Roissy has a good post on the relation between HBD and PUA.
He notes that some HBD bloggers are skeptical about game; they basically say that genes will out in both spheres, so that the chances of a man improving his love life through learned skills is nil. Girls go for the natural alphas - the explanation goes.
What I would add to Roissy's explanation is the overlap between HBD and some form of rightist politics. Obviously, since conservatives argue that some things about society are so near immutable that we should be very wary about messing with them, and since, as Roissy notes, the truth about HBD is everywhere covered up these days, it's no surprise that right-leaning folks see the point in emphasizing HBD.
The problem is that many of these conservatives look at the old paradigm - girl meets responsible, intelligent, hard-working boy and immediately sees that he'd be the perfect father for her children - for bedrock reality. As Roissy has tirelessly documented, this has all drastically changed in ways that we're all familiar with. Genes haven't changed, but society has undergone a revolution, freeing women to follow their basest instincts and freeing men to use those to their advantage.
That's another reason besides Roissy's why some HBD types are skeptical of PUA. What conservatives see as unchanging human nature was in fact a product of the civilization that is barely still with us.
@ On a side note, betas having more kids than alphas is not necessarily evidence that they are better with women... Number of kids is a poor measure of alphaness in this hedonistic day and age.
ReplyDeleteThis summarizes it up pretty well. In other forums I have complained so much about the extreme liberal aberration of extrapolating wolf behavior to humans that I am afraid I must iterate what I’ve written elsewhere:
Quote:
To demonstrate why the traditional marriage is for winners and “sex games” for losers, let’s indulge in the language of science.
In biology, success is measured by the number of descendants that an organism leaves. But since most of all of the descendants of a Don Juan who doesn’t care for his offspring may die prematurely, this definition is tentative and must be modified. Oxford zoologist David Lack argued that, for each species, natural selection favors the size of the offspring that results in the most of them surviving to maturity: a more accurate definition.
But we can further define fitness as the relative (i.e., compared to the other guys, including the so-called “alphas”) ability of a male to survive and leave offspring that themselves survive and leave offspring. This is standard biological theory, and what matters most is not the actual value of a male’s fitness in terms of the number of his progeny that survive to reproduce, but which individuals have higher fitness than others.
Here’s where the critics of “gamers” are right when applying this definition to Homo sapiens. From the fitness viewpoint, what is the quality of living for human bastards (David Lack studied birds)? In our species fitness is a relative measure, with the fittest humans in a population being assigned the value 1. Alas, the Jews, are #1 according to this definition. But there’s a positive side to it: Take heed of their lifestyles! Traditional Jews aren’t Casanova-esque alphas!
If the fittest human male in a population is assigned the value 1, I would call that guy Abraham (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”, Exodus 32:13). All other individuals have their fitness expressed as fractions or proportions of 1 compared to the Abraham paradigm, who was everything except a degenerate “alpha” male or a Don Juan.
/end quote
Men such as the one who wrote “Number of kids is a poor measure of alphaness in this hedonistic day and age...” are actively, and perniciously, contributing to the West’s suicide. There’s not the slightest doubt about it.
My full post explaining this claim can be read: here.
The problem with your analysis is that hardly anyone believes that "maximize fitness" is a Kantian-style moral imperative. Showing that a given lifestyle does or does not maximize fitness has no moral bearing on human behavior.
ReplyDeleteDennis,
ReplyDeleteBut that’s not the point. Did you read my whole article? The point is that Casanovas are losers. Let me quote other part of it:
Quote:
“Game” is just another example of the liberals’ poisonous way of looking at things. However, since adolescents and young men are still fond of so-called “alphas”—as wrongly defined in today’s degenerate culture (the real alpha is the Aryan equivalent to Abraham)—, let’s ponder a little about the life of who is presumably the iconic case of “alpha” male in the West.
When my grandma was born, adolescents envied Casanova. But when later in my life I read a little of him I realized that, like every Don Juan, Casanova was a loser. “He will spend the night with the most pitiful harlot,” writes Stefan Zweig in his psychobiography about Casanova, “rather than sleep alone... We can hardly be surprised to find that the quality of his feminine provision is not always of the best… Enough for him, generally speaking, that she should be woman, vagina, his polar opposite in matters of sex, formed by nature to enable him to discharge his libido… Casanova’s collection is anything but a gallery of beauty.”
This is the antithesis of a solid and lasting marriage. Casanova was never really in love with anyone, and to boot he could not have bought women if we imagine him without his money. In fact, the Don Juan archetype, equipped above all with callousness, is the sworn enemy of women. According to Zweig, it is the person that women loathe and project onto the whole male sex. Like Casanova, the Neanderthals I happen to know don’t discriminate among women. “In wartime,” a Mexican saying goes, “any hole is a trench.” In Casanova’s maximum opus readers can see the same troglodytic view of women, from underage teenagers to shriveled women in their sixties: mere masturbatory objects. Awful…
Despite his countless coitus Casanova didn’t invest in his future in the traditional form of a warm family. We find him, in his old age, with syphilis at the shadow of an Austrian nobleman. Without his money women did not respect him. His last refuge was to write his memoirs, but during his lifespan no one pays attention to his manuscripts. The man wrote folio after folio for twelve hours a day for seven years only as a defense mechanism. “It was the only way in which I could hinder myself from becoming crazy,” confesses the old hermit. “For seven years I have been doing nothing else than write my memoirs… I look forward to being rational enough in my last illness to have all the manuscript burnt before my eyes.”
