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 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


[1] A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Oni Ogas

Gendernomics: The Cover and the Content

Don’t judge a book by its cover” is an old metaphor that seeks to remind us that we should not judge the quality of something based on outwards appearance alone. This is a very classic “System 1” error [1], wherein one makes a rapid judging based on information that is easily available. A good analogy I heard was that Sherlock Holmes is an example of pure system 2, slow, deliberate and logical, whereas Watson is system 1, quick, emotional and superficial.

I’ve somewhat avoided venturing into the discussion “Looks Vs. Game” that has been ongoing in the sphere since I first became familiar with it in the early 2000s. Back then, “game” was sold as the magic pill that would make a man into master seducer regardless of any other aspect of his life. This is very much understandable from a business perspective, as those men who relied on selling various game techniques had and still have every incentive to hard-sell game as the ultimate solution to the problem “I want to get laid more”. Of course, one could argue that this sales pitch was brutally and empirically proven wrong when VH1 aired two seasons of “The Pick-up artist“, where it became very clear that game cannot overcome a general lack of social skills, anti-seductive behavior patterns or various problems with a man’s appearance.  Even the “Game Guru” Erik Von Markovik, the inventor of the Mystery Method demonstrated in this program that game is not a magic pill.

This is not to say that game does not work, however it is to state in a reductio ad absurdum fashion that an 800 lb man who lives in his mother’s basement, hasn’t had a shower since the Clinton administration, and spends his days playing videogames could be the most proficient practitioner of game in the history of the world, yet would fail miserably in the sexual market place. Conversely that a great looking guy with zero game while he may be unsuccessful in some respects, would gain a higher level of success than the former. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Options and Obiters

Options within the financial industry are in essence securities that give you certain rights related to other securities. The most common being Call options that give you the right to buy a set amount of an underlying security at a set price known as the strike price, and Put options that give you the right to sell a set amount of an underlying security at a set price. These financial instruments can be used in a variety of ways the most common being hedging risk exposure and taking leveraged positions in the underlying security. The former is quite common among hedge funds, the latter among traders. The underlying basis for options is that the underwriter and the buyer have differing views on how the asset will develop going forward. In the case of a Call option, the option writer thinks the stock will fall and the buyer thinks the stock will rise, in the case of a Put option, the underwriter thinks the stock will rise, and the buyer thinks the stock will fall.

I’ve previously written on risk in the sexual market place and while men often neglect risks completely when it comes to sexual relationships, women are consummate risk managers who seek to guard in for most eventualities within the market place. It is not uncommon to see wealthy men go “all in” on a marriage working on, not just once but twice and thrice before realizing that they are really buying expensive hookers paid after the fact.

The inherent ability of women to risk manage within the sexual market place is a function of hypergamy and solipsism, in that hypergamy represents the drive to maximize the gain from her SMV over a relatively short lifetime, much in the same manner that a professional athlete needs to maximize the value of his ability over a short period of time, while solipsism permits her to do whatever is necessary in order to achieve this goal. Via solipsism a woman can justify any action she perceives as required in order to maximize her outcomes. Continue reading

Gendernomics: I’m Not Like Other Girls

This is post two that was inspired from the same thread regarding Emilia Clarke on the red pill reddit [1], the other being dedicated to means of communication. I’ve written much on the concept of differentiation in my posts on female sexual strategy, and I also cover it in the Gendernomics book. Differentiation as a concept can be summarized as “setting yourself apart from the competition” and good differentiation should rely on unique and hard to replicate attributes, thus also contributing to competitive advantage. The two generic strategies often being cited as low-cost, which attempts to compete based on producing a good or service cheaper than the competition, and differentiation, which is based in attempting to set oneself apart from the competition through other means than price.

One thing most men will find themselves hearing at least once from every woman they ever find themselves dating is “I’m not like other girls”, this statement is representative is interesting when seen in light of “Not all women are like that” (NAWALT), in that women themselves appear to be cognizant of how “women are” and seek to actively differentiate themselves from it. Likewise, a blue pill man having found his “soul-mate” is hardly at a loss when asked to explain how she is “not like other girls“.

In the case of the woman, encouraging a perception that she is different from all other women, positions herself as an extremely scarce product. The Beta male through “She is not like other girls” justifies his oneitis through a perception of her as extremely scarce, thus justifying his over-valuation of her. Both of these rely on an unstated axiom about “how women are“, after all how can one be an exception if there is no general rule or principle? Continue reading