Diverse Linkage

There’s a tumultuously adventuresome discussion thread going on over at GLPiggy’s about “citizenism” versus white nationalism, in which your cockily imperturbable narrator has contributed some choice morsels (look under ‘heartiste’).

Couple addendums: I wasn’t familiar with WN until the one degree of separation internet revealed glorious new vistas to me. As such, I’m not up to speed on their political platform, although I can make an educated guess. I prefer not to spend too much time around relentlessly serious people, a fatal personality defect that some (some!) WNs share with feminists and grievance group racialists.

And, I’m not doctrinaire on the subject of national homogeneity. Like with most things in life, quality and quantity matter. A huge nation can accommodate some small number of immigrants who don’t resemble the native stock. I spell it out in more detail over there at piggy central, but in short, I believe an advanced nation’s social and economic health is best served by an immigration policy that does not shift its majority ethnic/racial demography below 80% of the total population. Obviously, the US is past that critical ratio and falling fast, and just as obviously, the US is concurrently experiencing the long, slow decline to has-been status in earnest, complete with all the expected attendant neuroses afflicting ever larger swaths of individuals and communities.

ps Libertarians are still stoopid. And it mostly hinges on their willful blindness to this issue, the one issue to rule all issues.

pps I might emigrate someday in the distant future for, ah, moister pastures, to which a pro-swamp white people advocate might justifiably accuse me of hypocrisy. Hey, no one said life was tidy. I think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme waiting to implode, but that doesn’t mean I’ll turn down the SS checks the government sends my way when I’m old. Countries have a right to restrict who enters and gets to stay, and if, for example, Poland decides not to accept my application for citizenship, then I’ll abide their decision. I won’t like it, but I’ll understand perfectly well why they enforce the immigration policy they do.

Read Full Post »

Beta Males Then And Now

What is the most significant way American beta males have changed since, say, 1950? Lazier? Perhaps, but productivity numbers are higher and the ethnic composition of the nation has changed. More feminine? A sociological examination of SWPL enclaves would suggest so, but at the other extreme gadabout Skittles Men reign supreme. Poorer? Relative to the income advantage betas once enjoyed over women, yes, and this has profound sexual market implications.

But critical as those possible Western beta male devolutions are, the biggest change is something out of their control: the kinds of women available to them. Your typical 1950s beta male — and remember, the beta male designation is as much a function of the hierarchical rank of the men of his time as it is a description of objective characteristics — surveyed a dating market that was filled with slender women. At that time, only 10% of women were clinically obese. Fast forward to the present and compare and contrast: 2012 beta males must navigate the WIDE SHOALS of a dating market where 40% of women are clinically obese. And it’s even worse than that; the standard measurement of obesity has been supersized to accommodate the fattening norm.

Think about how badly this destruction of nearly one half of the female population skews the sexual market: men’s tastes in women haven’t changed one iota in 60 years, but the number of available women that satisfy men’s tastes has effectively been halved. In 1950, for every man, there was close to one woman who met his minimal fuckability threshold because she kept a slender figure. In 2012, for every man, there is one HALF of a woman who meets his minimal fuckability threshold because she keeps a slender figure. Or, to put it more starkly, in 1950 there was one thin woman for every man. In 2012, there are two men fighting for the fuck rights to one thin woman.

Now not all of these 1950s women were facially attractive. Nevertheless, fatness remains the relevant variable because the bone structure of female facial attractiveness likely hasn’t changed much in such a short evolutionary time frame. No other environmental insult, besides gross facial disfigurement, damages a woman’s looks like fatness; a woman’s SMV will begin the steep nose dive in earnest once she gets to about 15 pounds or more overweight. The SIMPLEST thing a woman can do for herself to remain attractive to the maximum number of men is to avoid getting fat. That’s it. And yet, 70+% of women (if we include the merely overweight along with the obese) can’t seem to muster the willpower to do that bare minimum to appease men’s desires. Thank you, feminism.

Therein lies the biggest difference between 1950s beta males and beta males today: all else equal, the contemporary beta male has to work twice as hard to get the same woman he could have gotten in 1950. Analogously, the typical 2012 beta male, if he settles, will settle with a woman much uglier and fatter than he would have had to settle for in 1950.

This is no reflection on the beta males themselves. The same 2012 beta transported back to 1950 would be able to land himself a higher quality (read: thinner) woman then. Even an uglier, fatter, stupider, anti-social beta male of today would, if he were to magically escape to 1950, have better odds of nabbing himself a thin, desirable woman, albeit likely one who wasn’t particularly facially pretty compared to the women of her time. That is just simple sexual market arithmetic.

