How Much Do Your Smarts Matter To Women?

This question comes up regularly at Le Chateau. You’ve got two schools of thought. The first insists that smarts, like any other positive attribute, can only raise a man’s dating market value because women are hypergamous and appreciate a smarter man than themselves. The other school says that women are put off by men who are too much smarter than themselves, and that experience shows women fall for lunkhead jerks all the time, perhaps because these types of men are less introspective and more unthinkingly assertive about hitting on women.

The science I’ve read on this subject has been all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that having some smarts is a net plus to a man’s desirability.

Where do I come down on this perennial issue? I stick by the Dating Market Value Test for Men at the top of this blog. A better-than-average IQ is beneficial, but the benefits to picking up women begin to dissipate past a certain degree of brainpower, because very high IQ seems to be associated with a lack of social savviness and other off-putting personality quirks. If you know a lot of Ivy grads in the sciences and maths (a group of smarties if there ever were) then you can’t help but notice how awkward they can be in social settings with women who are more likely to represent the meaty part of the IQ bell curve.

Anyhow, both schools of thought have a point. Chicks are more viscerally turned on by raw male power and alpha attitude than they are by male smarts, but because chicks are wired to seek men who are higher status than themselves on as many metrics as possible (except looks; no pretty girl likes to be upstaged by her man in the looks department) they will generally be turned off by men who are dumber than they are.

This isn’t just theoretical musing. I say this from a position of real world observation. I’ll use a short anecdote as example: I was once hanging out with some girls in my group of friends when one of them got hit on by a very good-looking guy. She had previously noticed him and was tittering about him with her girlfriends when he approached, so she was already emotionally lubed to accept his entreaty.

Having a ringside seat to this blossoming courtship, I happily eavesdropped on the proceedings from a half-concealed vantage among the crowd. It didn’t take long for the whole thing to implode in entertaining failure. The flash point was when she used a two-dollar word and he replied in a way that proved he didn’t know what the word meant. Lemme tell ya, you never saw a woman’s flirty face turn sour so fast.

Afterwards, she confided that his apparent dumbness made him seem so much less good-looking to her.

So maybe this is the best way to view male smarts from the perspective of pickup success: all else equal, it’s better to be smarter than the girl you are hitting on than dumber than her. Sounds obvious, but I think this simple point gets missed. Girls may not be immediately turned on by men who are smarter than them, but you can bet girls are immediately turned off by men who prove themselves dumber than them. Men’s smarts then, act as a threshold test of fuckability for girls; too much won’t necessarily help or hurt you, but too little (relative to the girl) will definitely hurt.

The above is not a maxim, because I find that it applies primarily to overeducated girls in the cities. Less educated and less intelligent girls, who, it should be reminded, occupy the bulk of womanhood, are neither as impressed by male smarts nor as turned off by male stupidity as are their smarter sisters. Mostly this is because the mediocre mamacitas are not going to be throwing around two-dollar words that test the verbal acumen of the men they meet. Secondarily, dumber girls don’t have the cortical horsepower to quickly ascertain male dumbness the way smarter girls do; therefore, other sexy male traits, like dominance, loom larger in the dumb girl’s head.

But no matter how smart you are, if you aren’t using your smarts to light up a woman’s limbic lust center, you may as well drop your pretense to genius and try to speak to her on her level; no man ever incited tingles in a girl by solving quadratic equations or philosophizing deeply about deep stuff. After all, the reason women are drawn to male smarts is not smarts per se, but the promise of resources and power that typically accrue to the smart man. It’s proxies all the way down.

Read Full Post »

Hot Women Are Harder To Fool

Put away your illusions about smart, ugly girls and dizzy, hot blondes. If you want to know which type of girl will be better at cutting through your cadtastic bullshit, it’s the hot babes for the sixth sense win.

Women in contrast, often have low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR); i.e., narrow waists and broad hips that approximate an hour-glass configuration. Women with low WHR’s are rated as more attractive, healthier, and more fertile. They also tend to have more attractive voices, lose their virginity sooner, and have more sex partners. WHR has also been linked with general cognitive performance. In the present study we expand upon previous research examining the role of WHR in cognition. We hypothesized that more feminine body types, as indexed by a low WHR, would be associated with cognitive measures of the female “brain type,” such as mental state attribution and empathy because both may depend upon the activational effects of estrogens at puberty. We found that women with low WHRs excel at identifying emotional states of other people and show a cognitive style that favors empathizing over systemizing. […]

It is interesting to note that our findings suggest lower WHR females, who are more likely to be targeted for dishonest courtship, may be better at identifying disingenuous claims of commitment.

