Red Pill Logic: Basic Premises – Biology Part 1

I’m happy to concede that we can include many fields as areas of interest and as foundations for red pill theory, such as sociology, anthropology and psychology, but before we had the brains to form societies, a history and a psychology, we were animals in nature like other animals in nature. A preference of mine is to go as far back as possible to achieve a view from as early in a process as possible as this tends to offer a less watered-down view. In a somewhat flippant formulation one could argue that sociology is just the study of applied psychology in groups, and that psychology is merely the study of practical biology among individuals.

Thus the first field of study was biology. Cultures, societies and large parts of psychology can be influenced in very short periods of time, just look at the gargantuan changes we have seen in our societies, cultures and in our mindset since the early 1900s. In the time-span of evolution by natural selection however, we are merely a second on a history that is millions of years long. Biologists differ a bit on how old our specific branch on the tree of great apes is, but they estimate between 100.000 and 200.000 years. Our ancestors prior to this developed bipedal locomotion, larger brains, reduced sexual dimorphism, they got opposing thumbs and lost most of their body hair. Thus, the premise is that while our cultures, our societies, our families and out environment has changed substantially in the past 5000 – 10000 years, will not have changed much in that period.

The major barrier that I’ve found in people for understanding the concepts that I’m going to cover in this essay is time-perspective, to most humans 5 – 10 years is a long time, while for natural selection it’s a second. This is the same reason that people have issues with understanding compound interest and time or the same reason that they expect to put on 10 lbs of lean muscle mass after 2 workouts.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Red Pill Logic: Beyond Red and Blue Pills

Lately it seems that there is some discussion regarding when to move on from the red pill. As someone who found the manosphere quite early, was a part of it for a while, left and then came back I found myself thinking about this idea. There is no doubt that everything we encounter in life is either a permanent fixture or a transitory element, meaning that some things stick with us for life, other things are part of our life for a while and are then left behind. To use weight training as an example, if you build your body over time, then you can maintain it with much less effort than it took to build. Yet if you completely neglect it, it will slowly crumble over time. This is similar with most skills, if they are not used, then they atrophy over time until we find ourselves not having the skills at all. Depending on the skill and the length of the atrophy period, one may be able to re-learn the skill rather quickly, or it may take just as long as the initial learning period.

This lead to the question, if a man internalizes red pill teachings will they remain with him in sufficient strength to avoid the very pitfalls that lead him to the manosphere in the first place? One must keep in mind that most men arrive at this corner of the internet because they have problems they need to solve, the problems are many and diverse, what they have in common is intersexual dynamics. Whether a man is attempting to figure out why his wife of 10 or more years left him for a guy she met a few weeks ago, why he is in a 5 year dry-spell, or why he is living in a dead-bedroom situation the manosphere can offer probable diagnosis and potential cures. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Blue Pill Axioms

I recently had a conversation with Rollo of The Rational Male. Rollo is somewhat unique in that he is one of the few manosphere authors who have actually touched on the topic of unstated axioms and their consequences when applied to the interpretation of the sexual market place. Most frequently he will refer to this as the error of egalitarian equalism, which is a contraction of two elements.

A) Egalitarianism meaning that both men and women are considered equal in their worth as human beings.

B) That there are no biological differences between the sexes and that any difference results from social influence.

The former would be the Enlightenment interpretation of egalitarianism, that form the foundation of the statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” from the Declaration of Independence, where one must interpret the meaning of the statement, in context of commoners that had lived in societies where rights and duties were dependent upon your social rank at birth, as “Nobody is born with more or less rights, duties or worth as a human being than anyone else”.

The Second would be the belief based in the Tabula Rasa that there are no meaningful psychological or behavioral differences based in biological evolution among the sexes or other characteristics, and that all differences that do manifest are a result of social influence. From this it follows that men and women think, reason, and value the same information, that they make decisions the same way, and that any representation within a field of endeavor other than the demographic one is  the result of discrimination in some form.

In this case, “egalitarian equalism” is an axiom that has formed, and still forms part of the foundation upon which analysis of intersexual and intra-sexual dynamics is based.

In classic philosophy an axiom is a statement that that is so evident and well established that it is accepted without controversy or question. These come in two varieties, stated and unstated. For instance in mathematics the results of elementary arithmetic are considered unstated axioms, meaning that one does not need to state these explicitly when making an argument. Stated axioms on the other hand are those that are made explicitly clear, when making an argument. For instance, if I begin an argument with “For the purpose of this argument I will consider [insert statement/fact/statistic as being representative, accurate and true] I’m stating a premise that will be utilized within the logical framework of the argument.

The former often takes place where a field or a discussion has statements, facts or otherwise that are so fundamental that only extremely pedantic people may challenge them. The latter is often necessary when making an argument on principle or where there are statements that may be challenged. In order to avoid these protests and make an “If it is so, then it follows” style argument, one states that “for the purpose of this argument, this axiom is considered to be true“.

