Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

A series of riveting studies, referenced in this video from 7:15-11:05, examined the effects of reward, punishment, or a mix of the two on behavioral attachment. The reader who forwarded the video summarizes the studies’ results,

Experiment where baby animals are rewarded, punished, or a mix of both, for following researchers, their “mothers”.  The researchers measured attachment this way, and while punishment leads to more attachment from baby animals to the researchers, a mix of both, uncertainty leads to the most attachment.

Applied to game, this shows that while being an asshole is better than being nice, a mix of both, keeping a girl on her toes, will lead to the most attachment/attraction.

The pertinence of these studies to game should be obvious to the proto-illuminated. In turn:

- Young monkeys who were scared avoided the wire-constructed feeding mother in favor of the non-feeding, comforting cloth mother. Warmth and comfort were more important than food to fostering attachment (aka LOVE).

Game relevance: Beta males who think they can buy women’s love are sorely mistaken. Corollary: The comfort stage of game should not be neglected.

- A fake “rejecting” mother (a blast of air pushed the young monkeys away) increased the monkeys’ attachment. Frustration actually amplified the monkeys’ desire to attach.

Game relevance: The optimal game strategy is neither All Push nor All Pull, but Push and Pull working in concert to create delightful, tingle-generating uncertainty.

- Puppies who received random, intermittent love became the most attached to the researchers.

Game relevance: Relationship dread increases emotional attachment. This is a ❤️direct vindication❤️ of a core CH principle of intersexual relations.

A brutally truthful quote glares at you from the linked video:

…stress, including the mental stress of uncertainty, is an ingredient in attachment or love and that perhaps even manifestations of hatred (its polar opposite) somehow enhance love.

Where have you heard this before?

Indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love.

Of course, you don’t need the science to convince yourself of the merits of game. You could do the more personally rewarding thing and exit into the real world, try it out on women, and discover the power of applied charisma in the charts and graphs of women’s wet, yearning eyes and venturesome fingertips.

There’s a tangential point to be made regarding this slew of studies. The carrot and the stick together work best to alter people’s behavior. Those weepy liberals who decry “shaming” tactics take note. All access/all the time kumbaya self-esteem feels boosts make puppies and monkeys and ducklings… and humans… selfish little ingrates. If you want women to try and please you, they need to ride the exquisite see-saw of your acceptance and repudiation. Women may not *want* this, but they *need* it to feel the release of passions they escape to pulp romance to obtain vicariously.

ps For those claiming this “works on men too”, do note an important implied qualification: It works on beta men. Desirable men with options are rarely hornswoggled by women playing the same game they play.

Read Full Post »

Does this post title sound like a paradox? It is to virgin ears which have yet to hear the Rude Word of CH. But once again ♥science♥ waltzes onto the Chateau ballroom floor to plant a giant wet kiss on the stubbled cheek of your e’er ‘umble host and announce with stentorian resolve that “Aloof Indifference Game” is real and it works.

Erin Whitchurch and her colleagues conducted a study on 47 female undergraduates to find out. Each woman was told that several male students had viewed her Facebook profile and rated how much he’d like to get to know her.

One group was told that they would be seeing the four men who had given them the highest ratings (“liked-most” condition). Another group of women were told that they would be seeing the four men who had given them average ratings (“liked-average” condition. Finally, another group of women (“the uncertain condition”) were told that it is unknown how much the guy likes her. The women then viewed four fictitious Facebook profiles of attractive male college students.

After they viewed the profiles, they reported their mood and rated multiple aspects of their attraction to the male students (e.g., “someone I would hook up with“). The participants then rated their mood again, and also reported the extent to which thoughts about the men had “popped into their head” during the prior 15 minutes.

They found evidence for the reciprocity principle: women liked the men more when they were led to believe that the men liked them a lot compared to when they thought the men liked them an average amount.

Women in the uncertain condition, however, were most attracted to the men. Women also reported thinking about the men the most in the uncertain condition, and there was tentative evidence that the effect of uncertainty on attraction was explained by the frequency of their thoughts. In other words, it wasn’t the uncertainty per se that was attractive but the thoughts it induced.

Interestingly, women in the liked-best condition were in a more positive mood than women in the liked-average condition, but women in the uncertain condition were no different in mood than women in the liked-best condition. Women felt just as positive under uncertainty as they did knowing for sure the guy liked her!

When women think of assholes they don’t want to date, they’re thinking of caring assholes. The kind of men who are clingy, mate guarding buffoons. The assholes who are loved by women are the men whose jerkitude is implied through emotional distance, cocksureness, outcome independence, and inscrutability. The man who cares least earns the most love (and sex) from women. The gradient of this Uncaring Male-Loving Female curve is steep at the beginning of a relationship (courtship, dating) and levels off as the relationship deepens, to a point where the man’s SMV is noticeably higher than his lover’s and she is practically begging for romantic beta signs of his continued love and commitment.

