Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

Men have better sex with women who are emotionally unstable, a study has revealed.

And women prefer men who are less agreeable but pay attention to detail, according to the German survey of a thousand people.

They found “men whose partners had less emotional stability reported better sexual function” while “lower agreeableness of a sexual partner was predictive of better sexual function in women.”

From a Gabber,

Most men already knew this. The best sex you’ll ever have is with a woman who’ll stab you with a pair of scissors for liking another woman’s social media post.

Headcase women try a lot harder in bed because they love that feeling that their man might leave them at any moment. So Dread Game is useful in two ways: it keeps women attracted and faithful, and it heats up the bedroom. Of course, the downside is that you have to learn to deal with the blowback of continually provoking her to unlock ever-greater levels of achievement in girlcrazy.

The usual way these Manipulative Man-Crazy Girl relationships go is:

Hot sex => Surprise drama => Hotter sex => Manufactured drama => Soul-desiccating sex => Here comes the crazy train! => Stroke-inducing sex => Breakup.

Every one ends in a huge blowout-slash-blowjob because every man has his breaking point beyond which he can’t tolerate another bout of crazy from his girl. That breaking point is reached when the relief of getting away from the crazy is stronger than the regret of giving up the hot sex. For the options-rich alpha male, the breaking point is between three weeks and three months. For the options-starved beta male, the breaking point is between three years and early death.

The second part of that study — women have better sex with disagreeable men — recapitulates a rich Heartistian archive of personal anecdote and scientific confirmation of the CH maxim that chicks dig jerks. The man who locks a woman in (tethers her to his dick like ribbon to a may day pole) is the man who balances his charming and impeccably ambiguous emotional distance with his sensual expertise navigating a woman’s body.

Read Full Post »

If ¡SCIENCE! was a woman, she’d beg me to fill her belly with my champions.

Thanks to the id-exposing carnal house of online dating, a treasure trove of social science data has dropped, and it confirms numerous pearls of wisdom and Game techniques tenderly curated in the Chateau Heartiste Library of Love.

Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets

Romantic courtship is often described as taking place in a dating market where men and women compete for mates, but the detailed structure and dynamics of dating markets have historically been difficult to quantify for lack of suitable data. In recent years, however, the advent and vigorous growth of the online dating industry has provided a rich new source of information on mate pursuit. We present an empirical analysis of heterosexual dating markets in four large U.S. cities using data from a popular, free online dating service. We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities. We find that both men and women pursue partners who are on average about 25% more desirable than themselves by our measures and that they use different messaging strategies with partners of different desirability. We also find that the probability of receiving a response to an advance drops markedly with increasing difference in desirability between the pursuer and the pursued. Strategic behaviors can improve one’s chances of attracting a more desirable mate, although the effects are modest.

Strategic behaviors — aka GAME — can help a man attract a higher quality girl. Modest? Depends on your definition of success. I’ve always said men shouldn’t expect Game to consistently land them hard 10s, but they can expect to land girls an SMV point or two higher than what they would otherwise manage to pull without Game.

Let’s explore what’s hiding in SCIENCE’s cleavage. First, mate selection studies agree that there is a universal ideal of high sexual market value (SMV, measured as youth and beauty in women and as a combination of traits in men):

It is a common observation that marriage or dating partners strongly resemble one another in terms of age, education, physical attractiveness, attitudes, and a host of other characteristics. One possible explanation for this is the matching hypothesis, which suggests that men and women pursue partners who resemble themselves. This in turn implies that people differ in their opinions about what constitutes a desirable partner or at least about who is worth pursuing. At the other extreme, and more in line with biological studies of mate selection, lies the competition hypothesis, which assumes that there is consensus about what constitutes a desirable partner and that mate seekers, regardless of their own qualifications, pursue those partners who are universally recognized as most desirable. Paradoxically, this can also produce couples who resemble one another in terms of desirability, as the most desirable partners pair off with one another, followed by the next most desirable, and so on. To the extent that desirability correlates with individual attributes, the matching and competition hypotheses can, as a result, produce similar equilibrium patterns of mixing.

The ripples of mate choice that disturb the observable surface of the sexual market indicate much more powerful waves underneath which guide people’s romantic choices.

However, while the two hypotheses may produce similar outcomes, they carry very different implications about the processes by which people identify and attract partners. If there is consensus about who is desirable, then it creates a hierarchy of desirability such that individuals can, at least in principle, be ranked from least to most desirable, and their ranking will predict how and to what extent they are pursued by others. Historically, however, these hierarchies have been difficult to quantify. Since they reflect which partners people pursue, and not just who people end up with, one would need a way to observe unrequited overtures and requited ones to determine who people find desirable. Online dating provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to observe both requited and unrequited overtures at the scale of entire populations.

