Here are my thoughts on a recent video making the rounds. I do suggest you watch it as the guy has put a lot of effort into building his theory and then figuring out how to present it clearly. He’s offering value and it is worth trying. However, I think he makes some serious miscues – mainly because of who he is and who he’s talking to. Like Jack Nicholson’s famous line to Tom Cruise: “You can’t handle the truth!” It’s a poster boy for the Purple Pill (a marketing ruse to use the credibility of red pill truths but water them down with blue pill illusions so that the listener isn’t required to stare into the abyss)
So I’m going to skip over the stuff he gets right (which everyone reading this blog already knows and is already amply discussed in my own Personal Map Of The Sexual Marketplace talk with Tom Torero) and fisk the bits I think he gets wrong.
The 21 Convention has always been the Chump Convention. A room full of credible chumps lectured to by a stageful of posturing pseudo-intellectuals and PUA fakers. So, it’s with a shivering unease that I considered giving ninety minutes of my life to watching one of their speakers following a recommendation in the comments. I first skimmed through, clicking along the ninety-minute bar to see if it looked interesting. I’ve been burned way too many times into wasting my time on rubbish PUA nonsense (the brown Wayne brothers, I’m looking at you).
On walks a fat bald guy with bad fashion against a David DeAngelo type background. “Hi, my name is Socrates.”
I initially suspect he’s identifying more with the philosopher than the footballer, and that it’s hardly a modest start either way, but his bio says it’s actually his birth name. Okay, can’t hold that against him. Nonetheless he comes across rather pompous, like a Blue Pill Rollo – this will turn out to be closer to the truth than I first imagine. I’m not really against a bit of pomp in a public speaker (I do like irrationally confident people) but I do find myself asking “What’s his credibility?” I don’t actually know the answer to that. He just doesn’t feel credible. An armchair philosopher.
Nick, don’t jump to conclusions, I tell myself. Give him a chance. His ideas might be good enough to render such initial impressions meaningless. His first slide is a picture of some beta chump kissing some reasonably pretty girl, like the poster photo for a Hollywood rom-com. Right from one minute in he’s setting the prize as a monogamous relationship. Okay, that’s setting the bar low. “This isn’t something easily acheived…. You have to find a partner willing to commit to this.” O…..kay.
As I find over the remaining minutes, the purpose of his talk is to re-affirm to the audience what Rollo calls men’s burden of performance. A man must work hard to earn his right to intimacy. Every day. Sustained every day as a process requiring agency.
We then begin on the meat of the talk, outlining the sexual marketplace and the language continues to confuse. I’m not against a bit of intellectual mind-wank but you’ve got to go somewhere with it. This starts off heavy with the mind-wank and needlessly verbose. He’s just telling us the obvious, dressed up in latin-derived unusual words. It’s just S&R value from Mystery Method made opaque. I can save you the first hour with one sentence: Figure out if you need to boost either your alpha or beta traits, and then do so.
Socrates defines alpha as the traits we players generally consider as “sexiness”, which I agree with. However he wants to sell “provider” / sucker traits too because he’s in the Chump Convention and that’s what his audience wants to hear. So most of the next hour is spent finding ways to redefine the attractive men having sex with hotties as somehow limited or damaged, so his audience can feel superior with their chump traits.
For example he brings out the male-dom/fem-sub dynamic and the importance of conflict in nature as we all struggle to survive and replicate. Great, I agree. But then he poo-poos it as not being a nice place to be. Well, the world is struggle. He knows the chodes in the audience don’t want conflict and dominance, they want to be told there’s still a place for unicorns and rainbows. So he introduces the concept of virtue. This is a go-to throughout the talk to baby-talk the chumps.
“Nature’s a bitch. Nature’s a deadly violent place” he says and I agree. But I don’t agree that “the people who live on this domain are equally brutish and violent.” No. Human tribes co-operate into win-win behaviours in order to lift themselves out of it and create stability. That’s also pretty well established in both the biology literature and the game theory literature. Pretty much everyone has these latter traits, except for the small number of people with outright behavioural disorders. He contrasts nature along the x axis with civilisation up his y axis. That’s where virtue resides.
It’s still very wordy. Simple anglo-derived words are not used when there’s an unweildy latin-derived one that could replace it. I appreciate his wish to stablise language and be precise but it’s sounding little different to the 1950s functionalist sociology – an empty structure of interconnected words devoid of real meaning. The power of the logic comes from it’s tautological nature of carving up a chessboard that only dimly resembles the battlefield it’s meant to represent.
He’s pushing strongly that the “vertical domain” of civilisation is where you have to live, because it’s virtuous. And here we are getting to the main limiting factor of the model – he’s feeding the chodes’ desire to use virtue as a cloak to disguise their low SMV and inability to compete.
