I received this email some time ago, but I felt it needed some serious consideration to give the concept the justice it deserved.
Rollo — You’ve been a major help to my understanding the underlying dynamics between men and women. I’ve observed them in bits and pieces over the years but never really understood the whys behind them or how to turn them in our favor.
It seems like one mid-term focus you have is on male-male dynamics, specifically fathers and sons. But I also wonder whether you’d consider writing more about bonding and support between men and how those relationships can anchor men’s lives at a time when male relationships are regarded with skepticism by larger society. Lately it’s struck me that men tend to innately trust the men they know and distrust those they don’t (and that it’s often the reverse for women). This inclines us to believe women when they decry the “assholes” who have mistreated them in the past while women are empathetic and credulous toward women whose character they don’t know and whom they’ve never met.
Many of us out here are lacking strong male relationships, and our small social circles translate to fewer men we innately trust and more men we innately don’t. Women seem to regard male friendships as a luxury at best–we should be focusing on career, family, and her needs–while women’s friendships are seen as a lifeline in their crazy, have-it-all world. Indeed, a man discouraging his SO’s friendships is widely seen as a sign of emotional abuse, whereas the reverse is “working on the relationship.”
This strikes me as a deep but largely untapped Red Pill well and could provide essential guidance for men looking to live a proud, constructive Red Pill life however women and children might fit into it. I’d definitely welcome your insights in future entries.
Look forward to every post!
Back in February Roosh proposed (and attempted to initiate) a worldwide event that would be a sort of ‘gathering of the tribes’ with the intent of having men get together in small local gatherings to “just have a beer and talk amongst like-minded men.” My impression of the real intent of in putting this together notwithstanding, I didn’t think it was a bad idea. However, the problem this kind of ‘tribes meeting’ suffers from is that it’s entirely contrived to put unfamiliar men together for no other purpose than to “have a beer and talk.” The problem with unfamiliar men coming together simply to meet and relate is a noble goal, however, the fundamental ways men communicate naturally makes the function of this gathering seem strange to men.
The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.
Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.
[…]From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been a content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.
Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predisposition is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.
From this perspective it’s a fairly easy follow to see how the tendency of men to distrust unfamiliar (out-group) men might be a response to a survival threat whereas women’s implicit trust of any member of the ‘sisterhood’ would be a species-survival benefit to the sex that requires the most parental investment and mutual support.
Divide & Conquer
In our post-masculine, feminine-primary social order it doesn’t take a Red Pill Lens to observe the many examples of how the Feminine Imperative goes to great lengths to destroy the intrasexual ‘tribalism’ of men. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the social press of equalism has attempted to force a commonly accepted unisex expectation upon men to socialize and interact among themselves as women do.
The duplicity in this striving towards “equality” is, of course, the same we find in all of the socialization efforts of egalitarian equalism; demasculinizing men in the name of equality. A recent, rather glaring, example of this social push can be found (where else?) at Harvard University where more than 200 female students demonstrated against a new policy to discourage participation in single-gender clubs at the school. You see, women were very supportive of the breaking of gender barriers when it meant that men could no longer discriminate in male-exclusive (typically male-space) organizations, but when that same equalist metric was applied to women’s exclusive organizations, then the cries were accusations of insensitivity and the banners read “Women’s Groups Keep Women Safe.”
That’s a pretty fresh incident that outlines the dynamic, but it’s important to understand the underlying intent of the “fine for me, but not for thee” duplicity here. That intent is to divide and control men’s communication by expecting them to communicate as women do, and ideally to do so on their own accord by conditioning them to accept women’s communication means as the normatively correct way to communicate. As I’ve mentioned before, the most effective social conventions are the ones in which the participants willingly take part in and willingly encourage others to believe is correct.
Tribes vs. The Sisterhood
Because men have such varied interests, passions and endeavors based on them it’s easy to see how men compartmentalize themselves into various sub-tribes. Whether it’s team sports (almost always a male-oriented endeavor), cooperative enterprises, cooperative forms of art (rock bands have almost always been male space) or just hobbies men share, it is a natural progression for men to form sub-tribes within the larger whole of conventional masculinity.
Because of men’s’ outward reaching approach to interacting with the world around him, there’s really no unitary male tribe in the same fashion that the collective ‘Sisterhood’ of women represents. One of the primary strengths of the Feminine Imperative has been its unitary tribalism among women. We can see this evidenced in how saturated the Feminine Imperative has become into mainstream society and how it’s embedded itself into what would otherwise be diametrically opposed factions among women. Political, socioeconomic and religious affiliations of women (various sub-tribes) all become secondary to the interests of ‘womankind’ when embracing the collective benefits of being women and leveraging both their victim and protected statuses.
Thus, we see no cognitive dissonance when women simultaneously embrace a hostile opposition to one faction while still retaining the benefits that faction might offer to the larger whole of the Sisterhood. The Sisterhood is unitary first and then it is broken down into sub-tribes. Family, work, interests, political / religious compartmentalizations become sublimated to fostering the collective benefits of womankind.
While I can speculatively understand the socio-evolutionary underpinnings of how this psychological dynamic came to be, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out just how effective this unitary collectiveness has been in shaping society towards a social ideal that supports an unfettered drive towards women’s gender-coded need to optimize Hypergamy. This unitary, gender-primary tribalism has been (and is) the key to women’s unilateral social power – and even in social environments where women still suffer oppression, the Sisterhood will exercise this gender-tribalism.
Threat Assessments
Asserting any semblance of a unitary male tribalism is a direct threat to the Feminine Imperative. In The Threat I began the essay with this summation:
Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.
