Gendernomics: Products and Markets

Rollo recently posted an essay where he talks about the concept of value added, more specifically about a tendency among women to conflate their sexual market value with their worth as a human being. This is largely a function of women having reduced themselves to sexual commodities, and one key characteristics of a commodity in a market is that there is little if any differentiation. For instance, if I were to purchase aluminum ingots or oil in the spot market, no company really offers a differentiated product, they are all sold based on lowest cost. In the same manner, if the only  thing being “sold” in the sexual market place is the act of sex, one could argue that such a product is largely undifferentiated.

Naturally, for the act of sex one prefers a packaging that is aesthetically pleasing, this goes for both men and women. In today’s online sexual market place, it doesn’t matter much how great your personality is, as most purchasing processes start with determining whether a product passes the hurdle rate for appearance, and then if it does one explores other product features.

Much of product design is based on an idea for a product, and then after the idea generation and prototyping phases, one comes up with the value proposition to the market. My preference is to begin with a market analysis, and then creating the product, in order to ensure that will be customers for the product. It is generally also much cheaper to conduct market research than it is to develop products. From this approach, one can develop a good sense of the market in which one will operate, and which product characteristics are important to the potential customer base. One can even identify the price ceiling, potential volumes and various other important input to the product design process.

If one compares Vodka to Whiskey for instance, the former is ethanol and water, the latter is also ethanol and water, but the process of production has a large influence on the end-product. Vodka is differentiated 90% using brand building and marketing. Whiskey is differentiated in the same manner, however, much of the marketing is based on differences in the production process. These differences range from the grain bill (malt, rye, corn, etc), malt processing (peat levels), type of distillation (pot still or column still) time spent cask aging, type of casks that the whiskey has been aged in, and single malt vs. blended. Continue reading

Advertisements

Gendernomics: The Tinder Picture Experiment

To give the background for the experiment, I’ve never been much into online dating because when I started practicing game, the only material was largely centered on clubs. I’ve been using day-game quite a lot over the past few years because I travel a lot for my day job and often end up spending 5 days to two weeks in a location. However, lately I’ve found it a challenge to do day game due to spending less time in a city, having fewer repeat visits and having to compress the process into a much shorter time period.

I noticed that Anthony (@beachmuscles) was having a lot of success using various online platforms including Tinder, and concluded that this could be a very useful avenue for me as well and I don’t like leaving pussy on the table. I’ve also noticed a trend where people tend to go out more in groups, or on already planned dates, as opposed to going out just to meet people, so it seems that the internet has lead to distribution and logistics innovations in the sexual market place as well.

The first issue I ran into when I downloaded Tinder was to find good pictures of myself, I’ve had photography as a hobby for years but I’ve never spent much time in front of a camera, and I don’t really have a lot of pictures of myself suitable for a dating profile. I also know that people tend to be very poor judges of their own pictures, so I figured that I had to find a way to get 3 – 5 good pictures of myself.

This was what caused me to conduct this experiment because in absence of other pictures, I used my professional headshots for my Tinder profile along with filling out the default spaces in the profile including my alma matter and my job title, then overwhelmingly got responses from women ages 30 – 35 with professional jobs and University degrees. This is hardly my ideal demographic, so being that I know a thing or two about red pill theory I formulated an experiment. It was only intended to give me insight into online dating in general, and Tinder in particular, but when I mentioned it on The Red Man Group many men requested a write up, so here we go. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Of Mirages and Meat Scales

The first book I ever read on investing was a tome entitled “The Intelligent Investor” written by Professor Benjamin Graham. This treatise outlines Graham’s philosophy of “Value Investing“, of which Warren Buffett is the most well-known practitioner. As a young man I struggled a lot with understanding Graham’s idea of investing based on “intrinsic value“, because I couldn’t quite conceptualize what it was in my mind. Was it the value of retained earnings minus debt, the book value of the company, the projected earnings per share in perpetuity discounted by net present value? As I continued to feed my mind a steady diet of finance information, this did not alleviate the confusion, rather it compounded it. However, I still found immense value in Graham’s magnum opus. The one quote that has stuck with me for a long time since reading the book is:

In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.