Executive summary: You can string along an ugly chick a lot longer than you can a hot chick. But then, why would you want to?

Sex differences are the result of eons of social interactions between men and women with differing reproductive goals. Gene variants have evolved to equip men and women with the armaments they need to successfully navigate the mating market. Men have evolved penetrative bunker busters; women have evolved deeper bunkers. It’s an arms race with no end in sight, and no purpose; its existence is its own reward.

These sex-based gene variants aren’t uniform; “girly” genes are found less numerously in masculine women, and “manly” genes are found less frequently in feminine men. There is a general psychosocial sex dichotomy that is blurred at the edges, where the girly and manly gene clusters are not as clearly delineated. Thus you find, as this study concludes, that manjawed freaks like feminists are more likely than neotenous beauties are to fall for a player’s empty promises. Maybe that’s why feminists are so adamant about inserting the state into sexual affairs: they need a smarter surrogate to protect them from their own naivete.

It makes perfect sense that hot chicks would be better at sniffing out pump and dumpers from buy and holders, because they have inherited traits from their ancestral sisters that protect them from the kinds of men who are very good at seducing women at the lowest price point possible; men who, it stands to reason, would want to seduce only the hottest women, and a splendid variety of hot women, at that.

This study should also give pause to those game haters who believe players only target ugly chicks. If that were the case, the ugly girls would have evolved defensive mechanisms against the plunderings of players. But the fugs remain naive and easily manipulable, because, analogous to beta males and their rose-colored views of beautiful women, they rarely get the chance to experience the worst, or the best, sides of desirable men.

Read Full Post »

I Was Right: Study Shows Conservatives And Liberals Have A Look

This post, where I speculated, based on nothing more than my personal, clear-eyed observations, that conservatives and liberals have a “look” which I, and most people, can identify with a quick glance, spurred plenty of discussion, most of it taking me to the shed for lack of scientific rigor. Liberals seemed greatly displeased that I insinuated the male of their kind seems always on the verge of bursting into tears. (Note I also said that liberals look smarter than conservatives. But the implication of their weakness hit home a little harder than the flattery of their intelligence.)

As if on cue, here’s a study that basically proves my contention, jot and tittle.

Here we found that individuals’ political affiliations could be accurately discerned from their faces. In Study 1, perceivers were able to accurately distinguish whether U.S. Senate candidates were either Democrats or Republicans based on photos of their faces. Study 2 showed that these effects extended to Democrat and Republican college students, based on their senior yearbook photos. Study 3 then showed that these judgments were related to differences in perceived traits among the Democrat and Republican faces. Republicans were perceived as more powerful than Democrats. Moreover, as individual targets were perceived to be more powerful, they were more likely to be perceived as Republicans by others. Similarly, as individual targets were perceived to be warmer, they were more likely to be perceived as Democrats.

Game. Set. Snatch.

Some of you may ask, “What is it like, oh Lord and Savior of Powerful Malehood, to be burdened so heavily with objective rightness?”

I tell you now, it is a burden I would not place on my worst enemy, for the sweet thrust of psychologically impaling my haters is one I want to savor all to myself. Thou shalt not interrupt the Master when He is mid-Holy Skullfuck.

The coda to the study higlights an often overlooked (understandably, if you are a blank slater) aspect of human nature.

These data suggest that perceivers’ beliefs about who is a Democrat and Republican may be based on perceptions of traits stereotypically associated with the two political parties and that, indeed, the guidance of these stereotypes may lead to categorizations of others’ political affiliations at rates significantly more accurate than chance guessing.

In other words, pattern recognition is a valuable aid to anyone navigating the chaos of the real world, their denials they engage in such nefarious human-like activity to the contrary notwithstanding.

Read Full Post »

The Silent Virginity

There are virgins among us, but they cannot be identified by their ecstatic moans, so they slip unnoticed by the sexually active masses like frigid totems to a bygone era.

A reader links to a study on American virginity rates:

Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

– Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

– Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

– Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

– Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

– The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

– Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

Read Full Post »

Another Game Concept Vindicated By Science: Kino Escalation

Incoming! The studies providing evidence for the effectiveness of one game technique after another keep rolling in like a tsunami, washing away throbby-veined feminists and mewling omega virgins in their wake. Glorious times for face-rubbing! The latest in this lie-smashing cavalcade is scientific proof for the game concept of kino escalation.