When I wrote this essay I did so from the perspective of women feeling vulnerable about interacting intimately with men who understood their own value to women and also understood how to leverage it. One of the reasons Game is so vilified, ridiculed and disqualified by the Sisterhood is because it puts this understanding into practice with women and, in theory, removes women from the optimization of Hypergamy. Red Pill awareness and Game lessens women’s control in that equation, which is sexy from the standpoint of dealing with a self-aware high SMV man, but also threatening from the perspective that her security depends on him acquiescing to her Frame and control.
Up to this point, Game has represented an individualized threat to women’s Hypergamous control, but there has always been a larger majority of men (Betas) who’ve been easily kept ignorant of their true potential for control. However, on a larger social landscape, the Feminine Imperative understands the risks involved in men forming a unitary tribe – a Brotherhood – based solely on benefitting and empowering men. The manosphere, while still effectively a collection of sub-tribes, represents a threat to the imperative because its base purpose is making men aware of their true state in a feminine-centric social order.
As such, any attempt to create male-specific, male-empowering organizations is made socially synonymous with either misogyny (hate) or homosexuality (shame). Ironically, the shame associated with homosexuality that a fem-centric society would otherwise rail against becomes an effective form of intra-gender shame when it’s applied to heterosexual collectives of men. Even suggestions of male-centered tribalism are attached with homosexual suspicions, and these come from within the collectives of men themselves.
The above picture is from an “academic” conference (class?) Mediated Feminisms: Activism and Resistance to Gender and Sexual Violence in the Digital Age held at UCL in London. There’s quite a bit more to this than just collecting and codifying the sub-tribes of the manosphere, more can be found here.
Now, granted, this conference is replete with all of the uninformed (not to mention willful ignorance) concern to be expected of contemporary feminists, but this does serve as a current example of how men organizing for the exclusive benefit of men is not just equated with misogyny, but potential violence. As a unitary collective of men, the manosphere terrifies the Feminine Imperative. That fear, however, doesn’t stem from any real prospective violence, but the potential for a larger ‘awareness’ in men of their own conditions and the roles they are expected to play to perpetuate a feminine-centric social order. They fear to lose the control that the ‘socially responsible’ ignorance of men provides them with.
Men’s predisposition to form sub-tribes and intrasexual competition (“lets you and him fight”) has always been a means of covert control by women, but even still the Feminine Imperative must insert its influence and oversight into those male spaces to make use of them. Thus, by assuring that feminine primacy is equated with the idea of inclusive equalism, all Male Space is effectively required to be “unisex space” while all-female sub-tribes must remain exclusively female. For an easy example of this, compare and contrast the reactions to Harvard’s unisex institution of campus club equalism to the worldwide reactions to, and preemption of, the “Tribe” meetings only attempted to be organized by Return of Kings in February.
Making Men
By controlling men’s intrasex communications with each other the Feminine Imperative can limit men’s unified, collective, understanding of masculinity and male experiences. Feminine-primary society hates and is terrified of men defining and asserting masculinity for themselves (to the point of typifying it as potentially violent), but as connectivity progresses we will see a more concentrated effort to lock down the narrative and the means of men communicating male experiences.
I’ve detailed in many prior posts how the imperative has deliberately misdirected and confused men about a unified definition of masculinity. That confusion is designed to keep men guessing and doubting about their “security in their manhood” while asserting that the feminine-correct definition is the only legitimate definition of healthy, ‘non-toxic’, masculinity. This deliberate obfuscation and ambiguity about what amounts to ‘authentic masculinity’ is another means of controlling men’s awareness of their true masculine potential and value – a potential that they rightly fear will mean acquiescing to men’s power over their Hypergamous social and personal control. Anything less than a definition of masculinity that fosters female primacy and fempowerment is labeled “toxic masculinity” – literally and figuratively poisonous.
This is the real, operative reason behind the obsessive, often self-contradicting, need for control of male space by the Feminine Imperative. Oversight and infiltration of male sub-tribes and instituting a culture of self-policing of the narrative within those sub-tribes maintains a feminine-primary social order.
Since the time in which western(izing) societies shifted to unfettering Hypergamy on a social scale there has been various efforts to demasculinize – if not outright feminize – the larger majority of men. Today we’re seeing the results of, and still persistent efforts of this in much starker contrast as transgenderism and the social embrace of foisting gender-loathing on boys becomes institutionalized. A deliberate promotion of a social constructivist narrative about gender identity and the very early age at which children can “choose” a gender for themselves is beginning to be more and more reinforced in our present feminine-primary social order.
As a result of this, and likely into our near future, today’s men are conditioned to feel uncomfortable being “men”. That discomfort is a direct result of the ambiguity and misguidance about conventional masculinity the imperative has fostered in men when they were boys. This feminization creates a gender loathing, but that loathing comes as the result of an internal conflict between the feminine-correct “non-toxic” understanding of what masculinity ought to be and the conventional aspects of masculinity that men need to express as a result of their biology and birthright.
Effectively, this confusion has the purpose of creating discomfort in men among all-male sub-tribes. These masculine-confused men have difficulty with intersocial communication within the sub-tribes they’re supposed to have some sort of kin or in-group affiliation with. Even the concept of “male bonding” has become a point of ridicule (something typical of male buffoons) or suspiciously homosexual , so, combined with the feminine identification most of these men default to, today’s “mangina” typically has more female friends and feels more comfortable communicating as women communicate. These men have been effectively conditioned to believe or feel that male interaction or organization is inherently wrong, uncomfortable or contrived, possibly even threatening if the organizing requires physical effort. Consequently, interacting as a male becomes ridiculous or superficial.
Pushing Back
What then is to be done about this conditioning? For all the efforts to destroy or regulate male tribalism, the Feminine Imperative still runs up against men’s evolved predispositions to interact with the outside world instead of fixating on the inside world of women. Below I’ve pieced together some actionable ideas that might help men come to a better, unitary way of fostering the male tribalism the Feminine Imperative would see destroyed or used as a tool of soci0-sexual control:
- While it is vitally important to maintain a male-specific mental point of origin, together men need a center point of action. Women talk, men do. Men need a common purpose in which the tribe can focus its efforts on. Men need to build, coordinate, win, compete and problem solve amongst themselves. The ‘purpose’ of a tribe can’t simply be one of getting together as like-minded men; in fact, groups with such a declared purpose are often designed to be the most conciliatory and accommodating of the Feminine Imperative. Men require a common, passionate purpose to unite for.