But Casanova didn’t do it and naive people glorified the adventures of this failed man after he died.
I really don't understand why everyone feels the need to attach some moral value onto the terms 'Alpha' and 'Beta'. That seems to be the crux of the objection over at your link, Chechar.
ReplyDeleteIn general I agree with the sentiment that high IQ people have created such a nice modern social infrastructure that low IQ individuals are now able to breed at alarming rates. In the old days, life was a lot harsher and IQ was more strongly positively correlated with reproductive success than it is today. There are plenty of studies indicating that in today's society, high IQ is actually a detriment to reproductive success. What all of this means is that the average IQ of society will tend to go down over time, while the variance of the IQ distribution will increase. I think that Charles Murray was right in voicing his fears about the increasing stratification of society along IQ lines and the eventual creation of a so called cognitive elite.
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty of evidence suggesting that higher IQ individuals and higher IQ racial groups are less sexually active relative to lower IQ individuals or groups. I've been demonized for advocating this publicly, but I've always supported William Shockley's suggestion that we create financial incentives for low IQ individuals to let themselves be voluntarily sterilized.
Roissy starts with a deliberately misleading statement (if not a lie):
ReplyDelete"[HBD] shares an underlying doctrine with PUA — namely, that evolutionary science can explain a lot about modern human behavior, whether ethnic, racial, or sexual."
HBD is a fact that has nothing to do with whether we can or cannot provide any evolutionary explanations of human behaviors. The only thing it shares with PUA is the belief in significant genetic component of behavioral phenotypes.
@ “I really don't understand why everyone feels the need to attach some moral value onto the terms 'Alpha' and 'Beta'. That seems to be the crux of the objection over at your link, Chechar.”
ReplyDeleteVery simple. So-called “alpha” males are, as Zweig said above, the sworn enemies of women. Because of so-called alphas’ behavior, the feminists are saying in their blogs that “all men are dogs”. To boot, the Don Juanes are also the enemies of their race (cf. my Abraham/Casanova example). And as if this was not enough, they’re the enemies of men, since it’s the promiscuous alphas who give a bad reputation to the rest of us. Finally, they are enemies of themselves (again, cf. the Casanova paradigm).
Women should be treated like princesses, not like harlots. Culturally, they are being created every day out of our ribs. It’s us, men, who have been driving the fair sex into madness in today’s naughty culture. Sexual mores must be revaluated back to the 1940s and 50s if the West is to survive. Let me finish this comment with another sentence from my article: “A few days ago I watched the DVD version of the 1959 film Journey to the Center of the Earth, which I had seen as a child on the silver screen. A deep nostalgia invaded me while seeing how Alec McEwen (Pat Boone) woos Lindenbrook’s niece Jenny (Diane Baker).”
What exactly is game? The use of evolutionary psychology to persuade females to have sex with you? And what exactly is HBD? The use of evolutionary psychology to dissuade minorities from mugging you and then raping your womenfolk?
ReplyDeleteYS, you support IQ eugenics? Ha! Fantastic! Welcome to the sewers. You'll find it's not so bad out here beyond the pale of respectability with the rest of us monsters. Just be careful about sharing that opinion with your coworkers.
ReplyDeleteThis theory is simply not the whole story. Some woman fall in love with smart (talented) men. Not because they are hoping to end up with a good provider and be taken care of but because smarts and/or talent are sexy in themselves, valuable in themselves. In addition, they have a high status in a select company. Do you understand what I am saying? In an EXCLUSIVE group of HIGHLY SELECT (as they think of themselves) individuals, it is much, much cooler to be Jacques Derrida than Brad Pitt or Bill Gates. I am one of these women. You can believe this or not, but I would have killed to have Jacques Derrida as my mate rather than any conventional alpha male (and no, he was not an alpha male - I'd met him).
ReplyDeleteI think that this idea of an absolute separation between culture and biology is too simplistic. Yes, we have our genes that have evolved a long time ago and strongly affect our behavior. But we also have our culture that re-wires us to some degree and also affects out behavior on a very fundamental level. You know the expression "mind over body." It is true. Or rather the body is to some significant degree subject to our thoughts. We don't know the "mechanism" yet, but we will.
I would like to add a comment to the Derrida comment. As a young girl of 12, say, I remember falling in love with movie or TV actors. But I distinctly remember that already at 14-15 I decided that it would be much cooler to fall in love with a director or a script writer of a movie ("because it is they, after all, who are the real creators").
ReplyDeleteWell, there's an even bigger picture I suppose - the whole universe of uncomfortable taboo reality, the hard truths of which interfere with the hopeful delusional fantasies of the left in their effort to build an impossible perfect utopia.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the strength of the evidence for HBD, you need HNU (Human Neurological Uniformity) to justify outrageous efforts to "correct" the education system to achieve the "real truth" of the equality of academic potential, "If only the conditions were just right".
Regardless of the field experience of GAME, you need to deny it in order to believe it is possible to create some kind of feminist pipe-dream society which is simultaneously healthy and functional - through the provision of constructive incentives for both genders to accept the sacrifices of stable family life.
Regardless of the logic of monetary macroeconomics, you must deny it in order to justify Keynesian orgies of deficit-financed wasteful excess to try to use the ratchet-effect and establish a new high baseline for permanent government expenditure.