Beta traits are NOT virtue. To say they are is a sleight of hand. Beta is SMV failure. Beta is sacrificing yourself for the team because you have to. Hot young women only care about alpha traits. Beta traits exist in another dimension entirely and only become useful in preparing the beta male as the parachute for a woman hitting the Wall. Presenting this vertical domain as a component of SMV is pushing water uphill, literally in his graph. More muddying of waters follows.
“Men and women equally display alpha traits.” I know he is precisely defining his version of alpha for the purposes of the talk, but that’s just misleading. There is no alpha in the female side. Just replication value, which is mostly youth and hotness. It’s wrong to say Beta traits are what makes the world safe to raise families. Alphas are leaders who organise and bring the group together to pacify the land and defend it from outside invaders. Think Donald Trump and immigration. Alpha is inherently important to the whole tribe’s ability to make the world safe to raise families, which is why the whole tribe doesn’t just tolerate alphas but it follows them. Betas don’t have a monopoly on it.
His high beta / low alpha guys have a strength per his formulation: teamwork, stablity, handling relationships etc. I think that’s baby-talking his audience of chodes who reside here. Really, they aren’t there due to strengths, these are just compensations for overall weakness. Team Beta pulls together. Really the beta traits he’s describing as strengths are co-dependence and people-pleasing – weaknesses in the SMP (even if they can be strengths in nation building at times).
His advice is to build everything up so you move yourself towards the top-right quadrant. It’s kinda true that if you’re high in Y (beta) then shifting along right-wards with more X (alpha) is the path to success. What’s not true is that people high in X need to add Y. If you’re already strong it’s bad advice to introduce weakness. I get to this in a minute.
17 minutes in he starts mapping familiar territories to their places on the graph, correctly identifying the friendzone. The problem is that this graph requires the friendzone to occupy one location. The reality is the friendzone is relative to the quality of the girl you’re chasing, your competition, her preferences, and her position in the life cycle. It’s more dynamic than a simple category. In his defence, that’s bloody hard to represent on a graph so I’ll give him a pass. While it’s true that you can always stay out of the friendzone, it’s also true that often you do so by never talking to the girl again rather than by fucking her.
19 minutes in he defines high SMV as “emptiness and charm” and puts it as fuck buddies. This is more sleight of hand, trying to bring virtue in to an SMV calculation. This is the centrepoint of selling his presentation to the weaselling chodes. Women really don’t care about virtue. I’m reminded of Dalrock’s post here:
“this paradigm is almost certainly crucial to his friend’s view of himself as a man with a high Sexual Market Value (SMV) and especially Marriage Market Value (MMV). The twisted thinking goes like this:
– Women are attracted to good and noble men.
– I am better and more noble than other men.
– Therefore I am more attractive than other men.
There is of course one small problem with this line of reasoning, which is that the women around Hank’s friend aren’t acting in a way that would suggest that they find him attractive. At the same time, the women around Hank’s friend are demonstrating attraction for unworthy men. This must mean that less worthy men than Hank’s friend are tricking women, essentially impersonating him. These fakers are getting in the way of women realizing how attractive he really is.”
I think this is where I really disagree. Socrates wants to make the real high-SMV men into sociopaths and psychopaths in order to clear them out the way of the mid-SMV men he wants to elevate into their position. “These are dangerous individuals. I’m not kidding.” he warns.
Ok, I think, he’s never fucked a hot girl. Men who fuck hot women don’t feel the need to disparage the other men who do. They “get it”. They know all women like sex and all will sometimes have casual sex.
The individualist Alphas are not pulling their weight for Team Beta and so he’s calling them genetically damaged: “They can’t help themselves.” I think there’s a tell here about not understanding Game. He’s talking like men only get laid off the back of physical characteristics and dominance – Game is all dark triad and looks. After briefly saying the alphas are charming he later acts like they are socially awkward (putting the “awkardness zone” as the X-axis equivalent of the Y-axis “creepy zone”)….. okay. He later says these people need to learn pro-social behaviours to move themselves further into success.
No, they just need to change objectives – they aren’t lacking the skills.
So he’s subtly letting his chump audience position themselves above these high-SMV alphas. How very gamma. As if getting casual sex with hot girls is evil. With those pesky alphas neutered Socrates can move on to describe his happy place, the dating zone. That’s the happy place because ultimately he’s selling try-hard monogamy to gamma chodes. “This is the natural position of mankind” he stastes and therefore he has to define everyone outside the happy place as damaged. He just doesn’t get r/K as permanent and fluctuating strategies.
Up towards the top-right of the graph – high enough to be badass but not so high as to be unattainable – is the “marriage potential” zone. I wondered if the marriage potential area is so small, how come most people in the history of the West managed to get there? And why is he selling marriage as the goal to a room of men when surely it’s women who are desperate for the ring? It’s because in Socrates’ world the man has a burden of performance and he’s raising the next cohort of suckers.