- Understand and accept that men will naturally form male hierarchies in virtually every context if that tribe is truly male-exclusive. There will be a reflexive resistance to this, but understand that the discomfort in acknowledging male hierarchies stems from the Feminine Imperative’s want to make any male authority a toxic form of masculinity. Contrary to feminine conditioning male hierarchies are not necessarily based on Dark Triad manipulations. That is the ‘fem-think’ – any male created hierarchy of authority is by definition evil Patriarchy.
- Recognize existing male sub-tribes for what they are, but do so without labeling them as such. Don’t talk about Fight Club, do Fight Club. As with most other aspects of Red Pill aware Game, it is always better to demonstrate rather than explicate. There will always be an observer effect in place when you call a male group a “male group”. That tribe must exist for a passionate reason other than the express idea that it exists to be about men meeting up. Every sub-tribe I belong to, every collective interest I share with other men, even the instantly forming ones that arise from an immediate common need or function, all exist apart from “being” about men coming together.Worldwide “tribe” day failed much for the same reasons an organization like the Good Men Project fails – they are publicized as a gathering of men just “being” men.
- Push back on the invasion of male space by being uncompromising in what you do and organize with passion. Make no concessions for women in any all-male space you create or join. There will always be a want to accommodate women and/or the fears of not being accommodating of feminine-primary mindsets within that all-male purview. Often this will come in subtle forms of anonymous White Knighting or reservations about a particular passion due to other men’s Blue Pill conditioning to always consider the feminine before considerations of themselves or the tribe. It is vitally important to the tribe to quash those sympathies and compromising attitudes as these are exactly the designs of the Feminine Imperative to destroy a tribe from within.Make no concessions for competency of women within the tribe if you find yourself in a unisex tribal situation. Even the U.S. military is guilty of reducing combat service requirements for women as recently as this month. If you are a father or you find yourself in a role of mentoring boys or young men it is imperative that you instill this no-compromise attitude in them and the organizations that they create themselves.
- The primary Red Pill / Game tenets that you’ve learned with respect to women are entirely applicable in a larger scope when it comes to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative. Frame and a return to a collectively male-exclusive Mental Point of Origin are two of the primary tenets to apply to non-intimate applications of resistance in terms of aspects of society. Observations and the Red Pill Lens should inform your interactions with women and men on a social scale.
Finally, I want to close by restating that my approach to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative on a meta-social scale is the same bottom-up approach I used with unplugging men from their Blue Pill doldrums. Once men have taken the first steps in Red Pill awareness this new perspective has a tendency to expound into greater social understandings and a want for applications beyond hooking up with desirable women. That Red Pill awareness becomes a way of life, but moreover, it should inform us as men, as tribes, about how best to maintain ourselves as masculine-primary individuals and organizations.
@Harrison “Where do you think he’d be right now reading this thread, without people here arguing that his looks don’t actually hold him back, if he didn’t have men telling him to stop whining, let go of the ego and that it’s entirely up to him to change?” It doesn’t even matter. It’s not about helping guys or a pride thing. It’s literally the things the looks matter crowd is saying are WRONG lol Like, even if that knowledge somehow set guys back I would still be having this discussion because all we care about is the truth about how… Read more »
kfg
more irrelevant shit
here….do you dispute that within human populations studied that height has a high h^2?
do you dispute that strongly selected for traits tend to exhibit low h^2 because as they move to fixation in a population, genetic variance dwindles?
@Sentient
That guy jumping out at the kid is threatening his survival/rep so he reacts to it instinctively. Subcomms trigger survival/rep (aka they = winning as scray puts it). Muscles, according to social conditioning, indicate a high likelihood of having those good survival/rep subcomms.
“We are literally SAYING that women have hardwired attraction triggers to subcomms that you can pro-actively flip.”
Third base!
kfg losing an arugment:
HABD – re visual cliff.. the fact that an innate response can be honed by learning isn’t negating the initial response.
“….do you dispute that within human populations studied that height has a high h^2?”
Relevant to selection pressures, yes, that’s what I said. The variance is tiny.
“do you dispute that strongly selected for traits tend to exhibit low h^2 because as they move to fixation in a population, genetic variance dwindles?”
No.
“That guy jumping out at the kid is threatening his survival/rep so he reacts to it instinctively.”
Of course he does. It is not conditioning.
kfg
‘Relevant to selection pressures, yes, that’s what I said. The variance is tiny.’
no, I asked you a simple question. Do you dispute that in studies on human populations a high h^2 for height has been found?
if you believe that h^2 is low and consequently, genetic variance is low within studied populations, you’re just wrong.
“kfg losing an arugment:”
Which is why I referenced a comedy routine.
Most of this argument appears to be people counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin, coming up with the same number, and fighting over it anyway.
@Sentient
“Of course he does. It is not conditioning.”
No one is saying it IS conditioning. But if he were to then be scared of his dad (aka the muscle, aka the visual of the cake), that wouldn’t be because his DAD is inherently scary biologically, it would be because he’s LEARNED through his CONDITIONING that his dad *REPRESENTS* things that are a threat to his survival/replication.
@Scray:
I do not dispute that the question relates to selection pressures. In one of your questions you have removed that from the equation.
Removing selection pressures from the equation, yes, I am considerably taller than my cousins the lemurs, who, if our families had been subject to the same selection pressures, I would look just like.
Within my breeding population however, I am within a millimeter or so of average height.