This is a valuable principle, because we often run into situations where what is popular is what is easy, makes us feel good in the moment and hurts us long term, while what is hard, makes us uncomfortable and brings us growth long-term is unpopular. This is illustrated by a conversation from the Andrew Ross Sorkin movie “Too Big Too Fail” in a conversation between Michele Davis (Cynthia Nixon), Neel Kashkari (Ayad Akhtar) and Hank Paulson (William Hurt)

Neel Kashkari: Poor bastard who bought his dream house? The teaser rate on his mortgage runs out, his payments go up, he defaults.

Henry Paulson: Mortgage-backed securities tank. AIG has to pay off the swaps. All of them. All over the world. At the same time.

Neel Kashkari: AIG can’t pay. AIG goes under. Every bank they insure books massive losses on the same day. And then they all go under. It all comes down.

Michele Davis: [horrified] The *whole* financial system? And what do I say when they ask me why it wasn’t regulated?

Henry Paulson: No one wanted to. We were making too much money.

In the short term, everyone was making too much money, and despite quite a few people being aware that it was going to become a major threat to the financial system, nobody wanted to be the canary in coalmine. They were faced with a choice, where they could side with the voting machine, face no negative consequences and in fact be positively rewarded, which was a much more palatable choice than to side with the weighing machine, face a lot of negative backlash from their colleagues, and potential lose millions. This is not uncommon, as whistle-blowers, “doomsayers”, and the messengers tend to be disliked because they ruin the mood.

A good analogy would be that a high school kid’s parents are out of town, and he decides to have a party. However, as the evening progresses, the party starts to get out of hand, people show up with kegs, before you know it the living room has turned into a mosh pit and people are playing ultimate frisbee with $200 china. If the kid decides to call the cops, or his parents, he is likely to be the person who faces negative consequences, despite the fact that he was not in the moral wrong. Continue reading

The Chalice and the Crucible

So in other news this week, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has made a controversial statement about reproductive marxism, or as he referred to it “enforced monogamy” [1].  From what I could gather from the statement, the simple premise is that which I outlined in my essay on reproductive marxism.

In nature, it appears that the natural order mating opportunities flow to men much in the same way that capital does in capitalism. It flows from those who are unsuccessful to those who are successful, and the more capital a person has, the more capital will flow to them. A man who is unsuccessful in the mating market will be left with very little, if anything at all. A man who is successful in the mating market will receive even more mating opportunities.

However, this creates instability in the system in the same way that the above average collection of wealth among a small number of highly successful businessmen creates instability in a capitalist system. The fundamental order of capitalism is competition, as constant competition ensures that resources are efficiently allocated. However, the goal of any capitalist businessman is to gain a monopoly position where the maximum amount of revenue can be generated and where above average profits will be attained. Once an oligopoly or a monopoly comes to exist, resources will no longer be efficiently allocated.  Reproductive Marxism

In any system that is a zero-sum or appears to be zero-sum, a side-effect is that the outcomes are often winner takes all, rather than being normally distributed. What this means is that wealth is distributed on a curve where the top 2 – 3% of the population control a great majority of the resources, rather than the resources being distributed roughly according to population size. It’s a fancy way of saying the top 1% control 99% of the resources, the bottom 99% control 1% of the resources. This tends to create a lot of instability within the system.

If one were to use the framework of conflict theory, one could posit that within a society one has a myriad of groups that all have different interests, some of these are deeply invested in the present social order because this social order benefits them in terms of resources. Other groups are in conflict with the present social order because it does not benefit them in terms of resources. For instance, the core argument made by Occupy Wall Street protesters was that the present system benefits at the top 1% at the cost of the 99%, economically speaking.