“If you commit outside this range, you are betraying virtue.”
I press on. I think fundamentally his problem is he’s got a purity fantasy: “I’m here to shame”. He doesn’t get that casual sex is fun and consensual, that it can occur between emotionally balanced people who do it because they like it, rather than from personal dysfunction. That’s not allowed because then the virtue sleight of hand loses it’s power. If you want to tell people to be virtuous, great. Do so. But don’t tell them being virtuous raised your SMV. It doesn’t.
The talk is not all bad, mind. He’s right about where creepy and awkward are located. He’s half-right about creepy is an obstacle right at the beginning of your journey – yes, but only once you start hitting on girls or trying to be taken seriously. You can actually do the groundwork of gym / fashion and general social skills withouth encountering creepy. That only comes once you want to take some value back.
It’s a conceit 29 minutes in that the people having lots of casual sex want to enter the dating zone but are frozen out by lack of beta traits. No, only the women might be frozen out. Men who are having sex can enter the relationship zone any time they damn well please. But he can’t say that because that’s admitting the central truth the chodes don’t want to hear: the guys having sex have higher SMV in every way. All the stuff chodes have (money, listening skills etc) isn’t relevant. The chodes don’t have a single advantage. In the SMP they are simply lower value in every way.
“The work they [casual sex guys] have to do is the same as the other side [the chodes]”. Really? C’mon let that sink in and ask if it sounds convincing or if it’s just part of selling system to chumps.
You can’t derive ought from is, but he’s using ought to hamstring his model of is. He’s smart to say nature locates narcissism in teenage because it’s effective to breed and that’s when you need it. So what’s the obvious lesson? He wants you to fight it. Not harness it, but fight it. I disagree.
This talk is clearly to Team Beta on advising them how to be better betas.
33 minutes in he’s wrong. Hot girls with limited beta traits can get relationships, they just have to revise expectations towards thirstier guys or seek out chumps. And really, “don’t be a cunt” isn’t such a high bar for their beta traits. There are also different niches of relationship, from intimate soul mates to kept woman that a hot-but-annoying girl can use.
Socrates needs to paint alphas with low-beta as damaged. Really he’s talking about behaviour disorders rather than a lack of skill. He uses War Machine as an example – a total knacker (not a “world class MMA fighter”) who is “banging porn stars left and right” – so a bottom feeder. That’s not a guy with high-alpha. War Machine is just a roid monkey with issues. Ironically, he’s right that War Machine had no ground game – but it’s true literally, not in his sense. It’s an enduring manosphere myth that jail is full of alphas. No, it’s full of imbeciles.
By forty minutes I had to turn off. My impression is it’s a half-decent exposition of manosphere truisms twisted to make the Chump Convention crowd feel good with a purple pill. Did I miss something in the rest of the talk? Really, maybe the second half resolves all my issues. I’d like to know, but can’t be bothered to watch it.
October 10, 2015 at 11:12 pm
He’s a flabby mess. I wouldn’t take advice from someone who can’t make half an effort with themselves. A slag!
October 10, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Just a couple of years ago such a video would have me brooding for a couple of days on its value. Nowadays the truth is out there and I enjoy you dissecting it completely in 1 post. Nice.
October 11, 2015 at 3:34 am
Nick, could you please write an article on Steve Jabba’s purple pill beliefs and mindsets and where some things he says aren’t true which if you have seen his YouTube videos know DO exist. I don’t think it’s fair you point out flaws in other people but not Steve Jabba just because he’s your mate.
October 11, 2015 at 9:14 am
Well, speak up. What are they? Say what you think.
Also, what is the “Purple Pill”? There´s so many geeky terms like this that I cannot follow them all.
October 11, 2015 at 5:47 pm
In geeks world, it probably means you supposedly pollute “red pill” (100% correct in their minds) with “blue pill”, or something like that.
So the alpha males:-) are asking their Guru to put you down because you threaten their life-view.
If we take high level overview it’s obvious the same reality can be seen in very different light based on beliefs and experiences.
A christian virgin rejects your rapid escalation.
A) Need more R-selection to break the little minx!
B) I didn’t reassure her enough, no Love Bubble, no gravitas.
C) She’s just a borderline personality disorder monster tooling me for pleasure. I should have screened better.
D) My fundamentals are shit.
E) She got aroused but stopped herself in last attempt because she has a boyfriend.
All could be true. Probably even at the same time. It’s the same with these articles. I can find evidence for women being calculated monsters and also for women being the mirror of their man.
October 11, 2015 at 8:40 pm
Example.. You ask girls if they have a boyfriend before you even approach, have you heard of lovers and providers. Even if they do have a boyfriend someone always misses out when you sleep with a girl, e.g. Jealous brothers, orbiters etc etc the fact that you say game is “natural” why not just chuck a kid who looks like a geek with no confidence in front of a girl and tell him “be yourself say what you feel in the moment” when really game is a learnt skill just like any other sport. and a list of other things I can’t be bothered writing about. I do have respect for you Steve, I love the stuff on masculine lifestyle principles you have to say and also the love for women you have which a lot of people can get huge value from, so please don’t take this the wrong way it’s just my opinion. But in terms of in depth game and learning social dynamics I think nick Krauser, Rollo tomassi are the people to go to.
October 11, 2015 at 8:46 pm
Essentially purple pill is a diluted red pill advice to make it more marketable to chumps and people who want to feel “ethical” about game, a lot of coaches turned purple pill after the Julien blank scandal, saying our pickup is non manipulative etc etc
October 11, 2015 at 3:50 am
Every time I go on the RooshvForum I see countless posts written by newbies, even often by veteran members, exposing ideas that defy all of the personal experiences I have had in my life. The place is dripping with beta insecurities and ego-protecting rationalizations. My instinct is to rush to correct them, writing defensive posts. But then I just remind myself of who is writing those things, and why they are writing it. Low-value men who are either justifying their lack of options through ridiculous hamsterizations, or who are simply speaking from inexperience.
Most men on the Internet writing about women have no real experience. Hence it is ridiculous to discuss these things online. The best one can do is rely solely on personal experience for drawing conclusions on how the world works. Even when it contradicts the keyboard jockey theories, if you repeatedly see something to be the case in real life, it is simply true.
October 15, 2015 at 7:46 am
Chumps and newcomers open up most threads on Game there.
Most veterans know enough not to be bothered with it. They either write the few rare actual advice threads or focus on countries, date locations and a few stories shared. Also the real hardcore members in Game terms basically use the forum to meet other guys.
October 11, 2015 at 4:14 am
Really good article Nick. Thanks for sharing. One thing I’m unsure on is when you say these days if you spot a girl is giving more K signals you’ll change your approach. Doesnt that mean giving off more beta signals or is it just dialling down the sexual innuendo etc? Cheers
October 11, 2015 at 4:37 am
That is a mistake. The girl who desperately wants a boyfriend is the same one that will fuck you in two hours from brain-fry. [That might fuck you in two hours, but remains low probability. K.]
October 11, 2015 at 12:37 pm
So think I kinda understand. It’s basically staying on the r selection track, but dialling things down a bit. So a lay might but come til say a couple of dates in.
October 11, 2015 at 10:04 pm
Doesn’t work. Girls who are K-Selected need loads of comfort upfront before turning up the r-selection. The biggest issue is guys thinking these types of girls are prudish and don’t like sex, so they avoid escalating… YES they do!
Half of the challenge in Game when starting out is accepting that every girl loves sex and wants a good rogering by a man who knows what he’s doing.
October 11, 2015 at 10:38 am
Looks – you work hard in the gym and have good, R-selected fashion tailored to your environment.
Status – you said betas have money, so you think with alphas it’s more social dominance/position than money? Or do you think it’s completely irrelevant and Sigma has no inherent disadvantage to Alpha and his position on top of the pyramid?
Game – are “beta” parts of game like Love Bubble, honesty, authenticity, caring about a girl, vulnerability, prefering relationship seen as weaknesses? Which are and which aren’t? how do you “tone down the r selection” then if not by applying these?
October 11, 2015 at 10:13 pm
Playing the status card is essentially chode play and essentially a battle of who can wave their dicks the wildest on top of an imaginary hill built by the feminine imperative in order select the most ‘eligible’ men of their own BS standards.
What really matters is your game and your raw sexiness (looks, physique) Everything else is complete fluff.
October 11, 2015 at 10:49 am
From Jimmy’s article:
In my humble experience rapid escalations generally get you nowhere and when they do, it’s with poor quality skirt. Escalation is crucially important when dealing with skirt, but don’t start thinking there is a secret where you can escalate your way out of the hard work of being a quality man. You can’t. Not with top drawer skirt. Escalation is important, but it’s like putting salt into a chilli con carne. Pile it on and you just ruin it.”
“Yes, she’ll respond to a bad boy. Most skirt does to some degree. But she’ll respond more to a good man. Get the balance right.”
“She is extremely highly K selected. The last three girls I dated have all been very high quality and K selected. To get these girls I had to use K selected pickup to build that connection and prove myself. And it took TIME. R selected high fives and douche-baggery would simply not work with these girls. Had I escalated JJ in the first two minutes and gone for the kiss close, I am telling you, Carey Grant himself would be unable to pull this off.”
I think you are right and Socrates is wrong, but I don’t really get what exactly the “hot” K values are for these K unicorns then, and how much accentuated they should be, and which are beta red flags for her.
