Game, for lack of a better word, is good. Game is right. Game works.
After listening to myself on this weekend’s interview with Christian McQueen and Dagonet I realized that as I became more comfortable with the interview I found myself verbally ‘dialoging’ in much the same way that I scribble down fragments of ideas in my notebook or when I’m fleshing out a draft for some topic I’m considering in-post.
It’s always been a strange sensation for me to hear myself speak. Even when I record a voice message on my iPhone it always makes me self-conscious to listen to the message play back. However, as I was in the midst of listening to myself on the show I had the same familiar internal conversation and I picked up on a thought I had planned to write about, but I think it slipped my mind until now.
Towards the middle of our conversation I considered a few things about the benefits of Game, and it made me think about how Game has progressed to what it is today. One of the chapters in The Rational Male I specifically wrote for the book – and later converted to a blog post – was called The Evolution of Game. I added this as an effort to help uninitiated men have a better grasp of just what Game really is.
There’s been a lot of redefining of exactly what Game is over the past 12-13 years, but I’ve always considered Game an abstract term for a much larger concept.
Naturally, critics predisposed to a blue pill worldview want to portray “those red pill game guys” as throwbacks to the PUA set of the early 2000’s. This is a very shortsighted evaluation, usually proffered by guys ego-invested in a blue pill mindset and in need of easy definitions and buzz words to ridicule and move onto the next distraction.
Facing red pill truths is uncomfortable, and I understand the need to casually pass them off for fear of really having to critically reconsider ego-investments; that type of insight requires either real depth of character or an experience traumatic enough to shake one from beliefs that, in essence, make up part of their personality.
Both require a concentrated effort to learn from, and honestly, most people are too lethargic to consider red pill truths when there are more entertaining distraction to inure themselves with.
It’s just this lethargy that prevents them from understanding that Game and red pill awareness have matured far beyond the PUAs techniques of the past. Neil Strauss published The Game in 2003 – that’s 15 years since Mystery was wearing top hats and elevator boots.
Those caricatures may be comforting to laugh at, but in fifteen years the developed techniques and observations Game practitioners failed and succeeded with fed into what we would eventually come to understand as red pill awareness today.
The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science produced on seduction
— Nick Krauser (@Krauserpua) November 15, 2013
Even some well meaning red pill Men may want to self-affirmingly ridicule the PUAs of the past and present, but if you have embraced a red pill awareness today, at least partially, you have these Men to thank for risking rejection and practicing techniques that laid a foundation for contemporary red pill awareness.
Now, imagine for a moment that, today, all men had to build on was the antiseptic studies and controlled experiments of a social science academia firmly steeped in a feminine-primary, feminine-correct social context. Imagine what red pill awareness would be if not for the guys in the field doing ‘experiments’. Imagine what marriage counselors and ‘relationship experts’ would (and honestly, still) advise men to do in order to change their lives with an understanding based solely on what a feminine- primary, controlled social science approved of.
Only the PUAs of then and now have had the unfettered freedom to perform in-field social experiments, and relate their collected evidence and observations with other men; the types of which social science has been forbidden from due either to ethical considerations or by feminine-primary social conventions.
Game does not Occur in a Vacuum
Recently the comment threads here have had a tendency to devolve into a “looks are all that matters so why bother learning Game?” line of reasoning. The commentariat can lean towards go-your-own-way defeatism, then to resolving to live in the gym until one inspire female arousal, or, to appeals to positive confidence.
And while I have always recognized – more than most other manosphere bloggers if I dare – the obvious truth that Looks are a prime requisite for arousal (and attraction), I also recognize an effort to discredit Game and red pill awareness by absolutes, extremes and absurdities.
For anyone with the sense that Game and red pill awareness is valueless and superfluous in the face of women’s primary drive for physical arousal, I suggest you read Advocatus Diaboli’s treatise on how to pragmatically use escorts (either that or relocate to the state of Nevada). Honestly, I hold no disapproval for men who feel this is the best way to satisfy their need for sex and female contact. It may indeed be your best option under the current social environment.
For anyone else, I think it’s very important to look at the benefits of Game both in an intergender and interpersonal context. If you consider yourself “red pill” (another useful, but abstract term) Game has benefitted you – because it was the early trials and errors of Game that led to red pill principles we understand now.
If you have even a cursory grasp of how women’s biology and menstrual cycle influences ovulatory shift behaviors in mate preferences and you’ve altered your perception of women, Game has benefitted you.
If you understand the basics of feminine hypergamy and the sexual strategies women use to optimize their mate selection, and then changed your intergender tact as a result of it, Game has benefitted you.
If you’ve internalized the core psychological principles underlying women’s perceptions of Amused Mastery, Command Presence, Agree & Amplify, Cocky & Funny, Social Proof, Dread and even Chick Crack, whether you’ve applied them or not, Game has expanded your consciousness of women’s behaviors and their motivators.
If you’ve had the insight to understand your blue pill conditioning, the reasons for your predispositions towards a Savior Schema, feminine identifying, why a LJBF is a rejection, why Beta Game comes naturally to men but is self defeating, or why SMV accrues and decays over the course of a lifetime, Game and the red pill have benefitted you.
If you’ve used or modified any of these principles to better your marriage, your dealings with co-workers, your daughter, mother or even your best friend’s domineering wife, you’ve benefitted from Game.
If you’ve saved or bettered another man’s life, or bettered his intergender relationships, you’ve both benefitted from Game.
I could go on, but if you honestly believe that women’s primary physical arousal cues trump any value that Game or red pill awareness really has, then you’re wasting your time here reading and commenting on what I have to offer. You’d be better served by focusing all your attentions to lifting in the gym and shifting your career goals toward a job that is physically demanding and keeps you at your physical best.
Ironically, getting in shape is also an aspect of Game. Even if your belief is “Looks are everything”, but yet your understanding of this comes as a result of your red pill awareness of the Alpha Fucks side of hypergamy, Game has benefitted you.
Just a familiarity with Game concepts, whether you accept them or not, still influence your perception of women and the motivations behind their behaviors.
Red pill awareness challenges feminine-primary thinking. Why do you think the mass dissemination of red pill awareness is so threatening to the Feminine Imperative?
Doing Something
What is the manosphere actually ‘doing’?
This is the first critique I expect from from a poor debate opponent – disqualifying the strength or validity of a premise by the ‘success’ or lack thereof of a proponent’s efforts to enact or convince others of that premise.
By this logic, one could make the case that the MRM is an utter failure, but it still doesn’t mean they aren’t correct in their efforts.
As I mentioned on the Christian McQueen Show, I’m of a bottom up, or an inside – out mind when it comes to enacting red pill ‘change. The manosphere is raising awareness and this needs time (maybe even a generation) to mature into personal consciousness and then popular consciousness.
It’s difficult to quantify the ‘results’ of the manosphere, red pill awareness and Game because its effects are individually subjective at this stage. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email, a forum/blog comment or a tweet about how my book or what I’ve written on the blog has changed (or literally saved) a man’s life.
That’s not meant to gloss myself, but rather to illustrate a point – the red pill (and Game) is doing something, it’s changing minds and lives. It’s not rallying men in the streets and waving banners, nor is it effecting legal or social policy (yet), but it’s making men aware of their condition and changing their beliefs.
No hate for what the MRM is doing, I recognize the intent and applaud it, but thus far it’s been impotent in effecting “real change in policy”, while red pill awareness has done more for men individually. For all of the MRM’s efforts to enact public change, all it takes is one White Knight in a position of authority to say “GTFO you misogynist creeps!” Now imagine in the future a man who’s red pill aware in a position to effect that policy.
Real change isn’t going to happen directly it’s going to happen indirectly, on a man by man basis. And not just publicly but personally.
That change will happen in men’s relationships with their wives, daughters and sons. That change may simply be a form of ‘civil disobedience’ in not marrying at all, or holding women accountable for their open embrace of hypergamy and their AFBB sexual strategy and only marrying / supporting women who make an effort to control their hypergamy.
That change will happen in the workplace and hiring practices. That change will filter into men’s better understanding as the red pill spreads and men reassume some of the social frame control the Feminine Imperative unilaterally legislates and provide to women now.
The red pill is ‘doing’ something, it’s planting the seeds for a greater shift in gender power with every man who becomes aware of how women ‘are’ and what they will predictably do.
