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 »

The Psychology Of Feminists And Manboobs

Preface: I wanted to title this post “Monsters in our midst”, but thought that would be overkill.

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Feminism, whether dressed in ostensibly male or female cloak, strikes the hearts of healthy, self-confident people as inherently absurd and manipulative. Those who bother to closely examine the ideology find a minefield of lies and dissembling messengers. This naturally leads to questioning if there is something “off” in the aggregate with those who most vociferously preach the feminist word and harangue the heretics.

I have a theory that is perhaps the most politically incorrect thing you will read at the Chateau. The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel. The mask would have slipped, revealing the feminist death underneath.

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit. This revulsion is near universal. But why do we feel disgust for fat people? Hordes of obese have only been with us recently in evolutionary history. Instead of seeking an explanation in a “fat revulsion” gene, it’s better to think of our natural disgust for fat people as having its origin in a more general “abnormality” or aberration template deeply wired into our hindbrains.

This abnormality template — you could call it the monster mechanism — is easily triggered by the sight of anything which seriously deviates from its category’s normal phenotype range, provoking fear and disgust in the observer. You can find indirect confirmation of the monster mechanism hypothesis in the fact that it is limited to objects which exist in the state of nature, and therefore would have been around during the millennia humans evolved. For example, if you deform something that does not exist in the state of nature — a car, say — you may make it look really weird, but it won’t inspire visceral terror and revulsion.

But if you deform a human being by adding eyeballs, limbs or hundreds of pounds of fat, you get a nightmare creature that will make small children, who have not yet learned the proper polite restraint, cry. Similarly, masculinizing a woman or feminizing a man turns each into a monstrous aberration, the degree of perceived monstrosity and primally induced disgust proportional to the deviation from the normal sex phenotype.

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit. The farther your feminist or manboob deviates from the normal human template, in physical and psychological form, the more monstrous it becomes to the average person.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

Finally, you would attempt to do to the Other what you have felt from the Other your whole life — cast them into the icy wastelands. Due to a combination of hate-driven relentless energy as a perpetual outsider, plus elite co-conspiracy, you succeed… temporarily, always temporarily… at convincing large numbers of normals to blankly imbibe your warped truth. No one who is anyone would bother questioning your motivations, because that would be… unseemly.

And the Lords of Lies held dominion over all.

But that is changing now. The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

Read Full Post »

Hypergamy Discussion

Over at Cheap Chalupas Central, there’s a rollicking post and discussion thread about female hypergamy and its consequences for society when it is unleashed in full. Recommended reading. Le Chateau Heartiste is proud to be the locus for the mainstreaming and growing interest in female hypergamy. It’s long overdue. Naturally, the Big Chalupa himself is loath to link the relevant posts here, instead preferring the route of swiping tangentially in code. He’s a coy one! Well, whatever. At least we know he reads this blog religiously. Perhaps under the bed with a flashlight?

Read Full Post »

Game Is Even More Important For Relationships

Game has a reputation among ignoramuses as a player’s handbook for picking up sluts in bars and clubs, but of course these willfully stupid haters are wrong. Not only is game universally attractive to all women, like T&A on a woman is attractive to men, but game as a concept and a strategy is critical to maintaining long-term relationship health. Women do not cease being hypergamously attracted to alpha males once they are in relationships, so game can serve as a welcome corrective to keep women “in the fold”.

A reader writes:

This is a paper you might find interesting (and that betas might find depressing). It claims that women in stable relationships are even more attracted to dominant men when ovulating, compared with single women. Suggesting cheating on LTRs is written deep in women’s genes.

Title: Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status

Body odour may provide significant cues about a potential sexual partner’s genetic quality, reproductive status and health. In animals, a key trait in a female’s choice of sexual partner is male dominance but, to date, this has not been examined in humans. Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odour of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women.

The desire of a woman to rut intimately with an aloof alpha male during her week of ovulation is greater when she’s in a stable relationship with a beta male provider than when she’s single. Chew on that for a second. Your beloved is more likely than the single skank in the bar to tingle for the rude intrusions of alpha cock. And all in service to her genes’ directive to saddle a loyal, unwitting provider chump with the job of helping raise a better cockier man’s issue.

Feeling romantic? Hallmark doesn’t make cards for such occasions.

But only you can prevent vagina fires. Gaming your lover, particularly during her time of ovulation, will keep her in a state of heightened arousal and interest, thereby reducing the chance that she’ll act on her genetic predilection to seek the seed of dominant rivals. Game is more important to relationship management than it is to picking up girls because the cost of losing a girlfriend or wife is much greater than the cost of losing a five minute prospect.

This is why we here at Le Chateau focus so much on relationship game compared to other pick-up sites; the benefits accruing to men in relationships from using game are, both individually and from a societal perspective, more profound in some respects than the rewards from being skilled at bedding numerous women. In the sexual arena, there is no worse sin for a woman to commit, and no graver indignity for a man to suffer, than infidelity motivated by ancient biological urges toward cuckoldry. Game can help contain that evil female impulse, and that’s what makes game truly, a gift from god.

In another grievous blow to feminist and manboob doctrine, this study also highlights the attraction that women have for men who demonstrate personality traits of dominance. So we see here yet another Chateau Heartiste concept validated by science: chicks dig dominant jerks, and dominance is primarily a function of attitude.

Read Full Post »

Evolution Toward Immortality?

This is not my thought. It’s a transcribed comment from a science group I follow.

Evolution isn’t done with us yet…and the latest innovations may well be still in their ‘Beta’ phase i.e. unreliable and not yet fully functional.

One of the major components of cellular aging is the shortening of telomeres: the protective ends of chromosomes. But there is a cure for this shortening problem.  It is called telomerase, the enzyme that can lengthen telomeres and so, in many cases around the human body, restore youth or halt aging.

Why doesn’t telomerase reactivate?  Every cell in the body has the formula for telomerase written into its DNA, so transcription is possible.

But the only cellular population that switches telomerase back on (apart from during our period of maturation) is cancer.  And cancer tends to prefer damaged or old tissue.

Is it possible that evolution is trying to figure out a way to switch telomerase back on for old or damaged tissue, but the process, far from perfection, screws up each time and we end up with cancer instead?

It is an intriguing thought ~ that when evolution finally gets it right then some of the most prominent manifestations of aging will gradually disappear, perhaps leaving the majority of the population to age gracefully into their early 100s and, perhaps, beyond!!

A dizzyingly pregnant hypothesis. Seems to me the key to unlocking the human potential for almost infinitely youthful lifespans lies in a full understanding of cancer — that most mysterious of afflictions — and how to corral its cruel destructiveness into something beneficial.

A lifespan measured in the hundreds of years, the great majority of those years lived in prime time vigor, a world of 80-year-old rock hard boners saluting at full mast and breasts pointing skyward joyously defiant of gravity, would so radically alter humanity’s relationship with just about every social, political and religious institution I can think of that predictions on the matter are futile. But you’re free to try.

Read Full Post »

The Reality Of Male Choice

Satoshi Kanazawa, a popularizer of evolutionary psychology before Psychology Today canned him for insufficiently footnoted and massaged crimethink, has frequently been fond of asserting that women exercise ALL the choice in the mating market. Men are just along for the ride, hoping to be one of the chosen. (Kanazawa’s absolutism on this matter is particularly galling, since he should know better. His claim is easily refuted. For example, I’ve had chubby chicks come onto me, and I’ve turned them down. Direct, stone cold rejection must feel a hundred times worse for women than it does for men.)

A certain breed of slutty tankgrrl feminist likes to claim the same thing; that women can have all the sex they want, whenever they want, and with whomever they want, and men have no say in the matter. A willful ignorance — or, more accurately, a clinical self-delusion — about the wall and men’s attractiveness standards is required to hold this position.

Then there are the beta and omega male trolls, a truly abhorrent species who occasionally squirt their tepid loserjizz in the comments of this blog when they announce — almost gleefully — that women rule, and men are hopeless horndogs who happily fuck fat and ugly chicks, making life difficult for the betas who have to deal with ego-pumped fatties.

They’re all wrong. Men do exercise choice in the dating market, and men with options — the men most desired by women — exercise the most choice of all, usually with extreme prejudice.

A simple program of getting out of the house and mingling in a social context should suffice as all the proof of male choice that you’ll need, but since a significant percentage of internet theorizers appear to be shut-ins or trollish cranks, it sometimes helps these wayward souls if a scientific study or two is posted to clear their muddled musings. In this study, evidence is given that men with more resources raise their mating standards.

Resources are a cardinal component of male mate value in the sexual exchange between men and women. Inspired by theories and research suggesting a link between mating and resource constructs as well as studies linking money and valuations of others, the current study tests the hypothesis that cues to resource availability may lead to higher mating standards for men, but not women. Participants were exposed to either stacks of paper, a small sum of money (104 Singapore dollars ∼USD$84), or a large sum of money (2600 Singapore dollars ∼USD$2100). Consistent with the hypothesis, after male – but not female – participants handled a large sum of money, they raised their minimum requirements for a date. [Physical attractiveness requirements drove this effect most significantly.] We discuss how the results are consistent with an evolutionary perspective on mating and how future research can further investigate environmentally contingent self-assessments and strategies.

The short and sweet of it: when men get more money, they start to screen for hotter chicks. That is, men with cash CHOOSE better looking girls.

I’ve no doubt similar studies that examined the relationship between social status, fame and game would find that men who acquired more of these positive traits would also begin raising their standards in what they will tolerate in a sex and love (but I repeat myself) partner.

It should be noted that studies like this demonstrating the reality of male mate choice do not imply that men exercise as much choice as women. That is false. Women are, by virtue of their more expensive and scarce reproductive life source, the more discriminating sex. It is absolutely true that a lot more men are willing to dump a lazy fuck in a fat chick than there are women willing to spread for a degenerate omega male.

But it’s simply a mistake to then extrapolate this relative leniency of male standards into evidence for a total lack of any male mating standards. Girls do experience rejection by men. The rejection may be more often indirect than direct (i.e. girls rarely approach, so when you don’t return their eye-play, or when you ignore their flirting, it subconsciously registers as the equivalent of a direct rejection to them), but it’s rejection nonetheless. Men with a thing or two going on will reject plenty of less attractive, older, sluttier and fatter women in their lifetimes.

The men having sex with all those fatties, fugs, sluts, single moms and cougars are not the high value, in-demand alphas that whiny beta trolls like to claim they are. It’s the loser males and the expedience cads — the men either most desperate for sexual intimacy or most uninterested in long-term commitment and a woman’s “special qualities” — who drop their standards to roll with a hippo for a night.

So the common trope that fat chicks are getting laid with no trouble is misleading; they’re getting laid, but it’s not with quality. And for women, quality is job one. Few women except the most deluded freaks feel good about themselves or confident in their sexual market value after enduring years of excessively short-term hookups with losers, or repeatedly failing to extract long-term commitment from the occasional dumpster diving winner. This is why it’s more common for ugly women to go years without sex; women, far more than men, prefer the life of celibacy to the life of being reminded of their low value by loser lovers.

For men, standards rise and fall with one’s relative status, social savvy, charisma, looks and resources. When any or all go up (looks being somewhat age-dependent), men tend to filter out less attractive women more aggressively, and pursue hotter chicks. When any or all go down, the opposite happens. A man’s options will dictate how ruthlessly he weeds out unacceptable women.

For women, standards are mostly set by conception, and cemented by birth after the hormonal chaos in the womb has been integrated. The looks a woman is born with will, with minor exceptions (for instance, sex ratios), determine her mating standards later in life, up until the age when her appearance begins to abandon her.

This is the one, intrinsic advantage that men have over women in the eternal and escalating reproductive arms race: a man has the opportunity to improve his lot in life, or improve his attributes, and mate up the attractiveness ladder. With this opportunity comes risk; a man can also find himself mating down the ladder. Women, by contrast, have no such opportunity. They are issued a short list of achievable standards at birth, and this list cannot be altered; it is only revoked at such time that she has exhausted the mate capital she was bequeathed before she even gained consciousness.

Read Full Post »