Make it measurable

As I relayed in last week’s post, I’ve had two distinct periods on, the early initial period resulted in Gendernomics, which was my analysis and contextualization of the sexual market place. The latter period, which we are in now has been much more focused on the practical aspects of the sexual market place, and was created for Gendernomics: Building Value.

Building Value was created because in the first 25 years of my life I very much drifted in a sense, I didn’t really have any goals in life other than short-term pleasure. I studied all those “fun but impractical” topics, politics, philosophy, sociology, literature, art, psychology, and some of this is fairly evident in my twitter feed and podcast appearances. The major motivation behind it was a desire to understand the world, and for me that all clicked once I added computer science and economics to to the mix. They are also the two most useful topics I’ve studied in my life, and the ones that laid the foundation for my current career.

The introduction here is to contextualized this essay, there is an old adage in business administration “If it can be measured it can be managed”, the inverse of this is “If it cannot be measured it cannot be managed”, this latter state is the state in which many men find themselves, and to which Building Value is dedicated. It sets out a process model to go from a man who has no idea what needs to be fixed, how to do it and how to prioritize tasks. This is driven by the fact that most men arrive in this space without defined goals, without a solid understanding of their situation, their context or what their desired end state looks like.

This is generally the problem I see most men have, they have no idea where they are, where they want to go other than away from their current state, they come looking for help, without knowing what their problems are.

The solution is what I provided in Building Value:

  1. GAP Analysis – Figure out what your life is like now, what you’re dissatisfied with and what you are happy with.

2. Prioritize problems – Some problems can be solved easily, some require more time or more thinking.

3. Define Key-performance indicators for each area.

1 and 3 are the most important the GAP analysis tells you what is not working for you now, the KPI tell you if it has gotten better. If you can’t come up with a KPI, find one. You can’t work on your “energy flows”, you can work on your bank account, your physique, employment opportunities, education and many other things. In order for something to be measured, it cannot be a feeling, it’s that simple, anyone selling you “progress” in the form of “feels” is selling you cocaine.

It feels good in the moment and makes you feel like you’re at the top of the world, but in the end you crash with an empty wallet.

The Conundrum with Change

For those who follow my twitter feed, the fact that I’m quite far from a conservative should be quite obvious by now. Part of this is driven by the fact that if one looks to history, I think one would face a monumental challenge to argue that a majority of changes have had negative human consequences. Of course, once can cite issues such as the breakdown of the nuclear family, the fact that most of us are at best tacitly tied to our communities, and quite a few others, however from my view the cost of these issues is dwarfed by:

  • Penicillin and modern medicine in general
  • Lifting people out of poverty in the third world at an accelerating rate
  • The democratization of information in the form of the internet

And many others, the fact that people can throw off dictators through the use of social media is quite astounding quite frankly. However, I do understand the concern, while change has always been a central part of the human condition, rapid change has been less so. I consider myself an adaptist, I view humanity’s greatest competitive advantage as being able to adapt better and faster than most. We have the capacity to adapt the environment to ourselves, which gives us a great edge vs. other organisms in that they adapt through generations, we adapt through neural plasticity.

When our species moved from hunter/gatherer to agricultural this took tens of thousands of years. When we moved from agricultural to industrial, it was faster but it still took 200ish years from the dawn of the industrial revolution to what I’d consider as it’s peak around 1970. The information revolution started in the 70s and now a mere 50 years later, virtually everything about our lives have changed, and we are struggling with adapting to this new area.

I notice a great difference in the generations, from a handful of “boomers” who have adopted technology on the surface level, to Gen X who are doing decently depending on early or late Gen X, to millennial generation who span the space from those born in the early 80s who are doing quite well but struggling with the social landscape changes more than the tech, and late millennials who are our first generation of “digital natives“. The key here is that people have the capacity to adopt to the current environment, and by doing so they can adapt that environment to them.

Both Gendernomics and Gendernomics: Building Value are books based on the fundamental axiom “Men can change”, which leads to the premise that “Men can change their sexual market value”, if men cannot change, then men cannot change our sexual market value, which means that your reproductive success is 100% based on your luck in the birth lottery.

What I’ve come to realize is that while all men can change, many men (and women) do not want to change. They want to adapt their environment to them, so that they do not have to do the uncomfortable thing and alter themselves. In order to accomplish this, they seek allies who have similar views, and push for their desired end-state. Of course, this isn’t a purely “left or right” issue, it’s a human issue and we see the same tendency on both sides. It’s all a fight to adapt the environment rather than the individual. The downside of this is that even if they realize their goal about their desired end-state the law of unexpected consequences tends to screw it up for them.

If we take the idealized structure of the 1950s in the United States, you need 2 things that the “We have to go back” people never account for:

  1. You have the bomb the shit out the manufacturing infrastructure of every other industrialized nation.
  2. You need to kill enough of your men to create a meaningful lack of men.

Even if you did that, #2 would still be dependent on the various social structures that existed around marriage, contraception, pre-marital sex, and various other things that meant that the only way to have a kid was to be married. If we did 1 + 2 in the modern United states, odds are we’d land on more polygamous relationships, or more likely a modern social democratic welfare state, where everyone works to take care of Chad’s kids. There is simple no way to push the toothpaste into the tube.

So, why do people want to go back?

Ultimately, I think much of this comes down certain inborn traits in us that we all tend to value. Most of us have a preference in risk vs. reward, stability vs. volatility, new experiences vs. stable experiences and so on. Many of these things factor into our preference the old social order is comforting because everything is broken down into a set of rules, that are supposed to never meaningfully change. Sure a few new things are introduced but in isolation they do not change things by a lot.