The Red and Blue Pill are both interpretations of observed reality. In the case of both framework, persons have observed an event or multiple events, and have formed arguments and conclusions around those events. For instance, a man may make an observation that the 437 point checklist a woman lists on her eharmony profile, is only applicable to a certain category of men based on the woman’s history of dating, mating, and associating with men who do not fulfill the criteria on the list. Furthermore, he may add inductively, that if she has such a checklist and it applies only to a subset of men, she must also have a list of sorts for the remaining subsets of men. After all, if every man is considered a potential intimate partner for a woman, and the 437 bullet point checklist is only applied to 80% of men, then there are really only two options:

A) The remaining 20% of men are not considered intimate partner prospects

B) The remaining 20% of men are evaluated using a second list

If he adds to this the observation that the 20% group appear to jump through less hoops, can escalate the relationship faster and generally appear to get better treatment, then attempting to decipher the items on this second list, and utilizing his knowledge would gain him benefits in the sexual market place. The Blue Pill Analysis of the same situation would yield a much different result, as the 437 point checklist is viewed as being true, while the remaining 20% of men to which it does not apply are considered mistakes the woman must make in order for her to learn that she should stick with her list. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Beginning the Journey

The red pill logic series is where I tend to outline those thoughts I have about intersexual dynamics and various related topics that do not fit into the more strict Gendernomics definition. Where Gendernomics is often largely descriptive, in that it describes and explains various sexual market mechanics, red pill logic occasionally moves towards the prescriptive route of offering concrete advice on how to approach a given problem. One of the more common questions I see from newly red pilled men is where to begin. There is a mountain of theory out there that could bury a man for months if not years in reading, listening to podcasts and watching youtube, when in reality the key is to gain a balance of experience and theoretical knowledge.

One of the most challenging factors that I run into in my day to day life is the split between people who are brilliant when it comes to theory, but have virtually no experience, and people who are highly experienced but have no knowledge of theory. The latter are often the most challenging to work with, because they may have had quite a bit of success but lack the ability to explain why a given approach worked, while at the same time fearing that if they alter their approach, it will lead to lower success rate. The former can be very easy to work with provided that they are humble and realize that not all theory is applicable.

This train of though lead me to wondering about what path a newly red pilled man should take in order to maximize the efficiency of his red pill journey. When I first became familiar with game, the recommendation was to go out and do 100 cold approaches, which can be great advice as it will eliminate much approach anxiety, get you used to approaching, talking to girls and most importantly get you immediate feedback on your level of game and sexual market value. However, it can also be like having a person who has never worked out in their life do a 100 squat challenge that leaves them sore to the point where they can’t walk for a month, and determined to never again enter a gym.

On the other hand, a man who has some success already, getting fairly regular relationships and occasional one night stands, or getting regular one night stands but struggling with making them into something more, may have progressed beyond the 100 cold approaches already. For him, this becomes like taking someone who has trained with weights for a decade and putting them on a low-volume, low intensity recovery program. This means they are not progressing at the optimal rate, they may experience getting weaker and most importantly it wastes their time.

I wondered for a bit whether I should break this down by the socio-sexual hierarchy, alpha, beta, delta, omega, gamma and sigma, however Alphas and Sigmas are unlikely to be looking for basic advice on how to apply the red pill, except for in situations where a blue pill alpha recently got hit with “I’m not happy” or something similar. Breaking it down by sexual market value seemed to be a more appropriate form, as sexual market value to some extent is de-coupled from a man’s position in the dominance hierarchy. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Justice, Merit and Karma

In writing this series that I have been working on dealing with inner game, beliefs and psychological structures, I’ve had to revisit both new and old events and experiences in my life. A few weeks back, some events took place that for some reason broke through my layers of detached cynical stoicism, and bothered me to the core. A characteristic of my personality is that I can rarely let something go without figuring it out, and my reaction to the events was no exception.

As I outlined in internal messages, it’s important to identify the core premises of your internal software, in order to rewrite those parts of the program that keep you from achieving the goals you desire. One I experienced for a long time was a tendency to self-sabotage and neglect key areas of life, because of an old internal message, one that stated “The only thing that matters is being a good worker at your job“, thus if this was the only thing worth excelling at, why bother trying to excel or even handle other areas of life?

While digging through the old discarded thoughts, patterns and principles, I came upon the one that broke the cynical barrier, namely the concept called “karma”. I used to find the concept of Karma to be a very attractive one, namely that the Universe will conspire to ensure that those who are virtuous, just and display the merits will be rewarded, while those who are the opposite inevitably will be punished. Even though I had long ago accepted that the Universe is at best uncaring, I still had a tendency to act from a place of what I perceived as virtue.

Such behavior on my part was a manifestation of habit, rather than one of conscious action, I didn’t elect to offer assistance so much as I did so because I had been brought up and encouraged behave in this manner my whole life. The idea I suppose being the “Golden Rule”, and doing unto others as you would want them to do onto you. However, I realized that this usually creates a negative balance in the same manner that communism does, in that some frequently need help but are rarely able to offer it, where others are frequently able to offer it, but rarely need it.

Such behavior is thus, both idealistic and naive, and cognitively I believe that this is the principle that serves as the basis for all blue pill thought. One can be blue pill without without many of the symptoms, but the ultimate cause of the disorder is a belief in the just nature of the Universe. The core idea behind the blue pill is that virtue is rewarded, yet no one can quantify the reward. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: The Walls of Jericho

A barrier in Porter’s model represents either hindrance from engaging in willful and informed action towards an objective or a defense from encroachment on your objective once the wheels are in motion. A barrier to entry for instance represents both a defense for existing market participants, but also a hindrance for potential new market entrants.

During my last appearance on the Mark Baxter Podcast, along with  Rollo Tomassi [1], Mark referenced an article of Rollo’s entitled “Buffers”[2] that deals with the many buffers that men utilize in order to reduce the risk of rejection. Thus they are inherently rationalizations of behavior used to avoid taking risks.

Barriers serve a similar function within the male psyche, and most sentences involving them tend to be related to “enough yet“. When I first started reading the manosphere back in the early 2000s, it was quite obvious that there was a deeper set of behaviors below the surface. The scripts themselves were fine, but as game went on, the idea that “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it” started to take hold. This coincided with the idea of “natural game”, which sought to take game from following scripts in a flow-chart to being the default state of behavior.

I’ve covered various aspects of the blue pill and red pill perspectives, various alpha behaviors and so on previously, however I’ve scarcely addressed the barriers to the underlying state required in order to manifest such behaviors. This is a simple case of cause and effect, when one engages in “fake it until you make it” one is acting out the effect without the prerequisite cause.

To exemplify the concept, if one never feels fear, one can never be brave, because bravery means acting in spite of fear. Thus, a prerequisite state to bravery is fear. The “Enough Yet” problem comes when a man procrastinates or fails to do something because of his own inner game hangups. This is not purely a red pill/game related problem, it could be the guy who wants to start his own business but doesn’t think he’s competent “enough yet”, the guy who wants to gain some muscle but doesn’t think he’s ready “enough yet” to get into the gym.

These emotions forms the barrier to entry for his venture, and there are only two possible solutions to this problem:

A) Do it now, do your best and accept the consequences, the chips will fall as they may.

B) Do not do it and spend more time in preparation until he feels ready.

The people who select option A generally tend to come out better than those who select option B, because those who only want that little extra piece of preparation never quite get that final piece. I’ve helped many a person with their thesis, their research proposals, business cases and such over the years, and those who fall into category B, never get truly good results. The depressing aspect of that is that they are often the most competent people.  This could be viewed as the Dunning-Kruger effect in practice, as people who are highly competent will often be the most competent at finding flaws in their own work and as they become more competent as they prepare, they find new perspectives and information, which causes them to postpone action. However, when you combine this with a tendency towards perfectionism, wanting to be in control of every eventuality and every variable, it creates an unwinnable scenario.

There are only two possible outcomes, number one is that they fail and use this as evidence to prove that they should have spent more time preparing, number two is that they succeed and obsess over what they could have done better. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: Hypo- and Hyper Masculinity

Many men find the red pill or red pill adjacent communities as a result of life kicking them in the teeth. This kick is often related to intersexual dynamics, a wife leaving them, discovering that their wife is deeply disordered, or a myriad of other stories, however these men tend to manifest a case of being “hypomasculine”. This is not surprising given that the past 2 – 3 generations of western men have grown up in a community that not only does not overtly value masculinity, but in many cases demonizes it.

Be it the boys who are medicated for manifesting behaviors that 2 – 3 decades ago would be classified as “boys will be boys“, those who are raised by a single mother without any masculine idol to form themselves after, or those who are raised in a context where they view their mother henpeck their father for most of their formative years, it is understandable that they will struggle when it comes to developing a healthy masculine identity.

A pet theory of mine for some time, is that a boy put into such a situation, tends to go in one of two directions. He will either identify with his mother’s plight, and take on a co-dependent role where he will attempt to alleviate his mother’s neurosis in the hope that this will return her to a state in which she can be the caretaker he desires, or he will grow to reject his mother’s histrionics and instead develop a hyper-masucline identity. In the case of the former, he grows to embody the traits and behaviors normally associated with positive femininity that his mother lacks. In the case of the latter, he grows to reject all female traits within himself completely.

This is part of the reason why books such as “No More Mr. Nice Guy” are doing well, many boys find that the masculine has been beaten out of them after 10+ years in public school systems, surrounded by media narratives that does little except make fun of- and demonize traditional masculinity. This book is a “gateway book” towards developing a masculine identity that is not necessarily the “house cat of maleness” embodied by beer, man-caves and ESPN. While I do think that much of mainstream “male-centered” writing of this nature trends strongly towards blue-pill or at best purple pill narratives, it serves as a less harsh introduction to red pill themes. Continue reading