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

Red Pill Logic: Internal Messaging

In recent weeks I’ve written posts on hypo- and hypermasculinity and the role of the anima and animus, what these have in common is that they both deal with reactions to environmental stimuli, often in early childhood that continue to influence behavior well into adulthood.

We know that human beings are not born as blank slates, we are born with a number of genetic predispositions that affect our personality, our performance and various other parts of our lives on a day to day basis. Our genetics influence many aspects of our behavior and perhaps one of the more well-known are “The Warrior Genes” [1], known to influence antisocial behavior and predispositions towards violence.

From the day we are born, we are also socialized by our parents, our peer groups, relatives, family friends and various other sources of patterns that we internalize. Before we can think in abstract, before we can reason, before we can even speak, we are internalizing and implementing patterns of behavior and thought. The manifestations of such behaviors can subtract or add to our genetics, a famous example is researcher James Fallon who despite possessing both the neurological and genetic correlates of psychopathy, does not engage in many of the negative behaviors associated with the genetic or neurological makeup [2]. He largely credits this to his positive upbringing, and the positive patterns that he learned as part of his socialization. Such patters are among the oldest we have in our life, they are the deepest ingrained in our mind and burnt into our brain, having been repeated throughout most of our lives. 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

Gendernomics: Finding Your Mission

The Sixteen Commandments of Poon is a great list from an Heartiste that has been a manosphere staple for many years now. Perhaps the most frequently cited commandment is number 3.

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority [1]

The fundamental challenge with this commandment however, is that it presumes that all men have a clear and defined mission in their head that they can make the primary target to aim for in their life. The reality is that many men are like objects in a vacuum, they remain inert until acted upon by an external force. They simply have no idea what their mission is, and some do not even know what having a mission entails. How can one put one’s mission before a woman if one lacks a mission and has a woman? Alternatively, how can one avoid making a woman one’s mission if one lacks a mission?

Some men are born with an innate sense of purpose and know what they desire from an early age, but many do not pay much attention to having a mission, and instead opt to be adrift for years and sometimes decades. In some sense, this can be partly blamed on a social order where men are no longer raised by men, and thus are no longer trained by men to develop that sense of purpose. I’ve known many men who despite great talents and abilities do not live up to their potential.

A few years in my early twenties were spent in such drift, aimless, and without much purpose. However, various life experiences served to radically upend this view of the world. It appears that a man who finds himself adrift may only be awoken from his slumber by significant adversity and challenge. Frequently, the longer he has been in such a slumber, the greater the challenge he must face in order to prove himself worthy of progression. Continue reading

Gendernomics: The Female Bubble

tulip-maniaOpportunity costs and sunk costs have been one of the topics that I have returned to quite a few times in various essays, as I consider them central to male issues within the sexual market place. Both of these metrics exist to judge whether an allocation of resources is sound or unsound. Opportunity costs are the costs of the best opportunity foregone, exemplified by getting married, where the opportunity costs are alternative mating with one or multiple other women. The sunk costs represent the time and other resources a man has invested into a relationship with a woman, and the resources that would be loss should the man decide not to pursue a relationship with that women any longer.

I credit my twitter feed with inspiring many of my essays, and this week is no different. Last week Illimitableman tweeted the following nugget of reasoning:

If a man earns $500 an hour and you want 5 hours alpha attention to be fucked, you’re saying your pussy is worth $2500. Overpriced!” @Illimitableman

This got me thinking along the lines of my “Hookers vs Dating” calculations in an earlier post on marginal utility. It is without a doubt that in the world of constant social media validation and where women are raised to view themselves as Princesses that women develop somewhat of a tendency to value themselves very highly. This is a natural consequence of being told that your product is the best in the world and worthy of royalty. Furthermore, having this over valuation validated by a range of thirsty men from the age of 15 does not in any way encourage a sober valuation. One must keep in mind that hype and marketing can drive a low quality or even useless product to immense heights for a time, examples of this includes such fad products as the pet rock and the Dutch tulip craze.  This is one of the value theory observations that the price of a product frequently does not reflect the underlying costs of building this product.

As an example one could argue that the price of an iPhone should be:

A) The price someone is willing to pay for it in an open market.

B) Reflect the cost of building it.

These will obviously be two entirely different prices. In the Gendernomics sense, the former reflects how the sexual market operates, whereas the latter is quite inconsequential. It does not matter if a man invests massively in himself if he does so in a manner that is not market oriented. Thus, the price the woman sets for her sexual companionship reflects that of the market in which she operates, how high a price will the market accept? Continue reading

Gendernomics: Beta Males and Shorted Circuits

feedbackI was in a discussion on alpha and beta the other day, and to some extent dominance (an alpha trait) is somewhat of a circular trait, if you are dominant, it leads to becoming more dominant, and if you are not dominant it leads to you becoming more submissive. This is a concept called a feedback system, often simplified to Input – Process – Output – Analysis, wherein the results of the system affects future runs of that system. Being alpha or beta is one of those things that is greatly affected by both feedback systems and synergy both during initial stages and subsequent runs of the program.

An alpha male who starts in the state of alpha, will experience positive effects from this mindset and as a result he will double-down on the behavior that has worked for him before. This is quite typical of humans, we tend to repeat behaviors where the outcomes have historically been satisfactory, this is no different than  how the pigeons in BF Skinner’s experiment would peck the button that dispensed food.

If I were to simplify, the input to the system is Alpha Male Behavior, the Process is Game, and the Output is sexual success. The analysis after the event allows the man to review and improve on his behavior in order to better himself for future engagements. This means that should the alpha hit a slump, he can review and adjust to break that slump and thus get back on track.

However, the interesting aspect is what keeps beta men acting out behavior schema that are unsuccessful? The Beta in the same system, the input is Beta Male Behavior, the process is adoption of the feminine imperative, the output is a lack of sexual success. However, one would think that over time a failure of the system to produce the desired result would lead to an alteration of the system. Continue reading