Fake It Till You Make It Really Works

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.

Once Again, ¡SCIENCE! Corroborates Dread Game

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.

President Trump’s Amused Mastery

From a Gabber:

Decent people view an apology as a positive gesture and usually reciprocate with the same level of generosity and good faith.

Leftists however view any apology as (1) an admission of Guilt and (2) a sign of Weakness that needs to be exploited.

Never apologize to Leftists.

This is one of the big reasons Donald Trump drives the Left into such a frothing rage. He never apologizes, never admits guilt and appears to have no sense of shame whatsoever — and he keeps getting away with it no matter how loudly they scream and stomp their feet. Their entire schtick revolves around shame and guilt: when the Commander in Chief refuses to go along with their show trial, it shows just how impotent they really are.

In Game terminology, what Trump displays is the attitude known as Amused Mastery. It’s the demeanor of a man who brushes away impertinence from his lessers, shit tests from women, and screeching indignation from the media. He answers shaming tactics with shamelessness, phony opprobrium with ridicule, and smarmy moralism with Chad-crafted nicknames.

What he doesn’t do is get defensive, apologize, or supplicate to his would-be inquisitors to gain their favor (or a brief reprieve from their hate). Trump’s attitude is all alpha, with the tiniest of beta morsels occasionally thrown in to utterly disorient his detractors and, more crucially, to peel away more fence-sitters to his side, the kind of disengaged normies who can’t understand why the media is crying hitlerwolf for the millionth time because Ivanka posted a touching photo of herself cuddling with her little boy.

SpyGate: The Scandal

Let’s cut to the chase: The Democrats and the Deep State, under the aegis of President Gay Mulatto and with the knowledge and assistance of the Clinton Crime Family and select GOPe traitors, authorized and administered the spying, surveillance, infiltration, and evidence planting of a political opponent’s campaign, motivated by the desire to ensure that opponent’s election loss or to delegitimize his election win.

Only in Clown World is this not a huge scandal that dwarfs Watergate.

HELLO CHAIMSTREAM MEDIA? WHY SO SILENT?

The Inherent Womanliness Of Leftoidism

This isn’t a new insight to regular guests of Le Chateau, but it bears repeating as we descend swiftly into the leftoid abattoir where the blood and bones of murdered civilizations are collected.

The photo and quote from Dr Unabomber above illustrate the insight nicely: leftoids have a strong submissiveness urge, which is why I liken the male leftoids to women. Part of the desire to submit is a desire to “feel alive” through masochistic suffering. Aggressive or active submission, you could call it, and it is an innate quality in women who evolved the urge so that they are maximally attracted to powerful dominant men. Aggressive submission is also an evolved strategy of the weak and puerile, who must resort to it in place of the direct confrontations which they can’t win.

In leftoids, this urge has turned pathological, and because of its inherent womanly nature the males of the Left are often feminized, emasculated passive-aggressive brats like David Hogg. In the females of the Left, the masochistic compulsion manifests as a spiteful hatred toward the weak males of the Left who are the primary opposite sex company of leftoid females. Unrequited submissiveness can make a woman very hateful against the males incapable of satisfying her primal sexual and romantic desires, (and very confused when the leftoid female is aroused to sudden surrender by the tonic masculinity of a Trumpian Chad).

Kaczynski called this self-hatred, but in fact it’s very much self-love; the twisted self-love of the weak who protect their egos by summoning power from the supine position.

The way to defeat the armies of aggressively submissive leftoids is to cut their rhetorical gordian knot and defang their street theater with unremitting, merciless mockery. Deflate their pretensions, and with their social status robbed from them the allure of strategic submission is dispelled.

The Sun Sets On The West, Abbreviated Version

There is more accumulated wisdom in one day’s worth of /pol/ posts than there is in decades’ worth of Carlos Slim Times agitprop.

Of Soyboys And Manjaws

Is the sexual polarity reversing? And if so, what does it mean for society?

The science and social observation bear out a strange and creepy merging of the sexes in America toward an androgynous unisex of masculinized females and feminized males. I am on record as perhaps being the first among dissident thought kings to notice the emergence of a cultural hermaphroditism (a touch of the ‘ditism).

Every which way you measure the health of America, she is declining, except for the stock portfolios of the 1% ruling elite. One is tempted to draw a connection between the flowering androgyny of the Anglosphere people and the loss of confidence and faith in the historical Western project. The ubermensch is not a Nordic warrior; he is a doughy whiner and a shrieking termagant begging for annihilation at the hands of the uruk hai. […]

A world of ballbusting manjaws and pudding pop nancyboys is about as far from divinely inspired beauty as fallen man can sink.

Note that John Scalzi’s bra is unpadded.

While research is scant, I believe based on what I see happening around me that this cultural androgynization has a biological component as well. Unfortunately, it’s hard to fund research exploring possible biological changes in the sexes without running afoul of the Phalanx of the Foul. Data on generational sperm count levels are relatively simple to collect, but what about the enlargement of women’s jaws or the narrowing of women’s hips? Just try and get a grant for that study.

I bring this subject up again because I’ve noticed the androgyne phenomenon is getting worse, and goes beyond desexualizing or uni-sexualizing fashion statements. Something profoundly disturbing is going on with the bodies of, in particular, American Millennials. Sexual dimorphism is flipping; the sexes aren’t just converging on an asexual norm…they’re swapping body types!

I see so many 20s and 30s women with the broad shoulders and narrow hips natural to men, and so many men with the narrow shoulders and broad hips natural to women. It’s as if the sexual market turned upside down and switched sexes. Manjaws lumber cityscapes on africanized pelvic fulcrums as their cantilevered shoulders cut swathes through cowed crowds. Their vaginas seem misplaced on them.

As unsettlingly, soyboys swish and swivel on bulbous pear-shaped haunches, supporting droopy unmuscled flesh that recedes upwardly to strangely child-like clavicles and diminutive shoulder spans, upon which soft rounded heads jerk fearfully out of the way of the manjaws with snapping vaginas.

Social conditioning can’t do this to bodies. Something evil lurks in our environment, in our ecology, that’s responsible for the sexual polarity reversal. I suspect that the same evil is responsible for the xenophilic anti-White virtue sniveling insanity currently gripping the White Left, and which left unanswered and unchecked will mean the end of America as a nation distinct from the vast dirt and dystopia fields of the Hued World.

If the March of the Manjaws and the Mewl of the Micemen proceeds apace, what consequences can we expect to see unfold in our society? Here I speculate, based on experiences dealing with both types in my day to day life.

Masculinized women are the worst of both men and women, stridently aggressive and competitive like men but lacking the instinct of loyalty, cooperativeness, and duty of men, and cruelly subversive and passive-aggressive like women but lacking the nurturing vulnerability and intoxicating femininity of women.

Somewhat the reverse applies to feminized men, who have the submissiveness and avoidance mentality of women hitched to the single-minded focus of men, and the indiscriminate nurturing of women weaponized by the tribal boundary patrolling of men.

Within a few generations of this grotesque circus side show we will likely see society eating the last of its seed corn as once-admired institutions succumb to abject corruption, in-fighting, vapid credentialism, even more vapid moral preening, and finally systemic breakdown of basic civilizational functions.

Executive summary: nothing good can come from entangling the masculine and the feminine in physical and psychological bonds each was never meant to accommodate.