The Uncaring Male-Loving Female curve is also dependent on the comparative sexual worth of the partners. A beautiful woman with a lot of options will be more attracted to romantically ambivalent men. In contrast, an ugly woman with few options will need and feel grateful for conspicuous signals of sexual and romantic interest from men.

As a man with game, you should always default to the Uncaring Male-Loving Female dynamic. If you overshoot, you have room to rein your indifference and bedaub the woman with tiny jewels of romantic intent; if you overshoot in the other direction — i.e., you lavish too much beta wooing on a woman — there’s no chance to come back from that category error.

Interestingly, psychologists are coming around to the CH theoretical (and field-tested) framework that the frequency and amplitude of “care least” courtship and dating rituals are increasing. Women, at least those in the highly sexually charged ruthouses of our major anonymizing cities, are responding more to aloof men, and are themselves mechanistically cranking the reverse gears of their pair-bonding algorithms. There are a host of reasons for this state of arid affairs, but one major factor has to be something like this: Women have become as men, and the flipped sexual polarity is warping every incentive structure of the dating market.

We’re tits-deep in the era of men and women competing like cheap date gladiators for the honor of most invulnerable animatronic ego maximizer.

One thing for certain: In this environment women are unhappy, society loses, and men with game win. Because if it’ll be about nothing but banging with piston-like efficiency and avoiding romantic entanglements, men will clean up the arena with the battered husks of women’s egos.

Read Full Post »

An interesting study, with findings that won’t surprise regular CH readers,

This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses [ed: KINO!]. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain.

To put it in LAYman’s terms: Women seduce men with their bodies, men seduce women with their nimble tongues (aka game).

Women require plausible deniability in matters of the tingle. Ambiguity is, to women, the essence of seduction. Hints and innuendo, “does he or doesn’t he?” mental calisthenics, and dramatic reversals and forward movements all contribute to heightening a woman’s sexual arousal.

Men need none of this. A pretty woman could present her naked body for the taking, and the man will take it, no (sincere) questions asked. Men abide the nuanced female view of seduction because women hold the key to sex; men who don’t abide women’s unspoken romantic predilections tend to go home alone. To bed a woman, a man must find a way to oscillate on her tingle frequency, and then to amplify that frequency. This tingle amplification needn’t be permanent; short bursts of wavelength alignment are often enough to do the job, because most men hardly come close to hurdling that low bar.

The best male seducers are those who relish the inherently feminine nature of seduction. These are men who not only understand the rules of the game, they are overjoyed to apply them, and in so doing come to master them.

So women use coy facial expressions and sexy displays of their bodies to entrance men, while men use words and subtle touch to entrance women. In other words, each sex PLAYS BY THE RULES OF THE OTHER SEX. Women give men what men want (visually stimulating sexiness and lip-licking promise) and men give women what women want (a torrent of seductive, pregnant words anchored with erotic, escalating touches).

Somewhere, right now, a weirdo omega hater is shrieking about GAMEBOYZ DANCING TO WOMEN’S TUNE. It shrieks alone tonight.

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered what drives some women to the cult of feminism, when every real world observation refutes nearly all the foundational premises of feminism? Why do so many women cleave to such a wrong-headed, insipid ideology?

Chateau Heartiste explained the phenomenon of feminism as shivvily as possible:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy.

By the Beard of Amanda Marcotte, alongs comes ♥♥♥science♥♥♥ to slurp the CH knob to completion.

Value-added commenter (yes, value-added… hint hint to you dopier commenters) chris writes,

My God. I think he just described feminism here:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

He is talking about this study here:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130079

Abstract:
Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children’s and grandchildren’s needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother’s genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The benefit of such tactical reframing is; what woman wants to be seen as a loser (ugly and slutty) and not as a winner (beautiful and lovely)? What woman wants to belong to the bottom quarter and not the top three quarters? To admit this would be to destroy their feminine egos. With such reframing, you could get the hamster working for you.

Great stuff. It’s a nifty addendum to the CH Theory of Feminism above. Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other. CH makes no glib assertion when we compare the obesity plague to the ugliness and lies of feminism and equalism. They are all born of the same toxic mentality, issuing from the breast of the Lord of Lies himself, and their waste and foulness and repugnance and stink and deception flows outward like hellshit, suffocating truth and beauty under an ash cloud of offal.

To the casual observer, a random fat chick may seem to have no relation to, say, anti-white animus. But they are connected in ways deep and true, even if the players themselves remain unaware of their invisible binds. This is why, when you fight one, you fight the other. Strike a shaming blow against obesity, and you draw blood from a degenerate open borders scumbag and a screaming banshee pushing for women at the front lines.

As a count or countess of CH, your enemy is, and should always be, the enemies of truth and beauty.

Read Full Post »

The people demanded less opaque post titles, and the proprietors listened. Nestled in the abstract of a seemingly unrelated study about the genetics of sexual antagonism is a finding that men’s looks don’t contribute much to their overall attractiveness.