Why Light Touching Can Double Your Chances of Getting a Date

During a conversation, a light touch can impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection, leading to more successful social interactions and even better teamwork. […]

Over the course of that day, three young and handsome French men [participating in a study] randomly approached 240 young women they spotted walking alone and propositioned each and every one of them. To each, they would utter exactly the same words: “Hello. My name’s Antoine. I just want to say that I think you’re really pretty. I have to go to work this afternoon but I wonder if you would give me your phone number. I’ll phone you later and we can have a drink together someplace.” If the woman refused, they’d say, “Too bad. It’s not my day. Have a nice afternoon.” And then they’d look for another young woman to approach. If the woman handed over her number, they’d tell her the proposition was all in the name of science, at which time, according to the scientists, most of the women laughed. The key to the experiment was this: with half the women they propositioned, the young men added a light one-second touch to the woman’s forearm. The other half received no touch.

The researchers were interested in whether the men would be more successful when they touched the women than when they didn’t. How important is touch as a social cue? Over the course of the day, the young men collected three dozen phone numbers. When they didn’t touch the women, they had a success rate of 10 percent; when they touched them, their success rate was 20 percent. That light one-second touch doubled their popularity. Why were the touched women twice as likely to agree to a date? Were they thinking, This Antoine is a good toucher—it’d probably be fun to knock down a bottle of Bordeaux with him some night at Bar de l’Océan? Probably not. But on the unconscious level, touch seems to impart a subliminal sense of caring and connection.

Raisin-sacked anti-gamers who have never left their basement hovels to try out a single game technique on a non-latex woman like to whine “Where’s the double-blind, controlled, blah blah blah scientific evidence for all these game theories?” Well, here it is, numbskulls. And there are plenty more in the archives of Le Chateau. Read them and feel your testicles descend.

Now, a number close rate increase from 10% to 20% is not huge. But keep in mind that the kino they tested was only a single, light, one-second touch on the forearm. Game theory espouses *escalating* kino, which involves increasing the frequency, duration and boldness (i.e. touching more erogenous zones on a woman) of kino throughout the seduction, gradually drawing the woman deeper into your sticky web of wonder.

Furthermore, game is a compendium of ploys, a symphony of stratagems. Kino is but one small part of the whole seduction process. If each game technique — say, negs, or DHV spikes, or body language — increases your close rate by 10%, then the sum of all game, deftly tallied, will surely increase your close rate by more than 10%.

Even a mere increase from 10% to 20% number close rate is worthy of bringing the Light of Game into your life. I think most betas would be thrilled to double their chances of scoring a random girl’s phone number.

Note the following line from the article. It’s very telling:

In fact, in studies in which the touched person was later debriefed about the experience, typically less than ­one-third of the subjects were even aware that they had been touched.

The master seducer’s game is so tight, that women will not even know they are being gamed. That’s the goal you should shoot for. If women are consciously aware of your game, you’re doing something wrong. Game isn’t a hammer to the head; it’s an electrified sensation that meanders just underneath conscious awareness, burrowing deep into the dark nooks of a woman’s hindbrain.

I don’t post these studies for the benefit of accomplished seducers who read here. They already know this stuff works, because they’re out there using it on women. They don’t need studies to tell them what they can see and hear and feel with their own senses. No, I post them primarily to get under the skin of haters. I can practically see them steam with impotent rage as they read the very thing they have claimed to want to read. I post them secondarily to illuminate fence-sitters who are open-minded to the enterprise of bedding women. But really, my first love is sadistically twisting the shiv in the loser mafia. Squeal like a pig, Gollum!

Read Full Post »

Proof That Power Corrupts Absolutely

Power has an effect on the brain almost identical to cocaine.

More than a hundred years after noted historian Baron John Acton coined the phrase ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ scientists claim the saying is biologically true.

The feeling of power has been found to have a similar effect on the brain to cocaine by increasing the levels of testosterone and its by-product 3-androstanediol in both men and women.

This in turn leads to raised levels of dopamine, the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens, which can be very addictive.

We all know women are unable to control their primal attraction for powerful men. A cursory examination of the world around you will aptly demonstrate. It makes sense, if you are a man who loves the company of women, to work to become powerful OR to adopt the mannerisms of the powerful, which can have the same influence on dopamine release as possessing objectively measurable power. The behavior of powerful alpha male baboons has some game lessons for humans.

Power has almost identical effects to cocaine and too much of it can produce too much dopamine leading to more negative effects such as arrogance and impatience.

The claims by Dr Ian Robertson may go some way to explain the outlandish and impulsive behaviour of city fatcats, tycoons and celebrities.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph today, he said: ‘Baboons low down in the dominance hierarchy have lower levels of dopamine in key brain areas, but if they get ‘promoted’ to a higher position, then dopamine rises accordingly.

‘This makes them more aggressive and sexually active, and in humans similar changes happen when people are given power.

