Gendernomics: The NAxALT Error

I briefly covered the NxALT error in an earlier essay on “AWALT” (all women are like that), but as it seems to be catching on in various domains relevant to, or sphere adjacent, it is time for a dedicated essay. Whenever I view characteristics of a population, I tend to make the initial assumption that it follows a normal distribution similar to the bell curve depicted in this essay.

Such a distribution is characterized by the fact that the values cluster around the mean, and the further away one gets from the mean, the smaller the population will be. For instance, in regards to IQ, 68% of the population are within 1 standard deviation either above or below the mean, meaning that they have an IQ in the range 85 – 115. 95% of the population are within 2 standard deviations either above or below the mean, meaning an IQ in the range 70 – 130. When one enters the outliers, meaning an IQ either below below 70 or above 130, this totals a mere 4.2% of the population. The extreme outliers, those people with an IQ either above 145 or below 55, are a mere 2% of the total population.

The normal distribution is present in many observations of human traits, height, weight and IQ being among them. In Gendernomics I argue  that sexual market value should be viewed as  a normal distribution, as this would be the distribution that ensured the maximal chance of “pairing off” when one takes hypergamy and the female pareto attraction into account. If all men are 10s, then it becomes impossible for hypergamy to select the highest value males, likewise if all women are 10s, then it becomes impossible for women to ensure that they have optimized hypergamy.

To summarize, in a normal distribution the majority of observations are within 1 – 2 standard deviations of the mean value, and the further one gets away from the mean the lower the amount of observations one makes. Thus it follows, that the probability of making an observation that is within 1 – 2 standard deviations of the mean is much higher than to observe an outlier. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Game as a Value Multiplier

A multiplier is a very simple concept, it’s an added variable that either serves to increase or decrease a given value. When you benchmark between industries it’s not uncommon to establish revenue multipliers for mergers and acquisitions, for instance the purchase value in one industry may be x4 of revenue, and in another x12 of revenue. This is normally done by analyzing previous deals in the same industry, establishing a “normal” multiplier and then applying that to the present deal, with or without modifications. If there is a large discrepancy in market capitalization for the two, or growth estimates are vastly different, then adjustments may be made, if the companies are very similar, they may not.

Perhaps the multiplier that most will be familiar with is marketing. Now marketing in and of itself does not create tangible product value, for instance an Iphone does not get objectively better because it comes in a nice box. However, the nice box helps it appear higher value and quality due to playing with our perception. The bottle- and logo design of Coca Cola does not make the drink more refreshing, more healthy, or a host of other concrete product variables, however it does make it stand out on the shelf.

In a recent tweet, I wrote:

Game is a value multiplier, not a value creator, treat accordingly.

The reasoning behind this is quite simple, and comes from my analysis of the early seduction community argument that “only game matters”, summarized as, “one need not concern oneself with becoming interesting, dressing better, developing the right mindset, going to the gym or a myriad of other avenues of self-improvement, just buy whatever product I’m selling and you will become successful with women”. Perhaps the most obvious example of the flaws in this methodology was the program “The Pick-Up Artist” that aired on VH-1 some years ago, where it rapidly became clear that even personal coaching and training from Mystery in his methods, failed to improve those men who had the lowest value, much if at all. Those who did indeed become successful, were those men who were the male “She’s all that” versions, guys who were average or above average value, but who failed to display that value in some regard. Continue reading

Gendernomics: The Elevator Pitch

Recently I had a quick twitter exchange that had to do with how to be interesting, to which I replied:

Trouble is, a lot of men have no idea which things that happened to them were interesting, and which are not. @Blacklabellogic

This is one of those things that are quite obvious on the surface, so obvious in fact that I never really thought about it until I saw the tweet that prompted the response. It is no surprise really as women are the sex that has an inherent grasp of marketing, framing and rhetoric, where most male conversations tend to go down one of two paths.

The first path of male conversation is simply an information exchange following the problem – analysis – solution model, and I suspect this is the default male form of communication. This draws on deductive problem solving, requires clear, minimalist language in order to ensure maximum mutual understanding, and an honest presentation of the situation at hand.

The second path of male conversation takes the form of banter, of which locker room talk is a sub-category. This path tends to follow a tit-for-tat model where one-upping one another with better roasts, jokes, or stories is central, and functions somewhat to determine the status of each male, but also to hone an ability to be witty, humorous, and think on one’s feet. It also serves to keep a man grounded, and to bond the group together, through having fun at each other’s expense. An ability to be productive, honorable, funny, and so on contributes to either a rise or a fall within the male dominance hierarchy.

A man that seeks to improve his position in the sexual market place must do some initial analysis. Having an idea of how he needs to position himself in the market, the competitive pressures within the market and other market factors will be central in determining how to apply his efforts during product engineering. Luckily, much of this information is available in the manosphere on a general level.

Once he has this information, combined with his experience within the market, he is likely to have an understanding of the major factors that impact his value, the next step is then to establish where he deviates from those factors and with this understanding he can engage in targeted product engineering to adapt the product he is offering to the market to which he wants to appeal. Once these factors are engineered into the product (himself), he can start to consider the marketing aspect of the product.

The marketing aspect deals with the correct communication in regards to the product offering. In short, how does he present the value he represents in the best possible light. This is where game plays a major role. For instance, the opener represents a way to open an avenue of communication with a potential customer, and could be likened to everything from cold calling to banner ads. Once the customer has been “opened”, the next step is to get the customer invested in the communication. Once the customer is invested in the communication, one can move on to techniques that serve to best highlight the product, engage in influence techniques and various other means that seek to position the product in the mind of the customer. Finally the close represents the time when the customer has to make the first choice with tangible consequences.

There are two key areas in such a scenario, what information to present and how to present that information. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Means, Ends and Hypergamy

The concept of hypergamy is what one finds at the bottom of the rabbit hole, the reason why female behavior is how it is observed. Myself and many others have taken swings at explaining hypergamy, what is it, what does “peak hypergamy entail” and many other views have been explored.

Yet there appears to be many misunderstandings out there regarding the various manifestations of hypergamy, furthermore, to how it manifests in each female. It would be no catastrophic admission that it varies from woman to woman, with some manifesting stronger variants others less severe variants. That what is optimal hypergamy for one woman is perhaps not optimal hypergamy for another, based on a range of variables. If hypergamy manifested in an identical degree and manner in every woman regardless of other factors, then one would expect to observe identical mating behavior by every female.

The implication of hypergamy operating in such a manner is that to females, males would have an objective value, a male 10 would be a male 10 to every woman, and a male 1 would be a male 1 to every woman. This would also mean that one could easily break down the variables that constituted male sexual market value, and create male 10s en masse, without much effort. However, this completely disregards the subjective aspects of female mate choice, that are influenced by various individual and contextual factors. It is the influence of these factors that create the variable aspect of female mating judgments.

This should come to no surprise to those that have read the section regarding value theory and the rational actor in “Gendernomics” where I write:

The former category, subjective value theory is much more applicable to the Sexual Market Place. This is because rather than being based on the intrinsic value of an object, good or service, the value is determined based on the value placed on the object by a rational actor for the achievement of his own ends

A man who is thirsting is will value a glass of water much higher than the man who has an unlimited source of clean water. If everyone agreed that objects held the same value, based on underlying factors such as the cost of production or rarity, then it leaves very little room for individual preference. Even in the largest markets in the world, such as various stock markets, the price of an asset reflects not only underlying value, but the judgments of many buyers and sellers regarding the underlying value. Generally these values are within a range, and it’s rare to see large spreads on the value of an asset, unless an exceptional case is presenting itself.

As the sexual market place appears to be governed through many of the same factors any other market, it follows that individual choice, and the value placed on a man or woman by a rational actor for their own ends, is a significant influencing factor. Continue reading

The Mark Baxter Podcast

I recently made my second appearance on the Mark Baxter Podcast, Mark is a great host, who has an ability to bring out the best in his guest and inspires new ideas. He also has an uncanny ability to converse with virtually anyone, and since starting his podcast he’s lined up a veritable who’s who of high profile manosphere figures.

This episode was very interesting to me, as it was a joint episode with Rollo Tomassi, the man who is probably cited more than any other on this blog, the author of therationalmale.com and the books by the same name. The Godfather of the red pill, and the man who’s sexual market value curve was the foundation for the first ever post I wrote for Gendernomics. Rollo has written many great posts, but my favorite posts are “Betas in Waiting” and “Saving the Best“, two posts that I consider crucial for the destruction of what remains of the blue pill illusion.

The podcast has a feeling very similar to that of just hanging out, discussing ideas and thoughts with friends over drinks, despite the heavy topics that are regularly covered.

 

For those of you who didn’t catch my first discussion with Mark on his Podcast, you can find it here

 

Gendernomics: The Margin of Safety

The margin of safety is a concept that has been popularized by various value investors, among them Warren Buffet and Seth Klarman, which is centered upon reviewing investments from a risk averse perspective. While many investors tend to review their investments from the perspective of growth potential, future market potential or various macro-centered models, these investors seek to find characteristics in the investment that acts as protection should their valuation be flawed, or future expectations not materialize. The earlier examples tended to be centered on assets that the company held that could be liquidated in order to ensure that the loss they had to take was minimal.

As time went on, investors such as Buffet changed their focus to alternative margins of safety, such as company reputations, market positions, barriers to entry and various other less tangible elements. For instance, the major margin of safety in the Coca Cola Company is the market position and brand recognition that the company has spent decades building since its inception. This concept of the margin of safety is very applicable in the sexual market place, and one of the major arguments in this post deals with how women are naturally wired to seek margins of safety in their market transactions. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Models of Attraction

Within marketing purchasing models serve as tools to determine how consumers make decisions regarding purchases. If one can deduce which model consumers rely on when they make their decision, the product and presentation can be tailored so that it fits well into this model, and stands apart from the competition. The models can be broken down further into models for quality, pricing, positioning and various others, in second-order consumer analysis. An example would be that if customers value perceived quality as the most important characteristic of a product, which component factors make up “quality”.

I touched on such models in “Gendernomics”, where I argue that female attraction is based on a weighted compensatory model, rather than a straight-up non-compensatory model. This differs from the male model, that at least for short-term mating appears to be very close to a ranked model of sorts. This has some overlap with the manner in which humans make purchase decisions within a marketplace under various forms of limitations. Buying decisions differ based on the nature of the purchase, we cannot make a full system 2 decision every time we decide on what drink to get with a meal, and we cannot make a system 1 decision when it comes to making investments or purchases with long-term consequences.

As I wrote this, my view of the female models somewhat changed as one cannot explain both sets of female sexual strategy with a single model. As a result of this I found myself refining the concepts I used in the book, in order to create a better construct for the female sexual strategies.

Non-Compensatory Models

This is the most simple model of those I speak of in this article, for this model one simply lists the various product preferences in a sheet, assigns a score to each characteristic, and the product that scores the highest “wins“. This is quite similar to short-term mating choices for men, that tend to lean heavily towards beauty as a proxy for fertility as the chief characteristic of decision-making. Such models are often created in order to simplify decision-making, and frequently fail to take into account trade-offs between options, fail to collect all the relevant information and relies heavily upon one or two main characteristics. Within Non-compensatory models there are 4 primary categories, conjunctive, disjunctive, lexicographic and elimination by aspects.

In conjunctive models the person uses minimum cutoff values on desired attributes. An example would be a consumer that looks at a car, and requires a score of at least 6 on gas mileage in order to consider a car. In disjunctive models the consumer is willing to trade-off certain features for other features, a low-carb dieter for instance may be willing to accept a lower protein content if the fat content improves. In the lexicographic model, the person will buy whatever product scores the highest on the most important attribute, for instance the comparison may start with gas mileage, if more than one alternative remains, he may then consider driving comfort, and so on. Finally, the elimination by aspects approach is a mixture of the lexicographic model and the disjunctive model, as the consumer ranks the characteristics by importance but also adds in minimum values.

Models of Attraction

When one studies human male attraction, the visual nature of it is quite central. This does make evolutionary sense, as things like hair, teeth, figure and various other visual queues are also fertility cues. Over time, men who were better at seeing these visual cues, would have had a higher number of offspring who shared the preference for the very visual cues that are linked with higher numbers of offspring. This can be likened to a lexicographic model, where the male first considers fertility cues, then he may go on to consider other characteristics if there are more options remaining.

The female model on the other hand is more difficult to nail down, but based on the book “A Billion Wicked Thoughts” that based on search engine data describes it as a detective agency, appears to be an elimination by aspects model, where characteristics are ranked by importance, but also have certain minimum values. In essence a woman’s mind works off the statement “You must be this tall for me to ride you“. This correlates very well with the concept of “hypergamy”, the tendency of women to always prefer a mate of higher value than themselves, which arguably serves as a form of risk-mitigation. After all, if a mate is 2 – 3 points above your own value, then it follows that if your value increases or theirs decreases, you there is a some leeway, in addition to a margin of error in judgment.

This can be likened to the concept of a “hurdle-rate” in investments, where a prospective investment must promise a return over a certain rate, often the cost of capital, but it may also be another hurdle in order to be considered. However, this is also simplified, as if we break it down, short-term mating vs. long-term mating are different decisions. While one may argue that for a woman, a short-term mating decision will have had potentially long-term consequences back before birth control as out of wedlock children would have been a major risk, this risk appears to be acceptable for women provided the long-term rewards are great enough. Thus, the existence of dual-models for women based on whether the decision undertaken is a high or low investment decision follows.

For the long-term decision the elimination by aspects model, with weighted criteria appears to be the valid one, as this reflects a high-investment and high risk prospect. After all, she is exclusively promising her fertility/sexuality to a single male, thus, she must ensure that this is the one who promises the best deal according to hypergamy. This is the model that is the source of the hundreds of traits women claim they want in a man that fill page after page of magazines. This outlines every trait she thinks/should want in a partner according to social programming. This also correlates nicely with the system 1 vs system 2 style decisions that I wrote about in an earlier article.

However, for short-term mating as I outlined in the article referenced in the last sentence, the circumstance of mating would dictate that there is not sufficient time or data for the woman to conduct an analysis of the man. Thus, there must exist a secondary model that women utilize to make decisions regarding short-term mating. In this case, it would make sense if this reflects a similar model to the one utilized in general by men, as short-term mating would have to reflect a focus on capitalizing upon a rare opportunity to secure high-value genetic material. When it comes to short-term decisions, social proof such as a man being seen with other women she deems her equal or superior, serves as a guarantee that other women have evaluated the man and their evaluation serves to support her own. In the same regard, a woman who observes a man being treated poorly by such women, will conclude that he has been evaluated by them and found wanting.

Triggering Models

As I wrote in the earlier article on system 1 vs system 2 type decisions:

If one looks at the central points of “Beta Game“, it is very much a system 2 oriented approach. A beta volunteers plenty of data to the woman and dates often take the form of job-interviews where the Beta is attempting to logically convince the woman of his worthiness as a mate. It is as if he is reading a user manual for her about him.

“Alpha Game” on the other hand, is very much a system 1 approach, focusing on arousing emotions, impulsivity and rapid decisions. Alpha game is in a sense the cheat meal a person has because they found themselves in a situation where they could not resist, whereas beta game is the tupperware box of carefully prepared chicken breasts and broccoli.

The same behaviors that cause a woman to leverage her system 2 or 1, are the same that cause her to engage the short-term vs long-term mating model. This is a reflection of the man’s behavior towards her. An observation that can be made about “Beta Game” is that it reflects the old statement “Women use sex to negotiate a relationship, men use a relationship to negotiate sex“. This reflects a deeply held belief among many men that women only have sex in relationships, and require the courting step as a precursor to intimacy, when it can be observed that women are more likely to mate with an alpha and then try to negotiate a relationship from that.

If one looks at the concept of a “shotgun wedding”, something that has occurred and still occurs to this day, it is quite clear that this was not as uncommon as the public narrative would want to suggest. The term for “shotgun wedding” in Japanese translates roughly to “oops-we-did-it marriage”. While the motivations for coercive marriage has been many throughout the world, it has historically been related to restoring the honor of the woman, or ensuring that the child has a father, which makes me wonder how many Alphas found themselves getting a ring on their finger with a shotgun aimed at their back, with the bride-to-be exhilarated that her gambit worked.

Summary and Conclusions

The discussion regarding female short-term vs long-term mating behaviors are not new to manosphere in any regard. They have been around since the first couple of men saw that women seemingly engaged two different behavior sets depending on their perception of a man. Game evolved as a methodology to leveraged the observed behavior and was then field-tested for accuracy. Last week’s post and this post, are tentative evaluations of what characterizes the underlying models that govern these two models and what triggers the preferred use of one over the other.

If one assumes that the two are linked in a causal relationship where system 1 engagement leads to the woman employing a simple lexicographic model, whereas system 2 engagement leads to the use of the elimination by aspects model. This would be supported by manosphere staple principles such as not waiting for sex (it signals that the woman is engaging her system 2 and elimination by aspects model), not spending money on a woman prior to sex (triggers system 2) or appealing to her emotions (jump-starts system 1). Then it follows that one could analyze various game theories, and tactics through the lens of which system of decision-making they appeal to, overtly qualifying yourself means she has to actively evaluate the information you are presenting to her, and thus would lead her to engage her system 2. Leading her off on a journey filled with emotional excitement would appeal to her system 1.

The error often made in Beta game, apart from appealing to her ability to be logical and utilize deductive logic, is that they sub-consciously sense her various hurdles and attempt to live up to them, in effect altering themselves to fit her model, rather than framing the interaction in a manner which triggers the opposite reaction. A woman senses if a man adapts to her, or if she must adapt to him, in the case of the former that serves as a warning signal to engage system 2 and the elimination by aspects model, in the case of the latter it triggers system 2 and the simple lexicographic model.

Gendernomics is now available on Amazon.com

Sources: 

[1] A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Oni Ogas