The P words

As I finished up my work today, I found myself thinking about the past 6 years. I made this blog in December 2015, I signed up for twitter in Febuary 2016, and over that time I’ve met a lot of people, written a lot of essays, written two books and done countless podcasts. Most of it’s a blur, I can’t remember most of my essays, nor most of the podcast appearances, but I do remember a lot of what happened on twitter.

About 3 years ago now, I was having a series of debates both in public and in direct messages about philosophy with someone who was a friend back then and who loved nothing more to run away from the world into his head. I identified a bit with this because it took me much work to cleanse myself of that particular preference. From my perspective, I was making an attempt at saving this man from overthinking, from disappearing into a blue nothing of ideas, concepts and constructs, that had little of anything to do with the world as it exists. From a philosophical perspective it was reminiscent of analytic philosophy and continental philosophy, one focused on empiricism and reason, the other on pure reason. It was a significant enough of a schism back in the day that Kant took the time to write two tomes about the different stances.

The main contention was, as I remember it was about the usefulness of philosophy, this was around the time Jordan B. Peterson was the new darling of the manosphere, and one cannot listen to Peterson without respecting his level of scholarly knowledge. This was an aspiration I had as a young man as well, to be erudite, to be able to quote countless authors, to summarize, to synthesize and to understand the mechanics of the world. I’m still on that quest now, however in my mid-twenties after spending countless hours studying the world through the eyes of others, I came to the conclusion that one can never understand anything one has not experienced.

This is not the classic “can’t understand it unless it happens to me“, for instance Dick Cheney being anti-gay until he had a lesbian daughter, it’s more of the difference between the theoretical and the applied parts of a science. It’s fully possible to calculate perfectly what your hand weighs, and how fast you would need to accelerate it in order to knock someone out cold, however it’s quite different to actually punch someone in the face.

I was a poor teacher back then, and I still am, what I was attempting to get across was “worry about the theory later“, children understand this intuitively, they pick apart objects, struggle to put them back together, over time if they’re smart they’ll learn which parts do what, and what works. Once they’ve learned that, they can take classes, go to college or read books on engineering to figure out how and why it works.

This was my take on politics that I attempted to get across on Rule Zero yesterday as well. I’ve been paying taxes for over 20 years, in multiple countries, and who is in charge doesn’t really matter, right or left, my tax bill is more or less a constant. It makes very little sense for me to get involved, especially emotionally involved, because the other side of things, the social freedom side can be gained easily by moving to a different country.

What I attempted to say on the last episode of Rule Zero was that getting emotionally invested in politics or philosophy is going to be a negative force in your life in almost every situation. Whether that means alienating family members, co-workers, friends, robbing yourself of opportunities or of time trying to reclaim a feeling. Alternatively, spending a ton of time angry, upset, sad, miserable, because you are obsessing about something that an individual has limited influence over.

However, this isn’t to say that philosophy, psychology and politics should be ignored and one should act as if they didn’t exist, it is to say that they are systems you should understand and leverage to move towards your objective desired outcome.

Summary and final thoughts

The reason why politics and philosophy are such dangerous topics for young men, along with religion and a handful of others, is that it offers the entrance to the hero’s journey. It’s very easy to imagine oneself making progress when part of an echo chamber fighting for a political cause or an intellectual group of “wrong thinkers”, you are going to change the world, now you are small, but once your great movement makes it, you’ll be remembered in history.

This is much like the old bodybuilder being interviewed in the movie “Bigger, Stronger, Faster” who had 1 credit in an Arnold movie in the early 90s, and was still living in his Van outside Gold’s Gym in Venice 20 years later thinking he would make it or the 50 year old who has been playing with his bands since the 80s and still think that they just need that one break.

The grand narratives are seductive, but very rarely useful for the individual looking to improve his lot in life, as these narratives are often constructed specifically to make men go against their own best interest. When I originally started writing here, it was mainly motivated by a desire to share my notes with other men, but also to benefit from the arrangement by learning from other men. In the past 6 years, I’ve done a lot of both, but the one thing I’m left wondering is how many men I saw, raised by women, who reacted like women, and let their emotions take control when reason would have been a better guide.