Genetic Factors That Increase Male Facial Masculinity Decrease Facial Attractiveness of Female Relatives

For women, choosing a facially masculine man as a mate is thought to confer genetic benefits to offspring. Crucial assumptions of this hypothesis have not been adequately tested. It has been assumed that variation in facial masculinity is due to genetic variation and that genetic factors that increase male facial masculinity do not increase facial masculinity in female relatives. We objectively quantified the facial masculinity in photos of identical (n = 411) and nonidentical (n = 782) twins and their siblings (n = 106). Using biometrical modeling, we found that much of the variation in male and female facial masculinity is genetic. However, we also found that masculinity of male faces is unrelated to their attractiveness and that facially masculine men tend to have facially masculine, less-attractive sisters. These findings challenge the idea that facially masculine men provide net genetic benefits to offspring and call into question this popular theoretical framework.

This is a surprise even to the viscounts of CH, who have stated many times that manly male looks play some role in attracting women, even if that role is diminished relative to the role that female looks plays in attracting men. This study, one that apparently contradicts the prevailing scientific wisdom, found that masculine male looks did not influence the attractiveness of those men.

The reasoning sounds solid; women who are attracted to masculine-looking men run the risk of having ugly, manjawed daughters by them, (cf. Amanjaw Marcuntte). Since women can’t legally pick and choose (yet) the sex of their babies, evolutionarily speaking it would be a huge risk to mate with a man of masculine appearance and bear masculine daughters who would be less reproductively fit than more feminine women, instead of bearing masculine sons who, putatively, would be more reproductively fit than less masculine men. Such a strategy, then, is a theoretical wash in genetic continuance terms.

CH is not prepared to call this study the final word on the subject of male looks and its apportioned influence in male mating success, but it is further confirmation of the CH principle that conventional male facial attractiveness is not nearly as crucial a variable in the romantic success of men as female facial attractiveness is to the romantic success of women. Women are, at a very primal level, attracted to a much larger (although still circumscribed) panoply of physical and character traits in the opposite sex than the relative paucity of female traits that exert a libidinous pull on men.

What this study helps explain is the odd phenomenon of soft, hipster cream puffs like Pajamaboy managing the task of getting girlfriends. (Not necessarily Pajamaboy specifically, but those chinless freaks like him who know how to twirl with pizazz.) A chipmunk-cheeked herbling with game and a cocky attitude can get laid, and this fact doubtless stokes the ire of chivalrous, white knighting manly men who swing axes instead of cocoa mugs.

The manly men can find romantic success, too… even better than the pajamaboys… but it helps their cause if they incorporate the precepts of game into their dealings with women. What is coming into focus is that women’s criteria for lovers is more context- and personality-dependent than men’s criteria, and the seed of that pasty herbling with the flair for flirting can produce some knockout daughters, if the chromosomal stars align.

Read Full Post »

Researchers developed a computer model to simulate the human evolutionary process, and what they discovered was a possible explanation for why chicks dig “less supportive partners”, aka jerks.

We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.

The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.

Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.

We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.

But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.

As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict.

So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them.

This newest theory is interesting because it cuts against the grain of conventional thinking. It’s assumed by the unimaginative masses that the badboy exploits a sexual market niche of fatherless, low self-esteem skanks. The “Forever Seeking Daddy’s Approval” theory of jerkboy attractiveness rests on the premise that women who have been abandoned by their fathers will seek male approval from similarly emotionally distant lovers. A sort of “fuck it forward” karmic philosophy.

But now a computer simulation has spat out a possible new cause of a badboy love phenomenon that no one with any sense denies (even foul feminists can’t deny it). And in this simulation, it’s not the sluts craving daddy’s comforting hug who fall into the jerk’s tatted arms; it’s the daughters of large, intact families who exploit the material generosity of their parents (really, their fathers) by dating jerks who could use some outside support.

Does this new theory square with reality? At the risk of outing myself as a charming jerk, ( :cool: ) few of the women I’ve taken to bed on the first date came from broken families. Most were smart, psychologically balanced, and raised in the bosom of a loving nuclear family. The “first date” qualifier is important, because it’s a simple metric to use in a pinch that distinguishes impulsive, jerk-loving girls from playing-the-long-game cockteases with ice in their pussies.

Naturally, you would be right to protest that those are just anecdotes. But from anecdotes and personal observations, we build theories of the world. Gotta start somewhere. And it’s also true that some of those same night conquests (a notable minority) turned out, upon later inspection, to have a closet full of family strife skeletons.

The “Parent Exploitation” theory is not without its flaws. For one, it does not, as far as I can tell, include male mate choice in its algorithm. This is a huge oversight. Men, by nature of their reproductive expendability, may not exercise as much choice in the mating market as do women, but they exercise some choice. The pockets of exceedingly beautiful women around the world prove that men, when the ecological conditions are favorable, do adhere to standards when choosing long-term mates. This theory has nothing to say about that. For instance, what is the SMV of the women who choose unsupportive partners and fill in the gaps with their parents’ assistance? How does female SMV inform jerkboy choice? How does a daughter’s or a suitor’s SMV influence parents’ willingness to provide support? What about the kinds of men who choose sexytime women over coy princesses, and vice versa?