The washing machine, the water heater, the gas/electric stove, the dishwasher didn’t change the families that got them much, but they did free women from housework to be able to think about other things they would like to do, which in part, if not completely drove much of the “female liberation” movement in the 60s and 70s that continues to this day. One could in fact argue human history as periods of great and rather rapid change, followed by a calm period of quiet and incremental change.

Certain groups of men are born to be the forces of order, some are born to be the forces of chaos, and they are born in varying proportions all the time. When the forces of chaos outdo the forces of order we get large changes, when the forces of order outdo the forces of chaos we get incremental change.

Final thoughts

I’ve joked that in order to change anything meaningfully in medicine, a generation of doctors have to die. This isn’t because doctors are stupid, do not take in new knowledge or are extremely resistant to change, it’s simply because of our tendency to become ego-invested in things. It takes a average man to build a career in any field, it takes a great man to move his field forward through investing in it over a lifetime, it takes a rare man to admit that he’s spent his life on the wrong path.

I’m sorry to say it, but in order for the world to change, conservatives have to die. By that I don’t mean that we should hit the streets with pitchforks to promote change. What I mean is that just like in a negotiation, humans have anchor points in their life. Most people start off as liberals, then become conservative as they invest into things they want to conserve.

As an example, a conservative born in 1950, wants to preserve that imprint of the world, that is his anchor point. In the same way a liberal born in that same year, wants to build on and move on from that imprint, but not too far. This is where those old labels like “Radical” and “Reactionary” used to serve a purpose, in that they denoted either a liberal who wanted to … radically progress the structure, or a conservative that wanted a time machine. There are degrees to change and degrees to which we are comfortable to move away from those anchor-points.

The reason why conservatives never really conserve anything, is simply that when the conservative born in 1950 had his kid in 1970, his kid imprinted on the values in the 70s, so that becomes his anchor point. When the conservative born in the 70s has his first kid in say 1995, that kid imprints on 1995, and so it goes.

So, knowing all this, what is the best and most pragmatic approach? Adapt to your environment, you can attempt to influence it as well, but you’ll never be able to adapt your environment sufficiently to realize a competitive advantage. Once that environment is adapted to your liking, you have to start competing with other people within it, and we start the adaptation cycle again.

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

The Guide to Being a High T Alpha Male

Just let me make a few things very clear here, there are only 2 ways a long-term relationship can work, you are either a high-T dominant Alpha male or a low-T, soy beta cuck, there is absolutely no middle ground available in this equation. If you pick option A, you will have a girl who is always in line, never goes out of pocket, sacrifice constantly for you, molds herself perfectly after your lead, and will reward you with pornstar level sex 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

If you pick option B, you will have a nightmare girl who is constantly testing you, goes out of pocket on a minute by minute basis, demands that you mold your personality and life based on her whims. In return she will bang all your friends, regularly shoot videos for pornhub with high T alpha males and if you’re lucky you get star-fish duty sex once every 7 – 9 months… except when she has a headache, or is on her period, or just doesn’t feel like it.

I get that a lot of you men desire that deep connection with a woman, but you cannot have that deep connection with a woman, you can never let a girl know what you’re thinking or feeling, in fact if you at any point stop being a cocky & funny, aloof, distanced, dark triad man, who does nothing but eat steaks, hit on girls, run game, and lift weights, she will divorce you, take your kids, all your money, including your sex doll, before having the police put you away for 25 to life on a false accusation. If you cannot handle making your life about eating steaks, lifting weights, taking no breaks, constantly maintaining frame, making sure you take your TRT shots, your CBD oil and get 3 x 12 reps of heavy deadlifts in while waiting for your lambo to get out of the shop, you do not have what it takes to maintain a relationship with a woman in today’s sexual market place. Continue reading

Bad Girls Gone Good

I’ve scarcely shared my history on here for good reason, when I began writing Black Label Logic, I wanted it to be as absent of Ethos and Pathos as possible, as my goal was (and still is) to remain as objective, rational and empirical as possible in my writing. Constant utilization of ethos and pathos would make this blog about me, not about the message. While I have shared statistics from my own life a couple of times, such as The Tinder Experiment, or on my twitter feed in the thread where I shared my Tinder Statistics from the last 30 days, I would say that for the most part I’ve been able to stay within the bounds of pure and practical reason.

This has been a major goal of mine because quite frankly the world of intersexual dynamics, dating, romance, and sex is filled with people who fling their opinions at the wall, hoping something will stick all the while purporting to be “empirical and logical”.

Permit me to draw a distinction first, I once dated a psychiatrist who was fond of saying “Schizophrenics are very logical“, at first she did it to tease me, but after spending some time talking to some patients in deep psychosis, I realized that if I bought into their delusion as a first principle, for instance accepting that the KGB has them as a target, that they were born Napoleon Bonaparte or that astrology is real, then everything from that faulty premise is perfectly internally logically consistent.

In a sense that is what I’ve made a large part of my writing about here on Black Label Logic, the use of statistics to take a field that is largely internally logically consistent and reality test the basic premises by way of using statistics. A second major part has been taking those premises and extrapolating from them using economic models in a “If we assume X to be true, this would conform to Y model, which we could observe in Z variable“.

For instance, if Hypergamy is true in that that there is a dual strategy, prioritized differently based product and market conditions, where one outcome (alpha fucks) is prioritized over the other (beta bucks), then one should be able to observe this through variables such as average age of marriage and number of sexual partners. Average age of marriage because one desires to remain on the market as long as possible in the hopes of a better deal, and number of sexual partners due to trading up being more socially accepted, and we see just that.

However, in order to do such writing, is must understand how things are defined, in the name of this essay, how does one draw the distinction? Continue reading