October 11th, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Also, excellent article. I think this is one of your best to date.
October 11th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
“Don’t feed the trolls”
for me it’s don’t read the trolls, no value
October 11th, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Game repairing civilization one man at a time:
October 11th, 2014 at 12:32 pm
@softek
“A path to enlightenment specifically for guys who have been obsessed with the idea that they can find fulfillment in their lives by finding their “one”, or that the reason they’re unhappy is because they don’t have that special woman in their lives.’
thats a great point, however, alot of people arent seeing the forest from the trees. the choice of having that special woman is a BI-PRODUCT of building the best version of yourself.
October 11th, 2014 at 12:39 pm
A woman can love the real you genuinely if the real you is worth loving.
October 11th, 2014 at 12:42 pm
…..meaning the real you is concerned with provisioning first for himself and enjoying his life on his terms. Then, and only then, can a woman love you for “you”.
October 11th, 2014 at 1:23 pm
@John
Wayne Lineker is 51, cool, in shape and owns a string of bars on the party island of Ibiza. His girlfriend is 20! Should he go for someone his own age cause game doesn’t work, right? LOL
October 11th, 2014 at 2:35 pm
@Jf12:
“Dishonest learned signals work so well”?
Provide citations for that. But something tells me you’ll either revert to an “Oh, I don’t have time for that, you look it up yourself!” diatribe or completely ignore my comment. Which is something that you always revert to when asked for real empirical evidence.
As evidenced from some of your past comments:
LOL, you really cannot make this stuff up.
I noticed you never quite back up your arguments. Much like the majority of the commentators here, you spew subjective non-sense and hope someone agrees with you. The anecdotal logical fallacy is mind blowing here.
@Glenn:
Right. I would post my past comments but I can already the comments it would bring, “Ah, he’s hiding behind long winded comments! Ah, that doesn’t make sense! Ah, who cares about sciency stuff? etc.”
Precisely my point.
@jf12
Yet again, you fail to look at the big picture here. If modern humans began spreading out of Africa only 50,000 or so years ago, then it’s useless to use Eskimos, or Iroquois as examples for human behavior BEFORE 100,000-200,000 BP.
Unlike you, however, I won’t rely on simple hearsay. I’ll post the actual science behind it (I know, I know, that’s a very foreign concept for you):
(2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology
@eon
My arguments are the ones both in agreement with evolutionary convention, and amenable to testable prediction.
Too many concepts in PUA derive from spurious observations and cargo-culting phenomenon.
I am of the opinion that game merely tries to indoctrinate males on how to establish psychological leverage.Now, can this be parlayed into SMALL tangible benefits in terms of male-advantage in courtship/mating interactions?
Absolutely.
But it is *far* from being the silver bullet it is touted to be.
Also, don’t try any of that slick talk that goes along the lines of, “The fact that you know about women’s pluralistic strategy is game. The fact that you know *insert redpill statement* is game.” It’s complete bullocks because then the argument for ‘game’ will always be circular and thus, conveniently held as the end all be all by those defending it.
This speaks to the handicap principle – handicaps mediate freq.Male fitness indicators/signals are energetically costly, and all incur some measure of handicapping in terms of that cost.
Thus, most embellished/elaborate indicators/signals will tend to suggest *less* handicapping by virtue of their higher costs(in turn suggesting higher genetic quality).
Informally translated, this means we tend to subjectively observe that successful guys don’t ‘try as hard’ – exactly what we should expect(despite spurious justifications in conventional wisdom).
.
What I am saying, is that female choices(and ultimately, their subjective biases) are under evolutionary pressure to cull/disqualify males who deviate too far from male trait averages(preserving sufficient variance within this range, for hairs to be further split, so to speak), even where these deviations are otherwise without pathological indications – this is what the principle of Koinophilia demonstrates to us.
To expand further, females, as the more selective sex, are under evolutionary pressure to accomodate attractive males, as male offspring will tend to share the same inherent advantages as their fathers, resulting in high-fitness male offspring for the mothers(and thus a likewise evolutionary advantage).
Females who tend to reject honest attractive males for the sake of being “seduced” by ‘gamers’ who somehow found a body of knowledge to “bend female choice”, will be at a relative disadvantage(producing less prolific offspring because body of knowledge cannot be passed down genetically), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity.
There are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘low status guys’. Females that privilege men who compensate their low status (looks) will incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly.
Succinctly put: Every facet of human behavior and interaction(including social and ideological phenomenon) follow from chance and opportunity outcomes culled from the evolutionary process(not the other way around).
To be fair, I think our only real point of contention lies in what these ‘seduction’ skills/competencies represent(in evolutionary terms).
There are reasons why physical traits are an obvious confounder of ‘seduction’ competencies(ie. because relative deviations in physical traits can reliably signal developmental incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success).
In order to advance a similar argument(unified in a broad evolutionary synthesis) for vague(independent) seduction competencies, you would have to show their basis in evolutionary success beyond a circular argument(ie. how did female bias for these seduction systems *evolve* – what advantages did they confer *before* they became correlated with male reproductive success).
Until you can show this, you are leaning on naive premises.
A skill necessarily implies utility, where knowledge does not.
But allow me to explain this further, It is my position that the dependencies which mediate the useful application of this knowledge(where the knowledge is in fact justified, and not spurious, as is often the case with ‘game’ doctrine), limit the utility of this knowledge, to where it’s effects are vastly overstated by the hyperbolic gamer cult.
The context in which it is most popularly appealed (a determinant factor in sexual success), is where game demonstrates of negligible utility, and thus, operates more as knowledge than skill.
And as stated before, “A body of knowledge is not heritable.” To merely think so, is showing your ignorance of how Evolutionary biology works.
Oh, kind of like the proof that ‘game’ works, even with no scientific, quantifiable, testable backing? LOL
Also, If you’re confused, then so is the game community – and such widespread confusion does not bode well for the credibility of a theory.
Eon, you (among others here) will use anything to justify your position but never actually refer to any studies proving that game *alone* (as an isolated variable) works. Give it a fucking rest already, heh. Or provide citations, if you’re so inclined. Maybe then will I be able to take you more seriously.
I only gave out my qualifications because another doubting commentator asked for them and not because I felt the need to assert my authority in an unprovoked manner.
This debacle is starting to become very tiresome because the majority of guys don’t prefer to discuss the real issues and studies at hand but would much rather rely on circular arguments and personal attacks on their opposition.
@Rollo:
I hardly talk about the “past era” of game. It is the fundamental notion that it can bend female sexual choice, almost drastically (as stated by some), that I do have a problem with.
You fail to understand how evolutionary biology works if you honestly regard that as “brilliant”.
You clearly haven’t read the whole blog. I can tell you’ve only read my post over ‘game’ and decided it didn’t bode well with your beliefs. You simply wrote off my blog as a “personal crusade” against game when you didn’t take into consideration the other various posts that show the power of indirect benefits through empirical evidence, my own conductions of studies (namely online) and the stress ecological factors place on the mating landscape. For a “rational male” you certainly are bias.
I can play that game too:
“I think a more valid question would be, do you trust what PUAs and their minions say over a body of knowledge that has never been proven empirically (i.e. ‘game’ as an independent variable) OR would you much rather believe the inner workings of both developmental and evolutionary biology which are empirically backed by real, hard data? “
@Ishamael:
Again, simply attacking my writing style by claiming it to be “trollish” or “confusing” and not attacking my real positions against game, speaks volumes about you. Namely, that you are operating under an ad hominem fallacy.
Succinctly put: Game has no quantifiable hard data suggesting that it can actually bend female choice (as an independent variable) because it IS a dependent variable on many other factors that are not in the disposal of everyman (namely physical cues). Therefore, it is of negligible value to the average male.
@ Glenn–
I wouldn’t be surprised if he secretly knows I’m right.
This is precisely my point. Why do you guys have such a hard time trying to understand what is really going on? Is this some sort of Ego preservation on your part perhaps? Do tell, because I feel like I am already wasting my time here.
______
@Rollo
That’s the problem here, though. If it isn’t just about techniques and is now a wide spread knowledge of “awareness” then game can always be held as an end all be all which does not bode well with evolutionary biology.