@kfg
” yes, I am considerably taller than my cousins the lemurs, who, if our families had been subject to the same selection pressures, I would look just like.”
k, once again, just answer the question: Do you dispute that in studies on —HUMAN—- populations a high h^2 for height has been found? (humans are not lemurs, you seem confused over that point and want to talk about multiple species instead of talking about HUMANS and the selection pressures operating WITHIN a species)
I found the cover art for this series of chick romance/soft porn interesting. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1938127633 All books in the series have the same core plot: Meet the Maverick Billionaires—sexy, self-made men from the wrong side of town who survived hell together and now have everything they ever wanted. But when each Maverick falls head-over-heels for an incredible woman he never saw coming, he will soon find that true love is the only thing he ever really needed… (really, same plot, just a new billionaire, just like porn for guys has same plot) the cover art is all the same. Just the… Read more »
@Rollo I’ve worked in advertising, marketing and branding my entire career. Yes, people are subject to the influences of social conditioning, but the success or failure of those efforts still works within the confines of the basic function of the machine. i don’t disagree with this, and i don’t Ya would either…bc this is EXACTLY what we are saying…vis arousal cues/ game/subcomms… I could market a box of dog shit as the next greatest confectionary, and I could probably get a few people to try it, but the physical revulsion most people would feel at eating it is founded in… Read more »
” . . . just answer the question . . .”
Your “simple” question is playing a rhetorical game by using the word “population.”
In terms of the genetic effects of selection pressures the word “population” and the phrase “breeding group” mean the same thing, but you are flipping back and forth between two different meanings of the word “population.”
” . . . humans are not lemurs, you seem confused over that point . . .”
My family is my family. I won’t erase them just because they look a little funny to me.
@kfg
“In terms of the genetic effects of selection pressures the word “population” and the phrase “breeding group” mean the same thing, but you are flipping back and forth between two different meanings of the word “population.””
nope.
i specified HUMAN populations that have been STUDIED. it’s very specific.
either you can answer simple questions or you can’t. seems like you can’t.
“My family is my family”
i didn’t ask about your ‘family.’ here is the question again for your benefit:
Do you dispute that in studies on —HUMAN—- populations a high h^2 for height has been found?
“Do you dispute that in studies on —HUMAN—- populations a high h^2 for height has been found?”
Given the correct definition of “population” I have already answered in the affirmative, multiple times.
Freak shows exist because freaks appear freakish.
Yareally
“No one is saying it IS conditioning.”
except when you are saying it…
““But this is still different, as there are visceral reactions your body experiences before any cognition is experienced. Do you agree with this or not?”
THAT IS SOCIAL CONDITIONING.”
and so it goes.
“Freak shows exist because freaks appear freakish.”
Which comes back to social conditioning/reference experience. Look at these freaky white people and that freaky drone, what freaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRkx__pFfkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ide5YjD6AhI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edgv7UH_LxY
@Sentient
“and so it goes.”
You are lumping EVERYTHING everyone does into one category. We’re saying there are things that are biologically hardwired and things that are not.
@Sentient This is a false assumption though… because I am not a natural… I was invisible to girls, then visible, then developed proto game on my own, then tried to live a socially conditioned BP life, then was depressed, then got into game and studied and applied it. ok, fair enough… I’ve seen all sides. And I agree great game beats all else. But it is also readily observable in field the “shock” moment instant IOI’s… and not just those directed to me… you can watch this anywhere as a good looking dude appears. Same reactions. does that good-looking dude… Read more »
“We’re saying there are things that are biologically hardwired and things that are not.”
That is what I have expressly said, and have even noted that humans are remarkably plastic with regards to conditioning. See Sentient, Abbot and Costello.
@kfg
“Is it a sneaker that can impregnate a girl?”
The fact that it cannot, but can generate a sexual response is the point. All there is to respond to is the size, shape and color, which approximate that of a dove.
aaaand, the meaning attached those sneakers as status symbols (dudes get shot over the wrong shoes, yo…lol)… or ‘loser’ symbols…lol…
chuck taylors… air jordans… #3…
and ALL informed by social conditioning…
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/plain-sight-status-symbols-n326011
good luck!
Today’s Savage Love has interesting point (that he has made before) about pLTR: It is a truth universally acknowledged—in the poly universe anyway—that a married poly woman will have an easier time finding sex partners than a married poly man. Some men in open/poly relationships present themselves as dishonest cheaters rather than honest nonmonogamists because women would rather fuck a married man who’s cheating on his wife than a married man who isn’t cheating on his wife. This was in reply to the usual wife doesn’t want to fuck husband: let me say that I adore my husband in all… Read more »
@kfg
” . . . drawn this discussion down a retarded rabbit hole.”
Past a certain point I tried to sit out. I failed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU
lol…
good luck!
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate?language=en
@kfg ‘Given the correct definition of “population” I have already answered in the affirmative, multiple times.’ you haven’t given the correct definition of population. the words are HUMAN POPULATION. population — ‘a group of people or animals of a particular kind that live in a place’ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/population so human population means a group of HUMANS that live in a particular place. so ONCE AGAIN. CAN you answer the simple question or can you not? Do you dispute that in studies on —HUMAN—- populations a high h^2 for height has been found? ‘Freak shows exist because freaks appear freakish.’ lol and… Read more »
“chuck taylors… air jordans… #3…”
Historically black Keds, but I go with Chucks now because they come in mono black, even the tongue tag which is easily removed anyway. I wish Addidas Sambas came in mono black. They’re pretty good for cycling.
@rollo
yawn
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/making-hay-with-straw-men
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/bsi/article/viewFile/81/100
http://www.behavior.org/resources/125.pdf
http://facts4u.com/free/TheAlmostBlankSlate.pdf
it really just isn’t that simple
and the only way you guys can even attack me and Ya is to assume we are saying NOTHING is innate or biological or whatever, when that’s not what we’re even saying…..
…much how Pinker mischaracterizes his opponents. cool!
@kfg
‘That is what I have expressly said, and have even noted that humans are remarkably plastic with regards to conditioning. See Sentient, Abbot and Costello.’
no you guys aren’t saying that. you actually have no idea what you’re even talking about
your go-to ‘point’ is the fact that LOOK SOME THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY’RE INNATE THIS MUST DISPROVE YOUR SIDE!
it’s so off the mark that it’s just pretty much like lol some people get it some people can’t i guess
Feminism: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
Force: physical strength, power, or effect
I don’t rely on Merriam-Webster for the definitions of technical jargon. That said:
” . . . that live in a place . . .”
. . . they agree with me.
@kfg
“. . . they agree with me.”
no, they don’t, you just don’t have any clue about the science here.
anyway, you dispute that within human populations that have been studied high h^2’s have been found. that’s wrong, go read wiki. case closed.
LOOK SOME THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY’RE CONDITIONED.
The question is, how to distinguish the one from the other.
It isn’t a new question.
@scray “it’s so off the mark that it’s just pretty much like lol some people get it some people can’t i guess” I honestly have no idea how to get what we’re saying across at this point. It’s so logical and simple and they’re just going off on the most random tangents and avoiding questions and counter-evidence to their point to avoid the blatantly obvious conclusion that goes against their conditioning. It’s like watching Stormtroopers shooting everywhere but the actual target lol I have legitimately never encountered this kind of logic resistance before. In the PUA community we just know… Read more »
“case closed.”
You have to say it three times to make it so.
@kfg
mmhm
when asked about human populations you talked about lemurs and then tried to say that somehow the ‘correct’ definition of ‘human population’ included lemurs…
if you have something cognizable to say, say it.
@ya
“It’s so logical and simple and they’re just going off on the most random tangents”
this dude is talking about fucking ligers and lemurs and siamese cats
lol
I honestly have no idea how to get what we’re saying across at this point. It’s so logical and simple and they’re just going off on the most random tangents and avoiding questions and counter-evidence to their point to avoid the blatantly obvious conclusion that goes against their conditioning.
They are too ego invested and there is nothing you can say. Instead of trying to convince them, which is useless, just contribute as it helps others here
@Scray: If you don’t understand that you share certain genetic traits with your cousins because you share grandparents, but have genetic variance because you do not share parents, I can understand why you don’t understand. A human is a type of fish. It has innate fishiness, because its great . . . great grandparents were fish. And there’s nothing that can be done about. If you somehow manage to remove the fishiness, you also remove the humanity. The difference between you and your cousin the perch is that your ancestors grew up in different places. The same for humans who… Read more »
@kfg “If you don’t understand that you share certain genetic traits with your cousins because you share grandparents, but have genetic variance because you do not share parents, I can understand why you don’t understand.” lol and this is irrelevant to the discussion….. “A human is a type of fish. It has innate fishiness, because its great . . . great grandparents were fish.” lol same “You can learn 99 44/100% of everything you need to know about human anatomy by disassembling a chicken. Quite a bit about human psychology as well.” same “Evolution is cumulative.” ‘Your spine is that… Read more »
@Scray: If we’re talking about fucking, we’re not talking about people who don’t fuck. The difference in average height between the Maasai and the Aka is about a foot. That is not a large difference. It only seems large to us because of innate bias. But the difference in height between the majority of Maasai and the majority of Aka is only a matter of inches. Almost no variance at all. The Maasai and the Aka live in different places, with different selection pressures and don’t fuck each other. The Masaai fuck Masaai where the Masaai live, and the Aka… Read more »
@kfg ‘If we’re talking about fucking, we’re not talking about people who don’t fuck.’ you STILL don’t get it WITHIN a population people are fucking “The difference in average height between the Maasai and the Aka is about a foot. That is not a large difference. It only seems large to us because of innate bias.” first you’re now talking about differences BETWEEN and not WITHIN populations second, this woo-woo ‘ah it’s our own bias’ thing you’re relying on is undone by the ACTUAL h^2 NUMBERS…when > 60% of variation on a trait in a population is from variance in… Read more »
Run down a list of bad sub coms and good sub coms and I will show you how each of those behaviors and/or their accompanying mindsets are intimately linked to evolved survival traits. You’ve already confirmed that looks, facial symmetry, body habitus, etc. convey the potential for good sub coms which in turn denote the potential for survival benefits – ergo good sub coms are attractive. We also know that women practice a Hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy to secure the best genetic potential with the best provisioning / security potential in a mate. (Or have we come to throwing that… Read more »
Not to sidetrack this amazing discussion ( lol, not that I ever could..) But all of this talk has made me Wonder like Stevie, is there a significant difference in picking up girls/women at a bar, club or function, and just picking them up wherever they happen to be? As far back as I can remember, I might have picked up maybe 4 or 5 chicks for sex from bars or clubs, not counting strippers. I’ve also watched/seen/heard women preparing to go out to clubs and bars, commenting that they were intending to get fucked that night. So let’s just… Read more »
“I honestly have no idea how to get what we’re saying across at this point. It’s so logical and simple and they’re just going off on the most random tangents and avoiding questions and counter-evidence to their point to avoid the blatantly obvious conclusion that goes against their conditioning.” Because your examples either are contradictory or fail to refute the premise that there is a biological basis for attraction. You bring up points that are consistent with the premise, i.e. social conditioning, but it does not refute the premise, despite attempts at looping in outlier examples. So you yourself keep… Read more »
@blax ” So let’s just say for the hell of it, that 30% of chicks in any given bar or club are hunting for Tyrannosaurus Dickem that evening, does that make them subject to a lower level of subcomm strength?” no. remember when i said that it’s all about social status which boils down to your social subcomms + circumstances? chicks who go out to get fucked are still looking for high social status, but they’re more focused on raw subcomms and care less about circumstances and situational shit. so they’re easier to bed in situs where people are resisting… Read more »
To all the out of shape men.
To all the fat men.
To all the shorties.
To all the baldies.
I finally agree with you. Don’t improve your looks.
Hell, it’s better for me ,lol.
You stay ugly and fat and grow that beer belly bigger and bigger.
Women loves hairy men too.
Small dicks are every woman’s dream.
Yeahhhhhh.
Lmao.
Fagiculture.
” ‘going out’ can be any social event.
‘sarging’ mostly only really works in environments where you have a high level of anonymity tho, so bars and clubs — that are crowded — are ideal.”
Thanks scray.
@rollo We also know that women practice a Hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy to secure the best genetic potential with the best provisioning / security potential in a mate. (Or have we come to throwing that entirely out of Red Pill awareness since it’s all socially preconditioned and women will fuck ligers and dogs?)” except we don’t because once AGAIN a HUGE meta-review of all the ovulation research turned up a) almost zero statistically significant differences in mate preference and b) pretty much no differences of even small effect…. ….idk how many counter-examples it takes to disconfirm theories around these parts… Read more »
@Scray, yes, one already debunked by Haselton/Gangstad:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/
Because that’s what their fishier ancestors did. Big fish ate little fish. Little fish avoided big fish. By reflex.
and here we have been avoiding skunks, snakes and tigers, when we should have been using logic
“masculinity vary widely across cultures”
I agree with you, Scare.
Women on Mars. Hate, hate hate hate biceps muscles.
Recently declassified CIA documents, SHOWED, UFO women loved man boobs.
@sentient
“Because your examples either are contradictory or fail to refute the premise that there is a biological basis for attraction. ”
NO ONE SAID THERE WASN’T ONE.
lol
@Rollo
We also know that women practice a Hypergamous dualistic sexual strategy to secure the best genetic potential with the best provisioning / security potential in a mate.
However doing things like getting jacked and wearing suits do not improve a male’s genetic potential (it is what it is) so women will have other metrics for assessing genetic potential, much which will operate instinctively
” . . . skunks . . .”
Some things even dogs have to learn about the hard way.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/Behavioral%20Ecology-2015-Haselton-beheco-arv116.pdf
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/gangestad%20et%20al.%20cycle%20methods%20EHB.pdf
@rollo
that’s not debunking, that’s a lot of jive epicycling to avoid the data. the authors of the meta-analysis tried that too to avoid the CLEAR data that was a) mostly non stat sig and b) of almost zero effect size —- that’s like a double whammy of lolno.
the fact that there’s a huge debate right now over it means that you are incorrect, we don’t ‘know’ any of that….
it’s just a hypothesis that is far from being anywhere near confirmed scientifically.
Oh bullshit. GTFOH you’re gonna just dismiss the findings of over 20 years of research because it doesn’t confirm your own biases. Which is also the reason there’s a debate about it, the findings are unflattering.
Why are you even posting here? For all it matters if women will fuck dogs it also disproves every tenet of RSD too.
Red, “However doing things like getting jacked and wearing suits do not improve a male’s genetic potential (it is what it is) so women will have other metrics for assessing genetic potential, much which will operate instinctively”
I agree. Other metrics like big dicks ( I mean small dick with bigger balls?)
Scary, “it’s just a hypothesis that is far from being anywhere near confirmed scientifically.”
I agree Scary. Being short and fat (with man boobs too(?)) Have and had been confirmed scientifically being a better genetic material .
” . . . if women will fuck dogs it also disproves every tenet of RSD too. ”
Check out the sub-coms on this hot hunk:
http://www.organicfacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Cucumber.jpg
http://memeshappen.com/media/created/HELLO-I39M-MORGAN-FREEMAN-AND-I39M-ONLY-HERE-FOR-THE-COMMENTS-meme-9285.jpg
@rollo ‘GTFOH you’re gonna just dismiss the findings of over 20 years of research because it doesn’t confirm your own biases. ‘ i didn’t dismiss it. you said you KNOW i pointed you to a meta-analysis that has RAW DATA that FLIES IN THE FACE of what you say we ‘know.’ you want to do science, do it right and stop IGNORING things that flatly contradict what you ‘know.’ ‘Which is also the reason there’s a debate about it, the findings are unflattering.’ if there’s debate surrounding it, no one knows shit, which is my point. no one’s debating newtonian… Read more »
And I posted you over 20 scientifically peer reviewed studies and experiments, one a direct rebuttal to the hamfisted attempt to discredit that research, by only one of the dozens of top researchers doing them for over 20 years.
Your response: we can’t KNOW anything.
Your response: women will fuck dogs but we know the sub coms Are attractive
So we must know something right? Is there any evolutionary theory you credit or believe is valid?
They always back their “ego investments” in ridiculous photos of 1 man in bikini.
They never show their audience the Videos (where their Gods) get rejected.
They make it look like they get ALL the women , all success and no failure.
And remember, they do their videos for a living.
90% of the women they show in their videos, are all average looking women.
In the power of Lord Jesus, I healed you.
Now, get up and walk! , I can walk, I can walk.
Benny hinny didn’t believe in paying for hospitals, just come to his healing rally.
Is he still in business?
http://66.media.tumblr.com/8fc83aee1a2e8b9263e7e3ea2c92e8e2/tumblr_nl93kgJPOq1sj3oxho1_400.gif
@quixotic @yareally “Nice FR man! Glad to see you pushing your comfort zone.” Well, it was good I got back in the game. I wasn’t really pushing boundaries. I’ve done all the stuff in the FR before, including drinking a girl’s beverage without asking. I’ve also stolen their other items before, lol. One girl was wearing at hat so I grabbed it on put it on my hat. Then I went around to people talking about how cool I was now that I made this new hat fashion. It looked ridiculous, ofc, but everyone thought it was funny. She kept… Read more »
Jesus, we’re still arguing over this looks versus game bs? Lol.
Everyone seems to agree on 98% of things, but we’re bitching over the 2% that there is disagreement.
Can we agree to disagree and move on to other subjects? I don’t see anyone changing their opinions on the issue any time soon.
@Yareally “But like scray says: the wide variety of body types of men means height/muscles weren’t selected for or we would all be giant buff dudes.” Its pretty shaky to look at current phenotypes, created under the selection pressures of a system that no longer exists and point to them as evidence for anything. The whole reason this site exists is due to social change in society where the “every beta gets a woman” rule has been trashed and postmodern sexuality has ironically gone more primitive. Said another way, what you see now is evidence of selection pressures that had… Read more »
Now, In Donkey society, a donkey PUA, will train his donkey friends how to get the best ass (that is a female donkey) and he can prove what works. If a horse came to visit the donkeys, the donkey PUA will do whatever it takes to discredit the horse in the eyes of his donkey friends. He will say all the things (donkeys logic) to disqualify the horse from mating with one of their female donkey. There is only one thing missing in that PUA donkeys mind, which is : The house have no interest in a female donkey, the… Read more »
“And I posted you over 20 scientifically peer reviewed studies and experiments, one a direct rebuttal to the hamfisted attempt to discredit that research, by only one of the dozens of top researchers doing them for over 20 years. Your response: we can’t KNOW anything. Your response: women will fuck dogs but we know the sub coms Are attractive So we must know something right? Is there any evolutionary theory you credit or believe is valid?” This is exactly it. I have no idea how Yareally and Scary are even arguing against all this research…. The only evidence they have… Read more »
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
@ hank – Sometimes, the only way to refute a scientific study is with other studies that state an opposite position/data. I get what Ya and scray and Rollo and everybody is saying on the looks/subcomm/social conditioning/biology-evo subject, and it’s all very close. There are some grey areas, and some provable Black and White areas. It’s hard to argue, imo, against numbers with field/life experience. BELIEVE ME I KNOW THIS…. Lol. I’m supposed to be a poor, lazy, low IQ having, criminally minded, genetically inferior sub human being, according to many ” studies ” I’ve been confronted with. But I… Read more »
http://www.themodernman.com/wp-content/uploads/fat-guy-skinny-girl-pool.jpg
Look what a wonderful genetic material.
I see that all all around. In fact, wherever I go, I see nothing but guys like him with babes like her. It’s flooding the economy.
And that fat guy, according to 3000 scientific studies, SHOWED : there was no risk of heart attack, no risk of diabetes, no risk of cholesterol, and he can run pretty fast when being attacked by a bear.
Blax “So I query, is it tougher in bars and clubs because of higher competition in a smaller space? Or is it easier because it’s like a lion raiding the watering hole filled with antelope and wildebeest?” You kind of answer your own question here. I say it is tougher merely because girls “going out” are invariably with other girls and you need to navigate that – ASD, cockblocking, isolating etc. all is harder than for example daygame or hitting individual women (one sets) in bars. And then you have the “Golden Hour” and the mad rush of guys all… Read more »
@Rollo In one of the research articles you referenced, it states: Research employing similar measures designed for men has shown that men desire a level of muscularity that is greater than the level found attractive by women (Frederick & Haselton, 2003; Olivardia et al., 2004), and that men over- estimate the level of muscularity women find ideal (Olivardia et al., 2004) and the level women desire in a short-term sexual partner (Frederick & Haselton, 2003). … These results indicate that, as predicted, Female- Audience magazines present representations of the ideal male body that are less muscular than Male- Audience magazines.… Read more »
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU.
Red,” being jacked provider beta! Being fat is tingle alpha! Lol.
Being fat is tingle alpha
you are drawing the wrong conclusions from the research papers (or if you have chosen to ignore them, from social media)
Redlight:
If I need somebody to fight for my life, I’m going with this guy:
http://jasonferruggia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/US-Olympic-gymnastics-trials_2_1.jpg
Not this guy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-quWjjxngHSM/Txyoj6tSZKI/AAAAAAAABWA/sW3y5QuVhv8/s1600/Ronnie%2BColeman%2B43.jpg
There is downward selection pressure on size as well.
http://fathersmanifesto.net/gaussianheightmenwomen.png
Standard deviation is 2.9.
@rollo “And I posted you over 20 scientifically peer reviewed studies and experiments, one a direct rebuttal to the hamfisted attempt to discredit that research, by only one of the dozens of top researchers doing them for over 20 years. Your response: we can’t KNOW anything.” the meta-analysis covered 45 PUBLISHED studies so……your ’20’ peer reviewed studies is w/e and likely come from the same data set. and for whatever reason you left out the rebuttal to the rebuttal…. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276528210_Reply_to_Gangestad%27s_2015_Comment_on_Wood_Kressel_Joshi_and_Louie_2014 and one of the papers you linked to tacitly acknowledges one of the underlying reasons pointed out by Wood for… Read more »
” . . . doesn’t seem like there’s a ton of variance wrt that general process, which means that those behaviors and that feedback loop was probably selected for.”
Winning and phenotype are not independent variables.
@kfg
“Winning and phenotype are not independent variables.”
cool, never said that….
different environments produce winning phenotypes which would make the feedback loop very useful and allow the species to occupy many different niches…
and i get that you have your schtick but
https://zippy.gfycat.com/RespectfulHorribleCicada.mp4
“different environments produce winning phenotypes which would make the feedback loop very useful and allow the species to occupy many different niches…”
We have come to own the macro world.
@kfg
“We have come to own the macro world.”
yes….
….in many different ways in many different places
@Scary,
You will never know how it feels to be 6’2 and get checked out when you enter any space.
You will never experience what is it like to get approached by women.
You will never understand why men with good genetic (and game) don’t bother to approach.
A Hb9s can never understood being in the shoes of a HB 5.
Sorry body, we weren’t created equal.
That’s why not every man can become
Einstein.
Oh look, some new infield videos to add to the evolutionary debate:
https://sirtyrionlannister.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/women-appraise-male-attractiveness-in-a-glance/
By the way Rollo, how many women you had biting on your chin (or grabbing your jaws).
Some patients ‘will never be happy’….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-17/labiaplasty-patients-prompted-by-negative-comments-study/7418188
@kfg “I have not seen anyone here claim that game doesn’t work.” No one is saying that anyone here is saying game “doesn’t work”. This hasn’t been about “does game work” in 10+ pages. This is about “muscles = attractive” @Blaximus “is there a significant difference in picking up girls/women at a bar, club or function, and just picking them up wherever they happen to be?” In terms of what you trigger, no. The same SUBCOM triggers (confidence, assuming attraction, preselection, social proof, leading, good eye-contact, etc) are all the same. But there are differences mainly in the external situation… Read more »
Looks matters
Game matters
but you need a look and game that matches your look.
Yareally – i love your stuff but the video titled “Very Handsome Guy Picks Up 2 Girls” is a poor one to use for your argument. i.e. the initial guy being “very handsome” and all.
So you have a handsome, fit, muscular guy (with some Caliente level game) in set, and another guy (who may be slightly taller) who is thinner (and maybe gay) and has bad game comes in set and can’t pull. and this is proving something?
You missed on this one as an example.
is it easier to pick up girls at night vs the day?
reckon the important question is not works best in general but what works best for a specif man
@Sentient “So you have a handsome, fit, muscular guy (with some Caliente level game) in set” So he has good subcomms. “and another guy (who may be slightly taller)” Height = attractive, right? Since looks matter? So the girl should be switching to him. He’s clearly outgoing and extroverted compared to the other guy, he’s not standing in a corner or anything. So why doesn’t she switch? “who is thinner” So exactly what bodyfat % is the best? And what do you say about the bigger guys I pointed out (yellow jacket in video 1 and big white shirt guy… Read more »
No disrespect, but damn, I guess some guys have a lot of time on their hands for mental masturbation. I’ve been too busy learning new stuff at work to offer anything remotely useful for you. Rollo, KFG and Ya reinforce a lot of foundational stuff. The debate is healthy and always interesting here, but it’s to damn nice outside to jerk off on the keyboard anymore than this short comment. At the very least it’s still great we have this space to hammer out these types of discussions. Blax nails it again with his Morgan Freeman meme image. I’m going… Read more »
fwiw, I’ve actually learned a little bit from this whole discussion. One thing I don’t get is how subcomms relate to cold reading, dhv stories, routines, adding value. Are social dynamics and subcomms interdependent?
I should probably just figure it out myself.
@Yareally “If your assertion is that “things always work X way (aka muscles = attractive and triggering hardwired hardening nipples and wet pussies)” and we have ENDLESS hours of infield footage showing that things DON’T always work that way (buff gay guy singing britney spears, death row full of jacked dudes every weekend who don’t get attraction/laid, etc), and ENDLESS hours of infield footage showing that things work the OPPOSITE way (skinny little PUAs triggering hardwired sexual attraction), then your theory is wrong and has to be re-evaluated and our evidence trumps your armchair theories and badly designed studies over… Read more »
Yareally “So you have a handsome, fit, muscular guy (with some Caliente level game) in set” So he has good subcomms.” You are veering into a full on cognitive dissonance meltdown now. Refer to the first 6 words above, which you ignore completely in your effort to post a litany of strawmen, or refer to the very title of your exemplar “Very Handsome Guy”… There is no argument that subcomms and game (game encompassing a broader set of actions than subcomms) will overcome any initial looks based attraction. Strawman and ad hominem all you want. We can disagree about the… Read more »
“So you keep hitting on looks do “matter” at least to the extent that they are a factor in initial attraction, then spend 5k words trying to disagree with yourself…”
@Sentient
Serious question. Why do you care so much? Looks = social conditioning + subcomms. He keeps saying it over and over again, and you’re obsessed with the fact that it generates IOI’s? I just don’t get what the problem is.
Andy – a) I disagree with your equation. b) I disagree with your assertion c) the “problem” is saying one thing, then saying 10,000 other things to try and negate the one thing.
@bromeo “The reason all the infield footage is of skinny dudes picking up is because that is the outlier.” It’s also proof that game can overcome looks. “This is why you don’t see videos of jacked guys recording themselves for hours infield, any dude that sees that will automatically dismiss it and say “that guy is jacked, obv hes going to pull”” Just like yareally’s excuse for not getting his ass in shape 😉 All his buddies would then attribute his success to his looks and completely ignore the rest, even if they KNEW him when he was chubby, poor… Read more »
@ SJF and Rollo, I do have an idea on how the guys in this Forum or other red pill site can join up offline while the activity itself would remain anonymous from those anti-red pill. Here’s what I propose. (1) I will design an app that only members here can download. So, the question remains how can we ensure it’s only legit that will have access? Well, Rollo can send out an invitation to those on his subscription list and attached to that invitation will be a quiz of basic red pill principles. Members will have to respond and… Read more »
“how is 17 better?” the best way to understand a product is to experience it through it’s entire development. under 20 does not mean 15, 16 or 17, so web puas cannot offer insight into something they have never experienced. web puas are absolutely correct about subcomms/game being the driver – for girls that have aged OUT OF PRIME. girls in their prime are the prize. as they age out, men become the prize. every guy here realizes he’s the prize because it’s true. when guys are older. girls in their prime do you not fuck guys based on subcomms.… Read more »
Morning project: reinforce bedframe