Overconfidence Is The Heart Of Game

Read this study abstract closely. It’s important in a SCIENCE ♥s GAME kind of way.

Confidence is an essential ingredient of success in a wide range of domains ranging from job performance and mental health to sports, business and combat. Some authors have suggested that not just confidence but overconfidence—believing you are better than you are in reality—is advantageous because it serves to increase ambition, morale, resolve, persistence or the credibility of bluffing, generating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which exaggerated confidence actually increases the probability of success. However, overconfidence also leads to faulty assessments, unrealistic expectations and hazardous decisions, so it remains a puzzle how such a false belief could evolve or remain stable in a population of competing strategies that include accurate, unbiased beliefs. Here we present an evolutionary model showing that, counterintuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and populations tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from contested resources are sufficiently large compared with the cost of competition. In contrast, unbiased strategies are only stable under limited conditions. The fact that overconfident populations are evolutionarily stable in a wide range of environments may help to explain why overconfidence remains prevalent today, even if it contributes to hubris, market bubbles, financial collapses, policy failures, disasters and costly wars.

And, might I add, pump and dumps!

What does the above study conclusion remind you of? Anything coming to mind? Oh, yes…

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

Poon Commandment Eleven. The good hosts at Chateau Heartiste were ahead of the curve yet again. Is there no game concept science won’t eventually come around to confirming? Excuse me while I give myself over to deep, utter, profound self-love. Mhhmm… *smack* *kiss*… mmhhhmmmhmmm… oh yeah big guy….

Confidence… no, OVERconfidence, the belief that you are better than you actually are… is the heart and soul of game. This is where the rubber meets the hoes. Without a glowing inner satisfaction born of overconfidence, all the game tactics in the world will fall flat. Riddled with self-doubt and trepidation is no way to execute a flawless neg or disqualification. Perhaps this explains why so many unconfident betas struggle during the learning curve phase of game, and turn their backs on it entirely when instant success isn’t forthcoming — their game is betrayed by their second class mentality.

Overconfidence is the fulcrum upon which rests every other facet of game. Overconfidence is the origin source of outcome independence. Overconfidence is Skittles Man. Overconfidence is the skeleton key that opens women’s… hearts.

Overconfidence IS alpha. If I had to describe in one word the attitude which most starkly delineates betas from alphas, it would be overconfidence. The alpha, no matter his actual status as measured by the Committee to Uphold Social Norms and Acceptable Hierarchies, confronts the world with faith in his superiority and social elevation. The beta second guesses himself at every turn. And women can SMELL this difference in attitude. They are drawn to it despite themselves, thanks to eons of evolutionary pressures molding their hindbrains.

Now you may argue, in my opinion rightly, that unjustified self-regard by large numbers of people is bad for civilization. That the reflexive doubt, the unbiased proclivity to self-assessment and the humbleness of the beta are the bulk ingredients which give structure to prosperous societies. But this is not the issue before us. The issue we discuss is women, loving women, and inspiring love from women. And by that standard, unjustified male self-regard, so long as the rewards are worth the cost (and in modern society, where women shower the alphas with their pussies during their prime teens and 20s, the rewards are substantial), is the winning mating strategy. You can easily confirm this for yourself by stepping out of the house and observing women in action with your eyes wide open. And now you can read about the reality you see with your eyes in the pages of esteemed scientific journals.

(Interestingly, the study shows that in societies in which the rewards accruing to overconfident people are not greater than the costs, the unbiased, self-doubting beta strategy prevails reproductively — where reproductive fitness thwarted at the goal line is a proxy for attractiveness in a world awash in widely available contraceptives. You could therefore hypothesize that structuring society so that women are not free to ride the cock carousel during their primes would propagate social levers that encourage humility in its men. Conversely, overconfident arrogance among men becomes like a plague in societies where shaming mechanisms to rein in female sexual predilection are dismantled. Again, it all comes back to the female sex drive being the wilder of the two sexes, and thus the more necessary to corral to the benefit of society’s well-being.)

(Naturally, as more overconfident men are sexually selected by women, the daughters of these couplings wind up with the overconfidence genes, which may account for the ridiculous sight of fat chicks and cougars in America with 463-bullet point checklists.)