Again, ‘game’ relies on a circular argument which will always render it convenient for those defending it. You also seem to forget that those who sell game aren’t only selling ideas, but they are also selling techniques and “routines” to get the girl. Just look at any of Krauser’s or Roosh’s books.
Game, per my interpretation of the above, simply makes males more aware of female hypergamy, and encourages them to challenge female nonchalance or imperative. It also can set “new set of behavioral dynamics to their intergender interactions with women…for long or short term intimacy.”
That’s all fine but the main interpretation of ‘game’ is unfortunately appealing to a ‘lek paradox’ dynamic, in that if all guys were able to acquire the ability to make sufficient fitness displays, any common factor would lose all fitness value, and females would simply begin to split hairs elsewhere(as female selectivity is necessarily adaptable to evolving information of the system – observable male variance).
Also, my issue is not *entirely* with what ‘game’ is per se, but over what it should be seen to represent – as a unified system of knowledge, rather than the naive notion of a reproducible skill, that can never be disentangled from its confounding dependencies(ie. how do you quantify what measure of success to attribute this knowledge, relative to independent display signals – like physical characters – without unifying everything under a broad definition of ‘game’, rendering it useless to analysis, and thus meaningless?).
But overall, Game disagrees with evolutionary synthesis.
Wait a minute…
“Game disagrees with evolutionary synthesis.”
Now THAT is brilliant, heh.
@Hobbes:
Wait, so now a truth that has been backed up (bio-evo) is somehow tied to the “Female Imperative” because it’s simply telling you a harsh truth that the mating game is a lot more deterministic than what is currently being held for?
I’m actually quite a busy person and I haven’t visited the blog since my last post. Get a grip, buddy boy. I know you were eagerly awaiting my comments but give a man some time. I don’t live here, you know.
LOL. Do you not see the ties from your thinking to the thought process behind the Female Imperative? The parallels here are astounding. Again, if men cannot rationally dispute topics but instead, can only appeal to emotion, then you really are no different from women. The irony here is apparent.
October 11th, 2014 at 2:36 pm
@ FM
Well, thanks. While I don’t think that there is any one prescription that applies to men in LTRs/marriages, for me, what I have found most useful so fare are:
-The concept of ‘amused mastery,’ (which is linked in the article.)
-The concept of Deep emotion vs rational talk http://marriedmansexlife.com/2014/03/violence-deep-emotion-and-rational-talk/
(-Caveat here: I don’t agree with the conclusion that “If you can make Violence and Deep Emotion losing strategies, people will stop using them against you. This will force them into trying the only remaining strategy available to them…rational talk”
I think your spouse will stop using as *much* deep emotion, but I don’t think she will start using rational talk necessarily, I just think that you will see certain problematic behaviors start to decrease. Also, much on this guy’s site is purple pill and is probably not helpful and might even be harmful, so beware.)
-Also, ridding myself of the blue pill ‘ideal’ of an egalitarian partnership where each person has a 50%/50% role, and you share leadership has been very helpful. I now work to take the leadership role in our relationship; this is not something that I am bashing her with either, she *wants* me to be the leader, and when I am in the leadership role she is happiest.
I am not a fast-learner in regard to making the change from BP to RP btw, I doubt many people are. I find myself flipping back and forth occasionally, and even slipping into bitterness sometimes. I am doing my best to work at internalizing these concepts and I look forward to the day when I no longer flip back and forth, and when the bitterness is gone.
The reason that I mentioned that I think marriage counseling is probably worthless for most, probably all couples is that they advocate rational talk.
In general, they advocate for open communication where both partners communicate their needs and talk about their emotions, and try to formulate a plan together.
This will never work.
As talked about extensively on this site, women want men to “just get it,” and ‘desire can’t be negotiated.’ The times when I have sensed the most contempt from my wife are when I am trying to speak with her rationally when I should “just get it.”
Women are wildly different from men, and this realization has probably been the biggest positive change in my world view.
October 11th, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Unlike the readership here, I can actually provide real data that backs up my statements (directly or indirectly). See below:
The following is taken from: Patzer, Gordon L., Ph.D. 2008. Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined. New York, NY: Amacom.
“
“The underestimation of the role of physical attractiveness in dating preferences: Ignorance or taboo?”
Hadjistavropoulos, Thomas; Genest, Myles
“Sexual selection, redundancy and survival of the most beautiful”
R. D. Morris, J. A. Morris
“Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men: Further Evidence of the Importance of Primary Partner Sexual Attractiveness .”
Christina M. Larson ,Elizabeth G. Pillsworth, Martie G. Haselton
“
“Attractive men induce testosterone and cortisol release in women.”
Hassan H. López,Aleena C. Hay,Phoebe H. Conklin
October 11th, 2014 at 2:52 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
October 11th, 2014 at 3:33 pm
So Siirtyrion..
You seem to be on this crusade to show how much attractiveness matters- when everyone has conceded that it does matter… So what is your point? boiled down to its essence?
And I notice you still ignored the question posed- so you believe it’s all deterministic, ok, and beauty reigns. ok.. so now what? So what are you saying we SHOULD DO with this information then?
Answer that question already, for fucks sake. Notice you won’t have to cite papers or write a Goddamn book…
Waiting….
October 11th, 2014 at 4:20 pm
After reading your studies, none of them are the slam dunk you make them out to be..
The first:
“In other words, young college adults were primarily concerned about the physical attractiveness of their date.”- no shit. Notice, as well, that it is not limited to just women, but men as well “young college adults” means men as well as women. So men and women first react and worry to looks. Amazing discovery.
second:
““Research reports that symmetrical men smell better to women, especially if a woman is menstruating” great, cool.. nowhere does it say that this si theonly determining criteria on whether she will screw him. Nowhere does it posit that other behavioral/physical cues are irrelevent.
third:
“80 female undergraduates were shown profiles containing photographs and information about the personalities of potential male dating partners and were asked to state the dating desirability of each target person.” this again fails to prove that behaviors do not influence choice. These women were shown pictures. That is all they really had to go on.. this means that given just pictures women will select by attractiveness- again, no shit. This does not show that behaviors do not influence attractiveness perception. At all.
Fourth
“This leads to the conclusion that sexual selection and sexual attraction should be based on beauty rather than utility, and explains the common observation in nature that it is the most beautiful that survive.”
All theory. “should” is the key word here.. at no point is any proof provided merely some lame observation that the most beautiful survive.. Unless of course it doesnt.. simply look around most people are not beautiful, they are surviving and reproducing.
Fifth:
“In line with previous findings, we found support for the hypothesis that the degree to which a woman’s romantic partner displays indicators of high-fitness genes affects women’s attractions to their own partner and other men at high fertility.”
Old new, Rollo has written on this a few times.. go look it up.
It seems to me that the contention here is simple- can behaviors increase a mans attractiveness. None of your studies say that it doesn’t. What they measure is the effect of looks. No-one contests that looks matter.. what Game stipulates is that certain behaviors can make a man more attractive than.. which, by correlation, that certain behaviors can make a man less attractive.
So, show me a study that proves that behavior and personality make no difference in a persons attractiveness rating, and maybe you’ll have something. Maybe. And you would have to proved studies that prove both
1. that behavior/personality has no affect on making a person more attractive
and 2. that certain behaviors/personalities has no effect on reducing a mans perceived attractiveness
October 11th, 2014 at 4:40 pm
I think those studies zero in on looks because how do you measure behavior?
Even in the studies that show that women prefer a dominant, powerful looking man, instead of a friendly looking one, “the look” is really all they can measure somewhat objectively.
Just because science is blind to certain aspects of courtship because they are hard, if not impossible, to measure, does not mean they have no impact.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:03 pm
@ Siirtyrion
“Again, simply attacking my writing style by claiming it to be “trollish” or “confusing” and not attacking my real positions against game, speaks volumes about you. Namely, that you are operating under an ad hominem fallacy.”
Incorrect. There is no position to “attack” when you do not make your position clear. Your failure to communicate in a clear manner WAS the problem, and has been your problem with other posts. Fix it if you want to be taken seriously.
“Succinctly put: Game has no quantifiable hard data suggesting that it can actually bend female choice (as an independent variable) because it IS a dependent variable on many other factors that are not in the disposal of everyman (namely physical cues). Therefore, it is of negligible value to the average male.”
Now you’re getting somewhere. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think that the average man does not have any physically attractive features to work with. Where are your sources for that? I’m genuinely curious. When I look around, the “average” man seems to be, well, average. He has some nice features, and some flaws that offset those. Many of those flaws can be worked around to some degree. He can learn how to take care of his skin. Hide his acne. Lose the chubby belly. Build some muscle mass. Get a haircut and clothes that better suit his face and body. He certainly has something to work with, to improve on.
If he does, after a little (or in some cases a lot of) improvement, have at least some physical attractiveness, then how can game not help him achieve his goals? Furthermore, how can you possibly claim that internal game is negligible to the average man if it helps him understand why women behave the way they do? Look around at the married guys here. They’re average guys, unless I miss my guess, who have vastly improved the quality of their lives because of game.
What the hell kind of man throws in the towel simply because he wasn’t born a Greek god? You can’t expect guys who can do better, get better, to give up simply because you argue there are better looking guys who will make the girls tingle more.
I submit that, at the very least, going from supplicating beta to a man who takes charge of his life can only be a positive change for our average man. Internalizing red pill truths (read: game) are central to making that change.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:32 pm
“If modern humans began spreading out of Africa only 50,000 or so years ago, then it’s useless to use Eskimos, or Iroquois as examples for human behavior BEFORE 100,000-200,000 BP.”
Which means the latitudinal hypothesis of increasing monogamy falls a bit flat, since everybody (“us”) was in Africa rootling around for mongongo nuts and hassling antelopes.
I don’t think anybody has a handle on what the social arrangements of Neandertals, Denisovans or whatever the recently postulated third variety might have been.
We have to go with what we’ve got, so where do we start? Australasians and San-type peoples are NBG because they live in hotsville. The glaciers stuffed up any coherent evidence of non-intertropical folks.
So where does the idea that
“Hunter-gatherers became less polygynous with increasing distance from the equator. “ come from?
“Second wives became costlier because longer winters restricted food gathering and increased female dependence on male provisioning.
How did this situation change with the advent of agriculture? “
gives us a terminus ante of, I dunno, 12-10,000 BP is it now? (And say as late as 6-8000 in northern Europe, where most of the looking has been done). Well into the advent of Homo smarticus cleverus all over the globe. Including Dorsets and their seal-bothering successors, and most if not all North American native groups, prior to their inventing agriculture.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:43 pm
re: “Yet again, you fail to look at the big picture here. If modern humans began spreading out of Africa only 50,000 or so years ago”
bounces off me and sticks to you. So, you are arguing that you were making totally inane, ignorant, and irrelevant noises about paleo people far from the tropics? I agree. Totally.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:45 pm
re: “gives us a terminus ante of, I dunno, 12-10,000 BP is it now? (And say as late as 6-8000 in northern Europe, where most of the looking has been done).”
And Tam done slammed Siirtyrion’s head onto the elevator railing, as captured on the security cam.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:47 pm
re: “Unlike the readership here, I can actually” cut and paste blocks of texts plural tediously. Some could call it plagiarism, if it were relevant.
October 11th, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Re: in addition to those of us calling for Siirtyrion to produce evidence of human sexual behaviors “BEFORE 100,000-200,000 BP”, I’d like to know what she proposes is the geographical distribution of humans “BEFORE 100,000-200,000 BP” before “modern humans began spreading out of Africa”. All huddled in a tropical clump, mebbe?
October 11th, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Talking out me arse about paleo-Eskimos though.
Dorsets are much, much later than I thought, and the whole shooting-match of (to be rude) Eskimo sort of people arrived well after the mainland Early Americans, who were in that sort of time frame mentioned earlier..
(I had a nagging sort of feeling that since I don’t know all that much about it, I’d better check. It’s all very far away, and cold and dark and stuff hem hem)
” .. first Americans entered the New World at least 15,500 years ago, and that two smaller migrations of hunter-gatherers from Asia followed. The new study indicates that the Paleo-Eskimos entered the Arctic some 5,000 years ago, in a separate migration.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140828-arctic-migration-genome-genetics-dna-eskimos-inuit-dorset/
I wouldn’t bang on about it so much, but I do find it all hopelessly fascinating. Yes, I have Abnormal Interests. So? Doesn’t make me Jimmy Savile.
October 11th, 2014 at 7:38 pm
re: Eskimos doing agriculture. First, they invented the ice plow. Then, they waited for global warming to evolve.
October 11th, 2014 at 7:53 pm
Someone has written:
N.B. SiirTyrion is a developmental biologist at MIT
Where may we find the published works?
MIT continues to do a lot of amazing stuff, and a lot of it is known:
http://betaboston.com/news/2014/05/19/50-ways-that-mit-has-transformed-computer-science/
October 11th, 2014 at 8:20 pm
RM Truth:
There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email, a forum/blog comment or a tweet about how my book or what I’ve written on the blog has changed (or literally saved) a man’s life.
-Rollo Tomassi
They that hate, sadly, dedicate much of life in attempting to generally debunk the validity of male self improvement.
October 11th, 2014 at 9:09 pm
@David W
Thanks for those things. Yes, the wife and I tried counseling with someone who was supposedly top-notch, expert at sex, etc. Total bust. Total bust. Yes, it was about a negotiated emotional equilibrium that was supposed to enhance desire. Not likely.
The thing that got me into the manosphere stuff was the sexless marriage phenomenon. This is trickier than game for social fun. I am still trying to figure this out. (On my own, of course, because thinking is not RP action.) I like what you said about leadership. All true. My wife is still adjusting. Poor thing–my example over time has been pretty crappy. I’d be confused, too, if I lived with someone who radically failed to live up to his nature.
I have looked very hard into MMSL. On one level, I wish I was where he is, but something about the constellation of my marriage is totally different from his. Here again, sexless marriage–or the kind that is on sexual low-voltage–is everything he says it is, but *I* am not where I need to be, I don’t think. He seems to be working on an energy model that I’m not down with, as well. We’ll see. One day at a time. Thanks for the tips. Don’t hesitate to throw in anything else you think of–on this thread, since I am linked to it. That would always be helpful.
Best,
FM
October 11th, 2014 at 9:12 pm
@ Siirtyrion, you said:
“Succinctly put: Game has no quantifiable hard data suggesting that it can actually bend female choice (as an independent variable) because it IS a dependent variable on many other factors that are not in the disposal of everyman (namely physical cues). Therefore, it is of negligible value to the average male.”
“I am of the opinion that game merely tries to indoctrinate males on how to establish psychological leverage.Now, can this be parlayed into SMALL tangible benefits in terms of male-advantage in courtship/mating interactions?
Absolutely.
But it is *far* from being the silver bullet it is touted to be.”
“Game, per my interpretation of the above, simply makes males more aware of female hypergamy, and encourages them to challenge female nonchalance or imperative. It also can set “new set of behavioral dynamics to their intergender interactions with women…for long or short term intimacy.””
______________________________________________
So, you admit that game may have “SMALL tangible benefits,” you also admit that game will make men aware of “female hypergamy, and encourages them to challenge female nonchalance or imperative”
But you then go on to say “But it is *far* from being the silver bullet it is touted to be.”
Well, sure, there are snake-oil salesmen in every area of life; however, this is not what this site offers; all Rollo, from my reading of him, claims to offer is his take on the situation, he then urges us to make our own calls on where to go with the information.
So where is the problem?
I understand that you are all about hard science, and so am I. Unfortunately, there will not be hard science “done” on the red pill and game front due to reasons previously mentioned; so I will take what I can get.
I really am just failing to understand how you are able to scoff at red pill understanding and “SMALL tangible benefits.”
In this culture that we live in, I, and most men, will gladly take ANYTHING that will give us even a fighting chance in the gender relations game; what about this irks you?
October 11th, 2014 at 9:15 pm
@ David W
BTW, have you seen this. I thought it was very good, esp. what “Daniel” says about women’s questions. Amusing really, when you think about it.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/08/can-game-save-this-marriage.html
FM
October 12th, 2014 at 5:37 am
With Dr. Drew Pinsky tonight. Can’t say where. Can’t say why. He’s sincere.
He took crazy risks to narrate this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UqvH2hgw0ME
Have you thanked him in a review o Amazon or iTunes or his blog?
Love him or hate him, he’s more influence than you, and that does, indeed, matter.
As of tonight, I can assure you that he’s reading The Rational Male and his staffs will be reading through some of the comments.
Do you want to be the one attempting to debunk junk ‘science’ that blames you for most problems in the world? Or, do you want to be the one that explains how the experiences of men like Rollo Tomassi and the collective wisdom of millions of men for decades has improved your life? Rollo Tomassi has sacrificed to write this stuff at sosuave, and now in his blog and book. The contet has literally saved (or changed) your life into something much more amazing, fulfilling, etc, for countless people.
This blog is now on the ‘radar’ of the most influential people here. How will your comments entice them to utilize their talent, fame and plAtform to speak the truth you believe in… Changing the course of global human events?
It’s easy to fall prey to supposed scientist with belittling words, but you’re a man with vision that knows the world isn’t flat.
Stop catering to the supposedly educated by respending to their demands that the world is flat.
Instead, enjoy productive discourse that improves your life.
Dr. Drew Pinsky took risks to narrate ‘Divorce Cotp’
What will you do to let him know you’d appreciate him doing even more to further what you believe in. Tell him I asked you to do so.
October 12th, 2014 at 10:12 am
I just realised why women have rape fantasies.
They desire sex with the alpha male, but consciously don’t want to lose the romantic investment of beta males, and so while desiring the sex with the alpha male they after the fact realise that such sex means they lose beta investment and so they consciously determine that the sex is non-consensual or they disagree to the sex.
I cam to the conclusion after beginning to write a comment on this blog post
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-it/200806/rape-fantasy-or-pseudo-rape-fantasy/
I was attempting to delineate the difference between wanting sex and agreeing to sex and used this example to illustrate it.
i.e. a rape fantasy for me as a man would be a beautiful woman desiring me so much she pushes me back onto the bed and mounts me and begins riding me for the pure pleasure of it.
Now right now, I would desire such sex, and so I would think it is good and thus not rape. But lets say I’m married with kids and a wife who would be devastated if I had sex with another woman. Then I wouldn’t want it and I would conclude it is non-consensual even though I enjoy it. This is because I wouldn’t want to lose my wife. It’s a conscious choice, whereas my enjoyment of the non-consensual sex act is a subconscious one.
This is why women have rape-fantasies, it allows them to have their bread and butter, sex with the alpha male without the guilt of cuckolding the beta male. She consciously doesn’t want it but her subconscious does. Again this is only with alpha males. Christian Grey types, or the Shakespeare bodice ripping hunks you see on the cover of romance novels.
I should also emphasise that this doesn’t mean men should rape, or do anything like this in real life. That would be fucked up and you’d deserve to go to jail. I’m just elucidating this to maybe help men understand what is going through women’s heads when they have rape fantasies and comparing it to an example a man can understand, i.e. the wife one above.
October 12th, 2014 at 10:15 am
edited version
I just realised why women have rape fantasies.
They desire sex with the alpha male, but consciously don’t want to lose the romantic investment of beta males, and so while desiring the sex with the alpha male they after the fact realise that such sex means they lose beta investment and so they consciously determine that the sex is non-consensual or they disagree to the sex even though they subconsciously desire or enjoy it,
I came to the conclusion after beginning to write a comment on this blog post
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-it/200806/rape-fantasy-or-pseudo-rape-fantasy/
I was attempting to delineate the difference between wanting sex and agreeing to sex and used this example to illustrate it.
i.e. a rape fantasy for me as a man would be a beautiful woman desiring me so much she pushes me back onto the bed and mounts me and begins riding me for the pure pleasure of it.
Now right now, I would desire such sex, and so I would think it is good and thus not rape. But lets say I’m married with kids and a wife who would be devastated if I had sex with another woman. Then I wouldn’t want it and I would conclude it is non-consensual even though I enjoy it. This is because I wouldn’t want to lose my wife. It’s a conscious choice, whereas my enjoyment of the non-consensual sex act is a subconscious one.
This is why women have rape-fantasies, it allows them to have their bread and butter, sex with the alpha male without the guilt of cuckolding the beta male. She consciously doesn’t want it but her subconscious does. Again this is only with alpha males. Christian Grey types, or the Shakespeare-reading bodice ripping hunks you see on the cover of romance novels.
I should also emphasise that this doesn’t mean men should rape, or do anything like this in real life. That would be fucked up and you’d deserve to go to jail. I’m just elucidating this to maybe help men understand what is going through women’s heads when they have rape fantasies and comparing it to an example a man can understand, i.e. the wife one above.
October 12th, 2014 at 11:47 am
“I trust an MIT scientist working in the field of developmental biology discussing these issues a whole lot more than I do some guy on a blog.”
Be careful what you trust. Academic pontification will never out perform common sense. Trust experience.
October 12th, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Game is about maximizing our ability to realize our potential. What is our potential?
There’s a Taoist story about a monk who’s bullied into performing very dangerous feats. The older monks think it’ll be funny, so they tell him things like, “If you jump into this raging river, you’ll find a pearl at the bottom,” or “If you jump off this balcony into that haystack, you’ll find an emerald.”
They think he’ll break his leg or get seriously injured, and get all excited when they see that he’s about to make a giant ass out of himself. But the young monk, every single time, completes the tasks they tell him to complete, and they’re amazed. He’s finds a pearl in the river, an emerald in the haystack, etc., and he never gets injured or even hurt in the slightest despite doing things like walking through fire and jumping from high ledges.
When the monks see this time and time again, they apologize to him, telling him that they had no idea he was so powerful.
The young monk gets a puzzled look on his face and asks what they’re talking about. They go on to tell him how dangerous all the things he was doing were, and how they’d been trying to get him killed or injured.
The young monk, realizing this, decides to never do any of these feats again. He says that he’ll be more careful now and never again did he walk through fire or perform any other of his miraculous stunts.
The moral of the story is the power of self-doubt, and the power of blind faith.
There’s another story, a zen koan, about a general who decides to flip a coin to see how his army’s battle will go. The men are all watching in anticipation: the battle is between 1,000 men to their 100 men, and they all think they’re going to get crushed.
The coin flips, and lands on heads. The general says that they’ve received the gods’ blessings, are destined to win, and the men are inspired and confident — and then they go into battle, and they win.
His attendant, excited about their victory later on, proudly says “No one can change the hand of destiny.” The general replies to him, “Indeed not,” and reveals to him a coin that was heads on both sides.
If you don’t believe you can succeed, you won’t even try to succeed, and if you don’t try you won’t even get to experience whatever success it was you could’ve had.
October 12th, 2014 at 2:42 pm
@ Siirtyrion (October 11th, 2014 at 2:35 pm)
.
Rollo: “I think a more valid question would be, do you trust the more than 20 years of research and social experimentation from a PhD at the UCLA Departments of Psychology, Communication Studies, and the Institute for Society and Genetics?”
Siirtyrion to Rollo: “I can play that game too: “I think a more valid question would be, do you trust what PUAs and their minions say over a body of knowledge that has never been proven empirically (i.e. ‘game’ as an independent variable) OR would you much rather believe the inner workings of both developmental and evolutionary biology which are empirically backed by real, hard data? “
Siirtyrion to Ishamael: “Game has no quantifiable hard data suggesting that it can actually bend female choice (as an independent variable) because it IS a dependent variable on many other factors that are not in the disposal of everyman (namely physical cues). Therefore, it is of negligible value to the average male.”
.
Oooh!, can I play too? I think a more valid question is why Siirtyrion is so insistent on “proven empirically as an ‘independent’ variable”.
Surely he must realize that Game, in the sense that he seem to be using it, is an interpersonal interaction that includes many visual cues such as bearing and body language, and that such active cues cannot be separated from the static visual cue of “looks”, because those active cues are a modulation of the “envelope” whose structure is “looks” (by definition).
In contrast, a static cue, like “looks”, can be stripped out and presented “independently”, like in a photograph, because it is … umm … static!
And a forced “dependence” on the transmitting medium doesn’t, in and of itself, say anything about any interdependence of the inputs co-located within that “communication channel”.
As Hobbes has pointed out, your studies just demonstrate that when women are shown only photographs, and then required to make a choice, they base that choice only on photographs. Nothing circular there, lulz!
So why the insistence on “independent variable”?
Could it be that he is trying to misdirect us away from exploring and categorizing the conditions under which, and the extent to which, Game can be effective, in spite of looks?
(Three years later … Rollo receives the Nobel Prize in Biology for his discovery of the Spiteless Variable!, as Siirtyrion weeps, lulz.)
.
Now back to the stuff that Siirtyrion directed at me:
“My arguments are the ones both in agreement with evolutionary convention, and amenable to testable prediction.”
You have provided many studies demonstrating the part that no one is disputing, that looks are important, but not a single one to demonstrate that nothing other than looks can be a factor.
.
“Too many concepts in PUA derive from spurious observations and cargo-culting phenomenon.”
Since you are demanding that we simply replace our thoughts and conclusions with your opinions, you need to provide definitive proof for everything that you claim.
One the other hand, people who think that Game has merit are saying “this is what we have learned through analysis and experimentation, try it for yourself and form your own conclusions, and then tell us what you have experienced / learned”, and so on.
.
“I am of the opinion that game merely tries to indoctrinate males on how to establish psychological leverage. Now, can this be parlayed into SMALL tangible benefits in terms of male-advantage in courtship/mating interactions? Absolutely. But it is *far* from being the silver bullet it is touted to be.”
Oh, okay, so now you agree that there are real and measurable effects?
The question then becomes: “which study that quantified these benefits are you referencing?”
Surely you did not derive the idea that the effect was only “SMALL”, using nothing but the spurious personal observations of ONE person?!?
Rollo has never claimed that Game is “a silver bullet”. In fact, he has stipulated, in this article, that looks are a highly significant factor, and has even referenced an entire separate article that he wrote on this very topic!
Your arguing against a claim that Rollo has never made, a claim that is present, here, only because you keep implying it, a claim that is in fact opposite to his actual position, is pretty much the very definition of the Strawman Fallacy! (Hi, Igor!)
.
“Also, don’t try any of that slick talk that goes along the lines of, “The fact that you know about women’s pluralistic strategy is game. The fact that you know *insert redpill statement* is game.” It’s complete bullocks because then the argument for ‘game’ will always be circular and thus, conveniently held as the end all be all by those defending it.”
Actually, it is completely proper to define Game however one wishes, for a particular purpose, and doing so is in fact necessary, in order to maintain integrity.
Since the term “Game” is being used to mean so many different things, stating precisely what one is talking about, as Rollo did, is the only honest and productive way in which to approach a discussion or presentation.
It is obvious that you are using some very narrow definition of Game, even though I have never seen you define it, precisely or otherwise. But since you are commenting on Rollo’s article, honesty and logical continuity require you to use his definitions and scope.
What is worse than “complete bullocks” is to use some unspecified narrow definition of Game to try to disparage an article that has explicitly defined Game, for the purpose of its discussion, it in the broadest terms.
.
“This speaks to the handicap principle – handicaps mediate freq.Male fitness indicators/signals are energetically costly, and all incur some measure of handicapping in terms of that cost. Thus, most embellished/elaborate indicators/signals will tend to suggest *less* handicapping by virtue of their higher costs(in turn suggesting higher genetic quality). Informally translated, this means we tend to subjectively observe that successful guys don’t ‘try as hard’ – exactly what we should expect(despite spurious justifications in conventional wisdom).”
Nobody is disputing this, especially after I first translated your initial comment into something comprehensible.
Nevertheless, it still does not have anything to do with directly supporting your claim that “trivial observations that seemingly confirm ‘game’, are observing nothing more than spurious correlations”.
.
“Females who tend to reject honest attractive males for the sake of being “seduced” by ‘gamers’ who somehow found a body of knowledge to “bend female choice”, will be at a relative disadvantage(producing less prolific offspring because body of knowledge cannot be passed down genetically), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity. There are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘low status guys’. Females that privilege men who compensate their low status (looks) will incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly. … To be fair, I think our only real point of contention lies in what these ‘seduction’ skills/competencies represent(in evolutionary terms).”
Looks as fitness / survival indicators are indeed an important factor, but mental fitness as indicated by behavior is also significant. Think “Ugly Og with a big club, and Justin Bieber, walk into a bar run by the Flintstones …”, lulz.
To use your words, deviations in mental traits reliably signal survival incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success.
Someone who is displaying behaviors that indicate necessary survival capabilities can: 1) be genuine; 2) have that personality potential within him, which is in the process of being activated (or at least unrepressed) through “skills” acquired using Game (as a body of knowledge); or 3) be a pure pretender without such latent potential.
The ultimate evolutionary effects of the pure pretender depend on various factors, such as the relative number of those individuals, whether they produce children (or actively avoid this possibility), and so on.
This is why I talked about “effective” signals, and not “honest” or “valid” signals.
.
“But allow me to explain this further, It is my position that the dependencies which mediate the useful application of this knowledge (where the knowledge is in fact justified, and not spurious, as is often the case with ‘game’ doctrine), limit the utility of this knowledge, to where it’s effects are vastly overstated by the hyperbolic gamer cult. The context in which it is most popularly appealed (a determinant factor in sexual success), is where game demonstrates of negligible utility, and thus, operates more as knowledge than skill.”
As an undergraduate exercise, rephrase this paragraph to show that you understand it well enough to explain it in way that will be clear to your intended audience. You may use my first comment on this thread as a guide.
.
“A skill necessarily implies utility, where knowledge does not. … And as stated before, ‘A body of knowledge is not heritable’. To merely think so, is showing your ignorance of how Evolutionary biology works.”
Nobody is saying that a body of knowledge, as such, is heritable.
Leaving aside the philosophical question of whether any knowledge can be not useful, you really need to stop pretending to argue against one thing by using the same words to mean something else.
Game is a system of knowledge that indeed can be used to develop skills, which can become distinguishing features over time, as they are internalized.
Furthermore, those who internalize these skills by activating or unrepressing latent personality (survival) traits will indeed transmit these preexisting traits to future generations.
And thus the increased probability of doing so, through Game, will have been “honest” signaling, in addition to being “effective” signaling.
.
“Oh, kind of like the proof that ‘game’ works, even with no scientific, quantifiable, testable backing? LOL”
You said this in reply to my statement: “A true expert can explain anything to anyone, and in a way that is understandable. This is done by first stating definitions and assumptions simply and clearly, and then logically building on them by explaining, relating, and supporting relevant points, while using words that are meaningful to the intended audience.”
Game, according to the broad definition selected by Rollo for his article, is also a body of knowledge that coherently explains processes that have been observed throughout recorded history.
PUAs are not trying to “prove” anything. Instead, they are presenting what they are learning, through direct experimentation, to others, who are then free to investigate and form their own conclusions.
You, on the other hand, are trying to prove something, but seem to have little desire or ability to be rigorous and systematic, or even to directly support your main points.
The fact that you find my statement amusing further convinces me that your objective is to try to discredit, using your particular brand of bullshit, Rollo’s incredibly comprehensive and self-consistent body of groundbreaking work.
.
You said to Ishamael: “Again, simply attacking my writing style by claiming it to be “trollish” or “confusing” and not attacking my real positions against game, speaks volumes about you. Namely, that you are operating under an ad hominem fallacy.”
And the fact that, on October 10th, 2014 at 11:44 am, I could so easily dismantle the primary comment with which you tried to discredit Rollo, and show it to be either an incompetently written, or deliberately confusing, mess that actually supports none of “your real position against Game”, speaks volumes about you.
.
“This debacle is starting to become very tiresome because the majority of guys don’t prefer to discuss the real issues and studies at hand but would much rather rely on circular arguments and personal attacks on their opposition.”
Actually, it is becoming tiresome because you either: 1) have an inability to state you position precisely and clearly, and to then support your points directly in a logically and scientifically rigorous way, or 2) you are simply trying to discredit Rollo through fallacious Strawman arguments and bullshit dressed up to appear intellectually intimidating, because you cannot refute his actual positions, as he has stated and explained them.
October 12th, 2014 at 4:33 pm
@ eon:
“Actually, it is completely proper to define Game however one wishes, for a particular purpose, and doing so is in fact necessary, in order to maintain integrity.”
That’s absurd, and you must know it.
By this token, Game is everything and therefore nothing, since it lacks definition. The term becomes meaningless.
This is not integrity you are talking about, but mental obfuscation that comes either from confusion or dishonesty, or both.
The inability to define terms you use in a way that would convey their meaning in an understandable way to others is a sign that you either do not understand those terms yourself, or you are being dishonest for whatever reason.
A good rule of thumb is that if something seems too nebulous, broad, confusing, unclear, contradictory, or nonsensical, then it is.
A good rule of another thumb is that any remotely plausible theory or thought system has to be built on concepts which meanings can be clearly transmitable to and understood by others (of adequate intelligence).
If your theory or thought system is based on concepts that can be defined “however one wishes,” i.e., they lack definition, then you don’t have a thought system / theory but a house of cards and mental masturbation that comes from playing with it.
October 12th, 2014 at 4:56 pm
@Brody
Read the next paragraph in eon’s comment.
“Since the term “Game” is being used to mean so many different things, stating precisely what one is talking about, as Rollo did, is the only honest and productive way in which to approach a discussion or presentation.”
In order to have a productive discussion on this topic, the term “game” should be defined (which Rollo has done) and that definition should be used for the rest of the discussion. If commenters start arbitrarily redefining the term, as Siirtyrion has, to make their counterarguments, the discussion loses its intellectual integrity. This method of arguing is a common logical fallacy known as the straw man fallacy.
I thought that point was made quite clearly by eon.
October 12th, 2014 at 6:56 pm
“While we all may not become masters, we can all not become victims” Game awareness prevents victimization.
October 12th, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Ishamael,
Thank you.
I enjoy reading your many interesting and valuable comments, like the one about Sokal.
October 12th, 2014 at 8:39 pm
This is the ONLY website out there in the manosphere, that is advancing the understanding of the red pill. Chatue Heartiste and Alphagameblogspot and just report trends and break down what happened in recent events. You guys( Rollo and the ones who post in comment section) try to make everyone understand what being a “red pill” guy means, not what we make it out to be for our own benefits. The hardest pill to swallow is that looks matter.. but other bloggers say that DOMINANCE matters for one night stands and relationships, more than looks. Can you do an article where you, once and for all, end the discussion to which one is more important? Which, on its own, has more weight, looks or dominance?
October 12th, 2014 at 9:20 pm
(Three years later … Rollo receives the Nobel Prize in Biology for his discovery of the Spiteless Variable!, as Siirtyrion weeps, lulz.)
By then, everyone will know game, everyone will be confident, everyone will be hip to the female sexual strategy. Then there won’t be anything left to go own but whether a guy is good looking enough for a woman and whether she’s is good looking enough to have that good looking guy she wants to come up and talk to her.
Then sirtyrion will say see, I was right!!
But until that time
October 12th, 2014 at 10:29 pm
” . . .other bloggers say that DOMINANCE matters for one night stands and relationships, more than looks. ”
The manosphere is having a hard time moving beyond its “How to Pick Up Girls for Aspies” commercial PUA roots. It was necessary to emphasize social skills over looks to sell product to creepy looking, unsocializable men.
Rollo has been one of those instrumental in moving it on and even Roosh is now at least trying with his RoK.
” . . . which one is more important?”
When? For whom? In what environment?
How fast do you let out a clutch? Which is more important, how you work the clutch pedal or the throttle? There are so many parameters, each of which is a variable, that it’s different every single time, and yet you can learn to do it well enough to shift without thought.
A computer can’t do it at all without sensory feedback. It is a problem beyond simple calculation.
Esmerelda did not run off to the land of Happy Ever After with Quasimodo. The idea never even occured to her. Looks matter.
But so does behaviour. And smell. And whether or not she’s just had a fight with her boyfriend. And . . .
So, yeah; it depends.
October 12th, 2014 at 10:48 pm
@eric, on dominance:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/05/dominance/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/12/master-servant/
October 12th, 2014 at 11:17 pm
@eon
Of course. Actually, your comments reminded me of Sokal. Friggin hilarious way of pointing out how unintelligible some academics are. My guess is most of those types don’t really have anything to add to their respective fields, but they have to publish anyway, so they hide behind literary nightmares. Some may just think they’re clever and believe their own bullshit though, lol. Anyway, very keen observations. Have thoroughly enjoyed yours and other comments on this thread.
October 13th, 2014 at 12:57 pm
I should probably explain my point about “independent variable” a little better, since I used somewhat technical terms to avert a scientificalistical reply about dinga-linga-signaling or other such nonsense.
Game cannot be “independent” of looks because: looks = body; Game = behavior; behavior = what you do with your body. So you cannot see behavior without also seeing the body.
But Game is also not “dependent” on looks in the way that Siirtyrion keeps implying.
Think of it in these terms:
Looks are like a television set. They are “static” in the sense that they do not change (or the change is not noticeable with respect to whatever else you are talking about).
Behavior is like the program that is playing on the screen. The program is “dynamic” in the sense that the program is the actions and movement that are being displayed, over time.
You can turn the television off, and then present it without the program, as an “independent variable”.
And since the television set itself is not changing, seeing a photograph of the television, as it is playing a program, is equivalent to seeing the set itself just sitting there, because a freeze-frame of a dynamic program is not the program itself.
But you cannot present a television program “independent of” (without) the television screen.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that a program itself is “dependent” on any particular television set, or that you will necessarily have a different reaction to a program if you see it on a nicer screen.
October 13th, 2014 at 1:20 pm
I’ll add one last thing here; getting into shape and maintaining your best Look (physically and stylistically) IS and aspect of Game.
A good body is the best form of peacocking:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/13/have-a-look/
October 15th, 2014 at 6:16 am
Reblogged this on Mark Christison and commented:
An incredibly well written piece.
October 17th, 2014 at 9:37 pm
throughout my life as a woman ive always thought and marvelled…”wow…why do guys put up w/ so much from women?” so many examples of this…pretty women who get away w/ murder and have white knights defend her because they cannot fathom an attractive goddess doing evil things,(casey anthony) they simply cannot and do not want to think of women in realistic terms, as human beings! why is this? is it a relic of catholicism/Virgin Mary, or just christianity in general? there’s a lot of talk about America’s puritanical past but puritans were very strict and intolerant of women’s wiles (read “The Scarlet letter” or “The Crucible”)….whereas catholicsm venerates women and mothers especially as goddesses that can do no wrong (another egregious lie that hurts a lot of children)…
i realize Freud was right in his observation that men are in love w/ their moms, even the toughest dude, tatted-up etc. will still have a big ol’ “mommy” tattoo emblazoned on his forearm….do men project this natural yet irrational love on any and all women? why do they do this? its not wrong to love and be noble as men usually are….and yet women exploit that. i really do believe that MEN are the true romantics as ive read here on the man-o-sphere, yes! i couldn’t believe it at first but yes its too true, anyone with a working brain, observational and analytical skills and an open mind can realize its true. i know of men abused and brainwashed by their mothers since birth, abused by narcissistic “mothers”…still love her even if she literally plucked their eyes out, they would still die or kill for her….i know of men who can have a relationship w/ a prostitute, a real working one, not just a slutty cheater…this man after he found out the truth (because she was sick of his beta ass and didnt want to be w/ him anymore and stopped hiding her info), he STILL wanted to work it out! still he wanted to be w/ her when he found out and still wanted to marry her!?! a working whore?!
what is WRONG w/ this picture?! do men not have any respect for themselves? im not blaming u men or making fun of u….but you guys really have to stop being so desperate for women! i realize you men just simply dont realize how women’s nature is, hell we women dont either since we’re coddled so much (thank God i wasnt)….even the bible has plenty of wisdom about women (St. Paul and Solomon are pretty “red-pill”).
even while in college i clearly remember a group conversation w/ a bunch of girls talking about how during sex, one of their boyfriends would ask her in the throes of passion “who’s pussy is this?!” and she was like, “well….i mean he knows i was w/ another guy so….”….basically she realized how desperate he was, he wanted her to be “his girl” only, even when she had another lover already…..
in my opinion….as a woman i just think everything has been turned upside down. men have to lay down the law to get society back if its possible….i was reading a mind-blowing book (online for free) called “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus, and he asserts that in his observation women dont really like to be married….i couldn’t believe it at first but ive come to the conclusion that its true….why is it that women all throughout history have given up the goods for the sexy alphas, even in the face of death in some cases (honor killings), or simple social shaming mostly thru religion? society has had to corral women’s passions for its own survival, since women only live for the moment and not the future…if women truly desired marriage, they would never fall for the “tingles” and only desire beta males who could give them a good life….
this is why i think many alphas never marry and disdain women, since they know the formula to get them outta their panties, they know how easy it is, they dont respect them…while hapless betas just are happy to get whatever woman they can, and are oblivious to how women truly are….betas are just too innocent and forgiving….the solution is always the traditional and ancient one, which is to only respect and marry women who wait till marriage for sex, virgins. these women live for the future, for God, their future or for something bigger than themselves…not for a moment of ecstasy w/ an alpha….these women have a head on their shoulders, self-control. why is that men have given up common sense and logic and gone w/ women-style marriage and relationships purely based on whatever emotions that strike you in that moment? why do men still respect these women when they have given them all of themselves, and in may cases will marry sluts and of course defend them to the hilt? you men dont realize that deep inside, these women know they have manipulated you into giving them all they didnt deserve…they dont truly respect you (especially if you’re a beta and they still think of that ephemeral alpha that they can never forget and will go back to in a heartbeat). they laugh at you for being so idiotic…for taking their crap and treating them like goddesses when all they are is human beings…human beings who take a shit,vomit, burp, fart etc. lol….women dont want to be treated like goddesses…because we’re not, and we only respect men who can see through all the bullshit. deep inside we’re not comfortable being pedestalized, no. we’re only human beings guys, if you realized this and realized your own worth also…you wouldnt even need sites like these in my opinion. you only need standards and women would have to comply if they wanted to be with you. KNOW YOUR WORTH.
October 20th, 2014 at 1:08 am
@corsicanlulu re: “you only need standards and women would have to comply”
Nope. It’s been too late for that since the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
See also
http://therationalmale.com/2014/10/19/yes-means-fear/
October 21st, 2014 at 8:00 am
Damn, its taken me 3 days to read all the posts…..feck there’s a whole new page of comments, anyway:
I’m newly red pill awakened, 3 months. I answer yes to all Rollo’s questions. I am/was a bitter beta provider husband, not understanding why my career minded wife never appreciated my efforts to enable her to pursue her career. Forget in terms of sex, just appreciating what her partner does for her. It’s taken me 9 months and marriage counselling for her to muster an apology (will not try that again) of the impact her actions have had on our marriage. Game has taught me what @NewYorker mentioned
‘Game provides a basic understanding of what he can expect from women.’
and I’m with @Glenn at
‘I’m now not angry about any of it anymore. ‘
I’m no longer all consumed every spare moment I have with bitterness towards her and can spend that time focusing on self improvement. She is no longer the focus of my life and if she’s lucky she’ll be a complement.
October 21st, 2014 at 11:33 am
@FM @David W
I instigated marriage counselling, for years our relationship panned out like this. Her complaint has to be listened to and I had to apologise for actions, show remorse and try be a better husband. My complaint, would be super ceded by a super complaint and back to square one. Can’t raise my voice as that’s aggressive.
So marriage counselling for me was a chance to have a level playing field where she had to listen to my complaints. What did I get, nothing, a meagre apology for her actions and she now expects me to move on. I was pretty shocked, but I was already becoming red pill aware.
What marriage counselling did for me was to confirm the existence of solipsism.
Now I’m trying to work out how to combine redpill/game into out marriage and to some extent I wonder do I really want to. If I lose the gut, pile on the muscle, wear smart threads. Do I want to be with someone who only wants me because I now look like a spartan.
October 21st, 2014 at 6:40 pm
[…] just scrolled through the comments thread in a recent Rollo post while eating pizza, I was sufficiently exasperated that I’m going to break my embargo on […]
October 21st, 2014 at 8:54 pm
[…] Game is exaggerated and doesn’t work. It’s unscientific. (b) Looks don’t matter. The only thing that matters is game. (c) Feminism is bad and the […]
October 22nd, 2014 at 2:44 am
[…] just scrolled through the comments thread in a recent Rollo post while eating pizza, I was sufficiently exasperated that I’m going to break my embargo on arguing […]
October 22nd, 2014 at 3:23 pm
@Siirtyrion has got it all wrong because a) selection can only act against the phenotype and b) behavioral factors do have a part to play in male attractiveness.
With regard to appearance, we can grant Siirtyrion symmetry and “masculinity” (honest signals). However, Siirtyrion remains silent on bodyfat and muscularity.
With regard to interpersonal traits, Siirtyrion states that “trying harder” or “overconfidence” indicate a “lack of fitness.” This is untrue. Several studies have demonstrated that attractiveness ratings fluctuate in tandem with group interaction. “Behavior” is an honest signal and the “handicap principle” applies to behavior as well.
Put crudely, acting like an asshole demonstrates that you can squander social capital, which indicates you can function without a group, which indicates that the group must value you.
Being overconfident indicates the same factors as confidence — you are literally elevating your station.
Indeed, all “game” boils down to is advocating “dishonest signals” by changing your behavioral phenotype.
October 22nd, 2014 at 7:03 pm
I don’t want to read all of this diatribe, but I got the gist of by reading excerpts. I write a comment every 3 years on internet, take it as a big compliment.
Let’s go ahead. I find it funny that some people want to say “game doesn’t work / it is not bringing benefit”.
It is axiomatic that experience analyzed with intelligence and translated in more advanced tactics works, improving results and decreasing effort. Learn from your mistakes and train, and you will be better at driving, at tennis, at fishing, at talking in public, at making women comply etc. I think it is a self-evident truth which is at the root of progress, civilization and individual growth. Game belongs to the same discussion.
So really; as an answer to “game doesn’t work ” meant as “practicing pragmatically the art of attracting women getting their compliance doesn’t bring greater results than random behavior” – LOL should be enough.
Game isn’t science, it is art. The player is a renaissance artisan; he makes masterpieces in his way with his method and his style; we go to him to see how to make a marvelous artistic gun. If we want to build artillery, we need factories, scientists and engineers, and we must transfom the art of gunsmith in heavy industries without magic; but it is all another topic.
If we want to critisize the ones who want to teach game, I would rather find it interesting to argue other statements, such as – “Being a great player or good with women, exactly as being a rockstar or a very good singer, cannot be really taught at all; we can teach you music, very general broad principles already known since centuries; real game that works for you within your potential (and never beyond) is inextricably tailored for each individual who developed it on the field, and you can just learn it yourself by experimenting with yourself”.
In reality, I know we can learn big time if we identify our kin, our situation and our needs; a few months ago I just gave a look to 2 documents about kino-escalation online (as a student gives a look to the cheat sheet) and by doing some calibrated escalation ladder, following and leading, I managed to get the kiss (and to be kissed when I want on request) from the Russian girl 3 points above me in terms of attractiveness (and 15/17 cm taller), who was my random guest somewhere, after getting rejected in a more assertive approach earlier. So game works also in terms of theory – practice.
I want to say about myself. I am a sigma definitely. I want more r-selection, although I don’t mind k-selection if it means the main girl accepts I bring another girl with us.
I’ve got and I am getting my fair share of women, around 20 in the last 3 years; my way is more the pimp than the player, it is more making them come to me than me going to them; it works for me; I’ve usually been in 2 or 3 relations at the same time.
I managed to fuck 2 girls under 20 in the same week last month (r-selection evolution), but worked hard and failed (kiss-closed systematically though) on the hottest one of 21, which I sent to fuck off (literally) when she flaked on me the day that was meant to be. HOwever I got girls of lower value coming to me in nightclub eliciting sex while I was doing nothing else than showing off my r-selected look.
In general, I can open even with cold approach…but I don’t like it because it is a weakness for me; it is a compliment; it is begging for attention. I don’t do it in general. But of course done authoritatively it is not bad, but it still the man asking for attention and giving a compliment, whichever way we turn it. It is a pedestal and I hate it.
Anyway . Krauser is very good. Gambler is very good. Different styles and different cases, I learn from both. I wouldn’t approach like Krauser in terms of quantity. I am busy with other things. However I am interested in the ability and mastery that comes with experience in huge amount to be used in given situations of higher quality.
So in general – trust me and trust commonsense. Game works. It can work for you. But you must work too. Don’t be a loser. Develop yourself.
November 7th, 2014 at 12:00 am
[…] bei Rationalmale heißt es dazu […]