Much of Dr. Peterson’s work, from “12 Rules for Life“, to “Maps of Meaning” deals with the balance between mechanisms that enhance and preserve stability, and those that reduce and destroy stability. I’ve themed this the conflict between the ID and the Super-ego in Freudian terms. Where the ID, cast in Peterson’s analysis as chaos represents the natural order of things, and the super-ego order, the civilizing effect of reason on nature.

The article that somewhat inspired me to do some research, and subsequently write this essay, was a very effective piece of rhetoric, very accurately aimed at the market the author sought to influence, out of which my favorite quote is:

The idea that women will only sleep with the top men if given the chance is straight out of pick-up artist garbage pseudoscience. This ideology of “beta” and “alpha” males (the latter getting all the sex) is based on a mangled and since-retracted study about wolves, and bears no relationship whatsoever to human societies. Worse, it instills the false notion that women are largely status-obsessed sluts who will have to be basically coerced into sleeping with anyone but the most attractive men. [2]

Fortunately, yours truly cares quite little for rhetoric, I much prefer data, so what does the data say? In God We Trust, everyone else has to bring the data. In the quoted paragraphs there are 2 concrete statements we can look at.

A) The existence of Alpha males and Beta males as defined by sexual success.

B) The principle that women would rather share an alpha than own a beta.

From these, we can form a couple of hypotheses. In the case of the first statement, it’s quite simple, the basic premise is that a minority of men have a majority of the sex. This is often shorthanded as the “sexual market pareto principle” that Chris Rock verbalized as “20% of the men do 80% of the fucking“. If this is not the case, one would expect male sexual success to follow a normal distribution meaning that you have extreme outliers on both sides, and most men are somewhere around the mean. This means, simply put, that one would expect 33% of men to have less than the average of sex partners, 33% would have the average number of sex partners, and 33% would have an over-average amount of sex partners.

For the second statement, that women are and I quote “largely status-obsessed sluts” this is quite an easy set of hypotheses that would follow from the former two. In effect, if one falsifies the null hypothesis, and thus is capable of concluding that sexual success among men does not follow a normal distribution, and instead that a minority of men have a majority of the sexual success (as measured by sex partners) then one can establish not that women are status-obsessed sluts, because that would be concluding on a single cause, but that there is a sexual disparity among men, and thus that factors in female sexual selection behavior likely plays a part creating this sexual disparity. Thus, the following are the hypotheses for this essay:

Null Hypothesis: Attention from women to men follows a normal distribution

Hypothesis 1: Attention from women to men does not follow a normal distribution

Null Hypothesis: Sexual success among men follows a normal distribution

Hypothesis 2: Sexual success among men does not follow a normal distribution

Continue reading

Gendernomics: False Profits

It’s been a while since I wrote a Gendernomics essay of this type, but it seemed to be the perfect follow-up to the essays on pro-social vs. anti-social dominance hierarchies I wrote a while ago.

Perhaps the change that has the most impact when moving from a hunter-gatherer existence to one based in agriculture is the simple fact that agriculture generates a surplus. A hunter-gatherer tribe generates roughly the amount of value in a year that they consume, whereas with agriculture a group of farmers can generate much more value than they consume in the same period. Once you move from an agrarian society to an industrial one, the ability to generate such a surplus increases.

From a simplified macro-economic perspective, the reason for this is quite simple. A hunter-gatherer tribe has little left over for positive investment, they create enough value to feed themselves, and cover replacement investment (fixing their weapons, clothing and equipment) but they do not generate enough to improve their ability to produce. An agrarian society generates enough value to feed themselves, clothe themselves and invest in things that expands their capacity to produce. An industrial society generates enough to cover their basic needs and invest greatly in productive capacities with leftover resources for excess consumption.

Utilizing the simplified C-I-S model for a nation, where C stands for consumption, I for Investment and S for Saving, we could argue that theoretically for a hunter-gatherer tribe 90% of their generated value goes to consumption, and 10% to investment. For an agrarian group, perhaps 75% goes to consumption, 15% to investment and 10% to saving, and for an industrial population 50% is consumed, 35% invested and 15% saved. These are not empirical numbers, but serve to symbolize the development of human economics.