And it goes on and on. Science, therefore, is no longer about a method to discover and understand the truth of the universe - it is a completely politically captured (and therefore corrupted) field of "Rhetoric", and has become just as absent in credibility, reliability, and trustworthiness and its power of influence in the general population has risen.
It would be nice if there were a place (besides "Mangan's" of course), that collected and logically organized a whole University of True-yet-Taboo Truth and Reality.
"Hey people, what your useless education system won't tell you or your kids, you can find here, courtesy of the New Union of Reactionaries. Bonus: This stuff actually *works* and doesn't just make endless excuses for itself, like the other guys."
I still really don't get the batshit insane reaction to anything 'Game' related, and the mental gymnastics otherwise intelligent people go through to lay all the world's ills at the feet of what is in all liklihood less than 1% of the population of the Earth.
ReplyDeleteThe defintion of 'Alpha' that gets tossed around by some of you is just some pejorative you have constructed because you view yourselves as 'Beta' (just like 100% of everyone that uses Game), and you have this idealized view of women that gets deconstruced by the realities of human sexual selection.
Here is a woman on the issue:
they have a high status in a select company. Do you understand what I am saying? In an EXCLUSIVE group of HIGHLY SELECT (as they think of themselves) individuals
She is describing 'Alpha'. High status, that isn't necessarily something objective, but a state of mind.
it is much, much cooler to be Jacques Derrida than Brad Pitt or Bill Gates.
Notice she is contrasting three men with fame, influence and status. She doesn't say that the homeless man that lives under the bridge near her house with crooked shoulders he got from being stabbed with a screw driver in a prison riot is preferrable to Brad Pitt. She would certainly 'settle' for Pitt should this apparently non-Alpha famous, influential, somewhat attractive, successful, exotic French Philosopher should prove unavailable to her.
What she says is true, in that there is variance to human sexual selection and it is probably in part due to biological differences between various women and the sum of their experience.
That doesn't mean that our minds float in a philosophical ether seperated from our biological urges. I didn't 'choose' to want to have sex with women, nor do I fully 'choose' which women I am attracted to. Believe me, it would be much easier if I could, through some act of meditation be attracted to the women that no one else wants, or to want none at all.
Women should be treated like princesses
Fine. Just make sure to treat yourself like the King. Or God.
Although that isn't what you meant. I have to point out that you are effectively advocating Matriarchy. You seem to think that if you defer to women (they are Royalty, you their vassal) that they will choose to entrust you with the reigns of society. Perhaps you should take a cab somewhere and dissuade yourself of the notion that being behind the wheel doesn't necessarily mean that you are in command. Aristotle had a bit to say on rule by women I believe, if you would prefer that over this Jewish fellow you are quoting.
The Abraham thing is an interesting contrast though. How should your Aryan alpha treat the women he is sleeping with contemporaenously in addition to his wife? What about your bastards with them? Is ole Abraham treatment of banishing them into the wilderness appropriate as well? He seems to fit the definition of Alpha pretty well. You have a family life, wife, kid, job; knock up your secretary, then fire her and deny any meaningful resources to your bastards.
Because of so-called alphas’ behavior, the feminists are saying in their blogs that “all men are dogs”.
Yes, and your girlfriend/wife will always remember that asshole that broke her heart, and will likely never mention the many men that were absolutely wonderful to her and treated her like a Princess that she never gave the time of day to.
This isn't even just women (although women are more prone to it). People will like you better if you treat them lik dirt. More appropriately, they will appreciate you more if you make them earn your affection. It's the creation of a psychological investment, and women tend to be more 'nurturing', conciliatory, diplomatic in their social interactions, especially with men. Being 'aloof' or even an outright asshole, then giving ground in her attempts to win you over is what will win her over.
The problem is that every time I read a game post, I see a different notion of what "alpha" and "beta" are supposed to mean. It's inconsistent. So I think we need to define our terms (and stick with them) before we can start arguing over the morality and validity of them.
ReplyDeleteThe second problem I have is with those who respond to objectors by simply saying "it's scientific" and "it's evolutionary" without much in the way of actual scientific research to go along with the claim. The wolf thing Chechar talks about is a good example - that seems to be the crux of many scientific arguments about game, and it's not a very good one.
@ People will like you better if you treat them lik dirt
ReplyDeleteYes: but only psychologically dissociated women like to be treated like shit. I learnt this not only from personal experience, but by reading a couple of books of Susan Forward. (Note: this subject is my real specialty: how child abuse produces dissociated women, or dissociated men, later in life.)
@ I have to point out that you are effectively advocating Matriarchy.
Nonsense. I advocate patriarchy. Did you read what I wrote above (“Sexual mores must be revaluated back to the 1940s and 50s if the West is to survive”)? Want to know my particularily nasty version of super-patriarchal views? OK, here we go! But first let me quote from the chapter “On Women” of Essays and Aphorisms by Schopenhauer:
/Quote:
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “man”.
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy.
Fundamentally, women exist solely for the propagation of the race... Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have provided incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value. What there ought to be is housewives and girls who hope to become housewives and who are therefore educated, not in arrogant haughtiness, but in domesticity and submissiveness.
/end quote
I used Schopenhauer’s 19th century views on women just as an intro to my thoughts about how women will likely be treated after the West collapses. Since I have already said it in another thread here at Mangan’s, suffice it to add this link to my whole article.
Women should be treated like princesses, not like harlots.