Women don’t love *power* per se. What they feel instead is a visceral attraction for the ATTITUDE that powerful men exhibit. Attitude and personality are more important to a man’s success with women than his looks, bankroll or material possessions. You can have the latter but still fail with women if you act like a self-doubting beta. But if you have the former you can succeed with women without having the latter. Of course, having all of it is better than having either, but if you had to choose, choose jerkitude.

Arrogance, impatience, outlandishness, entitlement, aggression, sexual voracity and overconfidence — these are the male personality traits that win women over. If you don’t want to toil for 30 years to gain the social or economic power that will imbue you with these sexy characteristics, you can take a short cut and plug into the god machine directly by altering your personality to one that is sexier to women.

“Just be yourself!” is really girl code for “Just be your beta self so I can quickly screen you out!”

Fuck that. Just be your better self. Then sit back and enjoy the exquisite pleasure of screening girls in and out of your rotation.

A reader writes:

How does the elite justify its consistent fucking over of the beta males today?

Glib answer: Because they can.

Glib Lite answer: They’re power tripping.

Have you ever tried to bring a coke fiend down from his exhilarating high? It’s impossible. Nothing will bring those fuckers down until the drug wears off. And coke is so addictive that you are searching for the next bump within seconds after the first one has stopped working. Same with the elite. Their dopamine rush is going full blast. They’ve been snorting lines off whores’ asses since 1965. Best we can hope for now is that they OD and their hearts just give out.

Game is like the cocaine version of power. Same feelings, quicker rush, less work. I know guys who run their best game while doing coke. Cocaine Game. Combine any two of the three and you are unstoppable. Game + societally high status = ladykiller. Game + cocaine = ladyslayer. Societally high status + cocaine = golddigger glue. Game + societally high status + cocaine = Plunderer of Vaginas.

This is all in the Bible somewhere, isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

The Psychology Of Liberals And Conservatives

In the spirit of deconstructing (heh) feminist and manboob psychology, here’s my stab at doing the same for the underlying psychologies of liberals and conservatives. I’m working under the premise that political ideology is at least partly genetic in origin, which evidence is beginning to suggest may be the case. Whether it’s one gene or thousands of genes that contribute is irrelevant to the larger picture.

Liberals are naive novelty seekers, and this manifests as, for instance, a (claimed) love of open borders and diversity, and a penchant for risk and undue optimism in the face of evidence to the contrary. Conservatives are commonsensical guardians, and that manifests as a wariness of untested outsiders and a respect for the tried and true. Neither ideology, if restrained from its worst excesses, is necessarily “bad”; logically, if liberalism or conservatism were really bad and fitness-reducing, they would have been selected out of the human gene pool by now. No, it’s probably fairer to say that in an environment of low level threats and approximate mental, emotional and psychological equality between men, (such as might be seen in an isolated, small hunter-gatherer tribe), liberalism (i.e., “foragerism”) is the more “fit” ideology; whereas in a threatening, unstable environment where human traits, both positive and negative, between people and races are unequally distributed, conservatism (i.e., “farmerism”) is the more “fit” ideology to hold.

Now… did you all notice my reframe in the above definitions? See how easy it really is to throw a snarky leftist back on his heels, in the defensive crouch? Open-minded? How about naive. Adventurous? Careless. Tolerant? Undiscerning. You can do the same with women by reframing their objections. That is a core concept of game.

A reader adds:

Liberals do indeed score a lot higher on the personality trait Openness to Experience. However, conservatives score significantly higher on the personality trait Conscientiousness. Which means conservatives tend to fuck things, including their own lives, up a lot less.

Anyway, if you haven’t you should read up on the work of Jonathan Haidt.  Very worthwhile.

I’m in a generous mood, so I’ll say this about that: a wholly conservative society will probably stagnate into dullness, albeit a dullness that pleasantly avoids total dystopia. A wholly liberal society, thrilling as it is, will probably go extinct from being overrun by barbarians, or will implode from a lack of attention to the time-tested details that scaffold civilization. Maybe both ideologies are found in humans because a mix of the two maximizes group fitness. /generosity

Liberalism is ascendent right now (spare me the hand waving about Republican electoral wins, who have been forced leftward for generations just to compete), and we can see from that the whole project beginning to unravel under their Open-minded and Novelty Seeking tutelage. Their power has grown beyond their control, and if it can’t be stopped at the voting booth, the boardroom, or the classroom, it WILL be stopped when the less enlightened hordes bring their pandemonium, whether quickly by arms or slowly by alms, crashing down upon the gated communities.

And, man, when that happens, will that be the most satisfying “I told you so” I ever contemptuously dripped like sun-warmed ice cream outta my mouth.

Read Full Post »