Many millennial beta males, faced with these miserable odds, drop out and plug into video games and porn. Others attempt a resurrection of their manlier instincts by learning game and competing for the shrinking pool of lithe beauties. Still others regress into effeminate nancyboys, suppress their true desires, and settle for some chubbed out feminist, insisting that licking the construction boots of these husky hags is exactly what they wanted all along.

If you want to know where the beta males are heading, just follow the trail of female fatness. The problem isn’t that men’s standards have gotten higher; no, the problem is that the standard woman for men has become grosser. Since the mating game is zero sum, this means more beta males lose out today than in the past, through no fault of their own.

As I’ve said before, the two most powerful drivers of the modern sexual market — female obesity and female hypergamy — remain almost completely unacknowledged by the prestige press as causes for family dissolution, men “dropping out”, marriage and divorce rates and general social dysfunction. Feminists, understandably, won’t touch these subjects with a ten foot clit, except to co-opt them in twisted, bizarro semantics that inverse their truth content.

Some women may be consciously aware of this sexual market skew that favors them, and act accordingly. But I bet for most women it doesn’t register except on a subconscious level. Regardless, the result is the same: an expectation nation of entitled fat cunts and beggarly betaboys. We have passed the event horizon where truth and beauty vow fealty to lies and ugliness.

Read Full Post »

Better Than Again: The Female Secret Code Decoder Dictionary

A wealth of experience with women will clue a man into the dissonance between a woman’s words and actions, and gradually lead him to discover that the woman’s word is the exact inverse of what she wishes you to presuppose it is: not a verbal descriptive but rather a psychological misdirection to lull the unsuspecting, including herself, to cogitate on the opposite of what is, in fact, true. Resist the temptation to blame a woman for her subterfuge because, in another example of empirics catching up to folk wisdom, science is revealing that not even she is aware what currents ripple through her vagina.

On that prologue, here follows a handy dandy secret girl code decoder crib sheet. Though you have been weaned since toddlerhood, when your flaccid tot dong jutted out at a continual 90 degree angle to your raisins, to believe the last in each series is to be aspired to, the truth is that, if sexnlurv with the sexynlurvly hot babes is what you want, then you are far better off being deemed the opposite by the fairer sex.

douchey >>> nice guy

asshole >>> sweet

jerk >>> cute

bastard >>> good man

pig >>> gentleman

insane >>> dependable

jerk > sexy > hot > cute > sweet > creep > nice guy

creeper > creep > stalker > loser > nice guy

serial killer >>>>>>>>>>> nice guy

mass murderer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice guy

psychopathic hedge fund white collar criminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*phew*) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice guy

nice guy > pedophile (finally!)

he makes me cry >>>>>>>>> he’s always there for me

it’s so hard with him >>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, he’s a great guy

freak >>> attentive lover

cheating bastard >>> he treats me like a princess

you don’t see what i see in him >>> he’s the perfect man

wiseass >>> funny >>> clown >>> goofy >>> quirky >>> weird

mysterious >>> a good friend

exciting >>> easy to get along with

i don’t know how much more i can take with him >>> someday we’ll get married

he always forgets our anniversaries >>> he understands my needs

pervert >>> sensitive lover

he screwed my best friend >>> i screwed his best friend

he gets me >>> i get him

fucking asshole arrogant son of a bitch motherfucking cocksucking pike of steaming shit filthy fucking bastard mama’s boy >>> nice guy

selfish lover >>> eats me out

who are you texting? >>> i promise i’m not texting any other guys

god that was such a turn-on >>> i love you

cocky bastard >>> sweet guy

i never know what he’s up to >>> we go everywhere together

lover >>> husband

is that a girl’s voice i hear in the background? >>> thanks for letting me know what time you’ll be home

you’re going to shit in front of me?! >>> i’ll be out in a minute, honey

Read Full Post »

Comments Of The Week: The Parallel Universe Of Alpha Males

Libertardian (nice nick!) writes:

That article clearly struck a major nerve and it saddens me to see Aussie women have fallen prey to the madness as well.

One commenter shouts “Karma!” and the reply is: “Karma? For getting an education, having a well-paying job, having some drive, spirit and independence, living life as one sees fit? What a strange mentality to have towards other human beings.”

They just don’t get it.

Women have no idea of the bleak odds most men have been living with for years, or how disaffected it has made them. I’d guess the average beta, by the age of 30, has been rejected or flaked on at least one thousand times. What this teaches him is to keep a lot of irons in the fire and minimize his emotional investment in any of them.

He’s been brainwashed into thinking women are angelic and pure and like nice men, and admittedly that mindset is probably in his nature as well. Civilization, which we had up to a few decades ago, rewards this mindset. The jungle we live in now does not. The result is years of painful cognitive dissonance and, eventually, a pervasive cynicism born of the need for simple emotional self-preservation.

If he’s mature for his age, he probably even prefers the company of older (thirtysomething) women. They’re more mature than the ones his own age who are still partying and drinking and chasing bad boys, after all. But of course that’s a dead end too. The thirtysomething women are busy chasing fortysomething men with money, and when they want to dally with a younger man it’s hardly going to be a beta.

Our beta is in the 80% of men who spends his twenties watching 80% of the women go after the other 20% of the men. The kind of men he sees these women chase after, again and again, has been discussed at length here and hardly needs repeating. Needless to say, this adds greatly to his disillusionment.

He also knows about the 70%+ divorce rate and the fact that 70% of divorces are initiated by women, who need no cause for doing so, and he knows that the result is having half or more of his assets stripped. He may well have seen, at first hand, his father or another older man having his retirement cleaned out. No matter how “in love” you think you are, you’re a moron if you take on these odds. It’s like playing Russian roulette with five chambers loaded.

Someone once said a beta is like a baseball player who’s been kept on the bench for the entire game, until in the bottom of the 9th he’s suddenly called up and told to hit a sacrifice fly. Thing is, by then, he may well have dropped out.

He’s long since learned to treat sex as a bodily function, like eating or shitting, that he can accomplish with the help of some porn. He had to learn that during his decade and a half in the beta wasteland.

He’s learned to channel his passions into something else, like a hobby, or work, or volunteering. Indeed he can do whatever the hell he wants, outside of work, all day every day. Women, meanwhile, take it for granted that men are supposed to do things they don’t enjoy in exchange for the pleasure of female company. Thing is, why is the guy going to volunteer to be told what to do and how to spend his money? Women have treated him like shit for fifteen years while they chased the alpha male bad boy. Modern society has taught women to be entitled to the point of delusion, emotionally volatile and manipulative to the point of being bipolar, and above all to BLAME MEN. So why, after the experiences he’s had already, is he going to want to tune into this channel 24/7?

And the blaming continues when the beta mysteriously opts not to shove his head into the trap. The name-calling and the shaming and the cries to “man up” assail him from all sides. But what does he care? He tried doing just what women said they wanted for fifteen years and his reward was a bowl of piss with a brown submarine cruising in it. Scolding him is like putting out a fire with gasoline.

Sure, some betas learn game and find success with women. Most men seem to take a quantum leap in attractiveness to women just by crossing the age of thirty, having a few bucks, and not being omegas. The point is, the scales have long since fallen from their eyes. They’ve seen the beast and they cannot unsee it.

There’s been some clamor in the manosphere lately about there being a false impression created by “gamers” that the currently operative sexual market is very good to men. This manosphere subspecies claims that in reality women have it better than men, and this can be seen in women’s entitled attitudes and their avoidance of marriage and historically high divorce initiation rates.

The sexual market is a roiling, turbulent beast about which any poking and prodding is best served by sterling precision. We have mentioned this here before, but it bears repeating: the modern dating scene has been, and is, very good to ALPHA MALES. Beta males more than ever are the biggest losers under the post-sexual revolution regime. Contraceptive freedom, social destigmatization and female economic self-sufficiency have joined forces to enable a sexual libertinism that redounds most beneficially to alpha males, and most disadvantageously to beta males.

What about women? Where do they stand in the rushing river of romantic license? For women, it’s been a mixed bag. Unleashed hypergamy brought on by a diminished need for beta providers and a contraceptively nullified fear of pregnancy allows them to pursue charming alpha males to their hearts’ content while delaying marriage or relationship fidelity until they are vaginally or emotionally spent and ready, if needed, for the Great Settle with some grateful beta who has wandered the celibate wilderness a little longer than he’d hoped.

As GBFM colorfully put it, this is the “Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks” strategy. Be cognizant, though, that this is not the optimal female strategy, which, logically, would be “Alpha Fucks and Alpha Bucks”. Of course, only the hottest women can realistically achieve this ovarian nirvana.