Then there’s the issue of declining fertility. How well does the model work when there are more one-child families? It’s not a leap to imagine that a one-child dystopia would encourage the parent exploitation strategy by entitled lone daughters, because there are no sisters to compete for daddy’s money. A one-child family unit world might also spur more cad-chasing by daughters who are sole inheritors of the family wealth.

What about a massively scaled-up dating market, like the one we have today, wherein parents have little to no influence over their daughter’s mate choices which are made in the shadow of urban anonymity and severance from any familial or community roots? Does a daughter’s exploitation strategy work as well under those conditions, or is dad so fed-up with his powerlessness that he cuts her off completely? Or, conversely, does dad lavish gifts on his faraway daughter as substitute for his lack of presence in her romantic life?

That’s the problem with these mathematical modelings: too many unspoken-for variables. A model can be useful, especially as a guide to lead to further inquiry, but its shortcomings are also made more evident by its executable.

So I remain agnostic on the ultimate cause of the female craving for cads. My preferred theory — and the one that makes the most sense from an up-close-and-personal vantage — is a combination of the “sexy sons” and the “dominance signaling” hypotheses. Women are attracted to hard-to-get, noncommittal, charismatic jerks because the sons of those jerks will inherit the jerk’s smooth, reproductive fitness maximizing way with women, and the jerk’s dominance with women is a strong cue that, in the future, he will dominate any enemies who might threaten his family or his lover.

PS Have any of you noticed that the hottest daughters have lumpy, chipmunk-cheeked beta male fathers? It’s the Sitcom Dad-Hot Piece of Princess Ass phenomenon. Enticing femininity is almost guaranteed when both mom and dad are feminine. Women who marry very masculine men tend to produce masculine sons (good) and masculine daughters (bad). Reverse the polarity when dad is very feminine. John Scalzi better hope he bears nothing but daughters… for YaReally to poop on!

So maybe the simulation above is best understood as a palimpsest of the fact that most families which have the resources to give to daughters who choose jerk loverboys are headed by beta provider fathers. And that, since most beta provider fathers are more phenotypically feminine, their daughters will be hotter and thus better able to both attract love from discerning jerks and extract resources from distributing fathers. But as society becomes less monogamous at the margins, the ability and willingness of fathers (not to mention the number of these fathers) to play along with this game gradually decreases.

Read Full Post »

More evidence emerges that the game principle of “fake it till you make it” has real world validity.

How your posture might make you more likely to cheat, steal, and commit traffic violations.

Here, the researchers tested whether a person’s posture — specifically, how “expansive”, or spread out, it is — affects their willingness to perform dishonest acts. Turns out that tricking people into adopting an expansive body position make them more willing to steal money, cheat on a test, and even commit traffic violations in a driving simulation.  Not only that, but cars with wider seats were more likely to be found illegally parked on the streets of New York City. The authors hypothesize that the effects they see are due to the expansive body position making people feel more powerful — and, as we know, powerful people tend to be both dishonest and hypocritical.

And sexy to the ladies. mrowr.

Yes, adopting “alpha male” power poses will actually make you FEEL more alpha and ALTER your behavior, even your hormonal profile, so that it is aligned more closely with the behavior of rubber-stamped alpha males.

In short, faking the alpha male demeanor turns you into a living, breathing alpha male. It’s more precise to say that you should “fake it till you create it”. Incorporating game concepts into your life will create an alpha male version of yourself. If you’re already alpha, it’ll make you alpha-ier.

The first three experiments showed that individuals who assumed expansive postures (either consciously or inadvertently) were more likely to steal money, cheat on a test, and commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Results suggested that participants’ self-reported sense of power mediated the link between postural expansiveness and dishonesty. Study 4 revealed that automobiles with more expansive driver’s seats were more likely to be illegally parked on New York City streets. Taken together, the results suggest that, first, environments that expand the body can inadvertently lead people to feel more powerful, and second, these feelings of power can cause dishonest behavior.”

If you sit (or stand) like a powerful man, i.e., an alpha male, you’ll feel more powerful. This feeling of power produces real consequences for other people, whom you will be more likely to screw over for your personal benefit. It also produces another benefit: girls will want to sleep with you.

Read Full Post »

The Jizzebel hokumguzzlers have built a retard empire on the fantastical premise that demonic men oppress angelic women, and that the end of such oppression would herald a femme utopia for land whales, skanks, proud sluts, transborgs, homonormatives, globular polyamorists, selfie-abusers and really cool smart chicks with pink hair who use the word “douchecanoe” a lot and think that makes them a member of the literati.

