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: Continue reading
Some of the most annoying questions I get are “How do I get a girl” and “How do I get that specific girl” the reason for why I hate both questions lie on the same continuum, the first one is not specific enough, is the latter is far too specific.
The reason I dislike the first one is that I could flippantly answer “$100 bucks and an online escort site“, and the reason I dislike the latter is that it views Game and The Red Pill as a Gamespot Strategy Guide for 100 completion with all achievements for the “Chicks” game. What they both have in common is a lack of understanding of what game and the red pill is, however, this is a trait that they share with many other men, women and children. This idea that the Red Pill is a book of rules with a process model that if you follow it to the T you can get any girl.
I’m sorry to tell you that the Red Pill and Game will never be a 100% guarantee to get any girl you want, or any girl at all. If you implement it correctly, make it a part of your life and do the work, it will help you get more girls, but not all girls.
The same mindset lies behind “If you were only alpha enough” or “If your frame was strong enough” or “I bang nothing but 9s and 10s and lay more pipe across North America than North American Oil & Gas Pipelines Inc.” LARPing is not that hard to spot.
Now, I started this essay with this little rant, because I want to cover an important topic today, namely tailoring. Before we get to that point of the essay, I want to define how I conceptualize the red pill and game. Continue reading
One of the discussions on last week’s Rule Zero that I felt I wasn’t able to complete was on self-filtering/self-selecting systems. This is a fairly simple concept that has large implications on the SMV. To illustrate the concept, any group centered around an activity has a way of filtering people within the group into a rank within the group, but also filtering people into- and out of the group. As an example, take professional bodybuilders, that population is largely composed of the people who are top 1% of people who:
- Started lifting early
- Have lifted consistently over a long period of time
- Have been consistent with their recovery and nutrition over time
- Are in the top percentages of respondents to strength training
- Are in the top percentages of respondents to “enhancements”
These are just a few filters but it illustrates the concept. A population centered around an endeavor will over time become dominated be an increasingly homogeneous group who shares many of the same physical, behavioral and psychological traits. Generally the selection filters work both to construct, maintain and screen for traits that permit advancement, but also to filter out negative traits. In a corporation for instance, a frequent source of issues with corporate hiring is that screening for “snakes in suits” is very difficult because psychopaths and narcissists usually have great interview skills, it’s hard to see through glibness and superficial charm during a 45 minute interview. Conversely, people with great skills for the job but poor interview skills tend to not get hired. Hence, over time a corporation gradually gets more and more dominated by the wrong people.
This is the same thing with the SMP over time it self-selects down to a point where very few good prospects exist within your age bracket as you get older. Once you hit your 50s and 60s expect women in their 50s and 60s to chase you because they have no options left, can’t go younger, don’t want to date a 70 or 80 year old man.
When I came up with the idea for this essay, I was actually surprised that I hadn’t written it before because the idea of a value proposition is so central to Gendernomics. Investopedia defines a value proposition in the following manner:
“A value proposition refers to the value a company promises to deliver to customers should they choose to buy their product. A value proposition is also a declaration of intent or a statement that introduces a company’s brand to consumers by telling them what the company stands for, how it operates, and why it deserves their business.
A value proposition can be presented as a business or marketing statement that a company uses to summarize why a consumer should buy a product or use a service. This statement, if worded compellingly, convinces a potential consumer that one particular product or service the company offers will add more value or better solve a problem for them than other similar offerings will.” 
When we interact with other people, or move about our daily lives, we are constantly being inundated by various value offerings and propositions from companies and other people, some of these are on point, some of these are exaggerated, but the shared characteristic of all of them is that an exchange is being proposed. You give them something, and they’ll give you something in return. What determines if you engage in a trade is whether you consider the price being asked is smaller than the value being delivered.
To clarify the former statement, if I have $5 and you have a sandwich that you want to sell to me, in order for the transaction to take place, I will have to value the sandwich as being worth $5 or more, and you have to value the $5 as being of equal value or higher value than your sandwich. If both of us make the judgment that we prefer what we already have, then no trade can take place. This is Ludwig Von Mises subjective value theory in practice. When someone buys a $487 course, then they value that course at $487 or higher, and they expect to be able to get more value out of it than they paid.
The accuracy of their judgment being the determinant of the outcome. If you consider paying a personal trainer $200 in hour, you expect to get results that deliver equal or higher value in order to justify your investment. It’s basic what is the cost of investment and what is the return on the investment? Continue reading
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.
As I was polishing another essay, an idea stuck in my head. What is the consequence of men widely adopting red pill theory as a framework for their lives and especially in intersexual dynamics. A major argument from the “Trad-con” and “Purple-pill” contingents within the manosphere has been that if men adopt a red pill perspective, and start implementing this into their lives, is that it will send society into a negative spiral. The logic goes that game and the red pill works in terms of getting laid, the result of a majority of men implementing a male sexual strategy (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality) at the cost of the female sexual strategy (alpha fucks/beta bucks) will lead to and hasten the decline of our current social order.I agree with this argument, as our overt social order for the past 50 – 300 years is based on the model of reproductive Marxism.
Monogamous marriage, no sex outside of marriage, no divorce, children are raised in a nuclear family with their mother as primary caregiver, and supported by the father through labor. This is the old book of rules made explicit. The changes that have been made in the past since the sexual revolution is that contraception is now widely available thus decoupling sex from reproduction. Divorce is now very available and has an entire industry supporting it. The proportion of children born and raised out by a single parent is increasing. Women are steadily increasing in labor participation and men are steadily declining in labor participation. The entire structure around monogamous marriage has been eroded, the man’s authority is gone, and what is left is a woman holding all the cards in her hand.
Let me begin by stating explicitly, trad-con has a problem with the “Beta bucks” side of female sexual strategy, in fact most of them support it wholeheartedly and just want wives who nag less and fuck more. The problem comes with the “Alpha fucks” side, and the fact that these two strategies are influence each other, a woman’s successful execution of the former, defacto a poorer execution of the latter if a woman’s strategy cannot be optimized in the form of “Alpha bucks”. The goal of such men is primarily is to improve the Beta Bucks dynamic in a relationship, so that the Beta males are able to live happy, fulfilling relationships, and won’t end up with their wife divorcing them after 5 years of dead bedroom, not so much because it’s the best for the man, but because it’s the best trade-off for society. It keeps the man’s stomach full, balls empty and working hard, a woman’s wallet full, and the children’s lives stable.
In order to do this, the argument is that men have to sacrifice for their fellow men, by neglecting their own best reproductive interest and sexual strategy. It’s an argument in favor of why men should indulge female sexual strategy instead of following their own. Personally, I think the fear of “all men going alpha and the world turning into an orgy is unfounded due to natural regulatory mechanisms.
If you started asking around the manosphere who is the most frequent pest in DMs, I think many of the men would point at me. I’m quite a prolific brain picker, whether that means asking Goldmund a few questions about Camera Game before I tried that the first time, checking in with Well Built Style or Tanner when I’m looking to upgrade my wardrobe, getting some day game info from Troy or TD, Beard tips from George Bruno, workout tips from AJA Cortes or this week when I asked the whole Red Man Group about an issue I was having with turning one-night stands into plates. The reason why I do this is that it’s much more efficient to ask someone who has a lot of information and experience on a subject to give you some quick input than it is to gain their experience and knowledge for myself. I consider myself very lucky that I’m in a position where I can ask these men questions about their field of expertise and not get DM blocked. I think Rian Stone found the best term for this on his blog which he refers to as “Men Swapping Notes”.
One of the main reasons why I ask all these questions is that there are areas in life where I’m an expert, and there are other areas I want to bring up to par, I don’t need to be an expert, but I need to know enough that I have that area of my life handled. A couple of years ago, I would probably be featured in an “Average Guy Style” or “Trash shoes” thread, now I won’t. I’m a far way from being GQ cover material, but at least I’m not wearing jeans that are two sizes to big with 3 year old Nike Airs everywhere. A second reason is that the more information I can aggregate up in my head, the more patterns I’m able to discern that then can become blog content. This is one of these threads. Continue reading