ReplyDeleteThey are already treated like princesses in the schools and in the legal system. A sense of entitlement is drummed into them (similar to blacks) at an early age that is unrealistic and a major reason for the loss of confidence in younger white males. I think people over 50, maybe even 40, have trouble understanding the extent of the brainwashing young people have undergone in the past couple of decades. Pretty much all the invective from conservatives against 'game' has a distinctly bitter geezerish feel to it.
There are problems with 'game' but if it can help reverse the Judeo-feminist indoctrination (really an emasculation) of young men then the geezers, who put them in this mess in the first place, should butt out.
"Women should be treated like princesses, not like harlots."
ReplyDeleteLOL
What if they are harlots? And entitled harlots who think they're princesses, at that!
"When a gathering of young men has had a good laugh at the expense of some poor unfortunate lover...the conversation generally turns to a debate on the question of whether it is better to approach women in the manner of Mozart's Don Jan or in that or Werther*....The character of Don Juan demands a greater number of useful virtues esteemed by the world: fearlessness which commands admiration, resourcefulness, zest, poise, wit and so forth.
ReplyDeleteDon Juans are prone to long periods of barrenness and to an extremely cheerless old age. Most men, however, never reach old age.
A man in love cuts a poor figure in the drawing-room in the evening, because one can only exercise skill and power over women to the extent that one regards their conquest in the same way as a game of billiards.
Love a la Werther opens the mind to all the arts, to all sweet and romantic impressions, moonlight, the beauty of the woods and of painting, in a word, to the feelings and enjoyment of the beautiful...It shows the way to happiness without riches. People like this do not run the risk of becoming sated.
Women gifted with minds of certain distinction, who once their first youth is past recognize love for what it is when they see it, usually manage to evade the Don Juans, whose conquests generally run to quantity rather than quality...Genuine Don Juans come to regard women as their enemies, and to rejoice in the misfortunes of the opposite sex."
Stendhal, On Love (1822)
* The Sorrows of Young Werther, by Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe.
The problem with "game" is that there's little scientific literature to support it. Sure, there are a few studies showing women are attracted to more masculine faces in laboratory settings at some times of the month, but what else? All we have are anecdotes.
ReplyDeleteGamers can accuse non-gamers of adhering to "pretty lies," but the criticism cuts in the other direction. Reading Roissy, is it possible to avoid the conclusion that he generally enjoys his dystopian view of the universe and would probably hold on to it in the face of conflicting evidence as much as someone with more conventional views may hold on to his?
Evolutionary theory predicts that women will prefer men with looks, status and ability. But it also predicts that they would prefer men likely to be loyal to them. How much weight is given to each of these qualities certainly has individual and racial variations and culture can push females into one direction or the other. Those hanging out at bars and meeting women who will sleep with them before they give any indication of commitment are dealing exclusively with one end of the spectrum.
There is truth in what Roissy says. But until "game" is taken up as a scientific discipline, we don't know how much. Remember, friends, anecdotes-especially those dealing with interpersonal relationships-are the weakest forms of evidence there is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMatra: The whole point of treating women “like princesses” only comes, as I said, after the West finally crashes and sexual mores are revaluated to the patriarchal paradigm. Otherwise what we get is a generation of dwarfed, degenerate males (cf. Darwin & zoology). Did you read what I said in one of the above links about my idealistic view of a Jane Austen-like world? If so, please watch now this YouTube video that I uploaded to grasp visually my point.
ReplyDeleteYes: my last comment with a YouTube video link (about “princesses”, etc.) passed through. But my Google mail didn’t catch it (I can only see it on the actual thread). Do other commenters have the same problem with follow-ups?
ReplyDeleteAn evolutionary worldview is hardly required to get to an observation of HBD. An old-school Christian worldview will get you there also. Scripture has always been clear that natural endowments in various areas are VERY UNEQUAL between individuals, families, lineages, and races. Read the parable of the talents sometime to see just how inequalitarian the Bible actually is. Hell, simply meditate on the doctrine of Justification by Faith if you want to grok just how utterly unconcerned with human notions of fairness the Christian God is.
ReplyDeleteOr you could get to HBD by simply opening your eyes and looking at the patterns of behavior and endowments in the world at large.
Just what is an alpha male exactly? Someone with an outstanding educational resume, a good career, and a strong, decisive decision maker. John Kerry is an alpha male because he went to St.Paul's, Andover, is a Bonesman, and is a prominent politician. Not just anyone could be an alpha male; a person needs the proper early environment, parents, privilege, and cultural and social capital in order to achieve such a status. Women do not find anything more attractive than a man with good manners, deportment, intelligent, creative, and with a sound business mind.
ReplyDeleteWhen there is a fundamental problem with society people need to introspect and discover how to solve said problems. For instance, if a society is homophobic gays will accordingly hide this aspect of themselves. If the ruling institutions outright kill religious minorities, then people will attend the dominant church for survival purposes.
The fundamental problem with certain innocuous stigmas and intolerance is that they encourage affectation and disingenuous behavior. While some things such as pedophilia and theft deserve stigmatization other stigmas, such as poverty, homosexuality, and being a color other than the dominant should not. Certain African American individuals in the nineteenth century bleached themselves as an attempt to stop their being oppressed. How do people stop such behavior? By stop stigmatizing such traits and behaviors.
Jay M, do you just follow links and make posts that are 9/10ths off-topic throughout the blogosphere?
ReplyDeleteHow do people stop such behavior? By stop stigmatizing such traits and behaviors.
Do you not realize how utterly retarded that sounds in contrast with the erudation you attempt to put in all your posts? No one reads this and thinks, well shit, that is the solution to world peace right there. Everyone can just simultaneously stop being assholes. Too bad every 7 year old I've ever met had the idea first.
You cannot ground your speculation about the genetic nature of female behavior with respect to men on the basis of observing the conduct of women in America's large cities. That's where all this grandiose linkage of PUA's to genetic researchers (or even to behavioral researchers) breaks down.
ReplyDeleteIMO, women are too large and heterogeneous a group to allow useful modeling of this sort, presuming that by "women" we mean women on a global scale. I've lived in different countries and different parts of America, and have found that female response to men varies dramatically from place to place.
The PUA analysis of women assumes that the women in question live in NYC, DC, LA, or a handful of other large cities.
Or upstate NYC, or rural Italy, all over South America, et cetera. Get off it. Women are not heterogeneous, and neither are men. We naturally observe those things that make us different, mark us as individuals, and ignore the 99.9% of things that make us the same, because they aren't useful for discrimination.
ReplyDeleteUrban anonymity promotes promiscuity because there is less chance of affecting your social status with a scandal than there are in small cities and towns. Women that leave their smaller bowls and travel to cities will often quickly acclimate themselves to the urban female standard. It's even more stark to see the 'Americanization' of foreign women from conservative cultures. It doesn't take long.
Even still, Game still works in small cities and towns, even if the ole pump n' dump is harder to come by. Seduction still works, even if the standards of behavior in the aftermath are higher. I'm not even sure that is true. As a traveler I'm an interloper. I'm willing to bet if I quized my more rural cousins I could find guys that plough through woman after woman and has the reputation and he can still basically get away with anything (with women). This was apparently my father and grandfather, and neither of them were anything close to being city boys.
"There's plenty of evidence suggesting that higher IQ individuals and higher IQ racial groups are less sexually active relative to lower IQ individuals or groups. I've been demonized for advocating this publicly, but I've always supported William Shockley's suggestion that we create financial incentives for low IQ individuals to let themselves be voluntarily sterilized."
ReplyDeleteReading through these responses I come to the opposite conclusion, K(yle) excepted. No wonder smart guys have so much trouble getting laid. From a regular guy's perspective: An alpha male is a guy who sleeps with a lot of women, or has the potential to if he so chooses. It's that simple. High IQ types seem to have a hard time grasping the game concept. Women are hard wired to be attracted to stong dominant men with high status. Game is about understanding these ingrained female instincts and playing off them to create attraction. Taking inititive, taking the lead, displaying higher value, negging, etc. Negging is what people confuse with insults, but it's actually playful teasing or back handed compliments. And no it's not a plug in formula that works all the time because human nature is complicated and there are variations. A higher IQ woman probably isn't going to be attracted by loutish cavemen behaviour. A man will have to display intellectual dominance to attract a smart woman, which will usually backfire on a dumb woman.
"Women should be treated like princesses, not like harlots."
Please don't tell this to a younger man, unless you want him to be frustrated and lonely.
"The problem with "game" is that there's little scientific literature to support it. Sure, there are a few studies showing women are attracted to more masculine faces in laboratory settings at some times of the month, but what else? All we have are anecdotes."
Yeah OK poindexter you wait for the peer reviewed papers to come out. Better yet go to your local night club and see the evidence for yourself.
Yeah OK poindexter you wait for the peer reviewed papers to come out. Better yet go to your local night club and see the evidence for yourself.
ReplyDeleteWell perhaps the gamer types should drop their "it's scientific" bullshit and just admit that it's purely anecdotal and subjective. Not all of us pick up our women in these sewers.
Black males are supposedly considered to be the most alpha on average. But to be honest, is imitating the behavior of black males really the wisest thing to do? Surely there's more to aspire to in life than trying to sleep with as many women as possible?
ReplyDelete"Women should be treated like princesses, not like harlots." Please don't tell this to a younger man, unless you want him to be frustrated and lonely. – Matt G
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing that even after quoting Schopenhauer on women and linking to a clip from Pride & Prejudice showing what I really had in mind with my “princess” metaphor, commenters continue to ignore my point.
Aristotle had a bit to say on rule by women I believe, if you would prefer that over this Jewish fellow [Stefan Zweig] you are quoting.
Kyle,
The “Jewish fellow” passed the Hitler test. No kidding!
Before the war, under the new laws no Jew was allowed to become a public figure. But Richard Strauss hired Zweig to write the lyric libretto for one of his operas. Since the 70 year-old Strauss was highly respected among the Nazis, and since at the same time the law could not be broken, Hitler personally studied the three acts of the libretto!
Finally Strauss was summoned before Hitler, who told Strauss that he would permit the performance... as an exception.
An alpha male is a guy who sleeps with a lot of women
ReplyDeleteThat's not what an alpha male is. An alpha male is a man other men respect and admire, regardless of what women think of him.
The PUA gang have an almost totally women-centric view of the world. A mans worth, in their eyes, consists of whatever worth women assign to him.
From Jared Taylor's amren...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/09/dad_of_23_gets.php
Would anyone consider this guy to be an alpha male? He fathered 23 children with 14 different women and is now in prison for failing to pay child support. I'm not sure why a certain segment of the white population is so keen on imitating the behavior of blacks.