Except that, out here in the real world where the rubber hits the hole, it’s about as ass-backwards a belief as one can diligently nurture in the face of contradictory facts. If stepping outside the confines of the gloomy bedroom internet portal and listening to ♥science♥ hold any quarter with the self-delusion set, they would have to recant everything they profess, for the facts show that women are the worst enemies of women.

Who hurts women? Real rapists (as opposed to the phantasm of “regret rapists“) very infrequently hurt women. But the threat to women, as measured by battle effectiveness and sheer force of enemy number, is other women.

The rumor spreading, shunning and backstabbing of “mean girls” may be a relatively accurate picture of women’s social interactions, one researcher says.

Though both men and women use such indirect aggression in relationships, women use backbiting to demoralize competition and take sexual rivals out of the picture…

“Women do compete, and they can compete quite fiercely with one another,” said Tracy Vaillancourt, the paper’s author and a psychology professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada. “The form it typically takes is indirect aggression, because it has a low cost: The person [making the attack] doesn’t get injured. Oftentimes, the person’s motives aren’t detected, and yet it still inflicts harm against the person they’re aggressing against.”

Why do women choose the tactically lower risk method of indirect attacks? Because of the fundamental premise that acts like a brain virus upon everyone’s underlying psychology: women are biologically the more valuable sex.

That led Vaillancourt to hypothesize that the behavior is rooted in humans’ evolutionary past. But why would sneaky meanness have become so ingrained in the female repertoire?

In short, because mean girl aggression works so well.

Because of women’s role in childbearing and rearing, they are less expendable than men and couldn’t risk injury by settling disputes with their fists, said Anne Campbell, an evolutionary psychologist at Durham University in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the work. Instead, social exclusion and talking behind someone’s back allowed women to work out conflicts without endangering their bodies.

This research lends support to the suspicion that the feminist zeal to cavalierly throw around the accusation of misogyny at men is really a classic case of psychological projection of their own states of mind. Or: only a real misogynist would impute misogyny to everyone else’s motives. You have to be one to know one, right ladies? Heh.

In related crimethoughts, those who drop the “raciss” accusation on the slimmest pretexts are likely themselves raving racists. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Not only does such cattiness make the targeted women too sad and anxious to compete in the sexual market, some studies suggest it can make men find rivals less attractive — provided the badmouthing comes from a cute woman, Vaillancourt said.

Yeah, that last part is the crucial condition. A fug badmouthing a hottie has about as much influence over a man’s judgment of female attractiveness as another man would. That is to say, none. What would be interesting to follow up on would be an experiment that examined the reactions of hotties and fugs to social ostracism by other women. My bet is that hotties can withstand female cattiness a lot better than can uglier women. Because hotties have constant feedback from men that their worth in the sexual market is unassailable.

Women often punish perceived sexual transgressions, Vaillancourt said. Studies in dozens of countries have found that women use indirect aggression against other women for being “too sexually available,” Vaillancourt said.

“It’s women who suppress other women’s sexuality,” because if sex is a resource, then more sexually promiscuous women lower the price of it, Vaillancourt told LiveScience.

Slut walk sloganeering notwithstanding to the cuntrary, most slut shamers are other women. Men may avoid sluts for marriage, but they won’t shame them. Why shame a snatch freebie from landing in your lap?

One way to avoid the most destructive effects of girls’ indirect aggression is to make sexual policing less powerful, Campbell said.

“We want to achieve a situation where that accusation [of promiscuity] had no power, where we don’t have that double sexual standard,” Campbell said. “But how we get there, I don’t know.”

Good luck with that. She may as well try to get humans to subsist on hemlock.

And women don’t compete over things they don’t value, Vaillancourt said. So women who put less emphasis on dating, or women who are past their sexual peak, are less likely to engage in mean girl behavior (at least over men).

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

So women backbite, backstab and fall back from attacking other women when the heat comes around the corner. That’s some RealTalk™ the Jizzebelers assiduously sweep under their gnarly rugs.

The fembot soul serrating doesn’t stop there. What other sins against women that feminists routinely accuse men of committing are committed by women in at least equal measure? Welp, how about objectification?

A new study has confirmed something women have been complaining about for years.

The research, out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and published in the Springer-published journal Sex Roles, essentially corroborates the belief that people tend to focus more on the breasts and figure of a woman when analyzing her appearance than they do on her face. [...]

People tend to focus first on the important information about a woman.

Unsurprisingly, women with narrow waists, full breasts and larger hips – the classic hourglass figure – were rated more favorably than their less voluptuous counterparts, even when men were asked to assess a woman’s personality (rather than attractiveness) based on her appearance in the photos.

But perhaps what’s most interesting is that women also tended to objectify other females in the same way that men did. They, too, spent more time focusing on figure than face.

Can you believe the nerve of those men… hold up, wait a sec… hmm… those women objectifying women that way? Ugh, I can’t even… wow just wow… creepers!