October 11, 2015 at 11:09 am
I can see that the guy is ego invested in virtue being broadly virtuous. He would like to think that since it’s a good thing,it is good across all domains, and therefore makes a category error, which you correctly point out. Being virtuous is not necessarily being sexy.
However you go too far to say that the willingness to be monogamous has no value to women, or that women don’t actively screen for that willingness. And you go too far when you say that other factors, such as wealth and listening ability are not actively screened for by women when they pair bond.
There are women with low socio sexual scores, of all ages. The community gets it wrong about that, and Rollo is partly responsible, with his idea of stages of mating. It is not true that all young hot girls screen primarily for alpha boys. There are girls of all ages who have low socio-sexual scores who put very high value on bonding and do not want sex without bonding. This is hard wired into them. No matter how hot and no matter how young.
I’m currently seeing one such girl – a 24 year old who has been obsessively in love with me for 7 months or so. She again found evidence of me seeing other girls and is again horribly heartbroken and devastated. Women do get that way, just as men do. We are seeing each other again, after she broke up with me, as being in love is a compulsion, however it’s very difficult for her to expose herself to further heartbreak. That girl was a virgin when I first met her. She is not an anomaly. There are plenty of low-socio-sexual-score women out there, who value security and commitment extremely highly, and do not want any sort of sexual relationship without it.
And it is a continuum. And there are SOME girls who ACT on a dual mating strategy. Not ALL girls ACT on a dual mating strategy. And of the ones that do, when they are interested in an LTR they certainly do usually place value on valuable things, such as money, ability to listen, and willingness to commit to monogamy.
And while it generally reasonable to make categories of attraction, such as comfort based attraction versus sexy based attraction, that model is simplistic but not correct. It is generally right, but not always right. Sometimes the categories are not so distinct, and therefore sticking to pigeon holing money into a comfort based beta-bucks category becomes a category error. Money can be used in such ways that add overall value to a man and therefore cause a sexual response in women. This has been scientifically studied and the conclusion was that women orgasm more for wealthy men. Fitness is not only about symmetry, not only about MMA ability, not only about social skills, not only about muscle size, not only about relative social positioning. Fitness is all of these and many more – it is a gestalt, measured by the community in general and by individuals who are affected by their communities. Women are highly tuned in to what other women find important, and yet still make individualized choices. Many women do value money. It is what it is and labelling such women as “gold diggers” does nothing to change their filters, and even less to change their sexual response to wealth based signifiers of power and status.
I think that many in the community get over-invested in the R selected notion of value, and I think this blinds people to how the world actually works with real women. I also have a hard time getting through videos that strike me as having an incorrect premise regarding K or R selected value. Just as you can’t make it through videos that overemphasise the K value system, I can’t make it through videos that overemphasise R selection as if it were some ideal to aspire to.
October 11, 2015 at 1:48 pm
A beta boyfriend is not really “pair-bonding”. The way in which sexually naive girls operate is also interesting to look at, but it does not dismantle the notion of SMV.
These are some of the subtleties of game that, despite having no real practical use, are still interesting to think about. We’ve all seen how even sluts often have beta boyfriends. To say there is a trascendental “pair-bond” there is ridiculous. One could argue the same thing concerning the beta boyfriends of naive sexually-inexperienced girls. These girls have a certain paradigm in their minds, about how the world should be, and they often convince themselves that there is love when no such thing is taking place on an emotional level. Think of the times when the inexperienced girl starts talking about “feelings” even when she just met you. That same girl with fairies in her head will get over her “love” astoundingly quickly, because there never was any real biological emotion to start with. In the case of sluts, the beta boyfriend is really nothing but a logical utility, she actively picks out a man for traits such as reliability, for company, social benefits, or some other mentally calculated thing. Usually she will have no problem whatsoever juggling different men with zero remorse while the beta sits at home.
Real pairbonds are far more rare, and the impact they have on the emotional system is far more significant. Think of the old lady who kept her correspondence letters for half a century. Think of that 60 year old woman in the John Pellowe story, who was consumed for decades by persistent thoughts that refused to go away. A real pairbond is an enormous statistical improbability, as any player can attest to. A long-term player will perhaps find, in over 200 lays, maybe 1 or 2 girls in 10+ years that leave a serious impact on him. The same is the case in women, I don’t think there is any real difference in this regard. Hence, according to basic statistics, most girls will never experience a real pairbond. You simply have other things going on, like the naive girl convincing herself of love with a beta, the slut using a reliable man for calculated purposes, or even a low-level affection between two people, as can be shared between two male friends, after a few weeks of sex. A genuine pairbond may be extraordinarily rare, but it can occur with any type of girl really, R- or K-selected. It is a biological phenomenon, which means that even a hardcore slut could turn into the lady from the Pellowe story if she were to find her perfect genetic match.
October 11, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Or maybe, some males can pair bond more easily, filter girls for the possibility, and affect those filtered girls comparatively more-she reciprocates. And these men feel disgust when they see this calculated slut in LTR with naive guy because they feel something’s off immediately.
Also, some girls are simply bored with “sexual” traits. They require basic level of those, sure, but don’t really get why you’d want bigger muscles or dress really well. They hate clubs and respond primarily to K enhanced by R, but not too much.
October 11, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Your personal experience and what you see around you differs dramatically from mine.
I pair bond often, as do the women in my life. My parents and family members pair bond. All around me I see pair bonding. The research of Desmond Morris, author of The Human Animal and of other researchers that I read state that man IS a pair bonding animal.
I’m starting to think that an above average percentage of men in the sphere are of a dismissive /avoidant attachment style, and/or have schizoid personality disorder.
Pair bonding is natural, common, and we are born and built to naturally find it pleasurable.
A life without oxytocin is a life dedicated to fail.
October 11, 2015 at 11:23 pm
If you think you are genuinely falling in love with several girls per year, or that most girls are genuinely falling in love with you, quite frankly, you are fucking delusional.
October 12, 2015 at 10:56 am
hahaha xsplat makes some pretty good points now and then but for the most part you’re right he sounds like a bit of a nutter …
October 12, 2015 at 1:40 am
xsplat, some things you say I agree with and some not.
Women orgasm more with betas, but want sex with alphas more. Wealth is still a BB item.
Masculinity is alpha–political power and other powers that allow one to commit violence are seen by women as masculine traits. A man doesn’t need to project raw physical power; he can project social standing and the ability to persuade betas. And the willingness to use that power. If a man has a lot of experience fighting as a boy, some martial arts training (fists/knives/swords/guns/arrows), and goes around armed, he will project that he has power. A man who can project that he has political power can slay pussy and intimidate men with more raw physical power.
It’s true that some women need comfort if a man’s SMV is much higher than theirs–say, 3+ pts. or more. Otherwise they will disqualify themselves. Or maybe throw loyalty tests at a man frequently if they are in a LTR.
Also, if a woman is tremendously boozed up, she may require very little comfort. Two drunk broads cold-approached me at a bar this past weekend–one Fri. and the other Sat. In my social circle, another drunk broad may have been sending me strong IOIs–our friends moved her away from me in an attempt to cockblock. I must have been too drunk to pick up the IOIs, lol. I saw the cockblocking and viewed it as a challenge even in my inebriated state, lol, and got the number close and that same night, the broad flirted with me in text, throwing me some beta-bait. I barely gave her any kino–just a very few incidental touches on the arm, shoulder, and knee. Not sure she needed much comfort. She was sexualizing heavily in the group convo. Booze.
October 11, 2015 at 11:17 am
People have different temperaments and sexual strategies. It’s all too easy to get stuck inside our own characters, and simply become not only unwilling but unable to see outside of our characters point of view. In that case holding frame becomes a deficit.
A mild example of that might be not noticing that alternate strategies have alternate benefits.
An extreme example of that might be hating on all gays for their sexual orientation, for instance.
Pingback: R selected values and lifestyle are nothing to aspire toPeople have different temperaments and sexual strategies. It’s all too easy to get stuck inside our own characters, and simply become not only unwilling but unable to see outside of our characters
October 11, 2015 at 12:23 pm
I tend to agree Socrates pushes virtue too much. I also agree most people prefer R relationships. Young girls in my opinion want the body, fashion, dominant traits and a decent individual they trust. Some girls have one night stands/ fuck buddies when single but I think if they get R boyfriend they’re usually faithful. HolisticGame before being taken down said most girls have cycles of boyfriend – 1 or 2 ONS -boyfriend, even “independent” girls, and most don’t have capacity for more than 1 guy in given moment and often ditch the player for somewhat less sexually valuable boyfriend who invests time and attention.
Krauser, it was you who said most girls aren’t promiscuous and aren’t chasing alphas. So what do they do? I imagine they either fuck you for fun once or repeatedly when single and try to make you boyfriend or leave when boyfriend appears, as long as the boyfriend isn’ beta chump only.
October 11, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Being nice is not the same as having beta qualities or being beta in general (this is the idea I get when I read your posts Mr Krauser). The whole thing about beta, alpha, sigma traits is too inaccurate. Being alpha gets you laid more then being beta (a chode in this context), however the alpha and the beta will struggle without seduction skills. Social status (alpha), does not equal sexual attraction, but rather social value (see the leaders of our sociaty). Social status is not targeted to a specific target (the girl in set), but rather targeted to everybody.
Seduction through verbals/non-verbals,on the other hand targets specifically that girl in set. Whether you get the girl is determined by how well you can calibrate your R signals and being able and WILLING to calibrate those signals according to the signals of that particular girl. If that particular girl, is on her period and wants to be taken hard by an alpha, then please do so.
If however she is looking for something more lasting and substantial (many girls do), calibrate your non-verbals accordingly. That might come across as being too nice or beta. My personal experience showed me however, that being nice and having strong non-verbal game (attraction and comfort building), creates the strongest pull towards me in girls minds. (fyi my personal experience consists of about 2000+ approaches in the last 3 years of Daygame).
October 11, 2015 at 3:20 pm
This “Socrates” has a very twisted sense of virtue. Virtue is not weakness rationalized as strength. Is courage in a battlefield weakness? is the self control and discipline necessary to sculpt your body at the gym to perfection, or to solve a differential equation, or any other mode of conquering nature, external and internal, the activity of a chode? Virtue is not a marriability trait. It is what a man cultivates from adhering to a warrior code. Willingness to die. For prestige and honor. This is what the original Socrates would have thought.
October 11, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Socrates may be pushing for his idealized concept of the sexual marketplace by calling it a “cause”, but in the end he’s selling a product. He immediately puts out monogamy as the prize and insinuates that the audience needs help, throws out some basic tenets of value in a simple 3 point structure for credibility, then discredits guys who get laid a lot for being sociopaths and vindicates his audience for having “virtue”. It’s a feel-good talk with a sales pitch at the end received by a standing ovation.
The main takeaway from this speech is that if you want something you have to identify how you could improve and then do it. He does make some fair points throughout the speech, but the big picture engineering is tailored to chumps and I agree with Krauser’s assertion that this guy is a Gamma. Personally, I found his talk to be repulsive right from the beginning, but that’s because I realized that the only thing worth paying attention to was the way he sells to an audience.
October 11, 2015 at 5:01 pm
fuck me! “purple pill, unicorns, gamma, r-selection” etc etc! blah blah…..just go out and get some fanny like Krauser does, instead of talking of a load of fanny here! wake up and smell the coffee… but on the streets practicing this stuff not behind your keyboard dissecting things lol. fuckas 😉
October 11, 2015 at 10:25 pm
I think the ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ analogies are starting to get over egged to a point where people are now using those as standards of behaviour in order to judge people’s level of success in the community.
It’s making it increasingly difficult for people starting out because of this. Because rather than focus on whether what they’re doing in the process is correct, they’re instead coming out of each interaction by saying “Was I alpha?”.
Being alpha isn’t something you can learn, but rather a byproduct of becoming successful with women due to learning the mechanics of game. The raw confidence developed from it essentially changes your behaviour.
I think what people need to realise is that Game is a skill. If you focus on just the mechanics of it. The changes will follow.
There’s also a misconception of the idea that anyone going out to get laid is essentially hollow. Having now helped coach a few guys now. It’s become clear to me that this is simply not the case. Most guys who come for help are generally balanced guys who simply want to have a bit of fun and essentially settle down once they’re ready.
Ask any guy if they would want that ability, and they would all say yes. It’s not a pathological condition but rather a natural drive. It’s every man’s right to want and pursue sex.
October 12, 2015 at 2:37 am
“Being alpha isn’t something you can learn, but rather a byproduct of becoming successful with women due to learning the mechanics of game.”
For non-naturals, learning is required. Naturals may be helped by learning aspects of Game. I was born without fear of cold-approaching or sexualizing. And my nonverbals are also unlearned and are quite potent. Where Game has helped me is learning to DHV with convo and a tweak to my escalation plan. I haven’t negged and haven’t felt like I needed to.
Game can help marriage. I learned that I needed options to help my marriage, so I am out socially so that I get options. It has helped my marriage. After 30+ years of marriage, Mrs. Gamer instigates for sex and sometimes wakes me up for sex. My nonverbals tell her that I have options with bangable women.
October 11, 2015 at 11:40 pm
It actually isn’t too bad of a talk but the guy just has no game whatsoever so this is what the world looks like from his point of view but I agree with what you’ve written Krauser. When he’s talking about the fuck buddies at the bottom of his graph I think he means the retards you would see on Geordie Shore who are complete fuckwits, low value, unintelligent, low consciousness etc… imagine getting one of those birds pregnant!
October 11, 2015 at 11:58 pm
At 1:03:00 he talks about “Mate Guarding” strategies about women which make sense…but in general I think the concept of the “purple pill” is too much of a mental compromise. The hardest thing about the Red Pill is accepting the “All Women Are Like That” concept…Not my special snowflake…I now see things in my interactions that I missed because of lower game awareness or a false belief that the girls are unfuckable. Not true. I’ve been in interactions where my game has been tight but nothing’s resulted. If I run across the girl a few weeks later, she’s suddenly all over me. Then I realize I’ve spiked attraction, removed myself, and now she’s after the one thing she misses most….my attention.
This Socrates guy sounds a bit like he’s parroting stuff from various Manosphere blogs rather than speaking from experience.
October 12, 2015 at 2:37 am
I posted my comment here as a blog post, and a reader responded that his reference experiences in the West led him to believe that most if not close to all women in the west court for sex, and not for commitment, and that he believed that sociosexuality would be strongly envirionmentally influenced, and as such in the opulent west women would change their strategies away from low sociosexuality.
A careful read of the wikipedia articles and the relevant links suggests strong nurture components, but also some nature components
A few interesting quotes:
I’m going to assume that higher masculinity in women is biological but mostly epigenetic, and I will assume that eveningness could be genetic as well as epigenetic. I think epigenetic means that environmental cues trigger changes in gene functions without changing the underlying genes, for instance hormone balance during fetal development cause dramatic epigentic differences in brain and body development.
Also please note:
Which would suggest we should expect that the pick up community should self select for people who
1) have dark triad traits
2) more likely to have an avoidant attachment style
3) all the rest
My seduction style is very sexual, and I usually have sex on the first date. With this virgin V it took 8 dates. And with my last virgin M it took about a month. I’ve heard of many virgins putting out within hours or even minutes, so I doubt in either case that the virginity was the sole factor for the sexual reticence. The virginity was caused by an underlying factor, rather than being an underlying factor.
As for your reference experiences, yes, it will be hard for any of us to tease out how much of that is due to how we screen.
I thought the eveningness trait was interesting, in light of how some people judge the general character of all women based upon women they meet in the evening in clubs. Heartiste used to always counter the argument that club girls are different by simply saying that no, all girls go to clubs. It’s a weak argument. The proportion of girls in a club will not be representative of an average.
In what other ways are we all screening without being aware of it? Many pua systems have screening explicitly built right in. And then after careful screening we declare that “all women are like that”?
It is the case that the relative distributions of sociosexual orientations are changing, and this is reflected in the changing statistics for infidelity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity
However the best statistics that we have for marital infidelity still show that infidelity is not the norm. Not all men or women do that. And most experienced PUAs will be clear that not all women can be seduced away from their man.
And so I think it’s a matter of how we screen, but also the stories we tell ourselves. How convenient to our collective egos is it to tell each other that “all women are like X”?
I’ve been saying for years “all women are devilish whores”. And there is some truth in it – there are some underlying fundamental similarities in the potentials of most all women. Most of them have sex drives that are like a back door to hacking their system. Get a girl isolated with an attractive man and you have opportunity plus proximity – the magic recipe.
But now I’m questioning why I said that. Was it from a lack of reference experiences? Was I trying to extrapolate out from a limited data set onto what was actually an unknown?
It’s not true that we only have our reference experiences to go on. There are also studies and statistics. Some women marry as virgins and never cheat. Most women don’t cheat, either on their boyfriend or their husband. A great many women screen for commitment before having any sex.
And a great many women don’t.
October 12, 2015 at 2:55 am
Author Ken Wilber was once asked why he didn’t go on a tour circuit, and he replied that it was because he did not trust that he was different from everybody else he had ever seen. Everybody else he had seen who had gone on a tour circuit was constantly explaining their viewpoint again and again, and so naturally became INVESTED in that viewpoint. Their character was someone who had that viewpoint. That viewpoint became not only what they believed, but who the were. Without that viewpoint they would need to re-adjust their entire character.
I see investment in viewpoints all the time in the manosphere. Heartiste and Rollo have explicitly stated that any scientific study that goes against their gut feeling will be automatically assumed by them to be false. They have blantently pledged allegience to confirmation bias.
And I’m seeing groupies who have taken up a clique-talk of manospherian terms as if they were fundamental truisms.
These truisms become litmus tests for in-group loyalty.
Are all women like that? If you dare to question it, are you (gasp) purple pill?
October 15, 2015 at 7:51 am
I wonder what happened there with the PUA industry of the 21 Convention.
I listened in, but had to turn off after some 18 minutes. No one in the Game community who is worth his salt would agree with crap like that. Your analysis is spot on. It’s a talk by a Purple Pill Chode using PUA and manosphere lingo, twisting the meaning of the terms and ultimately creating Better Betas by establishing a convoluted narrative.
It seems as if the 21 Convention is hijacked by chodes and anyone invited should consider his reputation, because they are actually twisting the narrative to feminism light.
October 16, 2015 at 9:24 pm
The video need only take 45 minutes of your time by using the 2x playback function by click on the gear/cog on the bottom right of the player.
October 18, 2015 at 4:33 pm
I get it’s a wrong mindset to “get the notch”, but I repeatedly see high-notchcount liberated girl becomes masculine, cold, moody, suspicious, bored quickly, look hot, but old, incapable of affection…I disqualify them not based on N-count, rather the after effect. Maybe some girls that are “ok” also have high notchchcount and I don’t recognize it and belive they’re less active. But I don’t think so.