Gross investment is composed of net investment which is spending that increases the availability of fixed capital goods, means of production and goods inventories. For instance, buying a new building, new machine or increasing your inventory of products, and replacement investment which is replacement of depreciated capital goods. As an example, buying a new house is increasing the availability of fixed capital goods, maintaining that house over its lifetime is a case of replacement investment, as you are fixing the wear and tear of use.

One of the key elements is that if investment falls below replacement investment levels, then the ability of a group to produce goods and services goes down. Put very simply, if a two man carpentry crew has 2 hammers, and break 1 hammer a year on average, but do not make enough money to replace that hammer, their productivity will decrease.

Continue reading

Gendernomics: Your Competitive Advantage

A running theme in Gendernomics has been the use of a company or a product as an analogy for the journey of growth a man has to undertake in order to become valued in differing social contexts. A classic way of creating a competitive advantage is through core competencies, namely a unique combination of hard to duplicate competencies. Last Saturday I did another Red Man Group podcast on Rich Cooper’s channel [1] with Rollo Tomassi, Goldmund Unleashed, Kyle Trouble and Rian Stone the topic for which was “The Importance of Game“. As part of the podcast, we discussed when each participant first became aware of the manosphere, or as it was called back when I first found it “The seduction community“. I often joke that I’ve been aware of game since the opener “Who lies more, men or women?” actually worked, and while I don’t consider this a blog dedicated to game, those early experiences do inform a great deal of my writing.

I never got really good at “club game“, which was perhaps the earliest iteration of game, complete with platform shoes, a focus on AMOG tactics, and featured quite prominently in “The Game” by Neill Strauss. I knew a lot of guys back then who got very good at it, but for the most part these were men who thrived in that particular environment. A piece of early and quite solid advice from an early PUA “Guru” who has since moved on to Purple Pill Shill was “Figure out the type of women you are attracted to, figure out what type of man they are attracted to and strive to become it, and figure out where to find those women“. This is simple and applicable advice. It’s also quite good advice, however the major issue I see with it, is that it’s the cause of the downfall for many early PUA.

Those who have read “The Game” will remember the story of Mystery’s breakdown because of his oneitis and his inability to maintain a relationship with her. This had a simple explanation, he figured out what type of girl he was attracted to, figured out where to find them, what man they went for, changed himself into that man, only to find out that he couldn’t maintain his Mystery persona over time. This is very little different from the approach cluster B women use with men, tailor their persona to the man, maintain it until the man commits to them (get her pregnant, marries her etc.) and then drop the facade. The major difference is that when women realize they have gotten a bad deal, they get out of it instantly, when men realize they have gotten a bad deal they either work themselves to death trying to improve it with little success, or engage in a race to the bottom. Continue reading

Yes, No, Maybe..

A lot of men find the manosphere in search of a magic pill, they want a methodology or a solution for the problem of rejection. The problem of rejection can easily be formulated as “In order for a man to become sexually successful he has to risk and face rejection”, the fact of the matter is that very few of us relish facing rejection. It is to be gazed upon and found unworthy. This is what a questionable element PUA used to sell in their bootcamps, “If you pay $3000 and come to my bootcamp, you eliminate the risk of rejection forever”. Naturally this is tempting for men who are petrified by rejection.

However, it also influenced PUA in a negative direction. A product tends to be developed towards a certain market, and in this case it was men who were petrified of rejection, and frequently suffering from oneitis. The most frequent question I heard asked in the young manosphere started with “There is this girl” and ended with “How do I make her my girlfriend”. In essence, this is like saying “There is this company, how do I make them a customer”. Well, first off you need to have a product that can improve that company, then you have to get them to notice your product, then you have to sell them on it.

This may not always lead to success, but hopefully it leads to someone asking the question “Why are we working so hard to tailor our product to this single potential customer, instead of seeing if what our product already does can appeal to a much wider market who is dying to buy it?” Continue reading