Feminism will go down in history (along with her parent ideology equalism) as the stupidest potpourri of delusions ever propagated by a mass of degenerates sufficient in number and influence to dump their poison in the public’s ear. The Chateau stands ancient and true, thwarting the lords of lies at every point of attack.

“Generally speaking, people are more positive towards a more attractive woman than a less attractive one,” lead researcher Sarah Gervais said. “However, attractiveness may also be a liability, because while evaluating them positively, ‘gazers’ still focus less on individuating and personalizing features, such as faces, and more on the bodies of attractive women.”

There’s an important game concept tucked in the crevice of this quote. Can anyone find it?

.

.

Answer: Thermal exhaust port. Hot women have weaknesses, primary among them the nagging fear that they’re only loved for their bodies. You, as an aspiring assaulter of the pink abyss, can exploit this point of id entry into the attractive female’s ego. Disqualify and challenge — “I only hang with women who have something going on for themselves besides their looks” — then assuage and connect — “I know people judge you on superficial stuff, and how tough that makes it for you to find someone who can connect with you on a deeper level. I get that”.

A cute girl’s ego is like a finicky vineyard. You must first coax the fruit to their exquisite ripeness by introducing slight stresses to the soil of her self-conception; you must avoid overwatering and over-fertilizing, which can cause the grape (ego) to become too plump and lacking in distinction; and finally, you must pluck her exercised ego at the perfect moment and turn it into a fine wine that she is eager to pour a glass of herself for you to appreciate. Chin chin.

Read Full Post »

Are you an incorrigible flirt? Because if you’re not, you should be. ♥Science♥ has discovered that flirting trumps looks as a courtship strategy for getting laid and getting loved.

Does flirting actually work?

Very much so. In fact, research says it’s more effective than looking good.

Signaling availability and interest trumps attractiveness.

Dr. Monica Moore, a psychologist at Webster University in St. Louis, has conducted research on the flirting techniques used in singles bars, shopping malls, and places young people go to meet each other.

She concluded that it’s not the most physically appealing people who get approached, but the ones who signal their availability and confidence through basic flirting techniques like eye contact and smiles.

“Flirting” is really the old school term for “game”. If you had to describe the panoply of game techniques and strategies in one everyday word, “flirting” would fit. Charismatic flirting, that is. There’s good and bad flirting, and the thrust of game is to teach men how to flirt well.

What type of flirting works best?

Two types of flirting are universal: smiling and eye contact are indicators pretty much everywhere and work for both sexes.

A classic beta male tell is an inability to hold eye contact to the point of tantalizing discomfort.

But what works better than anything else?

Touching.

And research has isolated which types of touching are regarded as “merely friendly”, in the zone of “plausible deniability”, or “going nuclear.”

Another game principle victoriously vindicated.

  • Friendly: Shoulder push, shoulder tap, handshake.
  • Plausible Deniability: Touch around the shoulder or waist, touch on the forearm.
  • Nuclear: Face touch.

The behavior that participants rated as reflecting the most flirtation and the most romantic attraction was the soft face touch, followed by the touch around the shoulder or waist, and then the soft touch on the forearm.

The least flirtatious and romantic touches were the shoulder push, shoulder tap, and handshake. Thus, touching that is gentle and informal, and that occurs face-to-face or involves “hugging” behavior, appears to convey the most relational intent.

You gotta love science that points up a glaring disconnect between what turns on women in the real world (presumptuous touching) and what rabid feminist cunts shriek is evidence of an oppressive OMG RAPE!! culture as envisioned in the fever swamps of their twisted fantasies.

The effectiveness of flirting is somewhat context-dependent.

Behavior is perceived differently in different locations. The more formal the setting, the more obvious you need to be to get the signal across.

Via The Mating Game: A Primer on Love, Sex, and Marriage:

For each scenario, participants indicated whether they believed the stranger was flirting with them or not. The results revealed significantly higher percentages of “yes” (i.e., flirting) responses when the stranger was in the restaurant bar as opposed to the school hallway (61% vs. 49%)…

Daygame players take heed. You’ll have to amp your flirting level when hitting on girls during the daytime, outdoors. Otherwise, she might not take the hint.

Here’s some more juicy research which shows that, for men, their social dominance is more important than their looks when attracting a mate.

Research has shown that flirting which emphasizes physical attractiveness has little effect when males do it.

The flirting that is most effective for men involves displays of social dominance.

Via Close Relationships:

The results indicated that the men who successfully initiated romantic contact with women exhibited a greater number of particular kinds of nonverbal flirting behavior than men who did not establish romantic contact. Specifically, successful men directed more brief glances at their intended, engaged in a greater number of “space maximization” movements (positioning the body so that it takes up more space; e.g., extending one arm across an adjacent chair, stretching so that both arms extend straight up in the air), changed their location in the bar more frequently, and displayed greater amounts of non-reciprocated touching to surrounding men (e.g., playfully shoving, touching, or elbowing the ribs of other men).