This explains the category error made by feminists of either sex, by tradcons, and by suckup white knights when they incorrectly conclude that people’s first choice in mate is the mate they end up with. Nope. Bobbing in the wake of every successfully reciprocated choice is the lovelorn detritus of more attractive but unfulfilled choices.

“Aspirational” pursuit of mates completes the full sexual market picture, filling in those blank spaces normally left overlooked by a quantitative data focus on how men and women eventually match up.

We also explore the ways in which people tailor their messaging strategies and message content based on the desirability of potential partners, and how desirability and dating strategy vary across demographic groups.

Play to your audience. Don’t overgame a plain jane, don’t over-beta a hottie.

To study individual desirability, we focus on messages between users of the website in four cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Paper should really be titled, “Aspirational pursuit of shitlib mates”.

 Figure 1 shows the distribution of this quantity separately for men and women in each of the cities. The distribution is roughly consistent across cities, and although women receive more messages than men overall,

Women receive more messages than men. Spread the seed, hoard the eggs. Check.

the distributions for both display a classic “long-tailed” form—most people receive a handful of messages at most, but a small fraction of the population receive far more.

The bottom 10% of women receive fewer than five messages. The bottom 25% of men receive fewer than five messages. Female hypergamy is real. Check.

Corollary: a small fraction of online daters receives most of the messages. Online dating is low investment, low return. Check.

However, desirability is not only about how many people contact you but also about who those people are. If you are contacted by people who are themselves desirable, then you are presumptively more desirable yourself.

The Chateau’s definition of the alpha male co-signed by SCIENCE. Check.

As shown in Fig. 2, for instance, average desirability varies with age for both men and women, although it varies more strongly for women, and the effects run in opposite directions: Older women are less desirable, while older men are more so (1819).

The existence of The Wall and men aging like wine, women like milk, vindicated by SCIENCE. Check.

For women, this pattern holds over the full range of ages on the site: The average woman’s desirability drops from the time she is 18 until she is 60. For men, desirability peaks around 50 and then declines.

Men are expendable, women perishable. Check.
SMV sex-based double standards are real and immutable. Check.
Barely legal sexpots and older charming billionaire werewolf fantasies reflect real romantic desires of each sex. Check.
May-December romances are normal and natural. Check.

In keeping with previous work, there is also a clear and consistent dependence on ethnicity (1520), with Asian women and white men being the most desirable potential mates by our measures across all four cities.

Desirability is associated with education most strongly for men, for whom more education is always more desirable. For women, an undergraduate degree is most desirable (13); postgraduate education is associated with decreased desirability among women. These measurements control for age, so the latter observation is not a result of women with postgraduate degrees being older (table S2).

LMAO overeducated careerist shrikes BTFO. ps check.

We now turn to the central results of our study. First, we use our desirability scores to explore whether people engage in aspirational mate pursuit (that is, messaging potential partners who are more desirable than they are) and how the probability of receiving a reply varies with the difference in desirability between senders and receivers. […]

The most common (modal) behavior for both men and women is to contact members of the opposite sex who on average have roughly the same ranking as themselves, suggesting that people are relatively good judges of their own place in the desirability hierarchy. The distributions about this modal value, however, are noticeably skewed to the right, meaning that a majority of both sexes tend to contact partners who are more desirable than themselves on average—and hardly any users contact partners who are significantly less desirable.

Note that while both sexes aim out of their league, this has to be weighted against the number of each sex considered attractive enough for sex, and because more women than men get messaged (more men are considered no-gos by women) the result of contacting more desirable prospects is that more women get contacted in general.

…women are more likely than men to receive replies—but among both women and men, the probability of a reply is a decreasing function of desirability gap, more desirable partners replying at lower rates than less desirable ones. The differences are stark: Men are more than twice as likely to receive a reply from women less desirable than themselves than from more desirable ones, and for messages sent to more desirable women, the reply rate never rises above 21%. Yet, the vast majority of men send messages to women who are more desirable than themselves on average. Messaging potential partners who are more desirable than oneself is not just an occasional act of wishful thinking; it is the norm.

Men practice a dragnet strategy; drag the net over the ASCII sea and collect a number of tasty red snappers while keeping the nets open in the hopes of catching that prized sturgeon. Women employ a different strategy; spearfishing. Target only the alpha fish and take aim.

Conditioned on the number of messages sent, men and especially women who reach higher up the desirability ladder tend to write to a less diverse set of potential matches, in terms of desirability gap. This behavior, consistent across all four cities, indicates that mate seekers, and particularly those setting their sights on the most desirable partners, do not adopt a diversified strategy to reduce the risk of being rejected, as one might, for instance, when applying to universities.

