The Numbers Game Fallacy

Trolls often ask “isn’t pickup just a numbers game”? I say trolls, because it’s rare you’ll hear this question from an honest person sincerely seeking answers. The question is farcical once you dig into it a bit, and anti-gamers like to use it in an attempt to discredit game/evolutionary biology/sex differences/female hypergamy…. pick any one or all. (Funnily enough, you’ll hardly ever hear women using it, probably because women don’t like to think of themselves as numbers.)

The “numbers game” fallacy is similar to the “hours game” fallacy. Think of a great musician. He has to put in a lot of hours of practice to get great at his craft. Once greatness is achieved, a person asserting an “hours game” argument would contend that the musician’s continued greatness depends on all the hours he puts into playing. But that is not the case. A great musician, once trained, can play five minutes a week and still be great compared to the non-musician or hobbyist musician.

So it is with game and pickup. Logically and unavoidably, most neophytes will make more approaches in order to put their game theory to practice in the field. That is how you get good. Simply reading about game and approaching one woman per year won’t cut it. But once a number of up-front approaches have been made — once the steepest part of the learning curve has been crested — and the aspiring seducer has improved his game acumen, then he can reduce his number of approaches while still enjoying a very good sex and love life because his odds of any one approach resulting in a fuck close have measurably increased over his previous, game-less baseline.

And from personal experience, this is exactly what happened to me. When I first tried game, I kept my approach numbers at the same level i had before game. Once I started tasting improved success using game, I increased my approach number because 1. I was excited to see how much I could accomplish using game, and 2. I had to approach more women to try out all the new things I was learning.

Naturally, my close rate increased with my increased approach rate, owing mostly to my game skills but also partly to the larger pool of women I was hitting on. (In contrast, had I increased my pool of prospects while using NO GAME, my close rate would not have increased by nearly as much.) Then, after a few years of this fucking around for fun and sexual profit, I decided that I was interested in longer term relations with women, so I gradually pared back my number of approaches to about the same level I had before learning game. And a funny thing happened. I was having more success with the fewer, and hotter!, women I was approaching than I would have had without game. I had a skillset called game and it increased my positive interactions with women across the board. In other words, my RATE of rejection was lower, and my rate of success higher.

That’s the way doubters need to view the numbers game fallacy: numbers matter, but game matters more. The two work in concert until enough competency is achieved that numbers are no longer needed.

For those who refuse to part ways with the numbers game fallacy, I direct your attention to the headstrong but socially clueless geeky beta male. I think most of us have encountered this type of guy in our lives. He’s aggressively nerdy, unafraid to approach women in his awkward fashion, and never learns from his mistakes. He has no discernible game besides fearlessness and a lack of shame. He’s a little “off”. He’s our test case for measuring game against numbers. He’s got the numbers, but he has no game, and the results aren’t pretty: one ugly rejection after another. But he soldiers on.

You can approach thousands of women, but if you have no game, if you persist in engaging women with your socially clumsy schtick and never trying to improve yourself, all that you’ll get is a huge notch count of rejections — a botch count. Sure, you might “get lucky” once in a blue moon using nothing but numbers game. But why wait for that when real game — real cultivated charisma — can increase your lay odds to a level, at the least, where you go from 1 lay in 1,000 approaches to 1 lay in 100 approaches? And with hotter babes on top of it? That’s an order of magnitude better success with women over just maxing out your number of pickup attempts.

Not to mention, a numbers game mentality will do nothing for you once you’re already in a relationship with a woman you love. Having no game at that stage is risking a lot; a lot more than a measly five minute approach in a bar. And it’s not like you can numbers game your girlfriend over and over until she falls back in love with you.

Anyhow, I hope this clears the air on this fallacy. I doubt it will convince the trolls, but then they were never really open to being convinced.

Science Proves Race Is Not A Social Construct

I’ve never understood how this leftie assertion “race is a social construct” got off the ground — I mean, I have two eyes, I can see what people look like — but for whatever reason all sorts of brainwashed numbskulls cling to the meme like a life raft. How do you argue effectively against people who so brazenly defy common sense and observable reality? At some sufficiently degenerate mental nadir it becomes impossible to engage such a person rationally. You just mock them and hope they shrink away in shame.