Even still, Game still works in small cities and towns, even if the ole pump n' dump is harder to come by.
ReplyDeleteWorks for what, you obnoxious adolescent?
Yeah OK poindexter you wait for the peer reviewed papers to come out. Better yet go to your local night club and see the evidence for yourself.
ReplyDeleteDude, I see pretty girls with shy, awkward guys all the time. Just last night I had a long conversation with one whose sad partner was sitting in the corner giving me the evil eye as I was charming his girl.
But I'll stop asking for evidence and simply believe the speculations of guys on game blogs, who probably are the 1% most frustrated members of the population.
From an outider's perspective, and take it for what it's worth, but Yanks are obsessed with sex and a weird concomitant sexual hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteWhen Graham Greene wrote that the Quiet American had Carnal Courtesy on his mind, as a prime notivator, take it as a fact.
From your sorority house, frat house, freshman, sophomore, alpha, beta, gamma, demarcations of nothing status that means everything, take it as a rule that for Americans everything is benchmarked, from birth to death, all are laid out on a slide rule.
You have Cheerleaders, Prom Queens, Glee Clubs. All your TV is a status competition that ends in "Reality TV".
All the girls are bred to be sluts just like Madonna, or Lady Gaa Gaa. All your blokes just wanta be Black and talk their smack. Smack?!
Smack? What happened to Faulkner's, foggy mountain hunti'n Yank, Poe's deranged city slicker or Runyon's race track guy handling it with the hustlers?
All we see now is some high heeled long haired tart detecting a crime as if this were the norm. Crime Scene Investigators or if it's the imagination of the average Joe, some singleted Bruce Willis taking on the evil in his, single handed, divorcee, lone handed, smokin', Yank on a precipice.
Americans see themselves as a driving force for morality, all the while in search of their own carnality, Americans want to be the hero, the stand up guy, who gets the fuck, the fella with the blow jobbbed success, bestride the world, legs akimbo.
Americans are always dumbstruck at how no one gets them, or their "mission". Americans have a "Vision Statement" and they want to take the opposition "on board". Americans have a solution for everything. They believe in the righteousness of their cause, they always have a cause.
No stone is left unwrest. Nothing is left unturned. A Yank will find out why you're lacking, and scale it give it a score. From that they'll weigh up their next campaign. Americans are allways right.
They'll export their Judaic filth, and instruct, eternally how it should be done, The American Way.
After stratisfying their own society they seek to wrest the world in their own image and impose their own view of self nullification on the rest all the whiles telling us, morally, why it should be so.
PUA is but a manifestation of the USA's own animal heart, and God Damn it! they're gonna make sure we all get the message.
Too much nonsense and mutual incomprehension in this thread to bother with. I see exactly two posts that I agree with: by Matt G and ... Yan Shen?!
ReplyDeleteChechar, learn to be terse, please.
"No stone is left unwrest. Nothing is left unturned. A Yank will find out why you're lacking, and scale it give it a score. From that they'll weigh up their next campaign. Americans are allways right."
ReplyDeleteI think this attitude is the result of America's frontier legacy. Our nation was almost continuously at war almost 200 years. We had a manifest destiny to subdue the heathens and spread Christianity. Be honest--this thought pattern originated in Europe. Today our economy is no longer agricultural but young men still wish to be heroes and young women wish to be princesses. We are all lost rebels without a cause. A man who is psychologically dominant can trigger the fantasy button in a woman's hind brain. He may have little money or status as men see it (a starving artist for example), but he is alpha to women. Get it?
@ “Chechar, learn to be terse, please.”
ReplyDeleteSorry, I cannot help it... To use the classical metaphor, in his theories concerning the humors of the body, Hippocrates classified temperaments such as “sanguine” as distinguished from “phlegmatic”. How curious, it survives today in figurative language (the “hot-blooded Spaniard”). It’s just that there are no more sanguine Mediterraneans discussing in these threads.
But even in the curious country where I’m living for the moment some people shrink from my “daimon” (to use again a Zweig metaphor), afraid of the fires that have consumed me.
"An alpha male is a guy who sleeps with a lot of women
ReplyDeleteThat's not what an alpha male is. An alpha male is a man other men respect and admire, regardless of what women think of him."
Men that are popular with women are almost always popular with men as well. An exception to this would probably be the pretty boy actor type. You also conveniently lopped off the rest of my defintion.
"or has the potential to if he so chooses."
There's a misperception that this definition would only include some guy who trolls bars and nightclubs. For example a traditionlist who is faithfully married to his wife could be an alpha male. Women may find him attractive and wish to have sex with him, but he has decided that marriage and commitment to his wife are more important. An alpha male could even decide to live a life of celibacy, although to fit the definition it would have to be him choosing that life. As far as I can tell alpha males seem to run the gammit; from rich to poor, handsome to ugly, educated or not, physically strong to weak etc. The one trait they all seem to have in common is social dominance which women seem to find irresistable.
I sense that if it weren't for the lack of proper terminology on this subject, there would be no disagreement. Almost all arguments on this subject are either is/ought confusion or semantic confusion over alpha vs. beta.
ReplyDeleteRoissy is trying to show dominance online by picking an eccentric definition of alpha. People who like him accept it, people who don't, don't. If people just got into the habit of translating Roissy "alpha" into English "pushy", and of specifying whether they were talking about is or ought, these arguments would be shorter and we could spend more time figuring out how to stop immigration.
A: Say, did you hear that guy in DC who says you can be a womanizer if you're pushy enough?
B. Yeah, it shouldn't be true, but it is.
A. Also, most white womanizers practice safe sex. Less-pushy guys have nearly no chance of becoming sex addicts, so they pick different types of women and have children.
B. Yeah, it shouldn't be true, but it is.
A. And pushiness is partly genetic and partly learned. So, over time, the white race gets less pushy and the other races get pushier.
B. Yeah, it shouldn't be true, but it is. Hey, I found a twenty-something billionaire who's going to donate to Numbers USA.
A: No fooling!
Men that are popular with women are almost always popular with men as well.
ReplyDeleteLike the man mentioned by Yan Chen at 10:31? Are those men really "popular with men"? Perhaps if you hang out with some pretty scummy individuals. You seem to understand men as poorly as you do women.
You also conveniently lopped off the rest of my defintion.
"or has the potential to if he so chooses."
Not relevant.
a traditionlist who is faithfully married to his wife could be an alpha male. Women may find him attractive and wish to have sex with him
Can't you read? An alpha male is not an alpha male because of what women think of him. An alpha male is an alpha male because of what men think of him.
Your womans-eye view of the world is the exact opposite of that relating to alpha-maleness.
If you want to obsess about trying to get women to sleep with you, fine, knock yourself out. But don't claim that you are either being an "alpha male" or striking a blow against liberalism by doing so. You're just another guy who lets the wrong head do his thinking.
The one trait they all seem to have in common is social dominance which women seem to find irresistable.
ReplyDeleteYou know jack about what women find irresistible.
I have just Googled Neil Strauss and "The Game" came out a long time ago, so one can deduce that plenty of women have figured out that "The Game" exists and are thus wary of it.
ReplyDeleteJust develop and improve yourself and get the best girlfriend you possibly can, and realize that not every guy can have a princess or debutante, and that women typically date up, and men down.
"You know jack about what women find irresistible."
ReplyDeleteLOL. I'm sure passive-aggresive internet nerds are way up on the list.
Within my framework of a noxious “helping”-mode of childrearing, because that was precisely what originated feminism (cf. my criticism of Lloyd deMause), parents allowed their daughters to “enjoy” the new lifestyle, thus endangering Caucasians with extinction since degenerate women now avoid to reproduce with healthy population-replacement levels.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find silly in the proponents of game theory is that they are merely trying to adapt to the sex marketplace in the large Gomorrean cities, and within the Gomorrean mores (which are not the mores of a healthy, family-oriented society).
The right approach obviously is getting away from Gomorrah; shake the dust off our feet when leaving home town and, after The Crash, turn back the clock to Victorian and pre-Victorian times. In the P&P film mentioned above women had no choice but to get decently married to avoid going to the streets like harlots. If that is a little too harsh, now that I am rereading Zweig’s The World of Yesterday it’s clear to me that in the Paris of the beginning of the 20th century every Jack had his Jill (I still lived a lesser form of it long time ago in Paris).
It goes beyond me how the younger proponents of game cannot see something so obvious: in Sodom and Gomorrah traditional marriages are increasingly difficult, and only a punishment of truly Biblical dimensions could solve the problem. Paraphrasing a Swede who used to post here, I would say:
“Playing your f** game little brat? Well of course not. The punishment from the above will be like farming. The Crash will destroy everything that was on that piece of land. Let’s burn Gomorrah to the ground and eradicate all life that was originally there. Only after that will the seeds of a better society be sown and cultivated.”
Nice comment by Pat Hannagan (except for the bit about "Judaic filth" which I take offense to). Americans are indeed obsessed with sex in an unhealthy way and are much more concerned with sexual and social hierarchies than Europeans.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, perhaps I was a little wild eyed and frenzied when I wrote that comment (aka: completely off my face).
ReplyDeleteWhat I was trying to say, is that to an outsider Americans appear to be rigidly conscious of social status in a way that is quite bizarre, and teetering on the brink of obsession.
I'd agree with tacticalchrstn that "...this attitude is the result of America's frontier legacy." I'd also add that it must at root stem from the fact the first pioneers to America were fleeing these very same rigid social heirarchies in Europe. In America they had land without bounds, and fertile productive land at that. In America these pioneers could and would create a new world with regard only to their own liberty and right to be and act as they themselves saw fit, without the restraint of hundreds of years of cultural baggage and bindings.
So it is rather aptly perverse that American society then proceeded to create new heirarchies of social status, within which all must compete.
From my own small understanding of your education system my examples would be the institutions of fraternities and sororities. There is no similar system in Oz, formal or informal, that would compare with these organisations.
Likewise with "cheerleading". This is an exclusively American activity that has even become professionalised.
Being a member of some sort of team or group is very important in America, so much so that being exiled from such things, and the resultant anxiety, constitutes a large part of your movie's themes.
These few examples are part of what constitutes the uniquely American culture and is not offered here for ridicule but as indications of what sets you apart. My reference to "Judaic filth" is that it appears that American culture has gone through some sort of crisis, probably inspired by a Judaic element, that has transformed your cultural institutions to be now completely subsumed with physical appearance, and the consumation of it with limitless sex.
On the PUA front I see that as an evolution in the line of American "Self Help" psychology. Starting with William James, who inspired Maxwell Maltz and his "Psycho Cybernetics", this little book, spawned all the modern pop psychologists, from Anthony Robbins on. Like "self help" and cognitive behavioural therapy, the principles, whilst not strictly scientific, are proven to work and on that basis have great cache. Self Help itself is another uniquely American concept that is transforming the world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Roissy is that his goal is to enjoy the destruction of civilization rather than to try to stop it or to rebuild civilization.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure passive-aggresive internet nerds are way up on the list.
ReplyDeleteSince you clearly don't have a clue what "passive-aggressive" means you're better off not playing around with the term. FYI, my comments to you were simply aggressive.
Men who know what the hell they are talking about are way up on the list.
Freud would have a field day with the comments being left here.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I see hordes of angry/angsty defenders of Roissy and Game, I can't help but to keep looking at this: http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/07/adult-virgins.html
This is an interesting topic that was followed by an awful comment thread that devolved from overwrought intellectualism, humorlessness, passive-aggresion, and now outright hostility. I think that B Lode/Kudzu Bob's suggestion is a great idea and I for one would be willing to join up. I'm 6'3" 220 lbs. clean cut, no tattoos, and tired of wasting alot of hot air on the internet. What about you Severn? You ready to put that pent up hostility to some good use?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFreud would have a field day with the comments being left here.
ReplyDeleteStill reading Freud? That says it all about you.
Every time I see hordes of angry/angsty defenders of Roissy and Game, I can't help but to keep looking at this: http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/07/adult-virgins.html
Yup. Only virgin males oppose feminism and believe Game works. Only closet homosexuals oppose the gay rights agenda. Only inadequate white losers oppose mass immigration and multiculturalism. Any more Marxist shaming language you'd like to utilise?
"...overwrought intellectualism, humorlessness, passive-aggresion, and now outright hostility."
ReplyDeleteYep, that pretty much sums up the 2nd through 4th hours of drinking with me. I'd add lecherous groping but usually I've already offended everyone by then and am left with just the bouncers, and find myself at the bottom of the rear stairs.
Sorry for any offense given - except the "Judaic filth" bit. I stand by that.
Thanks for proving my point Matra. Any more insecure defenses of your ego you'd like to share with us?
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving my point Matra.
ReplyDeleteYour point? Your point is to maintain the status quo by defining and smearing those who are not passively accepting the cultural Zeitgeist. If those who defend game are as low status as you suggest (adult virgins!) then it is odd that you feel you can't ignore a handful of such irrelevant mavericks at a mere blog. You are not as secure as you think you are.
Yup. Only virgin males oppose feminism and believe Game works.
ReplyDeleteThe gamers don't oppose feminism. Feminism (and social liberalism in general) have to exist in order for the gamers to exist. Game is a celebration of social liberalism, not its rejection.
smearing those who are not passively accepting the cultural Zeitgeist.
PUA's relish the cultural Zeitgeist.
@ “The gamers don't oppose feminism. Feminism (and social liberalism in general) have to exist in order for the gamers to exist. Game is a celebration of social liberalism, not its rejection.”
ReplyDeleteExactly. From a moral standpoint elevating degenerate behavior (cf. my Casanova paradigm) by calling it “Alpha” implies the wrong standard, and calling men who engage in traditional relationships “betas” is also the photographic negative of the positive, healthy reality. Only the Jews and the treasonous liberals want us to think that way.
Male gamers are the other side of the feminist coin. As I said above, let the fire fall from the sky and burn Gomorrah to the ground after the economic crash that is being discussed in the other thread (cf. my last link in this thread: an illustration from a Belgian comic book series).
Feminism (and social liberalism in general) have to exist in order for the gamers to exist.
ReplyDeleteTo some extent, yes Gamers are reacting to the reality of social liberalism. But much of it is just a rejection of the submissive conditioning of the past couple of decades and a return to behaviour that was instinctive to previous generations of men.
PUA's relish the cultural Zeitgeist
Just to be clear my posts were about Game in general, not the minority of Game practioners who are PUAs.
"The problem with "game" is that there's little scientific literature to support it. Sure, there are a few studies showing women are attracted to more masculine faces in laboratory settings at some times of the month, but what else? All we have are anecdotes.
ReplyDeleteGamers can accuse non-gamers of adhering to "pretty lies," but the criticism cuts in the other direction. Reading Roissy, is it possible to avoid the conclusion that he generally enjoys his dystopian view of the universe and would probably hold on to it in the face of conflicting evidence as much as someone with more conventional views may hold on to his?
Evolutionary theory predicts that women will prefer men with looks, status and ability. But it also predicts that they would prefer men likely to be loyal to them. How much weight is given to each of these qualities certainly has individual and racial variations and culture can push females into one direction or the other. Those hanging out at bars and meeting women who will sleep with them before they give any indication of commitment are dealing exclusively with one end of the spectrum.
There is truth in what Roissy says. But until "game" is taken up as a scientific discipline, we don't know how much. Remember, friends, anecdotes-especially those dealing with interpersonal relationships-are the weakest forms of evidence there is."
I strongly suggest you get off the internet for a few hours.
"Remember, friends, anecdotes-especially those dealing with interpersonal relationships-are the weakest forms of evidence there is."
ReplyDeleteDo you have any studies to back up that claim, or is it just something that somebody told you?
Just realized ATBOTL was quoting somebody else, not stating that as his own opinion. Apologies.
ReplyDelete