Maybe people think very desirable prospects will love them if they “share values” and outlook. Big mistake.

Women initiate far fewer contacts than men, but both sets of curves fall off with increasing desirability gap in all four cities. One might imagine that individuals who make a habit of contacting potential partners significantly more desirable than themselves (large positive desirability gap) would also initiate more contacts overall to increase their chances of getting a reply, but they do the opposite: The number of initial contacts an individual makes falls off rapidly with increasing gap, and it is the people approaching the least desirable partners who send the largest number of messages. A possible explanation is that those who approach more desirable partners are adopting a “quality over quantity” approach, more precisely identifying people they see as an attractive match or spending more time writing personalized messages, at the expense of a smaller number of messages sent.

This seems to be a bad strategy that exists only because online dating is an evolutionarily novel environment that hasn’t yet weeded out people who practice it. I mean, the definition of anti-Game is trying too hard to impress a more desirable prospect. (Wait for it, because the study addresses my skepticism.)

Both men and women tend to write substantially longer messages to more desirable partners, up to twice as long in some cases. The effect is larger for messages sent by women than by men, although there are exceptions.

Women can be exceptionally cold toward beta males while effusing with egregious feminine ardor for alpha males. Lesson: whether you’re a beta or alpha male, don’t mistake the treatment you get from women for how women treat all men.

Among the groups we study, for instance, it is men in Seattle who have the most pronounced increase in message length.

Seattle is soyboy central. Too much estrogen. Very sad!

[Of the cities studied, Seattle presents the most unfavorable dating climate for men, with as many as two men for every woman in some segments of the user population (fig. S1)].

Isn’t pantifa headquartered in Seattle? No wonder they’re so worked up.

Here, we see an interesting difference between women and men: The women show an increase in their use of positive words when communicating with more desirable partners, while the men show a decrease. The effect size is modest but is consistent across all four cities and statistically significant (P < 0.001; table S4).

Subconsciously, men perceive their upbeat motivational emoting to be a value lowering trait in the company of cute babes. Evidence for the evolved neg?

Buckle up, because here comes the big payoff in term of implications for effective Game tactics used in the seduction of women:

in all four cities, men experience slightly lower reply rates when they write more positively worded messages. Although our analysis cannot reveal the underlying process that gives rise to these behaviors (for example, reinforcement learning), this result may offer a hint about why men tend to write somewhat less positive messages to more desirable partners.

Men have more success at getting responses from more desirable women if the men send less enthusiastic messages. Be A Challenge, Flip The Script, Skittles Man and Bring Da Movies strategies vindicated.

On average, people pursue partners who are roughly 25% more desirable than they themselves are. In the language of matching and competition introduced at the start of this article, it appears that people are pursuing a hybrid strategy with elements of both—they are aware of their own position in the hierarchy and adjust their behavior accordingly while, at the same time, competing modestly for more desirable mates.

If you really want to bang and date an HB8, you’ve got to compete immodestly for the hotties and modestly for less desirable girls. Turn that message rate pyramid upside down; more messages to the hotties, fewer messages to the wannabe thotties.

Our results on aspirational mate pursuit are consistent with the popular concept of dating “leagues,” as reflected in the idea that someone can be “out of your league,” meaning that attractive matches are desirable for but unavailable to less attractive others. Provided that leagues are envisaged as a single continuous hierarchy rather than as distinct strata, our results suggest that, contrary to popular belief, attracting the attention of someone out of one’s league is entirely possible.

Related, I’ve long had to correct misinterpretations of my Dating Market Value categorization system in which ignorant or bad faith readers assume concepts like alpha male and beta male are discrete entities rather than (as this study’s authors state about “dating leagues”) continuous SMV hierarchies.

One might wonder how the patterns we observe online might inform our understanding of offline mate pursuit and dating markets. Online dating differs from offline dating in several important ways (25). Because of the high volume of partners and low threshold for sending a message, competition for potential partners’ attention is likely fiercer online than offline. This may increase the extent to which a hierarchy of desirability exists online and reduce people’s willingness to respond to less desirable mates: When there are plenty of fish in the sea, one can afford to throw a few back. It has also been suggested that consensus about what makes an attractive partner is strongest in the early stages of courtship, when partners do not know as much about one another (2627). While it is difficult to study early courtship offline—our method requires unrequited overtures, which are hard to observe in offline interactions—these differences suggest that hierarchies of desirability may be more pronounced online than off.

Now where have we all read this before? Oh yeah. And oh yeah.