The downside for women of the feminist-inspired and alpha male-co-opted sexual revolution is that false hopes engendered by a few fantastic nights with an alpha male can lead them to squander their prime beauty years chasing illusory commitment from exciting cads. Freewheeling soft concubinage also spoils a woman’s sexual expectations, rendering the second-best bedroom love of the beta male disappointingly meager.

And then there are the less attractive women, those who are caught up in the hypergamy house of mirrors but can’t find a way out like their prettier sisters. Has the sexual revolution been good to them? As a system conducive to gratifying immediate superficial needs, yes. But for long-term needs of the sort that are particular to women, no. A dearth of economically higher status beta males and/or maritally inclined alpha males has made it tough on women in both the lower and upper SES tiers, whose growing populations respectively of single moms and childless mimosters attests to their difficulties navigating the present dating market. After all, no woman REALLY wants to grow up to be a single mom or mimosa-sipping spinster.

So there you have it. The diagnosis. The sexual/feminist revolution delineated. Women, on the whole, have it better than men, but alpha males have it the best.

Alpha males =======> WINNING
Beta males ==> LOSING
Alpha females (.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.)> TREADING WATER
Beta females (.)(.)(.)(.)> PYRRHIC VICTORIES

******

The Raven writes, in regards to the ability to influence human perception:

Professional shooting instructors have known this for a while. I have heard it referred to as “The Henry Bowman Effect”. Nearly every woman I teach to shoot gets gina tingles so blatant that you can practically see the snail trail when I send them downrange to paste their targets. Now, it doesn’t work so well if you’re a neckbearded fatty, but let me give you a sample of an email I got from a 24-year-old nurse I taught some defensive shooting to last summer:

“Now that I’ve gotten my upper torso out of the gigantic pile of bricks that took me out about 1/2 way through the day today, I’m trying to shake the brick dust out of my ears and get a clean thought process going…. aided by some Ambien so excuse me if spelling and grammar doesn’t match my level of intelligence. Maybe and I had too much time up in the truck talking, or I had time to myself to think about things, or I saw you with – but something has absolutely snapped in my brain- and I am in LOVE with you. I don’t get it. You’re not mine. You will never be, and have never been. I can’t help the way I feel. It’s almost like when I was watching you teach today, my brain was saying “he’d make a great father”, and when you were shooting, the brain was saying “He can protect you” and talking about your job stuff lately says “he’s a provider”… and not to mention I think your calves are sexy—– I think my ovaries and screaming at me to reproduce and I think they chose you. I don’t actually WANT children, but you get it. That’s where I’m at. I love you for who you are, and how you’re a friend to me, but then my body wants to jump in and decide that you’d be the perfect sperm for me? It’s a little fucked up but I’m becoming more aware of these weird biohealth things going on with my hormonal 24 year old body. I’m hornier than ever, I cry at Gerber baby commercials, and watching my sister breastfeed makes MY boobs sore. How is this fair?!?!? This is wrong on so many levels. You are happily married. I WANT to be happily married to . I eventually wouldn’t mind children (distant future), but I can’t figure out why today I had to come to terms with the reality that I LOVE you but nothing will ever change (as It should NOT). That kiss was phenomenal, but far too short. All that really did was jab a knife into my already aching heart that I can’t kiss you every time I leave, or when I say hello, or good morning. It makes me sad I’m actually crying right now and this is fucked up..

Even more so, I will get married in the future and unless he’s a complete douche, you guys will be invited to the wedding. I’ll be in my poofy dress and you in a suit and you’ll come up for a dance and we’ll just look at eachother and *sigh* because I’ll be secretly wishing it was you. Do you know how FUCKED UP THAT IS??? I will love my husband, and he will be great- but there is already a man out there that I think would make a good partner for me. That’s not supposed the way it’s supposed to work. I have more thoughts but I cant even type sentences anymore. I’m sorry.

Peace out.”

I saved that email just because it was such a classic example of HBS.

Anyway – the other chick was practically humping my leg too. It’s a hazard that has served me well.

The Raven

I’ve often wondered what would happen to the sexual reciprocity continuum if beta males discovered en masse how boldly and shamelessly women throw themselves at the few alpha males in their midst. Would it rip wide open the fragile sperm-vagine fabric and create a wormhole leading to an alternate dimension where white knighting was a mockable offense and no beta male, anywhere, ever again paid for a date or wrote sappy love poems? Would princess pedestals shatter like the cymbal crash in a symphony, freeing men’s minds of hallucinatory dreamscapes? The female id uncaged is a sight to behold, crueler and more subversive than the reckless thrashing of the unchained male id, and it’s with good reason civilization only flourished once it was patrolled and the pleasure of its vessels redistributed.

Read Full Post »

Masculine Game Vs Feminine Game

YaReally wrote in response to this post about cold reading women:

This is super gay. But it works. It’s just really oldschool tech like “can I get a female opinion?” from back when PUA was more “I’m a dancing monkey – please approve of me” versus now where it’s evolved more to “go ahead, try to impress me”.

PUAs would get girls asking “are you gay??” all the time because of stuff like this where you’re sort of absorbing part of girls’ personality an mannerisms into yours. Guys would drop into valley-girl speak (“like omg totally”) and shit.

Thing is, it works. The girls would shriek “omg!!!” and be intrigued. Some guys even played the gay thing up all the way to fucking the girl, just to experiment with it lol

But PUA has evolved a lot since then, now we tend to focus on emphasizing the masculine side of things and making the girl qualify herself to us instead of emphasizing the feminine side of things and trying to fit into the girl’s world.

So instead of wearing a feather boa and going “guys I totally need a girl’s opinion–(touch an elbow) omg you are SO the Samantha of the group aren’t you lol” you just wear normal clothes and go “hey, who are you? You’re cute, come here. (grab around the waist, pull her in) Why are you causing trouble, hmm?”

Best term for describing it that I’ve heard so far is speaking to the girl like “a man to a woman”. The old way, like this Glee routine, is speaking to the girl like “a woman to a woman”.

Again it works, I’m not talking smack about the concept itself. I’ve seen a buddy use “you guys are like the Powerpuff Girls” to consistently blow open sets of chicks like a fucking nuke going off, it’s retarded. BUT, consider how you want your vibe to come off to people in general before you run around using routines like this.

Intriguingly, bisexual men have a higher chance to reproduce than heterosexual men, (and some famous seducers who had world beating notch counts are rumored to be bisexual), which implies that men with a dollop of feminine characteristics — i.e., men who can better simulate female behavior and relate to women in their language — will have more success bedding women than very masculine men.

This concept of masculine game and feminine game presents the potential for a major rift in thinking, resulting in a dichotomy in game technology. Let’s face it, there’s a big difference between acting like a funtime drama queen pushing girls’ buttons until they’re chasing after you, and acting like a steely-eyed James Bond character overwhelming women with dominant gestures and terse mystery.

YaReally is right that both methods work, but the question is if one is better than the other. I have said that the best seducers must know their prey inside and out, and to do that one must adopt the psychology of his exquisite foe. A master panty collector seduces women using their own subconscious tactics and manipulations against them; he flips the script. This script flipping could be called feminine game, because what you do is essentially what women routinely do to men: qualify them, neg them, shit test them, backturn, push-pull, hot cold hot cold, jealousy plotlines, coyness, etc.

Most core game concepts are basically borrowed female courtship ruses that are adjusted to fit the straight male sensibility (i.e., to avoid the “uncanny faggy”). They work, because as innately solipsistic creatures, women love men who reflect their black souls back at them.

Masculine game shares some techniques with feminine game, but it differs in a fundamental way: instead of leading a girl to the chase through delightful subterfuge, you overwhelm her resistance with dominance and an attitude of entitlement. Pictorially, masculine game is an oak tree: solid, immovable, protective, unshakeable. Feminine game is a nimble-tongued artiste: ephemeral, adaptable, entrancing, insufferable.

YaReally says that Masculine Game is iteration #2 of game, which intrigues me, because that presupposes there were deficiencies with Feminine Game (iteration #1) that needed rectifying. I would like to know more about the latest developments in this area.

Personally, I find myself using techniques from both schools of thought, and adopting both attitudes in measure when it suits me, or the moment calls for it. I imagine men who enjoy a life brimming with the carnal company of women are the same way: possessors of the masculine and feminine charms, dispensed when expedient and integrated to whichever context envelops them.

As a very basic guiding principle, it could be said that Feminine Game is both early game and pre-relationship game — the game you use to attract women and the game you incorporate up until the point you start having regular sex with your lover. Conversely, Masculine Game is mid game, as well as relationship game — the game you use to draw a woman in during the comfort and seduction stage, and the game you incorporate into a serious relationship, when your lover needs to see stronger signs of your commitment, loyalty and strength.

Read Full Post »

Another Experimentally Confirmed Game Concept: Influencing Perception

This video of a prankster who pretended to be a generic famous dude has been making the rounds on pickup oriented blogs. And with good reason. It demonstrates how preselection and manipulated perception — two core game concepts — are effective at attracting women (and attracting them for dates, which you can see proved at the end of the video when our intrepid fake celebrity calls a girl and she throws herself at him.)

Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.

Fame, as noted in the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog, is the most powerful male attractiveness trait known to mankind. Fame trumps looks, wealth and game in its ability to draw in and captivate women from all social and racial strata. Preselection is a scientifically validated game concept — studies have shown that female geese will prefer the male goose surrounded by cardboard cut-outs of other female geese over the solitary males — which rests on the theory that women are attracted to men who are themselves attractive to other women, because such men have already been “preselected” by competitor women and are thus proven commodities.

(Preselection works for men, but not women, because men can size up a woman’s sexual market value with an instant look, while women need much more information to adequately assess a man’s SMV.)

When you put preselection and fame together, you get an explosion of pussy juice, like a dam bursting to release years of pent-up tributary tingles. “Thomas Elliot” was able to induce raw, animal desire in women simply by having himself filmed in the company of admirers and ACTING like someone famous and beloved by the ladies. This could be a new game tactic for men who wish to experiment with the cutting edge in seduction technology: have your wingman film you at the bars signing fake autographs.

***

Related to this post’s subject, here is a study which confirms the game concept of fluid perception.

UCLA anthropologists asked hundreds of Americans to guess the size and muscularity of four men based solely on photographs of their hands holding a range of easily recognizable objects, including handguns.

The research, which publishes today in the scholarly journal PLoS ONE, confirms what scrawny thugs have long known: Brandishing a weapon makes a man appear bigger and stronger than he would otherwise.

“There’s nothing about the knowledge that gun powder makes lead bullets fly through the air at damage-causing speeds that should make you think that a gun-bearer is bigger or stronger, yet you do,” said Daniel Fessler, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of anthropology at UCLA.

Researchers say the findings suggest an unconscious mental mechanism that gauges a potential adversary and then translates the magnitude of that threat into the same dimensions used by animals to size up their adversaries: size and strength.

Some of you are probably asking, “What does this have to do with game?” Ah, a lot, my friends. This experiment proves that human perception of certain characteristics can be influenced by specific, unrelated cues or behaviors. In this case, holding a gun influenced viewers to perceive the holder as physically bigger than he would normally be perceived. A gun (aka game) shifted the perceptions (attraction) of people (women) to view the subject as more physically imposing (desirable) than they would normally view the subject, even though the gun (game) did not add any physical size (objective conventional status) to the subject (PUA).

If brandishing a gun can alter perceptions so that you seem bigger to people than you really are, then it’s no stretch to conclude that adopting alpha male body language, qualifying girls, dressing stylishly and acting charmingly aloof can alter the perceptions of women to think you are more desirable than you would otherwise seem as just another beta face in the crowd.

The concept of perception fluidity is crucial to game theory, for much of seduction is the psychology of massaging women’s perceptions via manipulation of your identity, behavior and image to project the aura of alpha maleness which is so alluring to the warier sex.

Read Full Post »

Do Conservatives And Liberals Have A Look?

“Certain people look more leftist than others,” Breivik said in his final day of testimony at his trial for the murder of the 69 victims on Utoya and eight others in a bombing in Oslo. “This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That’s the reason I didn’t fire any shots at him.

“When I looked at him I saw myself.”

This story about Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik claiming he could tell which of his targets looked like leftists got me thinking about something I’ve noticed as well: liberals and conservatives, at least in America, do seem to have a look specific to their ideology, and this look goes beyond just their style of dress. The faces of lefties and righties are, as a very general rule, different looking. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly how they differ; suffice to say, this is an inexact science, and whatever association there is between facial structure and politics is probably a weak one with plenty of overlap, and likely breaks down along race.

Nevertheless, there’s something there to the observation. Pressed to provide detail, I might say that leftist men look softer, have bigger eyes and fuller lips, and weaker jawlines. Righist men look tougher, have narrower, opaque eyes, thinner lips and heavier jawlines. The critical difference is in the eyes; the stand-out feature of lefties are their limpid, watery eyes, always looking on the verge of weeping. Visualize Barney Frank or Al Franken vs Clint Eastwood or Mitt Romney.

If you think this description of leftist men makes them seem more feminine or more intelligent, well… draw your own conclusions.

Here’s a pic of the guy Breivik thought looked like a rightie dude (foreground).

Read Full Post »