Of Apex and Alphas

We did a Red Man Group podcast on “Looks, Money, Game” a few weeks back, it was an interesting podcast to do, given that there wasn’t a real consensus on the panel about which one is the most important, but everyone agrees with the fact that ideally you want at least two of them. The idea for this essay came to me when I was preparing for the podcast by having an internal debate with myself about factors that influence performance in the sexual market place. My internal chain of reasoning was along the lines of various trade-offs we are willing to make when shopping for a sexual partner. My preferences for a woman’s looks are largely centered on breasts, butt, hair and face, but I was asking myself how these four factors interact. In an ideal world, I would prefer a woman with bigger breasts, a bubble butt, long red hair (in a particular shade), and an innocent looking yet pretty face. I also tend to prefer either green or blue eyes, over other colors.

So, in my head I constructed somewhat of a March Madness bracket for these various characteristics and had them play against each other, mostly out of curiosity. This lead me to figure out which characteristics are soft-preferences, which are hard preferences and which are somewhere in the middle. As I worked myself through this, I found myself thinking about preferences, choice and options because these are closely linked. This lead down a rabbit hole of considerations on sexual market pricing, preferences and trades, that then lead down a fairly long string of thinking on building the optimal sexual market performer. While doing this, I ran across the Apex Fallacy and the nadir fallacy.

An apex fallacy is a conditional fallacy which happens when one evaluates how good a group is doing by the highest performing members. The converse fallacy is called the nadir fallacy, which is when one evaluates a group based on the worst members. I’m going to be using these with a slightly different definition in this essay, where the definition will be “when one evaluates how good one is doing based on how good other members of multiple groups are doing.”

Continue reading