Mockery’s great, I love it, use it a lot in my daily life. But once in a while it’s pleasing to throw an icy cold splash of scientific debunking on false beliefs. If the perpetrator of the false belief is not insane, actual science proving the contrary might give him pause about spreading his lies. But better than that, and more probable, it will win over weak-minded conformists and status whores who are gullible to the liar’s feelgood, twisted logic, thus ostracizing him from normal people.

On that premise, here’s a loaded study — loaded with implications — about a new DNA test that can ID a person’s race.

Frudakis’ test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person’s origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error. […]

But the real [reason it isn’t popular with police]? DNAWitness touches on race and racial profiling — a subject with such a tortured history that people can’t countenance the existence of the technology, even if they don’t understand how it works.

“Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it’s not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test,” says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association.

Aaaaaaaaand…. meme CEDED motherfucker. You can’t find DNA markers of social constructs, but you sure can of biological reality. The fear here, naturally considering the PC crushing potential unlocked by such technology, is exactly what Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological ASSociation *cough* dissembling shitsacks *cough* suggests: that the tech will be able to find genetic markers that correspond with certain behaviors and attributes. And at that point, the whole house of equalist cards carefully built up over the last, oh, 150 years, comes tumbling down.

The fear exists because those professing it know, deep in their squirrelly little hearts, that the propaganda they cherish and espouse is wrong, has always been wrong, and soon everyone will know of its wrongness. I think what they really fear is blowback. Or perhaps hopelessness. Or sinecures. Or all of that, plus the loss of a status cudgel to wield against their close cousin lessers.

Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: “Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup.” Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don’t all “bleed the same blood.” He adds, “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”

I bet a lot of members of the current ruling regime are thinking the same thing. Which is why they shouldn’t be in power, any longer.

ps hi Cheap Chalupas!

The Feminism Shit Test

A reader poses an interesting scenario: what do you say if a girl asks you about feminism? If you live in a big, blue urban enclave, it’s pretty good odds you’ll run into a chick — probably a lawyer or other man-jawed freak of nature — who hits you up with the feminism shit test.

Naturally, the typical beta male, not knowing what the fuck to do in most situations with women except kowtow in abject supplication in hopes he’ll be patted on the head like a neutered shih tzu, would frantically insist his fem-cred is legit. At best, he might “yeah, but” his way through it until eventually caving that he’s on board the grrlpower train.

But we can do better than that! In fact, not just better, but SEXIER. You see, these sorts of politically and culturally loaded questions that girls ask are not just tests for proof of in-group certification, they are also plum-ripe opportunities to demonstrate superior value by parrying her noxiously probing questions in a socially adept manner that simultaneously arouses her and spares your dignity as a man.

Examples

GIRL: what do you think of feminism?
YOU: it’s for old hags and ugly girls.

This was the answer suggested by the reader. It certainly spares no quarter, but is it alpha in the pussy-moistening sense? I think it’s too confrontational. More likely to start an argument or elicit a haughty exit than encourage flirty banter.

Here are some less confrontational but still edgy replies:

GIRL: what do you think of feminism?

YOU:
– great for my sex life!
– child’s play.
– it’s like religion. makes people feel good.
– great! girls buy me drinks now.
– dunno. never ate one.
– fucking LOVE it. premarital sex for the win!
– you mean lesbianism?
– i don’t.
– [for the girls who appreciate dark humor]: it’s cool. my aborted sister was a feminist.
– love it. i’d be married if it wasn’t for feminism.
– it’s bursting with fruit flavor.
– you’ll have to ask my grandma.
– it’s cute!

GIRL: what do you think of feminists?

YOU:
– they’re sexy underneath.
– beautiful on the inside.
– so smart! guys love that about girls. yup, being totally serious here.
– they ask weird questions.
– love chicks who rock the pit hair. shows they’re secure in their masculinity.
– so cute!
– best divorcees in the world.
– love em. most of them are secretly giggling little schoolgirls once you get to know them.
– i’d tell you but then you’d have to buy me a drink.

GIRL: are you a feminist?

YOU:
– i wish, but i was born with a penis.
– that’s what my doctor says.
– when it’s convenient.
– for you, any time sweet cheeks.
– are you flirting with me?
– i’m not wearing any underwear, so, yeah.

Of course, if you really ARE a micropeened self-loathing bitch tittied simulacra of a man one brightly whistled show tune away from double rainbowed gaiety, you could go the Hugo Schwyzer route and proudly declare your feminist bona fides, t-shirt and all, while exploiting your teacher-student status differential to nail 19 year old hypergamous pussy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But for most betas who don’t have a captive classroom audience of eager beavers jockeying for insider influence at an A in ‘Deconstructing Rape Culture 101’, holding sincere feminist beliefs and being unafraid (ha!) to broadcast those beliefs will not help you get laid. If anything, girls will be turned off by your cloying self-abnegation. Even feminist girls. ESPECIALLY feminist girls.

Women’s Unrealistic Online Standards Are Like Ice Cream

A reader claims to note a trend in online personals:

[T]his is a trend I’ve noticed online, women who are QUITE comfortable with dating someone a handful of years younger but do NOT want anyone more than a few years older than they. What accounts for this trend? I mean, you could meet a 28 year old fat dude, or a 40 year old paleo-hardened guy who looks young. Why pre-emptively discount age like that? Most women I’ve met prefer someone same age or older.

I don’t know how widespread women’s aping of men’s standards in online ads is, because I don’t do online dating (at least not recently). However, from what I’ve read about the subject, most women’s preferences in online ads is for men older than they are; which makes sense, since age is a status marker for men in a way it isn’t for women. But assuming for the sake of argument that there is a small but growing contingent of cougars explicitly seeking younger men in what amounts to a mirror image of the universal trend for men to seek younger women, I believe I have an explanation.

First, keep in mind that it doesn’t matter what women demand in online ads, because outrageous standards that are far removed from reality are quickly weeded out of contention, leaving such delusional women sad and alone in real life. A lot of loser women who do the online thing subconsciously know they aren’t going to get laid by the man of their dreams, so they throw all reason and sobriety to the wind and just go hog wild laundry listing their fantasy criteria. For these women (admittedly greater in number now than every before in Western history), it’s more about ego catharsis than about actually meeting a man. ASCII therapy with a public audience of like-minded Medusas one-upping each other to the top of the entitlement heap.

Happily punching in a feverish list of ridiculous expectations in an online ad is the emotional equivalent of plopping in front of the TV (all shows cater to women except ‘Mythbusters’ and sports) and wolfing down a tub of ice cream. Feels SOOOOO good, even if it’s SOOOO bad for her health, looks and love life. Kinda makes a tidy little metaphor for civilizational decline.

Second, the few cougars who aren’t ugly, ragged or grossly obese but who left their prime years far behind in a haze of drunken binges and cock hopping, will sometimes recognize, on a primal level, that their odds of getting a good (read: high value, sort of charmingly dickish) man of the type they pined for at age 20 to commit to them in a loving long-term relationship are very low, and that their efforts are best spent putting out for horny younger men who will at least offer a short term thrill in the sack. This phenomenon — of older woman transforming into clitorally turgid quasi-men — is not common, certainly not nearly as common as the media would have you believe. But they do exist, and you can be pretty sure that most of them could cut glass with their jaws and suffocate small dogs with their jungly, frosted pube patches. Do note, as well, that as women age their testosterone levels rise in step with their lowered expectations, making the prospect of loveless one night stands more palatable to their still feminine egos.

Let’s just say that these horncat cougars are not exactly the sorts of women older men with options want at all, and they aren’t the sorts of women younger men with no options want for more than a few no muss no fuss bangs in which to drain their aching teen balls. Because younger men, just like older men, prefer the exquisite intimacies of young women. Cougars probably know this on some deep supraegotistical level, so they respond to their constrained sexual market choices by pretending to prefer the company of younger men when in reality all they’re trying to do is avoid the soul crushing loneliness that would inevitably result if they adhered to the standards of their real desires and had to face the brutal and merciless cruelty of the sexual market head on.

Women never really lose the ability to extrapolate a one night stand into some fantastical dramatic relationship story arc, so a cougar having a couple of perfunctory fucks with an indiscriminately horny college student in a dating slump can sometimes mean the difference for her between having the will to live for another day and resigning herself to gardening and obesity. It’s not an avenue most older single women are willing to take, but for a few desperate specimens with male-like sex drives and bodies that haven’t yet gone completely to shit, it beats suddenly and unceremoniously being dumped into the invisible fringes of forgotten wastelands. At least for a few more years.

Another Game Concept Validated: Personality Is Adjustable

Many doubters of game, especially those of the determinist variety, like to assert that game, even if it has merit, is largely limited in scope to those men already born with the genes that give them personality characteristics — for instance, extroversion — suited for seducing women. Their thinking goes:

Game requires extroversion and charisma.

Extroversion and charisma are mostly heritable, genetically influenced traits.

ERGO, men without those advantageous pussy-slaying genes cannot learn or benefit from game.

CONCLUSION: only men born with “game genes” can run game successfully.

Coming from this blog, it might sound funny that I’m about to disprove the above logic sequence. After all, a fair amount of posting effort here is spent hammering the feelgood, empty-headed assertions of the “social conditioning”, cultural supremacy crowd and emphasizing the heretofore mostly unacknowledged or under-examined role that genes play in everything about us humans, from the way we look, to our personalities, to our predilection for impulsiveness and crime, to our sexual desire and our intelligence. (This study and this one are two examples of many.)

I do this because for generations the West has labored under the grand poobah of lies, the lie of blank slate ideology. This rancid ideology has brought more pain, death, distress and wasted resources upon its enthralled peoples than any other. The amount of self-delusion, demoralizing snark and frantic propaganda needed to sustain it is breathtaking.

Yet there is no such thing as absolute genetic determinism. Genes are probability, not destiny (credit: Razib). Genes explain a lot — more than most give them credit for — but they aren’t everything. Our genetic heritage has also imbued us with a talent for adaptation in the face of environmental flux and everyday challenges. Stressing the genetic component should not be construed as denying any environmental influence. I stress genes because they are ignored, deliberately or incidentally, by most everyone else, and especially by those who wield the media bullhorns, work in HR departments, grade papers in academia and make policy in legislative dens. My ASCII saber brings balance to the force.

Having acknowledged the power of genes, anti-gamers may wonder where I get off claiming men can learn to be better womanizers. Simple. Personality, moreso than looks or height or intelligence, is amenable to active efforts at change. Given that a man’s personality is at least as relevant as, if not more relevant than, his looks or wealth to attracting women, improving his personality so that he has a sexier, dominant vibe will redound to more sex and better relationships.

And this isn’t just evidence from personal experience, or observation of the experiences of others, speaking. Science is catching up to the field work of millions of aspiring players. Here is a study showing that military service will change a man’s personality.

“Be all you can be,” the Army tells potential recruits. The military promises personal reinvention. But does it deliver? A new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds that personality does change a little after military service – German conscripts come out of the military less agreeable than their peers who chose civilian service.

It’s maybe a bit more than a coincidence that pickup teachers call their in-field classes “boot camps”. The military is a tough, strict regimen, and the personality changes measured are not huge. This should chasten betas new to the game that they are going to have to commit a lot of focused effort to pickup if they want to enjoy the pussy bounty that accrues to the smoothest operators. But at least now they know it can be done.

Here’s another study concluding that certain personality changes lead to more happiness, and that such change is possible.

People’s personalities can change considerably over time, say scientists, suggesting that leopards really can change their spots.

Psychologists from The University of Manchester and London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) also showed that small positive personality changes may lead to greater increases in happiness than earning more money, marrying, or gaining employment. […]

Lead author Dr Chris Boyce, from the University of Manchester’s School of Psychological Sciences, said: “We found that our personalities can and do change over time – something that was considered improbable until now – and that these personality changes are strongly related to changes in our wellbeing. […]

“Fostering the conditions where personality growth occurs – such as through positive schooling, communities, and parenting [ed: and game!] – may be a more effective way of improving national wellbeing than GDP growth.”

It’ll be difficult, but you can alter your personality from a less sexy one to a sexier one. From a boring one to a charismatic one. That’s really what game is — the active transformation of your personality from mundane to mesmerizing, based on a conceptual foundation derived from evolutionary biology and real world feedback that the male personality attributes which most women find sexually attractive are identifiable, objective and acquirable.

Before you untether yourself from reality with this joyous news, know that your genetic disposition will make game more or less taxing on you to learn and implement. If you are a natural introvert, expect your learning curve to be much steeper than it would be for an inborn extrovert. It really WILL be harder for some guys to learn game, let alone master it, than it will for other guys who were born with a more advantageous suite of personality traits. Life isn’t fair, so you have to be ready to accept that some men will be better at game, and better at it quicker, than you. But you shouldn’t allow this acceptance to sap your willpower, because regardless of the ease with which other men accomplish their goals, you can improve yourself.

For some men, their goals are racking up notch counts into the hundreds or thousands. For other men, their goals are enjoying a few flings on the side. Still others just want a girlfriend or a happier wife. Whatever the goal, the result is inarguable: giving men more choice in women. And that’s a good thing for both.

A Testament To The Power Of Game

Reader Sidewinder writes the following:

Last night I banged the highest quality girl to date. 21, petite, model, easily orgasmic…somewhere in that 8-9.5 range where any difference in rating is merely a matter of opinion. I’m a 35 year old attorney, recently divorced, 2 kids, balding, medium height, slender build…pretty fucking average.

I won’t waste your time with the entire seduction (which took 2 months, yet the 7 hour rule still held). I am fairly confident that last night would not have happened without the knowledge I have gained from reading your blog. This girl threw shit tests at me on a near daily basis for over a month. And when I passed all the tests and had near flawless rapport with her on 2 dates, she wouldn’t even kiss me at the end of the date (even though there was a lot of touching, hand-holding, etc.). She flaked on one date, and rejected me on another date request. So what changed? What were the keys to success?

1.        Persistent frame maintenance. I never whined, complained, asked, pleaded… I always acted congruent with the reality that I am a high-value male worthy of her sexual interest. While it was never said, she knew that “let’s just be friends” would not be an acceptable way of dealing with me. And I always moved forward, never afraid to tease, touch, flirt. No attempt to backtrack to try to avoid a rejection or give myself an out.

2.       Negs. Even though she is very attractive, she has a warm approachable personality, so I calibrated to a teasing form of negging. No cutting negs, except as described below at 5.

3.       Freeze out. After a month of flirting, dates, but no sex, I stopped giving her attention. This drove her crazy and resulted in increased texts and emails from her.

4.       Gamed other girls. While freezing her out, I continued talking to other girls, banging one of them. She didn’t know about this, but this bird in the hand mentality gave me strong inner game in dealing with the hotter girl.

5.       Destroyed/preempted her ultimate shit test – while I was ignoring her, she sent the following beta bait: “A girl hit me last night. I don’t know what to do”. I completely ignored this. This pissed her off and she demanded to talk a couple days later. I told her at the last minute she could come out and meet me at a restaurant I was already at after work (a greasy hole in the wall that she had previously told me she hated). She shows up, pissed to even be there and started fishing for emotional support which I ignored. Then she tried to guilt trip me about not being a caring person and listed all the ways I’m “not as great as you think you are.” At that point, having banged the other girl the night before, I didn’t give a shit so I told her the truth: I didn’t respond to her text because her “girl fight” was embarrassing for her, not something she should broadcast or that I would ever be involved with. I told her she needed to grow the fuck up. She looked at the wine in her hand and thought about throwing it on me, but instead got up, yelled at me and stomped out of the place. But she really didn’t leave…she waited outside for me to come out…we ended up having a good conversation. She wanted to come over but I told her I was tired.

6.       The days following this, she turned a complete 180. Pleasant, accommodating, openly interested in hanging out. Last night she came over, with her overnight stuff (I didn’t invite her to spend the night), watched a movie, no drama whatsoever, sex after a fair degree of last minute resistance and she stayed over. But it was good resistance, the “I don’t want to fuck this up with you” kind of resistance.

While we were laying in bed after sex, she was talking about why she wanted to be with me and she said “You are really honest with me, even when I don’t want to hear it. No guy is ever honest with me. They just tell me what they think I want to hear.” I know you don’t put a lot of stock into what women have to say about game, or what they think they want, but this girl is very intelligent and self-aware.

Unbelievable how difficult this was, though. It was like trying to land a marlin in a kayak, or break a wild horse. And odds are good I’ll slip up or get out-gunned eventually by a higher quality guy. But I’m fairly confident I would never have even got my first drink with her prior to finding this blog, much less navigating the minefield she laid out.

Some men found Fortune 500 companies. Some men split the atom. I help guys get laid with hot babes. Ask yourself, who’s really bringing more happiness into the world? 😎

Bad News For Smart Nerds

You aren’t going to win over the hot babes with your profound pontifications.

Studies show the most attractive women have the highest standards for men in most every category surveyed — except intelligence.

Via Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes?: Bodies, Behavior, and Brains–The Science Behind Sex, Love, & Attraction:

The evolutonary psychologists recruited a rotating team of male and female interviewers who paired up and evaluated more than two hundred married participants in the Midwest. Each subject was judged for physical attractiveness and assessed in three separate sessions for the factors they valued and insisted on in choosing a mate. The prettiest women had the highest standards — they wanted and expected their partners to be masculine, fit, physically attractive, loving, educated, a few years older than themselves, and desirous of home and children, with a high income potential. Surprising to the researchers there was only one quality beautiful women did not insist on more than plainer women did: intelligence.

No surprise here that the hottest women have the highest overall standards. Hot chicks and high status men have the sexual market options available to them to plausibly hold very high standards for themselves. What is perhaps interesting to the game neophyte and the nerd proud of his electric ham’s horsepower is the finding that beautiful women don’t place much stock in a man’s intelligence. If you can score that CEO gig with a 90 IQ and a psychopathic personality, women will still love you just as hard.

This study comports with the Chateau Dating Market Value Test for men at the top of the blog front page, which has a section on male intelligence that only added a point for smarts that were somewhat above average, and deducted a point for smarts that were in the stratosphere (where personality defects start to manifest.) Women may say they want a smart guy, but in my observation of couples in which the girl was hot, the guy was more usually kind of a douchey middle of the road mental mediocrity. But he had the right attitude, and alpha attitude trumps smarts any day of the week.

This is not to say smarts won’t help a man with women. A very smart man uses his gift to seduce, but also to conceal or ameliorate the most obvious vestiges of his mental prowess. In other words, since most chicks are average intelligence, it is paramount for the master seducer to calm women’s fears of being mentally outclassed by a wide enough margin that discomfort arises. All else equal, women like smart men, but they’ll choose cocky mediocrities over cloying geniuses every time. Nerds who hope to bank shot their encyclopedic knowledge of male-centric hobbies into hot babe pussy are shit out of luck.

<nasally whine>

“But why does she go for IDIOTS? I’m a Mensa member!”

</nasally whine>

Back to the masturbatorium with you, nerdling!

The usual caveats apply to self-assessment studies like this one: what women say they want in a man and what they actually go for are often enough not the same thing. I tend to frown upon self-reported sex surveys because of this psychological anomaly; however, I do think the conclusions can hint at, and reveal the shady contours of, women’s innermost desires. But your best teacher is still real world, direct experience.

As for why women, and particularly hot women, don’t much emphasize men’s intelligence as an attractiveness trait… well, it’s hard to say for certain, but I’d stick with the fundamental premise that our sexual desire is fully ensconced in the same hindbrain we had way back in the ancestral environment, where aloof, socially savvy and dominant men pounded pussy “Quest for Fire”-style in front of teary-eyed slabworms who looked upon the proceedings with visions of missile technology to take out the alphas dancing in their heads. And then, of course, the alphas stole credit for the new tech invented by the beta nerds, and still got the women.

There’s a lesson there.