So what does this mean for you, the reader? There’s good news. Confidence can be learned. It can be internalized, regardless of externally objective measures. And where there’s confidence, overconfidence lurks not far behind. But that is an unnecessary distinction; learned confidence IS THE SAME THING AS overconfidence. By definition, if you are deliberately and pointedly taking on the attitude and mannerisms of a confident man, you are often doing so without external justification, and your confidence could fairly be described as overconfidence. The exception would be if you are an objectively high status beta who lacks the self-awareness or the demeanor to translate his socially-approved status into confident swagger.

In the end, it doesn’t matter, for it is primarily the overconfident attitude that women find attractive, not the baubles which festoon or the credentials which socially legitimize the attitude.

The archives of the Chateau are filled with techniques for raising your confidence levels. Peruse freely. It’s all there, from body language adjustments to dress to posture to voice tone to expressions to adopting an attractive alpha male thinking mode. Even saying positive, ego-stroking thoughts out loud can subconsciously strengthen your confident resolve. Ya know, some might call these tactics… game.

On the subject of nomenclature, overconfidence goes by another name… inner game.

Ultimately, it’s success with women that will bring you to the pinnacle of overconfidence, flush with pussy-parting attitude. The confidence born of repeated beddings of cute chicks is the kind that goes to the bone, and suffuses every sinew. That’s why you’ll notice that the men with the most naturally unshakeable confidence around women are the ones who have been getting their way with women since they can remember, and their jobs or social circles or finances have little to no bearing on the concreteness of their confidence. Their overconfidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, building upon itself with each successive seduction.

This insight doesn’t help the noobs, but only if we measure success by the noobs’ standards. “Get me sex now” is the wrong standard, and unfortunately is the standard most heavily marketed to by shysters. Instead, as a newcomer to the game of seduction, you should be rejoicing in every positive interaction you have with women, no matter how trivial. Every hi fuels your confidence until you are prying smiles from girls. Every smile emboldens you until they are touching you. Every touch emboldens you until they are giving you their numbers. Every number emboldens you until they are kissing you. Every kiss emboldens you until you are banging them. Every bang emboldens you until you feel free to love them.

Finally, you are so emboldened that you no longer come to women for reinforcement. They come to you.

***

Here’s a related study (via Randall Parker):

The study revealed two key discoveries to why powerful people cheat. First, there is a strong association between power and confidence and that the amount of confidence a person has is the strongest link between power and unfaithfulness. Second, the researchers found that among powerful people gender made no difference in past digressions or the participants’ desires to cheat.

This is a tantalizing clue that, contra Henry Kissinger’s famous aphorism, it is not the power per se that women are sexually drawn to, but the confident demeanor that powerful men exhibit. As explained in the “Defining the Alpha Male” post, the best judge of a man’s alphaness is the quality, number and attraction intensity of the women who would sleep with him were he so inclined to take up the offers. Tautological, maybe. But tautologies are often the inevitable distillations of great truths. There are some objectively powerful men, who for one reason or another, do not exude the unstoppable confidence that is the usual offshoot of their stations. A strict definition of alphaness relying on power alone is therefore incomplete. It must be accompanied by a confident attitude. And where real power is missing, overconfidence can step in to fill the (vaginal) void.

Randall notes:

The researcher is (or at least pretends to be) a foolish blank slater who thinks gender differences are going to disappear. But he (she?) still makes the useful observation that power begets confidence which  begets the bedding of others. Okay, so if one can find other ways to feel confident more beddings will take place…

I’m not surprised that the small pool of powerful women studied by the researchers cheat almost as much as the powerful men. Women who have the gumption and killer instinct to reach the top of corporate hierarchies are masculinized by nature, so they are more like men than their own sex, in both libido and aggressive personality. Check out female VPs sometimes. Narrow hips, tallness, thin lips and wee (unaugmented) tits as far as the eye can see.

I therefore wouldn’t assume much about the cheating likelihood of women in general from a study into the unfaithfulness of very powerful women. For instance, I would suspect that the men in the study cheated with younger, hotter babes, while the women cheated with similarly situated beta schlubs as their husbands. Keep in mind, it is much harder for a man to cheat than a woman, since any sufficiently desperate loser will dump a fuck in a rapidly spoiling woman who makes herself easily available.

To those women who ask, “Well then, does this mean ugly and old women can attract high value men by acting overconfident?”

No. Overconfident fugs are still fugs. Overconfident cougars are still cougars. There is no equality of the sexes in this respect.