Whether that was the guys who went deep into:

A) New age bullshit like tanning your asshole, energy, crystals, astrology, MBTI, or various other things.

B) The guys who went into politics with a fervor, those who took the god pill

C )Those who went down a rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories, some did

D) Those who did all that shit

It rarely if ever ended well for them, when I look at where they were early on, and where they are now, the lucky ones are still stuck in the same rut they were in 5 – 6 years ago.

However, what makes me appreciate the way I’ve spent a lot of time over the past 6 years, are the guys who have made tremendous progress, and in the end which men ended up where depended on a single choice:

“Do what is hard because you must or do what comes easy because you can”

We have to go back!

I was going to do this as a twitter thread, but about halfway in I realized it would do better as long-form content. Now, I’m not going to share tweets in here, because I’m for the most part against giving people who cry for attention what they crave.

To summarize how I’d define “Trad Twitter” the best summation is “Appeal to tradition”*, this is an informal fallacy that usually takes the form of “This is right because we’ve always done it this way”. We could go into depth about the presumptions of this fallacy, and why they create a problem, however I find it much more interesting to make an analogy.

One of my more pleasurable pastimes when I’m not participating in this community or working, is playing old games from my childhood. Within the community for such games, there is always “that guy“, the guy who got dominated at the game when he was young, so now he’s come back to get his vengeance and the status he deserves, 5 – 15 years later, with perfect information, on how to dominate. The problem with this player is that he assumes that the context around the game has been static and he’s the only dynamic variable. What I mean by this is that if he travelled back in time with his current knowledge, he would most likely dominate, but in the years that have since passed, all variables around the game have been dynamic.

  • The way people play it has changed
  • The type of people the players are have changed
  • New strategies for meta-gaming have been created
  • New game-modes have been introduced such as speed running

Upon discovery of this the player type in question engages in complaints of “how the game isn’t played the same way“, “People are ruining the game” and so on, despite the fact that most players are simply doing what he was planning to do, and he’s still coming up short. The fundamental truth being that, what this player was after was an edge so he could dominate at the game. Once he goes back, fails again this usually results in emotional “fuck you guys, fuck the devs, fuck this game, I’m leaving” posts that litter various game forums all over the web.

I went through that rather long anecdote, because I think it illustrates the “trad-mindset” very well, generally they are men who struggle with adapting to many of the “changes to the game” that have been introduced in the past 70 years or so:

  • No longer having economic power over women
  • Working your whole career for one company not being the modern way
  • Being able to get a job at the factory right out of high school, then have a house, 2.5 kids and a wife for life

However, instead of accepting that the world has changed, this person advocates that we should revert to how to game used to be played, back when he understood and knew the game and where he thinks he has an information edge.

I can understand the impulse, with nostalgic glasses on, it’s easy to imagine a “perfect” time in history where you think you were perfectly adapted, a time where they’d appreciate a faithful, loyal, hard-working, dad, who puts God, Country and Family first. I’d personally love if all the unhealthy foods I like had the nutrient profile of eggs or broccoli, but this is the game we are stuck playing.

Even if we could revert back to the values of old, perhaps just to the 1950s, they still wouldn’t be the 50s, because European and Asian manufacturing hasn’t been bombed flat, we have smartphones, the internet, and many other technologies and ideas that we can’t just put back into the tube of toothpaste. Even if we by magic found ourselves with social values and ideas set back 70 years, your future “good wife” would have a smartphone, how long until she started taking ankle pics for her Instagram?

Summary and Final thoughts

I’ve often entertained myself with thought experiments of how I’d react if I was transported back to a given time in history. The appeal of it is that if you could keep all the knowledge you currently have, which is far beyond people who lived a mere 200 years ago in terms of technical fields, you could easily set yourself up in a high status and very wealthy position.

Heck, if you could go back to 2016 you could buy bitcoin at $380, hold that until Dec 19th 2017, short the crap out of bitcoin on the same day, close out your short Dec 18th 2018, then ride it back until now where bitcoin is $18K per coin. The people I know in finance usually laugh at such theoretical moves, because they are just that, theoretical. Can you luck out like that once in your life? Sure, are you more likely to mistime the market in your attempt to catch a falling or flying knife? For sure.

The converse to the trads are the people who appeal to novelty, I like new things, but not all new things are good and the implementation of new ideas should be done in a reasonably controlled manner. However, we cannot fight progress, the world will develop whether or not you accept it, so the best thing to do is adaption, as our world favors those who are most able to adapt to changing contexts.

The funniest thing about the whole situation to me, is that all sides, including the status quo group, are all fighting to bring about a world where they have an innate edge that they didn’t really have to earn. Instead of learning how to play the game, they work very hard to change the game.

  • If you suck at playing the mating game, you probably want arranged marriages or a state mandated girlfriend so that someone else solves your problem for you.
  • If you suck at playing the money game, you are more likely to support communism or UBI, since that means someone else solves your money problems for you.
  • If you suck at playing the lifting game, you can always go on TRT at 18 and use fake weights for your instagram profile.

The jock wants to play football, the nerd wants to play chess, the cheerleader wants to create spirit, and the badboy… well the badboy gets laid regardless so whatever.

The most important point is that these are all strategies to try and outsource the things you are responsible for, but not competent at, so instead of stepping your game up, putting in work and effort, you try to outsource it under a “noble narrative“. The argument boils down to “It would be better for EVERYONE, if ALL OF YOU support my ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX“.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20tradition%20(also%20known,always%20done%20it%20this%20way.%22

This shit is a slog

Something I’ve picked up on the last few years is that a lot of men use their journey in this space as a buffer, it’s somewhat ironic that despite Rollo’s great article on it from some years ago, it seems many readers aren’t aware that indulging in the content produced by the manosphere can be a buffer in and of itself.

We have live examples every day of men who spend much of their time consuming podcasts, reading blog posts, following twitter, facebook, insta and so on. They are always 1 gumroad course away from being 6 ft, 6 figures, 12 inch dick and 24 inch rims.

Why Are You in the Manosphere?

I think this is an important question to answer, because if you can’t answer it then you’re not going to derive a lot of value from being here. You need to know what the ideal end-state for you looks like, otherwise you cannot make decisions and act on them without running a major risk of ending up where you don’t want to be.

On top of that, a barrier against outside influence is a strong vision that acts as a guide, every time you get an offer to buy a gumroad course, a book, take on an internship or a job, you ask yourself “Is investing time into this conducive to realizing my vision for myself?”

If the answer is no you move on, if the answer is yes, you do a little bit of research then you pull the trigger on the product or action. This space has a lot of resources for improving most aspects of life that men are interested in, money, sex, excitement, strength, and power. Deciding which you want and which are the low-hanging fruit for you is important.

First you identify the problem, then you establish an understanding of it, then you identify potential paths forward, then you make a call and put that into action. It’s an OODA loop, and a very solid problem-solving tool.

The Nature of Problem-solving

When I wrote Gendernomics Building Value , it was a response to many questions on “Now that I have this knowledge, I have no idea where to begin or what to do“, I totally understand where these guys are coming from, they are hurt, we know that since no normal men ever enter the manosphere. Every man here has suffered some damage, that they want to avoid in the future.

The problem for many of them is that they have no idea what lead to their wife leaving them, their girlfriend cheating on them, their male friends not respecting them, being everyone’s bitch at work, or all of the above.

So I decided to write Building Value as a step-by-step guide to how to productively work forward, because in the end knowledge does not generate value unless applied, but you can’t apply knowledge without understanding your situation, which requires knowledge. Seems a bit chicken-and-eggish doesn’t it?

The issue with knowledge is that while it can add a lot to your ability to problem-solve is that it can also buffer action since as long as you are gaining knowledge on a subject, it feels like you’re working on the problem. In reality many men work themselves into analysis-paralysis, or find themselves enjoying the “boys club” in this space so much they lose sight of their initial problem.

“Did you hit on any girls?”

“No, not yet but I did read 2 blogs, watch 4 hours of 2 dudes talking about red pill legos and 8 hours bitching about the election on twitter”

That’s not working on your problem, that’s like the people who post “Finally got a gym membership, 20xx is the year I get into shape” on Jan 1st, who then spend 2 – 6 weeks curling pink dumbbells in the squat rack, only to never be seen again. They get the good feelz from saying they are doing something, they do a little bit of it, then they live off that for a year or two, sinking further into the bottomless pit of Netflix.

Rian is a fan of OODA loops, “Observe, orient, decide, act”, a concept invited by military Strategist John Boyd. I like this concept and Building Value in a sense is a detailed guide to executing an OODA loop related to your sexual market value.

Meaning first you observe the situation, in order to build a comprehensive picture of it, with a maximum amount of accuracy. I.E. you have to understand your context and where you fit within it.

The second step is orient, which is all about connecting with reality through mental models, adding more mental models and improving the accuracy of your existing mental models in order to lay the foundation to make a good decision.

The third step is decide, step 1 and step 2 should have created plenty of ideas on which decisions could be made, now you decide. This is not as simple as just deciding, at this stage you have to test your decisions to spot their flaws and include issues that pop up in future observation stages.

The fourth step is simple: Act. All the steps lead to this one, your goal here is to put your decision into action and take with you what you learned from that action.

Connecting with yourself

My goal with this post is to get you thinking and being discerning about what things contribute positively to your vision for where you want to be, then start executing those OODA loops in order to move forward. The primary reason why I’ve been anti-politics and anti-culture war for the last few years is that I’ve seen too many men get involved in the grand project of owning the libs or beating the SJWs as a buffer for the things they need to do in their own life.

While I do recognize that politics and the culture war has a negative influence on masculinity in aggregate and the context within which we operate, all they are doing is making rules, and women make rules for betas. Jordan B. Peterson pointed out the problem in his metaphor of “clean your room”, that means fix the things in your own life before trying to fix the world. For most men, it’s very easy to get involved in the grand undertaking of fixing the world, it’s very hard to look at yourself with an objective lens and trying to fix that trainwreck.

To quote my King James

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

It’s very easy to point out what’s wrong with other people, the world and the universe, it’s even easy to hot-take in solutions or fall into the thrall of the greater organism and spend all the time you could have spent on yourself on something that seems to offer progress, admiration and accomplishments, but which is really just slacktivism.

The Truth Vs. “My Truth”

When selecting research methodology for a research project, the budding researcher is often caught between two paradigms, positivism and phenomenology, both have their own strengths, and they also have their own weaknesses. The best example of the power of positivism is the census, the sample size is literally “every person in the country”, and we get data that is 100% applicable to the whole population of the country. When you employ positivism, you aim to identify objective truth, with general applicability, meaning that you need a sample large enough for your data to be applied to the general population.

The major limit of positivism though, is that it’s purely a quantitative approach, and seeks to establish things as hard facts, and to discover the causal relationship between those as hard laws. The role of the researcher within positivism is as an observer, a data collector and interpreter of quantitative data [1].

The five main principles of positivist research are summarized thus [1]:

  1. There are no differences in the logic of inquiry across sciences.

  2. The research should aim to explain and predict.

  3. Research should be empirically observable via human senses. Inductive reasoning should be used to develop statements (hypotheses) to be tested during the research process.

  4. Science is not the same as the common sense. The common sense should not be allowed to bias the research findings.

  5. Science must be value-free and it should be judged only by logic.

Interpretivism arose due to a desire among some researchers to go beyond what can be established quantitatively by positivism, and introduce a degree of interpretation into the study. For this reason it focuses more on qualitative methods and seeks to find the meaning in the data. One can break down interpretivism [2] into multiple areas, but the one must applicable to The Red Pill is Phenomenology [3]. Phenomenology as a research paradigm is focused on experiences, events and occurrences with disregard or minimum regard for the external or physical reality. It also has issues with analysis, interpretation and lower levels of validity and reliability than positivism.

See the table below for the compare and contrast: Continue reading

Blue Pill Alphas and BPD Girls

One of the discussions on last week’s Rule Zero that I felt I wasn’t able to complete was on self-filtering/self-selecting systems. This is a fairly simple concept that has large implications on the SMV. To illustrate the concept, any group centered around an activity has a way of filtering people within the group into a rank within the group, but also filtering people into- and out of the group. As an example, take professional bodybuilders, that population is largely composed of the people who are top 1% of people who:

  1. Started lifting early
  2. Have lifted consistently over a long period of time
  3. Have been consistent with their recovery and nutrition over time
  4. Are in the top percentages of respondents to strength training
  5. Are in the top percentages of respondents to “enhancements”

These are just a few filters but it illustrates the concept. A population centered around an endeavor will over time become dominated be an increasingly homogeneous group who shares many of the same physical, behavioral and psychological traits. Generally the selection filters work both to construct, maintain and screen for traits that permit advancement, but also to filter out negative traits. In a corporation for instance, a frequent source of issues with corporate hiring is that screening for “snakes in suits” is very difficult because psychopaths and narcissists usually have great interview skills, it’s hard to see through glibness and superficial charm during a 45 minute interview. Conversely, people with great skills for the job but poor interview skills tend to not get hired. Hence, over time a corporation gradually gets more and more dominated by the wrong people.

This is the same thing with the SMP over time it self-selects down to a point where very few good prospects exist within your age bracket as you get older. Once you hit your 50s and 60s expect women in their 50s and 60s to chase you because they have no options left, can’t go younger, don’t want to date a 70 or 80 year old man.

Continue reading

Neglecting the Mean

As long time readers will be aware, I tend to view most things in the sexual market place as conforming to the normal distribution. What this means in practice is that tens and ones are extremely scarce, fives and sixes extremely common, and the rest are somewhere in between.  I used this as an example because in this space it’s extremely common to rely on the outliers as both the examples of top and bottom.

Top, the perfect 10 trad girl who is just like your great-grandma, a symbol of femininity, grace and dignity. Bottom the crazy BPD chick with a notch count in the high 4 figures, 8 divorces, 88 false rape accusations running a hedge-fund of child support. The 400 lb dude who lives in his mom’s basement, smokes weed all day, eats nothing but hot-pockets and hasn’t been laid ever. The 19 year old billionaire with 9 girlfriends, who does nothing but jet-setting and driving lambos.

These are hyperbolic examples that draw attention away from the real, and realistic discussions we should spend more of our time on. Instead of talking about how the slightly below average guy can go from 4 to 6, we talk about reaching the apex of perfect Alpha dude. Instead of talking about how the average woman is … average, the only two positions seem to be:

A) All women are goddesses because they smell nice.

B) All women are succubi only out to tear your heart (and wallet) out through your penis.

On some level, awareness of outliers is a good thing, because once in a while, you do come across one in the wild. It could be the 0.1% of crazy, exploitative, or even huge value added, however most people are painfully average. We need to recognize that, and it needs to inform our discourse in this space to a much larger degree than it currently does.

Troy Francis said something akin to “The average guy just wants to not have to go to an office, get laid and have more control of his time. He doesn’t need to drive a lambo and bang models to improve his life.” This is not a quote, but I think my paraphrase is close enough to the sentiment. Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: The Depression Phase

In last week’s essay, I talked about the bargaining phase of the 5 stages of grief, characterized by a desire to negotiate and seek compromise in order to put off or lessen a negative outcome. For instance, bargaining for a little bit more life, or being able to retain some part of your blue pill illusion. This week’s topic is the depression phase that follows the bargaining phase, and often represents the most mentally challenging step to take when going through a red pill awakening.

A man who reaches the depression stage has gone through an anger phase where he is angry at the world for a variety of reasons, He could also have been angry at women for being what they are, rather than what he thinks they ought to be, this is quite common among many men who find the Red Pill. Lastly, he might have had a “shoot the messenger” phase during the anger stage where he displaced his anger at the world, at women at the men who finally told him the truth about inter-sexual dynamics.

After that he went through the bargaining phase, where he tried to find compromises between his previous world-view and his newly found reality, in order to preserve some of his ego-investments, avoid taking the full sunk-cost of his previous resource utilization and to retain some part of his idealized view of mating.

Once he realizes that he cannot bargain to retain some of his previous investments, be they in resources, dreams or desired outcomes, the man begins to experience the depression phase of the Five Stages of Grief. The depression phase being characterized by pulling away, withdrawing from life, wondering if perhaps it is even worth living anymore, or even trying. This is how you know that you’ve hit the depression phase. Continue reading

What is The Red Pill?

There have been a couple of very good essays written in the past few weeks, the two I want to call-out by name is Troy Francis’ “Reclaiming The Red Pill” and Rian Stone’s “Container words”, the reason why I link these specifically is that they point to a similar, issue, one that I believe is the cause of much of the conflict surrounding The Red Pill and manosphere community in the past couple of years.

Everyone has noticed what Troy pointed out in his essay, that especially since the 2016, there has been an influx and mixing of “The Red Pill” as it pertains to intersexual dynamics with a lot of other supposed Red Pills, “Red Pilled” about politics, finance, news, and countless others. Add in the attempts to mix “The Red Pill” as it pertains to intersexual dynamics with various other things, whether philosophy, Myers-Briggs type indicator, Astrology, Numerology, various occult topics, and ways of “Woo-woo” thinking and many others. Ultimately, this serves not only to dilute, but also to obscure what has been the core message of this space.

Ultimately, I think this is a bad thing, for the same reason that a lack of will to make strategic choices ultimately kills a business; doing too much, to please everyone and instead ending up alienating everyone. The more tangential things that are added, the more controversial things that are added, the higher the probably of a product being rejected, simply because the side-effects are too many and too severe.

So, for this reason I’m going to ask a simple question: “What is The Red Pill?

Continue reading

Red Pill Logic: The Bargaining Phase

A lot has been written about how a man who finds The Red Pill will go through the Kubler-Ross model of grief, also known as “the 5 stages of grief”. I myself have written two essays on the subject, one dealing with the 5 stages in general, and one focused on the anger phase. The interesting thing is that while a lot of energy has been spent talking about the anger phase, very little has been spent on the other 5 stages.

I suspect that the reason for this is that while a great majority of men who find The Red Pill, will either end up in the denial phase or the anger phase, there is much drop-off during the anger phase. To be frank, many men who find the red pill find themselves incapable of moving beyond the anger phase and simply remain there, utilizing a wide range of defense mechanisms to avoid having to deal with the problem.

The most common ones being: Continue reading

Of Carrots and Sticks

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve received a couple of really interesting reader questions that I think have some synergy. One gentleman spoke of how he as a red pill men can find other red pill men to hang out with, because he finds it very tiring to only hang out with “blue pillers” and secondly, he would like to have a group of men who can support each other on the journey.

The second gentleman asked me a fairly straight forward question of how I manage to both work in corporate and be red pilled. The implicit idea being that as a red pill man you have to employ law 38

“Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others” Robert Greene

The reason why I view these questions as having much synergy, in that they are both reflective of the same desire, in the case of the former question, being able to be surrounded by men who share your perspective, have similar goal and act as a tribe, in other words; being included. In the case of the latter, the balance between being your authentic self, while you are surrounded by people who do not share your perspective, and would be likely to exclude you, if you reveal your authentic self.

Inclusion vs. Exclusion, feeling united by a common bond and shared goals vs. feeling alone and frightened in the crowd. Continue reading