so on, they can get out of the SMP and live the trad life. Meaning one man, one woman, one family, under god, or something like that. This is not the case at all. If I held the position that men in monogamous, long-term relationships were the antithesis of a red pill men, I would not have participated in quite a few podcasts where a majority of the men I appeared with are in monogamous long-term relationships. Rollo holds the record with what I believe is a 21 year marriage, going on 22 years, however Donovan and Rian are also in long-term monogamous relationships.

For much of history, men and women did not get married because they were in love, they got married because the man needed someone to tend house, bear his children, and make his life easier, the woman needed a man to finance her life and protect her. This makes marriage into a need, rather than a want. Men had one set of needs to which a wife was a perfect solution. Women had another set of needs to which a husband was the perfect solution. However, as marriage shifted from being a need “I need someone to put food on the table and a roof over my head” to “I want someone who makes me happy”, the social dynamics that surrounded the couple were also one in which for the most part the needs of society was aligned with the needs of the men and women. It was not an optimal solution for any of them, but it was the best one available. One that curtailed the worst excesses of female sexual strategy and the worst excesses of male sexual strategy.

In the previous “needs based” sexual market place with strict regulations on divorce, remarriage and so on, the entire structure was such that once a man locked down a woman, he was free to focus on other non-SMP related activities, mainly contributing to society. In that sense, the old school marriage was a lot like a job back in the day, once you were hired you were hired for life. Modern marriage is a lot more like being an independent contractor or consultant, you are hired on a temporary basis unless you can make yourself indispensable. My position is simply that there is an illusion being sold that once you “lock her down”, start living your trad lifestyle and have kids, you are out of the sexual market place and are free. This is not the case. It may have been the case back in the day, when the social group around a married couple had skin in the game, where they were married as an alliance between families, or as a practical partnership to achieve goals outside of the marriage. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: The 3 Part Stack

**A Note**

First off, I know I haven’t been around much, I have a lot of things going on in my life at the moment, and I’m finding it very challenging to juggle everything. I hope to get back to writing more frequently in the coming months once things start to settle down.

**Note end**

With computers, we can break down the functioning into 3 parts, there is the hardware and firmware, these are the actual physical components of the machine bundled with the basic software that is loaded on them to make them work. Firmware generally consists of permanent software loaded onto read-only memory, and most frequently it’s not changed for the lifetime of the system.

Then there is the operating system, the operating system is a software program loaded onto the machine that makes it easier to work with than typing instructions in machine code into a command line interface. It also manages the computer hardware and the resources available to the machine between various programs.The operating system can be altered, upgraded, changed or even swapped out for another operating system, but doing so can have big consequences in terms of both performance and usability. It also tends to take a bit of time.

Finally, we have the apps, these are smaller programs that we install and run on the operating system in order to accomplish tasks of varying specificity. They can range from simple command line interfaces to entire suites of statistics and analysis software, games, word processors or the likes. These are fairly easy to install or remove, but they have varying learning curves and influences the firmware and operating system in various ways.

Between the 3 areas, there is somewhat of a bidirectional influence, in that the lower layers (firmware and hardware) influence what you can do with  the OS and apps. The firmware limits what you can do with the OS to some degree. They all influence each other, but not to the same degree. Continue reading