Read Full Post »

Study: Men And Women Are Different Species

Science continues lavishing hungry, wet kisses all over game and core Chateau Heartiste concepts. A huge study has come out which pretty much confirms what any man who has lived a day in his life already knows: men and women are fundamentally different in many important aspects, and this has ramifications for how to bed women.

The data, pulled from 10,000 American men and women who took a questionnaire that measured 15 variations of personality traits, records that men and women feel and behave in very specific (and gendered) ways.

Men are more:
– Dominant
– Reserved
– Utilitarian
– Vigilant
– Rule-conscious
– Emotionally stable

While women are more:
– Deferential
– Warm
– Trusting
– Sensitive
– Emotionally “reactive”

Well, duh. But if you ignore, or choose to disregard, the obvious, then you will pay the price in the sexual market. Reality does not suffer fools or ideologues gladly.

Of course, yer ‘umble narrators were on top of this AMAZING REVELATION INTO SEX DIFFERENCES long time now, based on nothing more academic than simple observation of reality and direct experience with the subject matter, remarking only half-jokingly that men are more closely related to male chimps than they are to female humans, or that women are comfortable doing social activities with each other that you will never catch men doing.

Here’s another study showing that men have a higher density of synapses in the temporal neocortex — a region of the brain involved with social and emotional processes — than do women. It would be fascinating to watch a feminist try to explain how cultural conditioning causes women to have fewer neocortex synapses than men.

The verdict is in: there are biologically innate sex differences in the brain that manifest, on average, in different personality traits, different temperaments, different mannerisms, different predilections and, most relevantly to the practiced seducer, different desires.

Let us raise our steins in a toast — here’s to hoping all the world’s feminists read these studies and simultaneously blow a cervical aneurysm from rapid blood pressure rise. Chin chin!

Read Full Post »

Why, And When, Women Cheat

Alternate title for this post:

Game and science: Deeply in love!

Once more, from one of my favorite blogs, a study which catalogs the reasons women (and men) cheat, and confirms a few core Chateau concepts as well. None of the study results will be a surprise to regular readers.

We’ll compare the study’s conclusions to claims previously made on this blog. The first one is a doozy, as it validates the very foundation of game and male-female sexual dynamics as elucidated by yours truly.

1) Women who wear the pants in the relationship are more likely to cheat:

The imbalance of power in the primary relationship has been associated with infidelity. Edwards and Booth (1976) found that wives who reported that they “get their way” more often during disagreements were also more likely to have extramarital sexual involvements.

There ya go, fellas. If you’re a beta with your girlfriend or wife, you’re increasing your odds that your “better half” will surreptitiously spread her legs for the veiny cocks of strange men. And she will orgasm with them. Oh yes, she will orgasm. Hard, powerfully and pleasurably.

There are only two paths you can take to avoid that nightmare — the path of celibacy or the path of alpha. Which one sounds more fun?

Beta males cede disagreements with women all the time. It’s their knee-jerk response anytime a vagina talks to them. But women HATE HATE HATE that mincing sycophancy. A woman CRAVES the dominance of the alpha male who won’t take her shit and who will get HIS way more often than not. Beta males, slaves to their fear of loss, cringe at the thought of sticking up for themselves against women who hold the power of pussy over them, but that is exactly what the women in their lives want them to do.

As with all infinite truths, this one was nailed Luther-like to the Chateau doors a long time ago:

This is a revelation about the female mind that escapes the logical thinking of so many men — why would a woman want to be with a man like Cashmoney? Why would any woman willingly offer herself as a rentable hole to a man hawking her goods to streetside bidders? Because women want to submit to a powerful man. Whether that power comes in the form of a crooning emo rock star, a CEO, or a pimp daddy with fists of fury doesn’t matter. All that matters is the male power, and the tingly feeling of submitting – wholly, completely – to that power. Every woman, deep DEEP inside, wants to be “daddy’s little girl”.

All healthy primary relationships have an imbalance of power. But that imbalance needs to go one-way only — in the direction of the man wielding most of the power. The further the relationship veers from that ideal — that is, the closer it gets to equality and beyond into the horrid realm of the woman being more powerful — the greater the likelihood the woman will cheat, her heart filling with incoherent, growing contempt for her pussified lover.

The feminist battle cry for women to take up paychecks and “bring home the bacon” has been nothing short of a genitalcidal campaign against the sexual and romantic desires of beta males. Women who follow the feminist agenda of empowerment are consigning themselves to a smaller dating pool, and broken marriages, because they have turned their backs on their true natures — their will to submit.

2) An imbalance in education increases the chance of cheating:

…in a large U.S. national study of dating, cohabiting, and married women, Forste and Tanfer (1996) found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity; but if the husband was more educated than the wife, she was less likely to philander. Level of education relative to that of the partner appears to be more important than absolute level of education.

Education is a form of power. Women who have more education — i.e. more power — than their male lovers are more likely to cheat on them. Conversely, when the man is more educated than the woman, she does not feel the stirrings of infidelity as strongly. Male power is a female fidelity guarantee. Men would be wise to focus on somewhat less educated women than themselves for marriage prospects. Women who have marriage in mind would be wise to avoid lengthy educational commitments. Again, the Chateau was on top of this a while ago.

3) Jobs have a lot to do with whether people have an affair:

Individuals who work outside the home while their partners remain in the home also express higher rates of extramarital sexual involvement (Atkins et al., 2001), perhaps because the work environment provides the opportunity and time to get to know coworkers (Treas & Giesen, 2000). In clinical samples, 46% to 62% of individuals reported that they met their extramarital sexual partner at work (Glass, 2003; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). The likelihood of extramarital involvement is also related to the degree to which an individual’s job involves touching clients, discussing personal concerns with colleagues or clients, or working alone with co-workers (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

If you are a stay-at-home dad and your wife works outside the home as a personal trainer for rich businessmen, you may as well start ordering the paternity testing kits now and practice your nighttime cheek swabbing technique.

4) The timing of infidelity is predictable:

Among married women, the likelihood of extramarital involvement peaks in the seventh year of marriage, then declines; but among married men, the likelihood of extramarital involvement decreases over time until the eighteenth year of matrimony, after which the likelihood of extramarital involvement increases (Liu, 2000). Similarly, in a sample of couples in therapy for infidelity, sexual infidelity first occurred after an average of seven years of marriage (Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). Lawson and Samson (1988) reported, however, that the length of marriage prior to initial sexual infidelity is decreasing with younger cohorts. Certain developmental stages in a marriage, including pregnancy and the months following the birth of a child, are also high risk times for infidelity among males (Allen & Baucom, 2001; Brown, 1991; Whisman et al., 2007).

Don’t forget that women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating. So if you just celebrated your seven-year wedding anniversary, and it’s two weeks past your wife’s menstruation, you need to hire a private detective as a gift to yourself.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, younger marriages experience initial infidelity sooner than older marriages. The explanation is simple: younger wives are hotter than older wives, so they have more options in the sexual market. And since marriage is no escape from the sexual market, it makes perfect sense that infidelity is a more urgent risk with a younger wife.

The study also confirms some age-old wisdom that men are less trustworthy when their wives are pregnant or nursing. It’s the old “cold feet” syndrome that pushes men into the arms of mistresses who aren’t burdened with child, aka duties and responsibilities.

5) Most men that cheat claim to have a happy marriage:

…regardless of the many correlations between relationship dissatisfaction and adultery, Glass and Wright (1985) reported that among individuals engaging in infidelity, 56% of men and 34% of women rate their marriage as “happy” or “very happy.”

This doesn’t have anything to do with women cheating, but I thought it worthwhile to mention because it confirms yet another Chateau assertion: that men are capable of fucking more than one woman concurrently without losing that loving feeling for any one of them. Women, in contrast, tend to have to fall out of love with their man before they can comfortably move on to fucking another man. As the study shows, more cheating husbands than cheating wives are still in love with their spouses and thus sincere when they say that their marriages are happy.

There is a big sex difference at work behind this statistic. Men cheat because they desire a variety of pussy. Women cheat because they are unhappy with their primary partner. So for a woman, a necessary ingredient has to be that her current lover is not fulfilling her in some important way. But for a man, dissatisfaction with his current lover is not necessary as a springboard to cheat. Men are prone to cheat if the opportunity, and the guarantee of secrecy, are strong enough enticements, regardless of their love for their wives or girlfriends. That is why an unfaithful alpha husband is less likely to disrupt a marriage, while an unfaithful wife is more likely to end it all in divorce.

So, to recap, here is what you need to know to prevent your woman from cheating on you:

1. Learn game and become the alpha male that women need.

2. Do not allow your woman to wear the pants, unless it is in relation to some trivial point of contention that you let her win to demonstrate your big-heartedness.

3. Be more educated than your woman.

4. Do not, under any circumstances, spend time as a stay-at-home dad.

5. If your wife works, make sure it is in an occupation requiring little travel, where she will be confined to a sterile office surrounded by women and beta males. Any job where a massage table is involved is an example of a job you don’t want her to have.

6. Act a little more asshole-ish and unpredictable when your marriage approaches the seven year mark. Or when she’s approaching her monthly ovulation.

7. Failing all of the above, cheat first. She will smell it on you, and her love will grow in proportion to her fear of losing you.

Read Full Post »

Sexy Quotes & Lurid Links

Scandalized reader “halisi” unintentionally offers a great example of a feminist ashamed of what feminism is really about.

1) Feminsim is NOT anti-beauty/pro-frump! There are plenty of feminists who like to wear designer clothes, wear makeup, and/or take the time each day to make themselves look beautiful. Jessica Valenti said it best (and I’m paraphrasing here): “I like to wear makeup. I just realize that I’m only wearing it because society tells me I’ll look ugly without it.” Feminism is about finding the beauty within yourself, makeup or no.

2) Feminists aren’t anti-men/family, either. There are tons of feminists who are married with children. Tons. And not all feminists are pro-abortion, either; that’s actually one of the most contested issues in the feminist community.

3) And feminists are most definitely not against women/girls playing sports! If anything, that’s anti-feminism.

1) If feminism is not anti-beauty, why do so many self-declared feminists look like coal miners?

1a) Valenti’s “I just realize that I’m only wearing [makeup] because society tells me I’ll look ugly without it” is the dog-eared “deus ex societas” card that feminists always pull when they have run out of credible explanations for female behavior and are forced to confront the reality of innate sex differences. To demonstrate the bankruptcy of that card, try to imagine a man saying “I just realize that I’m only trying to get girls into bed because society tells me I’ll be depressed if I stay celibate.” Ridiculous on its face, yet that is exactly the level of intellectual feminist thought.

2) Marriage and kids are no amnesty from man-hating. Some of the worst ideological feminists are lantern-jawed fuzzfaced quasi-dykes married to mincing beta schlubs who confirm feminist prejudices by their mere existence, not to mention by their sycophantic suckuppery.

2a) I’m sure there is a lone feminist or two somewhere out there in the hinterland who is pro-man and anti-abortion, but she has little say in the national conversation. Feminism’s leaders and spokeshos are, almost to a bitch, man-hating termagants who loathe male desire and cheer on third trimester vacuumings. So, please, spare me your empty-headed NAFALT argument.

3) Who said feminists are anti-sport? I’m pretty sure the field hockey team in my high school was 90% incipient dyke. Of course femcunts love the idea of sports; it’s another way for them to undermine traditionally male domains. Title IX is exhibit A in how a feminist policy to force equality of the sexes inevitably tilts the playing field against boys. Schools only have so much money to spend, so boys, who by nature prefer participation in the sports battlefield in greater numbers, on average, than girls, have seen their sports programs cut to accommodate the inclusion of women’s sports programs.

No, feminism is, right down to its withered, cunty heart, a grotesque ideology mounted on a dais of lies. My goal is to mock it so ruthlessly that its practitioners and sympathizers, all of them, find it ever more difficult to pronounce in public life that they are feminists, to drive the true believers so far underground that only their raspy-throated, dusty-muffed sisters-in-arms are willing to entertain their insipid nostrums. This is total war, and in total war where the weapons are words, the goal is utter destruction through social ostracism. The icy wasteland of discredited ideologues and crackpots mumbling self-medicating catchphrases and hitting themselves in the forehead is feminism’s inevitable destination.

***

Gramps has some insight into the nature of decision-making.

As an old guy, I can say that almost every decision I made, regarding important life choices, which were comfortable and low risk, I came to regret. Those decisions I made which were stressful, and which I made under duress (choosing between several stressful alternatives) I found yielded the greatest rewards.

I can see two forces at work here. Perhaps, because we imbue stressful decisions with greater importance, we come to value the consequences from such decisions, regardless of benefit, as more rewarding. Or, this is an example of hormesis: a version of “that which does not kill us makes us stronger”. Decisions made under stress strengthen our resolve to see them through, and the more we have invested in a decision, the greater the likelihood we will value the fruits of our labor, even if those fruits aren’t very good for us.

***

Sea7 writes in response to women wearing pajamas to the classroom:

That is nasty. Contaminating the classroom with all their previous night’s clitty litter as it sloughs off the twat and sprinkles out the PJ leg hole.

Alpha pillow talk.

***

Related: How to pick up chicks who are wearing pajamas.

There are so many possible situations here, and I am so drunk, that covering them all is beyond the scope of this post.

However, in a “common dressing” scenario (of, say, lots of PJs), the neg, social, and value scoring possibilities become PUA friendly for ambitious Betas looking to move up a notch.

To wit:

PJs have flaps. Or not. The point being, ASK about them, in a teasing neg, if possible. This can lead as deep into the coal mine as you are willing to go.

PJs look good. Or not. The point being, CONTRAST them unfavorably from your target against another chick. The more public and subtle you pull this off, the better.

PJs make a statement. Or not. The point being, acknowledge (and, of course, neg) the “innocence” and “exploratory” subtext of the PJ beaver whilst working a touchy-feely move towards relief and satisfaction.

PJs rarely have shoes, and beavers CRAVE shoes. The possibilities here are potent – use them.

How I’d open a PJ-wearing girl: “Too good for Snuggies, eh?”

***

A shadowsage calling himself Porter leaves an especially illuminating comment over at Mangan’s. People in the rotting majority who think diversity is really about equality, and thus that their looming minority status will open access to all sorts of multicult racket goodies and exonerations currently only available to designated pawns victim groups, are in for a rude awakening. It is not human nature to grant one’s historical scapegoats mercy when they have been enfeebled and dragged down to one’s level, particularly when one has been invigorated by nursed grievances and desouled of the nobler virtues; just the opposite: it is human nature to pile on, to execute the finishing move until the last sworn enemy is dangling from the gallows in the public square. There is no mélangutopia awaiting us over the horizon; only hands at throats across America.

***

So single motherhood and the decline in male industriousness our author describes cannot be spirited away simply by getting men and women to the altar. ‘Outrageous’ though it may seem to a generation steeped in feminist propaganda, the natural economic basis of marriage must also be restored. White men are programmed by evolution to be providers. If you deliberately rearrange society to render this function superfluous, do you have any right to complain when men stop knocking themselves out to perform it?

F. Roger Devlin, a man who abides Chateau principles, wrote the above criticism in his review of Charles Murray’s forthcoming book “Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010”. He rightly raps Murray’s mangina tendency to excuse female mating predilection while happily clobbering men over the head with the “man up” billy club, in what is otherwise sure to be a good book. Murray tackles social issues, race and class very well, but he seems to shy from taking on feminism and its bastard children.

My opinion of cultural trends now underway?: Thanks to technology, diversity and cognitive stratification, America is entering the period of The Great Culling, a process which will create not only new classes, but even new races, broadly a snarky Eloi and a medicated Morlock, and slowly, as the government cheese runs out, the losers in this culling will begin to procreate less and less, until they are discarded by the invisible crotch of evolution as failed human experiments unable to adapt to the new reality. (Note that some of the losers include childless spinsters of the high IQ elite.) The wildcard is genetic engineering, something nerds love to trumpet to assuage their feelings of hopelessness, but I doubt it will emerge in time to make a difference.

Anyhow, may 2012 be filled with postponements of the coming dystopia!

Read Full Post »

Economic Wisdom Of The Day

Debt and changing demographics are intricately entwined.

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

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

Here’s a related post to help clarify.

Read Full Post »

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

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

Is Maria Shriver having second thoughts about divorcing Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That’s what we heard.

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Sinead O’Connor: Proof Of Women’s Rapidly Declining Sexual Market Value Trajectory

Sinead O’Connor’s first marriage at age 21: 5 years

Sinead O’Connor’s second marriage: 1 year

Sinead O’Connor’s third marriage: 8 months

Sinead O’Connor’s fourth marriage at age 45: 16 days.

Sez it all, really.

(The typical benighted SMV trajectory of women is even worse when you consider the quality of men with whom Sinead progressively got hitched, which, if photos and lifestyle status are any indication, demonstrates that Sinead had to gradually settle for ever more beta lovers.)

Read Full Post »