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: The Margin of Safety

The margin of safety is a concept that has been popularized by various value investors, among them Warren Buffet and Seth Klarman, which is centered upon reviewing investments from a risk averse perspective. While many investors tend to review their investments from the perspective of growth potential, future market potential or various macro-centered models, these investors seek to find characteristics in the investment that acts as protection should their valuation be flawed, or future expectations not materialize. The earlier examples tended to be centered on assets that the company held that could be liquidated in order to ensure that the loss they had to take was minimal.

As time went on, investors such as Buffet changed their focus to alternative margins of safety, such as company reputations, market positions, barriers to entry and various other less tangible elements. For instance, the major margin of safety in the Coca Cola Company is the market position and brand recognition that the company has spent decades building since its inception. This concept of the margin of safety is very applicable in the sexual market place, and one of the major arguments in this post deals with how women are naturally wired to seek margins of safety in their market transactions. Continue reading

Gendernomics: Options and Obiters

Options within the financial industry are in essence securities that give you certain rights related to other securities. The most common being Call options that give you the right to buy a set amount of an underlying security at a set price known as the strike price, and Put options that give you the right to sell a set amount of an underlying security at a set price. These financial instruments can be used in a variety of ways the most common being hedging risk exposure and taking leveraged positions in the underlying security. The former is quite common among hedge funds, the latter among traders. The underlying basis for options is that the underwriter and the buyer have differing views on how the asset will develop going forward. In the case of a Call option, the option writer thinks the stock will fall and the buyer thinks the stock will rise, in the case of a Put option, the underwriter thinks the stock will rise, and the buyer thinks the stock will fall.

I’ve previously written on risk in the sexual market place and while men often neglect risks completely when it comes to sexual relationships, women are consummate risk managers who seek to guard in for most eventualities within the market place. It is not uncommon to see wealthy men go “all in” on a marriage working on, not just once but twice and thrice before realizing that they are really buying expensive hookers paid after the fact.

The inherent ability of women to risk manage within the sexual market place is a function of hypergamy and solipsism, in that hypergamy represents the drive to maximize the gain from her SMV over a relatively short lifetime, much in the same manner that a professional athlete needs to maximize the value of his ability over a short period of time, while solipsism permits her to do whatever is necessary in order to achieve this goal. Via solipsism a woman can justify any action she perceives as required in order to maximize her outcomes. Continue reading

Gendernomics: On risk, goals and time

Greek_strategist_Pio-Clementino_Inv306Grand old man of strategy Michael Porter says in the article “What is strategy” that a strategy is just as much about what not to do as it is about what to do. This may seem self-evident, but as a species we are often the species that do not want to say no to anything. This is frequently true of men who are pre-red pill, who find themselves in a situation where rather than selecting a mate, they get a mate selected for them. The concept of a false choice centers on choices between options where there are really no real options, the funniest example is Eddie Izzard’s sketch “Cake or Death” [1] If you perceive yourself as having a singular option for a partner, then in reality you have no choice.

The term actually comes from the military, ancient Greek where it translates into “art of the general“. To put it in more concrete terms, strategy is how you win a war, tactics is how you win a battle. A parallel would be how researchers break down a research hypothesis into operational hypotheses. Strategy is not a plan of action, it is what forms the foundation on which, you build your plan of action.

This results in 3 primary elements of strategy; a goal, time and risk. Thus, in order to build a strategy, you must know that which you want to force into fruition. The time constraints for achieving that end, and finally, the probabilities relating to that which must be done. Continue reading