Bloody hell, will SCIENCE ever stop slurping my knob?

Read Full Post »

¡SCIENCE, BITCHES! once again affirms Chateau Heartiste wisdom.

CHEATING ONCE MAKES YOU 300 PERCENT MORE LIKELY TO CHEAT IN YOUR NEXT RELATIONSHIP

Authored by Psychology Professor Kayla Knopp, the study surveyed 1,294 targeted participants, communicating with them periodically over five years. It found that, of the participants who had at least two romantic relationships in that time, those who reported cheating in the first relationship were three times more likely to do the same in the subsequent relationship. Furthermore, those who reported suspecting their partner of cheating in the first relationship were four times more likely to suspect the same of their next partner.

Once a cheating whore, always a cheating whore. Treat them accordingly (like funtime spunktime repositories).

Complementarily, once attracted to a cheating whore, always attracted to a cheating whore. Treat yourself accordingly (learn to identify sluts by their telltale cues).

“Infidelity can harm individuals and relationships, and these results can inform prevention or intervention efforts by targeting risk factors based on previous relationship patterns in addition to the various individual, relational, and contextual factors demonstrated to predict infidelity in previous work,” the study claimed.

A poundtown of prevention is worth a bounce of cure. Translation: Use and lose sluts.

The second linked study is an even bigger MOAB of feminism’s pretty lies.

Other studies on relationships found that, for women, the uncertainty of a relationship can increase attraction.

One study, titled “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not … Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction,” was conducted on female undergraduates, but one of the researchers said she believes the findings would also be true for males. [ed: not alpha males] But how did this phenomenon come about? Are women bored by men who are clearly into them? [ed: disenchanted might be the better word]

“Uncertainty affects our thoughts in general,” Erin R. Whitchurch, one of the researchers, told ABC News.

Whitchurch said advanced technology messes with people’s minds because they have a million different ways to be contacted — like texting, calling and messaging on social media. With so many means of communication available, it’s a blow to one’s ego to be ignored. “Did he get my text yet” is no longer a concern. Instead, it’s “Why hasn’t he responded?” Whitchurch said. [ed: nah, this desire in women for emotionally vagabond men is older than social media]

Dread Game ftw. I really am ahead of my time. It is my delight and my curse.

From that seminal 2008 CH Dread Game post:

Women respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. […]

Examples of effective doom inducement:

Turn off your cell phone twice a week. Alternate days. Don’t do this on a Friday or Saturday night unless the relationship is shaky and needs a high voltage jolt of dread.

Make a blatant but plausibly deniable move on one of her friends when she’s not around. The news will get back to her. Milk it.

Call her from a very busy place so that she can hear women’s voices laughing and shrieking in the background. Don’t tell her where you are when she asks. Just say you’ll see her soon. […]

Like I’ve said, you’ll find more useful and insightful sociological and relationship analysis in the pages of this blog on one day than you’ll find in years’ worth of “relationship expert” boilerplate at pop media publications. And all for free! Am I crazy?

Read Full Post »

This isn’t freshly trod ground for regular Chateau readers, but it bears repeating for the joy of triggering any wayward feminist cunts and their betasoy lackeys who stumble into this outpost of sexy chauvinism: SCIENCE continues amassing a trove of evidence vindicating the real world observation that women get hot n bothered for fun-lovin’ sexist men.

Yes, AWALT. Even feminists uncontrollably splooge for misogynist pigs.

Quite simply, women can’t trust male feminists to come through like men if times get tough. This basic mistrust of the masculinity of male feminists is toxic to female arousal.

Soyboys who cloyingly parrot feminist vagitudes and profess an abiding belief in the equality, sameness, and interchangeability of the sexes leave women emotionally cold, if not intellectually underwhelmed. And in the business of romance, the hindbrain owns the forebrain.

This is why careerist shrikes have such a hard time finding a man. They too want a man who will “provide and protect”, but their economic, occupational, and social success means that a vanishingly small pool of men can fit their bill. So they go alone to their cat graves, bitter and spiteful and leaning in to the lonesome last, tragicomic victims of their own hypergamy that evolved in an environment and sexual market in which women didn’t waste years of prime fertility pursuing the corner office.

You don’t have to beat women over the head with proclamations of their inferiority to bed them, but it helps to implicitly remind them of their vulnerabilities and dependencies through your unapologetic actions and self-entitled words. The ZFG jerkboy hypnotizes women because everything he does and says is the tacit antithesis of male feminism.

***

Cracker adds,

yeah, the fact that [male feminists] CAN actually get a feminist girl this way is the saddest part

they end up getting the crap girl and she makes his life a living hell from then after

Right, there are two ways a man can “get” a girl: expediently (she settles for him b/c she’s ugly or damaged and he’s in her orbit) or passionately (she swoons for him b/c his masculine energy is irresistible).

Men who “get” feminists expediently suffer for their laziness and cowardice. The bitter spiteful femcunt will unload every bubbling resentment she harbors onto one of these unlucky males, who will wind up in a minefield relationship spending most of the time dodging her incoherent rage and appeasing her increasingly lunatic demands, all for a once-every-six-months perfunctory ball-dribbling into the shallow end of her dry hole.

Read Full Post »

Personality, like nearly all human traits, is heritable. There remains debate about how much of personality is genetically predetermined versus how much is formed and shaped by interaction with the environment, but unlike IQ which is hard to change at all over the long-term with intensive intervention, personality is “spongier” and less resistant to active efforts to change it. One can adapt and alter one’s personality to suit certain social contexts, and though personality tends to rebound to one’s genetic default over time it’s possible through repeated efforts to make nontrivial and long-lasting improvements in one’s character and demeanor where one sees fit to do so.

Since personality is an umbrella term for human relational characteristics that include charisma and coolness, Game falls under its rubric. Game is, essentially, cultivated personality.

I bring this up because yesterday’s post about psychological biases links to research that strongly suggests the old Game maxim “fake it till you make it” really works.

10. If you think of yourself as flexible, you will do much better.

People’s own theories about who they are influence how they behave. One’s self-image can therefore easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Carol Dweck of Stanford University has spent much time researching such effects. Her takeaway: if we view a characteristic as mutable, we are inclined to work on it more. On the other hand, if we view a trait such as IQ or willpower as largely unchangeable and inherent, we will do little to improve it.

Note that this isn’t social priming (which deserves more study but to date hasn’t been very replicable). This is about adopting a mentality that encourages practice, and people will do better at any task or skill if they have practiced it. Not everyone will achieve the heights of facility with the skill they practice, but they will get better than not doing anything at all.

In Dweck’s studies of students, men and women, parents and teachers, she gleaned a basic principle: people with a rigid sense of self take failure badly. They see it as evidence of their limitations and fear it; fear of failure, meanwhile, can itself cause failure.

Some people (we call them black pillers, mgtows, and feminists) enjoy wallowing in failure and pessimism because, as I wrote, “The men who swear up and down [self-improvement] is impossible are usually the men who daren’t try. Fear of success is as strong in the human condition as is fear of failure, because success, unlike failure, sweeps away the refuge of excuses and rationalizations weak men flee to for comfort.”

In contrast, those who understand that a particular talent can be developed accept setbacks as an invitation to do better next time. Dweck thus recommends an attitude aimed at personal growth. When in doubt, we should assume that we have something more to learn and that we can improve and develop.

President Trump’s secular religion is personal improvement. I think it worked out for him.

But even people who have a rigid sense of self are not fixed in all aspects of their personality. According to psychologist Andreas Steimer of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, even when people describe their strengths as completely stable, they tend to believe that they will outgrow their weaknesses sooner or later. If we try to imagine how our personality will look in several years, we lean toward views such as: “Level-headedness and clear focus will still be part and parcel of who I am, and I’ll probably have fewer self-doubts.”

If you think you can change — better yet, if you think you WILL change — then you’ll be more eager to set about doing those things which help bring about the change you seek. It’s a psy op that denies the genetic overlord his tribute in predetermination by creating a cognitive loophole that evades (if not entirely) the helical straitjacket.

Overall, we tend to view our character as more static than it is, presumably because this assessment offers security and direction. We want to recognize our particular traits and preferences so that we can act accordingly. In the final analysis, the image that we create of ourselves is a kind of safe haven in an ever-changing world.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: create an image of yourself as a charming mofo irresistible to girls. THAT should be your safe haven (safe for you, not so much for the delicate hearts of your conquests). Create it till you make it.

And the moral of the story? According to researchers, self-knowledge is even more difficult to attain than has been thought.

This explains why the majority of men who come here for guidance fight tooth and nail against the lessons imparted. Self-knowledge eludes them, because it’s frightening to contemplate the abyss at the center of our souls. Very few will heed my wisdom, but if even one man is saved it will have been worth it.

Read Full Post »

Dread Game is the CH term for mindfucking girls into loving you deeper, harder, longer. In so many words. The concept is simple: when a girl thinks you, as a man, have romantic options, and you are able to indirectly (sometimes directly) communicate your high SMV and attendant options to her, she’ll work harder to keep you pleased.

In short, women value men who are valued.

(In tautologies, there are great truths. Women appraise the mate value of a man in large part by proxy; that is, how attractive he is to other women, particularly to other attractive women.)

Over the years, SCIENCE has galloped side by side with Game, confirming over and over and over again the field observations of Game-wielding men.

Add another lovestudy to the mix of scientific evidence giving weight to Game principles: Insecure people tend to behave more morally. (scroll down to #9 in the list)

Insecurity is generally thought of as a drawback, but it is not entirely bad. People who feel insecure about whether they have some positive trait tend to try to prove that they do have it.

Hamster strife, happy wife.

Those who are unsure of their generosity, for example, are more likely to donate money to a good cause.

“Women who are unsure of their attractiveness or lovability, for example, are more likely to donate morning blowjobs to a manipulative jerkboy.”

This behavior can be elicited experimentally by giving subjects negative feedback—for instance, “According to our tests, you are less helpful and cooperative than average.” People dislike hearing such judgments and end up feeding the donation box.

Dread for life, happy wife.

(if you haven’t noticed, I love messing around with that pussy pedestal aphorism “happy wife, happy life”.)

Drazen Prelec, a psychologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains such findings with his theory of self-signaling: what a particular action says about me is often more important than the action’s actual objective. More than a few people have stuck with a diet because they did not want to appear weak-willed. Conversely, it has been empirically established that those who are sure that they are generous, intelligent or sociable make less effort to prove it. Too much self-assurance makes people complacent and increases the chasm between the self that they imagine and the self that is real. Therefore, those who think they know themselves well are particularly apt to know themselves less well than they think.

Read: Too much betaboy appeasement and supplication and approval seeking makes a woman complacently self-assured and increases the chasm between her vagina and his penis.

As a reader wrote, “put her in the defensive crouch and she’ll be a better partner to you.” That’s Dread Game, now autistically validated by the labcoats. If your girl thinks that by your uxorious behavior she owns you, heart and soul, she’ll put in less effort to prove she’s worth your love. And by “less effort”, I mean less sex, in fewer positions, for shorter durations, accompanied by fake moans and missing pussy squirts.

So if you want a happy, loving relationship with a sexy babe, make her insecure about something that matters to her. Hit her with a neg or two like a daily multivitamin, and watch in wonder as she works hard to prove she can not only excite your love, but keep it too.

***

#1 in that link’s list of ten psychological biases neatly explains the leftoid mentality.

1. Your perspective on yourself is distorted.

Your “self” lies before you like an open book. Just peer inside and read: who you are, your likes and dislikes, your hopes and fears; they are all there, ready to be understood. This notion is popular but is probably completely false! Psychological research shows that we do not have privileged access to who we are. When we try to assess ourselves accurately, we are really poking around in a fog. […]

The way we view ourselves is distorted, but we do not realize it. As a result, our self-image has surprisingly little to do with our actions. For example, we may be absolutely convinced that we are empathetic and generous but still walk right past a homeless person on a cold day.

The reason for this distorted view is quite simple, according to Pronin. Because we do not want to be stingy, arrogant or self-righteous, we assume that we are not any of those things. As evidence, she points to our divergent views of ourselves and others. We have no trouble recognizing how prejudiced or unfair our office colleague acts toward another person. But we do not consider that we could behave in much the same way: because we intend to be morally good, it never occurs to us that we, too, might be prejudiced.

This is another way to describe psychological projection, a cognitive affliction to which liberals are famously susceptible. We not only conceive ourselves in unearned glowing terms, we too easily see in others the faults and vices that we ourselves possess.

Leftoids are known to be less charitable than conservatives, but more sanctimonious about their self-perceived charitable impulses than are conservatives. In the undrained swamp that is the shitlib mind, status accrues through moral preening (virtue signaling), so shitlibs, objectively less charitable, generous, and tolerant than conservatives, are nonetheless — because of their trade in virtue and lifestyle status rather than financial or achievement status — MORE interested in propping up a righteous self-image which results in a BIGGER DISCONNECT between the misanthropic liberal action and the inflated liberal ego than would be evident in the typical conservative.

This action-ego disconnect is also known by the term COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, and it’s why gated community liberals, limousine liberals, trust fund hipster liberals, 1%er liberals, credentialist suckup liberals, SJW liberals, and striver SWPL liberals (aka GoodWhites) have a pathological compulsion to slander conservatives and flyover bumpkins (aka BadWhites) with the vices and bad traits that liberals themselves copiously evince.

It also harmoniously explains why Challahwood — the world’s leading cesspit of depravity and narcissistic malevolence — has spent decades pumping out bilge that subverts normal Gentile values and lifestyles. Bravely “exposing” and undermining the bucolic normie way of life allows these agitprop scumbags to project their own degeneracy onto those whose simple good-hearted existence is a reminder that the merchants of malice aren’t the paragons of saintliness they imagine themselves.

Read Full Post »

A very interesting paper examines power relations in humans, and in so doing illuminates classic dichotomies between the behaviors of alpha males and beta males. Link.

This article examines how power influences behavior. Elevated power is associated with increased rewards and freedom and thereby activates approach-related tendencies. Reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related tendencies. The authors derive predictions from recent theorizing about approach and inhibition and review relevant evidence. Specifically, power is associated with (a) positive affect, (b) attention to rewards, (c) automatic information processing, and (d) disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with (a) negative affect; (b) attention to threat, punishment, others’ interests, and those features of the self that are relevant to others’ goals; (c) controlled information processing; and (d) inhibited social behavior. The potential moderators and consequences of these power-related behavioral patterns are discussed.

If you want to get over Approach Anxiety, feel more powerful. (Likewise, by the transitive property of the behavior-cognition-emotion feedback loops, if you want to feel more powerful, start approaching more girls.) Easier said than done? This is one of those studies where most of the useful gems of knowledge are tucked deep in the paper and only alluded to in the abstract.

Power influences human behavior. When you have it, you act differently, in accordance with the goals of someone who expects deference, gratitude, and reward. When you don’t have it, the world is a frightening place. You act like a trembling field mouse waiting for a hawk to swoop from the air and carry you off.

First, a relevant quote:

The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics . . . The laws of social dynamics are laws which can only be stated in terms of power. (Russell, 1938, p. 10)

All human interaction can be stripped down to battles for power, on macro and micro levels. Power in this usage means the ability to influence our social environment to our personal advantage. The study authors define power as…

…an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments. This capacity is the product of the actual resources and punishments the individual can deliver to others.

Resources and punishments can be material (food, money, economic opportunity, physical harm, or job termination) and social (knowledge, affection, friendship, decision-making opportunities, verbal abuse, or ostracism). The value of resources or punishments reflects other individuals’ dependence on those resources.

The perceived freedom with which individuals can deliver resources and punishments to others also influences the individual’s level of power. Beliefs about the exercise of power figure prominently in cultural values and morals…as well as attitudes within personal relationships. Beliefs about the freedom to exercise power can come into conflict with the actual resources and punishments the individual can deliver to others—a tension that we elaborate on later.

Emphasis mine. Game largely resides in the domain of social resources and punishments, ie mindfucking.

If social status is power, what is status?

Our definition also distinguishes power from related constructs. Status is the outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences in respect and prominence. Status in part determines the allocation of resources within groups and, by implication, each individual’s power. However, it is possible to have power without status (e.g., the corrupt politician) and status without relative power (e.g., a readily identified religious leader in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles). Authority is power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements, but power can exist in the absence of formal roles (e.g., within informal groups). Dominance is behavior that has the acquisition of power as its end, yet power can be attained without performing acts of dominance (e.g., leaders who attain their positions through their cooperative and fair-minded style). Thus status, authority, and dominance are all potential determinants of power as we define it.

In seduction, a man’s status, authority, and dominance are each alone highly arousing to women, but together they create the archetypal powerful alpha male which few women can resist. See: our President.

Let’s dig into the relevant meat of the paper that addresses, if obliquely, the power dynamics between alpha and beta males as pertains to pickup and approaching women.

Of the many objects of social attention, we will focus on three: rewards or punishments, other individuals, and the self. We propose that high-power individuals, who are disposed to approach, will attend to potential rewards rather than to threats and as a consequence will construe others through a lens of self-interest. In contrast, low-power individuals will be more sensitive to threats than rewards and will therefore construe themselves vis-a`-vis others’ interests.

Alphas don’t see women as a threat and expect good reactions (rewards) from approaching women, so they feel less inhibited. They are embodiments of male privilege, feeling entitled to rewards from women and seeing them as avenues to fulfill their self-interest. Naturally, women reward these entitled privileged men because women are attracted to confident men.

Betas see every interaction with women as a potential mine field of shame and humiliation and rejection, so they’re more cautious and fearful of approaching women. Betas are also overly empathic and concerned with women’s feelings; they are the opposite of entitled, always assessing their own actions for how they may impact others’ feelings. This is why PUAs say betas “live in their heads” which gets in the way of their romantic success.

A related prediction is that elevated power will increase the tendency to perceive rewards and opportunities in ambiguous acts and interactions (Hypothesis 6). One suggestive line of studies finds that men, who might be assumed to occupy positions of elevated power, perceive sexual interest in women’s ambiguous behavior.

Self-entitled men do better with women because they’re more likely to bust a move, perceiving sexual interest from women where there might not be any. This is an advantageous self-deception because 1. it motivates approaching women which increases his romantic opportunities and 2. it projects supreme self-confidence which is attractive to women.

A complementary prediction is that low-power individuals will perceive themselves as a means to the ends of high-power individuals, or as the instrument of others’ goals and desires. […]

We have posited that high-power individuals selectively attend to rewards and how others satisfy self-interests, whereas low-power individuals attend to punishment and threat and construe the self through a lens of others’ interests.

Alphas are a means to their own ends.
Betas are a means to others’ ends.

This has sexual market implications.

Betas need to be more selfish to succeed at attracting women.
Alphas can become too selfish and sabotage their relationships (platonic and romantic). Often, alphas could benefit from being more selfless.

The approach system modulates processes related to eating, offensive aggression, and sexual behavior. Power should therefore increase the performance of approach related behaviors in these and other domains. Power should prompt the performance of simple approach behaviors (Hypothesis 18), such as entering the social space of others and initiating physical contact. Indeed, high levels of touching behavior correlate with being male, being older, and having higher SES. Studies of adults and children indicate that high-status, powerful individuals are more likely to approach subordinates at interpersonal distances that indicate intimacy.

Game concept vindicated: kino escalation. Get physical sooner rather than later if you want to improve your meet-to-lay ratio with women.

…high-power individuals should be more likely to engage in aggressive acts (Hypothesis 24). Several research literatures lend support to this prediction. Across contexts (e.g., school playgrounds, hospital settings, and summer camps), high-status individuals are more likely to tease (rather than avoid the potentially offensive teasing in the first place), and when they tease, they do so in more hostile ways. In one study of heterosexual and homosexual relationships, the partner who was less committed to the relationship, and therefore more powerful, was more likely to bully the partner.

Bullying is a cue for power. This helps explain why women are attracted to, and stay with, assholes: assholery is a proxy for power, which in a man is a highly attractive trait.

We have not portrayed power in a flattering light. High-power individuals tend to act in ways that disregard conventions, morals, and the effects on others. Yet approach-related behavior can be of a more prosocial nature, and our analysis and the supportive findings of Chen and colleagues (2001) do suggest that high-power individuals will engage in behaviors that violate social norms in prosocial ways. Some of these behaviors include intervening in emergencies or helping others in distress, mediating conflicts, and expressing approval and affection.

I can think of one other, very topical, prosocial way that powerful men violate social norms: speaking ugly truth to globohomo power.

High-need-for-power individuals engaged in profligate gambling, drinking, and sexual licentiousness less often when two kinds of life events enhanced their accountability: having younger siblings and becoming a parent. In fact, the social responsibilities tied to having a younger sibling or being a parent led high-power individuals to engage in more prosocial, approach-related behaviors, such as involvement in voluntary organizations. More generally, we would predict that accountability would lead to less approach-related emotion, more attention to others, and more careful cognition in high-power individuals.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who isn’t a liberal, accountability regulates the expression of power. Relaxing accountability leads to more abuses of power (see for example, the modren American woman).

Accountability is enhanced by younger siblings and parenthood. This should send up a red flag. In European Christendom, White family sizes are shrinking and parenthood is delayed. The consequence will be powerful people expressing their power in less prosocial ways and with more self-gratifying impulsivity.

High-power individuals may be more likely to stereotype others or perceive homogeneity in their social worlds because those with less power inhibit the expression of their actual attitudes.

Weak, spineless soyboys and low value skanky pussyhatters cling to kumbaya universalism because they don’t have the balls nor the smv to express their true feelings.

When do the powerful fall? When their disinhibition becomes pathological:

The very individuals who might keep in check this pattern of [high-power individuals’] behaviors, those with less power, are constrained in thought, word, and action.

This analysis just as readily reveals the conditions for social change: The excesses of powerful leaders—their propensity for disinhibited behavior and stereotypic, error-prone social perceptions—

Virtue signaling leftoid equalists.

are certain to feed into the processes that lead to changes in leadership.

Hello, Deep State!

These speculations make contact with social psychology’s longstanding interest in authority and group dynamics, as seen in Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s (1939) early investigation of authoritarian and egalitarian playgroups; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif’s (1961) Robbers Cave experiment; Janis’s (1972) discussion of groupthink; and Emerson’s (1962) lasting observation that low-power individuals constrain the actions of high-power individuals by affording them respect and status and thus controlling their public reputation.

Rescinding the respect and status that low-power people accord high-power people will render the latter less powerful. Or, to put it in Heartistian terms, The Mocking Shiv will Save the West.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: