Economic Wisdom Of The Day

Debt and changing demographics are intricately entwined.

Any economist who doesn’t include in his analysis of the causes of exhorbitant debt, stagnation, unemployment and declining happiness the unrelenting force of demographic change is doing his profession, and his readers, a disservice.

Judging by the vanishingly small number of economists who take an honest look at demographics, there appears to be a general tacit consensus among them that their field of discipline is not worth servicing well.

Here’s a related post to help clarify.

Read Full Post »

An Updated Cold Read

Most of you game-acquainted guys reading have probably heard of the ‘Sex and the City’ cold read routine by now. (A cold read is usually framed as an “intuition” or “a feeling” you have about a girl or girls, and typically follows an opener.) If not, here’s a place you can refresh your memory.

But times have changed. SATC — and that other girl-dominated cast in “Charlie’s Angels” often used as a cold read — are dated shows. 20-something chicks are not going to relate. Being an interesting, fun dude to 20-something women means being clued into insipid cultural trends. So I’ve updated the cold read formula for 2012, and I call it The Glee Read. It’s the same formula as the SATC read, only with new characters replacing the old, jaded, sinewy Samantha, Carrie, Charlotte and that lesbian.

YOU: (Smiling) “You guys are awesome you’re just like the girls from Glee.”

GIRLS: “Oh I love that show…”

YOU: “You’re definitely Rachel because you’re strong but you have a heart. People misunderstand you.” (This is good to use on the shy girl of the group.)

YOU: “You’re Quinn, the queen bee!” (Use on the most outgoing chick.)

YOU: “And you’re Mercedes. You want to be a diva, but you’re too nice to pull it off.” (This is actually a great neg to use on a hot white chick, because the Mercedes character is a fat black girl. The character “Santana” would also work as a neg.)

YOU: “And you…” Shake your head disapprovingly at your target. “You are Sue Sylvester.”

You don’t have to use the exact formula I’ve written above. Just know a little bit about the main characters and suit to taste. “Glee” is very popular with the prime fertility window demographic. Another show that is popular with American women (and which bespeaks SO WELL of our nation) is “Gilmore Girls”. If you aren’t up to speed on the show — and who could blame you? — you can read about the characters here. Then craft your own cold read routine based on what you know about the characters’ personalities.

Remember, lead the conversation. Girls react so positively to cold reads involving pop culture references that you will be tempted to let the convo roll in that direction for longer than is necessary. Don’t be afraid to cut girls off so that you may segue them to more fruitful (heh) banter.

Also, you’d be surprised how many 30-something women are into these shows as well. Never-ending adolescence has infected both sexes. In fact, I’d argue women have assumed the mantle of perpetual adolescence in far greater numbers and with greater intensity than have men. You just have to use the correct — read: the un-PC — metrics to uncover that.

Read Full Post »

The Reason Why Hot Girls Have Gay Boyfriends

Have you ever noticed how many hot girls have a passel of gay male friends in their inner circle? But don’t get the wrong impression. It’s not accurate to say these gay men are orbiters sucking up to the emotional needs of their girl friends; more often, the hot chicks are orbiting the gay men. The gay men decide where to go out, and the women follow. The gay men lead conversations, and the women respond. Hot babes, in other words, are the beta male orbiters to gay male friends.

I don’t know how gay men act around other attractive gay men — presumably they act similarly to straight beta males in the company of hot women — but I do know that gay men are the absolute MASTERS of negging and teasing hot chicks. Thus, beta males starting out with game would find it helpful to spend some time hanging with mixed groups that include gay men. What they will witness is an absolute CLINIC in the use of negs and teasing to arouse the pleasure centers in women.

Overheard examples:

Hot chick: [complaing about her long workouts]

Gay male friend: That’s not a real workout. Stop bitching.

***

Hot chick: [lamenting the long walk to the party in her high heels] I almost wanted to take them off and throw them in the street!

Gay male friend: [looking at her shoes and shaking his head disapprovingly] Next time, don’t just say it. Do it!

Why are gay men so good at negging hot women? Sure, gays have a biting, shallow wit and a keen ability to ricochet from one subject to another giving each only the most superficial consideration that appeals to women, but more importantly, gays are totally relaxed around very good-looking girls. Women’s beauty — the prime vector inducing stammering, stuttering, stressing and pants loading in straight beta males — exerts no influence on gay men’s emotional states, except in a distantly abstract aesthetic sense, like one might feel admiring a pleasing artwork.

Straight men — and by straight men I mean beta males, because alpha males already understand how women function — can learn a thing or two from gay men about how to handle hot chicks. Gay men have natural attraction game around women, because they are truly 100% outcome independent. There isn’t a gay man alive who cares about closing the deal with a chick.

You’ll learn more observing the gay man-hot chick social dynamic. Gays don’t neg and tease constantly, though they do tease a lot more than you suspect. Every so often, the gay friend will flatter his girl friend and pass a compliment along, usually relating to something she’s wearing or her improved body. But it seems every sincere compliment is leavened with three backhanded compliments, three sarcastic ripostes, and three playground-style teasing insults.

Why do hot girls put themselves in this reactive position vis-á-vis gay men? Simple. They like it. They love how their gay friends verbally molest them. They love it so much they often remark absent-mindedly how great it would be if their gay friends were straight.

The hot girl who is surrounded by boring beta men all day, who gets approached by marble-mouthed suitors more often than she can count, craves the teasing put-downs and the mercurial ministrations of self-confident, don’t-give-a-shit-what-she-thinks men in her life. Gay men give her all that, minus the cock. Imagine her delight when a straight man with game gives her the same thing, plus the bonus of a massively tumescent penis.

Read Full Post »

Newsflash! Sexually Obsolete Jilted Wife Reconsiders Divorcing Unfaithful Alpha Male Husband

This is what happens when a woman who has passed into sexual worthlessness has to contemplate the stark reality of divorce from a cheating alpha male husband who fathered a child with his mistress, but who still tingles his wife’s tangle.

Is Maria Shriver having second thoughts about divorcing Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That’s what we heard.

Tipsters cite the Kennedy princess’ strong Catholic faith as one of the main reasons she might be reconsidering tossing the husband who cheated on her.

The religion excuse is squid ink. Maria has lost her looks and is facing the merciless indifference of the zero sum, free-for-all dating market as an aged divorcée. She knows, on some deep primitive level, that as a newly single woman she could very well wind up living out her years unloved by any man. Or at the least unloved by any man even close to Arnold’s level of alphaness.

A woman in this position, and swirling with these feelings, can forgive a lot. I mean, A LOT.

Arnold, for his part, is reported to be treating her nicely. What’s that sound… cha ching.

It’s almost as if there is a powerful sexual market guiding people’s decisions. Weird.

Read Full Post »

Should Game Be Taught In School?

Reader “Harkat” asks:

Should game, or at least socio-sexual dynamics, be taught in middle/high school? It’s a significant part of life, and knowledge of these topics would help the vast majority of confused teenagers (at least the boys).

The little that was said about sexual dynamics in my high school was extremely idealist egalitarian and far from reality, and did nothing to help us (at least not the boys). We got delivered phrases like “Do not feel pressure to have sex!”, which hardly resonates with the average teenage boy.

In a perfect world, sex and love education is left to family (parents, friends, older siblings, cool uncles) and experience. But we are far from that world, and condoms are rolled over bananas while men are rapped for phantom sexual repression in the halls and classrooms of almost all our venerated institutions. That being the case, it’s more effective to undermine suffocating elite orthodoxy by working within its confines, instead of feebly fist-pumping from outside it. So, yes, in a world designed according to Chateau tenets, game would be taught to high school boys — preferably in classes separate from the girls.

I can see it now.

Week 1: Introductions to male-female sex differences and Syllabus (Included readings from various respected sources in evo psych, game and social dynamics, e.g., Ridley, Markovic, Carnegie).

Week 2: Why chicks dig jerks. (Students expected to fully understand sexy son hypothesis).

Week 3: Alphas and betas, the hidden hierarchy.

Week 4: Sycophancy and involuntary celibacy, the connection.

Week 5: Men and women have an agenda, and how to recognize it.

Week 6: Game as revolution in sociosexual thought.

Week 7: Core game principles.

Week 8: Dating to maximize one’s happiness.

Week 9: Sex, guilt and expectations: why society has an interest in corralling male desire.

Week 10: Relationships and marriage: making them work.

Week 11: Finals: In-field exam.

Music to my ears. Of course, this will never happen. Teaching young men the unvarnished truth about women, sex, dating and marriage would throw grit into the gears of the beta cog molding machine that supplies a never-ending procession of obedient housetrained quasi-eunuchs. What good does it do the dealers of consumerist opiates if they can’t domesticate a suitably pliable army to staff their globocorporate offices?

The channeling of male vitality with the help of useful lies has been a central element of the civilizing process in the West and elsewhere for eons. It has its place, even for the poolsiders who need a prosperous nation in which to pursue their lifestyles. But the last fifty or sixty years (monarchists would argue the effort goes back at least 150 years) has witnessed the twisting of this process into a monstrous form, under whose shadow the lies have multiplied and tyrannized free-thinking men, restricting respectable thought to a narrow range of groupthink.

A public policy to make the teaching of game and its underlying concepts mandatory for high schoolers would have to overcome so many obstacles and entrenched thought and interests as to limit the notion strictly to the realm of fantasy. But that doesn’t mean current sex ed classes can’t be deviously rippled with pebbles of thoughtcrime by sympathetic operatives.

Instead of starve the beast, you could call this the “stuff the beast” philosophy of saving civilization by feeding it too much of its own late-stage bile. A hastening and amplifying of consequences, come to reckoning in technicolor exuberance. And you might even help a few tormented betas get laid on their own timetables.

Read Full Post »

Facebook Is SMV Time Compression Info

Rollo Tomassi writes:

Thank you Mark Zuckerberg for creating the single greatest time-comparative engine men have ever known. I’m not a big fan of Face Book from a male standpoint, but if it has any redeeming aspect it’s that it provably shows men, in stark contrast, how women’s SMV declines. This is driven home all the better because the subject women are usually ones he’s known personally for a few years.

I entered my 20s in the early 90s, well before the internet went mainstream. I can vividly remember the women I was banging then and the ones who wouldn’t have a thing to do with me. Now I see them 20 years later thanks to social media and every single one is just ravaged by time and lifestyle. I’ve accepted friend requests from women whose memory from 20+ years ago are ones of flirtatious, beautiful lust-inspiring youth, all to be shattered when I see photos of them in their late 30s and early 40s. Then I pray to God and thank Him for sparing me from being yoked to cows like that in spite of my consuming desire at the time to get with them.

Take a minute to digest this: we are really the first generation of men to have such a convenient comparative tool. There was a time when a man could get with (or not) some girl he fancied and never see her again. Young men hear all the time how inconsequential the women they pine for really are in the grand scheme of things. Now the older men giving him advice have a tool to prove and emphasize that advice, and women have cause to lament the ugly, provable truth.

It used to be that you had to extrapolate the deterioration of a hot girl’s looks by seeing her mother, preferably side by side. (The mother-daughter couples I see at the mall are testament to the chasm of difference in attractiveness. In a mere twenty years, the majority of women go from deliciously fuckable to sexually worthless. Rampant obesity worsens the decline, as most American women don’t hit their fattest, blobbiest years until after their 30s.)

Even then, the extrapolation was never anything more than an academic exercise. After all, it is easy to compartmentalize the mother from the daughter. Men could logically tell themselves this is what their lovers would look like in short order, but it didn’t have the visceral impact that actually seeing *an older version* of their young lovers would have.

Looking at old photos of exes was always a dreamy nostalgia trip, because men have rarely had access to newer, updated photos of exes or high school and college crushes: you left a girl or she left you, and that was that. You never saw her again, unless you really went out of your way. So your memories remained untainted by fresher biosystem information.

But now Facebook gives us that instant-comparison tool, and holy shit on a breakfast platter, is it effective, and disheartening. As Rollo said, there is now, for the first time in human history, a whole generation (or two) of men who have millions of saved photos of their younger lovers, not to mention sweet memories of them, side by side with instantly accessed photos of those same lovers five, ten, even twenty years later, thanks to the proliferation of social media and female attention whoring. And as the Facebook culture becomes entrenched, this “time-comparative engine” will only become more widespread, and eye-opening to millions of men.

There could be no more powerful way to inculcate to a man new to the game the first principle that women are largely interchangeable in the dating market than by handing him the keys to Facebook and the dangerous secrets locked within. The female aging process of past lovers compressed into seconds will shatter the hardest pedestals and deflate the headiest romantic idealism. There is no poem in the world that can fully express that disenchanting feeling.

Read Full Post »

Romney Is The Only (Viable) Republican Candidate

Randall Parker offers the clearest reason why Mitt Romney will wind up being anointed the Republican candidate for President.

Romney’s the best bet for the Republicans. He’s got very high analytical skills, understands finance, understands business management, and knows how to be a CEO. His Mormonism is not important. That he governed a liberal state from a moderate position was really the only choice he had as governor of Massachusetts. He’s not a nut case or a dummy like some of the other Republican candidates. He harkens back to an earlier (and better) Republican party when executive competence mattered and ideological zeal was suspect.

Note, the key qualifier is “viable”. Personally, I would vote for Ron Paul barring the emergence of a candidate who was strong on the only issue that really matters in 2012 for the U.S.: namely, immigration and the national question. But Paul is not a viable Republican candidate.

UPDATE: Ron Paul has moved into second place in the Iowa Poll. This race is wide open, folks.

If the middle-class economy really nosedives in 2012, Paul may be able to overcome elite antagonism to his candidacy and win the Republican primary.

I agree that the circumstantial evidence points to Gingrich having an intellect tilted too far in the direction of razzle-dazzle verbal fluency at the expense of critical thinking skills, but his standing in the polls is another reminder that it is in the nature of people to overvalue smooth talkers and to undervalue analytical thinkers. This cognitive bias likely has roots deep in our ancestral environment.

You need look no further than the dating market to see the same bias on full display. All else equal, who is getting the chicks? The math whiz or the silver-tongued salesman? Hell, even if you rig the comparison so that all else is not equal by, say, boosting the math whiz’s SMV with double the income and a two point advantage in looks over the salesman, the good money still bets on the latter to take the girl home and sully her cultivated purity.

Since this is a political post…

2012 prediction: the Eurozone experiment in forced financial busing implodes, taking the U.S. with it. Unemployment rises above 10%. A dark horse third-party candidate emerges sometime in April, stealing votes from both parties. Obama gently persuades Biden to retire and makes Hillary his VP. (Less likely: Obama quits the race and hands his candidacy over to Hillary.) Single women flock to his reelection bid in even greater numbers than they did in 2008, while white men vote in anti-Democrat numbers never before seen in U.S. politics. Racial and class polarization metastasizes. Obama and/or HIllary win, setting the stage for the final dissolution of the U.S. into a Balkanized banana republic. Feminists and equalists continue being stupid. Human nature continues flummoxing economists. No Child Left Behind continues leaving children behind. Mexico’s economy continues improving because their unskilled peasantry was offloaded on the U.S. for twenty years. Cheap chalupas remain more expensive than advertised because of negative externalities.

Women’s desire for alpha males stays, as always, unchanged.

Read Full Post »