In discussing their findings, the researchers concluded that men who provide signals of their positive intentions (e.g., through glancing behaviors) and their status (e.g., through space maximization and non-reciprocated touch of male peers) receive preferential attention from women.

Readers often ask, “How do you square the advice to communicate intention with the seemingly contradictory advice to appear disinterested?” Well, this is how. You demonstrate “active disinterest”. Bold players show intention, but they also signal their status through displays of dominance that are often proxies for communicating an attitude of outcome independence.

And how do you know if you’re spitting tight game?

How do you know if it’s working? When you start talking to her, ask yourself: “Is she speaking smoothly and quickly?”

Because MIT research says that’s a very good sign.

Fast talking is low status. A girl who is in the lower status position is a girl who is in thrall to your higher status male allure.

Beta males often complain that women never notice their interest. One reason might be because beta males really aren’t good at subcommunicating their sexual intention.

Researchers have documented a bias where people think they’re being clear about their intentions but, in reality, nobody but them thinks they’re flirting.

Via The Mating Game: A Primer on Love, Sex, and Marriage:

A more recent series of investigations by Vorauer and her colleagues (Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes, & Pearce, 2003) demonstrated that the fear of being rejected by a potential partner can produce yet another pernicious attributional bias.

The “signal amplification bias” occurs when people believe that their social overtures communicate more romantic interest to potential partners than is actually the case and thus fail to realize that they have not adequately conveyed their feelings of attraction.

You may need to amp it up, even if that makes you a bit uncomfortable.

Fear is the mindkiller. Fear of rejection is the lovekiller. Alpha males have less fear of rejection because they operate from a mentality of abundance, (“No worries, if I don’t get her, there are plenty more waiting for the pleasure of my company”). This abundance mentality is honed from years of experience dealing with women. Beta males, in sorry contrast, have less experience with women, and so each potential rejection in the field matters a lot more to them. They approach women with a scarcity mentality, and this results in an excessive concern for appearing “too forward”, lest the beta male provoke the wrath of his idolized object of deference. The alpha male doesn’t give a crap about provoking wrath; in fact, he welcomes it, as the cascading drama gives him an opportunity to display his sexy bona fides.

♥Science♥ has now proven the efficacy of Poon Commandment XIIIErr on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little. Beta males new to the game must first unlearn decades of bad habits by striving to be acutely aware of how poorly their tepid flirtations are received by women. To succeed, the beta male must commit himself to reaching beyond the comfy boundaries of his beta bubble. He has to be ready to provoke romantic rejection, and in the so doing will achieve, paradoxically, more love in his life.

Read Full Post »

National Geographic has an illuminating series on alpha males in the human wilds, documenting a slew of experiments which demonstrate that the term ‘alpha’ has validity as a descriptor of the top dog in emergent human male hierarchies. The bitter sperg denialists of the CH worldview are gonna have to retire their empty-headed argument that alpha is a taxonomic term that only applies to wolves. :roll:

There’s a lot to chew on in this video, so take some time to watch the whole thing. Right in line with Heartiste game techniques, the experiments vindicate the idea that adopting “power poses” and other mannerisms of the alpha male pack leader can actually make a man feel more alpha, and more importantly will make him be perceived as more alpha by other men and by women. This is nothing less than total validation of the game concept of “fake it till you make it”.

Video highlights:

- Being a big man automatically confers alpha status, but the effect is contextual. A small man with the right attitude, as you will see later in the video, can out-alpha a big man.

- Conversely, being a little man automatically confers beta status, unless the little man acts in a way to dispel the assumption. So, yeah, you shorter men have an extra hurdle to clear that taller men don’t have. But it is surmountable.

- There really are body language and voice “tells” that reveal whether a man is alpha or beta. These subtle mate value cues have been discussed numerous times before on CH. Check the archives. A man with tight game knows that body language and tonality — how to stand, sit, make eye contact, speak with authority — are crucial components of seduction.

- Don’t ever put your palm facing up when challenged by anyone. It’s a classic submissive gesture.

- Remember, when shaking hands, try to position your hand so that it lays slightly atop the hand of the person you’re greeting. Most people will acquiesce quietly to this dominance move. (Knowledgable CH readers will notice it right away and attempt a counter-maneuver, resulting in a hilarious hand-twisting spectacle resembling a game of thumb wrestling.)

- It’s better to hold eye contact to the point of discomfort than to avert your gaze prematurely.

- Men with salt and pepper hair shouldn’t bother getting it dyed. The touch of gray is a high status cue. (Note: Does not work the same for women, who will just look old and unsexy with gray hair.)

- When you hug, make sure your arms are on the outside of the hugbox.

- Take up space, own the space, claim other people’s space. Any vagina within that space will then assume it is subject to your jurisdiction, and behave accordingly.

- A smaller, less stereotypically masculine man, can out-alpha bigger and harder-looking men by using simple mannerism tricks. Proof that alpha is more about attitude than appearance.

- Don’t sit at the corners of a rectangular table.

- You might think that being the Number 2 Alpha would be enough to get plenty of girls, but female hypergamy is insatiable. Number 1 gets exponentially more attention than Number 2 gets from women.

- Alpha males PROJECT their voices. I have yet to meet a successful salesman who didn’t have a booming voice that commanded attention. You may think an obnoxiously loud voice is the Call of the Douchebag but, you know, chicks dig douchebags. Are you gonna bitch about it or are you gonna play to win?

- There’s a reason a seductive male voice is a register lower in tone: It sounds dominant. For those men who don’t have naturally deep voices, it is possible to practice speaking in a lower tone, and to avoid reverting to a higher-pitched beta singsong. See the “get out of my box” experiment in the video. Really outstanding demonstration of how a stronger vocal tone can immediately command respect and obeisance from others.

- Having a woman around you, silently and subconsciously judging your male qualities, can boost your alphaness. This may explain the phenomenon of beta male orbiters; perhaps they realize on some deep level that they act stronger in the company of a woman than they do alone, or with other men. This doesn’t compensate for their wretched beta supplication and willingness to be used as emotional tampons, but you can’t fault them for trying to find and exploit any edge, no matter how trivial.

- The “sneaky fucker” strategy really does work.

- Direct game (like the kind Naftalie uses on the girl at around the 28:30 minute mark) has its place in any man’s arsenal of allure, but it’s clear that bold direct game is a high risk, high reward proposition. If the girl doesn’t take your direct game bait, you can quickly be out-alphaed by *her*. Indirect game is lower risk, lower reward but, like the parable of the tortoise and the hare, it’s my observation that, over the long run, the ingenuity of indirect game will result in more successful pickups.

- For those interested in the racial angle, it appears black men have more “up front” alpha body language — that is, black men engage in more conspicuous alpha displays such as strutting, bellowing, and space monopolizing. But white men (and in particular nerdy ectomorphs) have a compensating version of alpha game that can neutralize heavy-handed posturing by more physically aggressive adversaries: They lean on their smarts. (See the tech-savvy display at the 27:30 mark.) There are, indeed, plenty of exceptions to this rule. See, for example, the total lack of strutting by another black guy in the group, Isem.

- Open body language beats closed body language, nearly every time. Exception: Any time a beatdown that you want to avoid is imminent. #LiveToSeduceAnotherDay

- If you posture or behave like a beta male, you will FEEL like a beta male, and women will practically SMELL the beta stink on you. So make it a habit to posture like an alpha male as often as possible. That alpha male posturing will transform you into a real life, breathing alpha male, even down to your hormones.

- WE ARE HARD-WIRED, BIOMECHANICAL AUTOMATONS carrying out the directives of ancient genetic algorithms. We are also expert at deluding ourselves otherwise.

- Acting like an alpha isn’t all poon-chasing fun and games. It also lowers cortisol levels. Low stress is a formula for a long, healthy life.

- Alpha humans, like alpha apes, react to the world with amused mastery. Grace under pressure is chicknip. Sometimes it’s to your benefit to sit back and let the beta males and the women squabble amongst themselves.

- At around 36:00 minutes in, we see what happens when the putative alpha male of the group, Naftalie, is challenged by an interloper alpha male (the AMOG). This scene is great as a teaching aid for how to handle AMOGs cramping your style. Commenter YaReally will be very pleased with this scene, because it affirms a lot of his anti-AMOG tactical knowledge; namely, stay calm, stay positive, groom the group, and don’t let the challenger get under your skin.

A few final thoughts:

Some men, like Naftalie, are great alpha males of MEN, but not so great alpha males of WOMEN. This is a not so uncommon disjunct that one finds in some leaders of men who are not very good at being seducers of women. We all know that captain of industry (in whatever flavor) who nonetheless acts like a dullard or an oaf in the company of women. Generally, alpha males of men are also alpha males of women, as the dominance required for the former is also attractive to the latter. But disjuncts do occur, and this opens windows of opportunity for men who may not be leaders of other men, but who are leaders of their own emotions and experts at speaking the female language of love.

Under extreme duress or threat, white knighting as a strategy to bang women may actually work, (see the last experiment in the video). But you have to be prepared to back up your white knight posturing with real intention.

Ever notice how most primatologists in the field are women? It’s almost as if… chicks dig dangerous apes!

Chateau Heartiste is proud to see the concepts of this community, and the wider game community, spreading into the mainstream. I expect the whining and shrieking denials of haters to reach a very beta-ish fever pitch in the coming years.

***

One more final thought: For those of you men still doubting the seductive power of alphatude, think on how you feel when you see a gorgeous woman with an hourglass figure, bodacious titties, and a firm round ass pass by you. Now remind yourself that the immediate thermonuclear blast of lust which you feel then is the SAME feeling that women have when they are in the company of a dominant alpha male. They, like you, can’t help themselves. It’s just the way they were drawn.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,841 other followers

%d bloggers like this: