Things slip through the cracks sometimes, including this post in which Dennis Mangan delivers a smackdown to Audacious Epigone and all the other so-called quantbloggers who deny the validity of game:
Agnostic’s post may or may not do what he says it does, but the real thesis behind game isn’t necessarily that women are “sluttier”, it’s who they sleep with. That 20% of the men get 80% of the sex (or some such figure) isn’t dependent on an alleged decrease in sexual activity, and in any case, the data used to show this shows that the percentage of high school students who have had sex with 4 or more partners declined from 18.7% to 14.9% from 1991 to 2007, a decrease of about 20% in 16 years, hardly anything to get too excited about. However, the rate from 2001 to 2007 has increased some 5%. In any case, discussion of the current sexual landscape isn’t really about high school students, it’s about the behavior of all men and women. That the divorce rate has rocketed from the 60s until now, and that women initiate up to 75% of divorces, would seem to be facts of great importance.
One of my favorite stat-crunchers, Ron Guhname, has been talking about this as well. He has a brilliant series of posts showing that alphas are outpacing betas in the mating game, but he ends his most recent entry with one of the most laughable things I’ve read in the past week:
…while some women like the idea of a roll in the hay with Studly, on a day-to-day basis they want a man who treats them well. Women like attention, consideration, thoughtfulness, responsibility, and generosity. If she gets treated like dirt, she’s eventually going to move on, no matter how sexy the guy is.
But then again, this is coming from a guy who wrote this about his wife:
And even it she wasn’t beautiful, I’d still tell my buddies that I am one lucky bastard because she wouldn’t marry any of you guys in a million years. She gave up her freedom and her chance for a more worthy man for this insignificant hombre. And even if the day ever came that she left me–and it won’t–I’d still be wearing a smile and would ask everybody, do you know-so-and-so? I would then say in a bragging tone, “I was married to her for X years. She finally got smart and moved on, but those were the best years of my life. And I don’t see our kids as much as I’d like and have to pay too damn much child support, but they’re my kids, and they’re beautiful and smart and good just like she is.”
Must…restrain…urge…to…mock…
The thesis put forth by Audacious Epigone and Mr. Guhname (I’ve already busted Agnostic’s balls enough for one month) is that the sexual marketplace hasn’t changed tremendously since the sexual revolution, which runs counter to Roissysphere and seduction community conventional wisdom. My question to them (and anyone else who agrees with them) is this:
If the sexual marketplace is the same now that it always was, how did the “game community” come into existence?
In the year 2009, we have an entire industry devoted to helping men get with women, when there was nothing of the sort a thousand, a hundred, or even fifty years ago. The concept of game would have been unthinkable to men of my father’s generation. According to what you’ve said, the sexual marketplace has changed little over the years, and yet today there is a seduction community where there was none before. Not only that, there’s an entire arsenal of websites and the like geared at getting men to avoid marriage, the preferred means of getting a woman in prior epochs. Can any of you oh-so-smart quantbloggers, with your fancy tables and reams of GSS data, explain this to me?
In the meantime, here’s a comment from Richard Hoste, an HBD blogger who gets it:
Obviously, it’s not as simple as “relax, women know what’s good for the word. And their choices will lead to the greatest common good.” The idea that humans (or at least high IQ populations) are doing what’s best for their genes is demonstrably false.
Here’s a thought: Alphas (high testosterone, low IQ) have been the fittest for most of our evolutionary history. One day man put constraints on female choice and civilization came about. Women are adaptable creatures (they will submit to rape because in prehistoric times they were often captured and still wanted to pass on their genes) and were happy with the new arrangements.
Then the rules were “deconstructed” and we went back to the pre-civilization ways. Now, we are breeding very badly, when we’re breeding at all.
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }
I wonder if Ron Guhname will be actually be fine with it when (not if) his wife leaves him. I look forward to reading that post.
We’ve been engaged in Dis-eugenics for a couple generations now courtesy of feminism and the state as ultimate provider.
The corrective is not going to be pretty.
I am not a quantblogger, but I do think there’s a huge difference between showing that women prefer socially dominant men, or any other definition of alpha you care to use, and that game is efficient.
The basic claim of game is that there’s techniques that can turn *any* guy (or close to it) into a notch-racking machine. But I am not aware of much evidence of this being true.
It seems analogous to martial arts. The claims are pretty grand, but even training extremely hard a small guy isn’t going to have much of a shot against a stronger, larger guy in an anything-goes-fight. And if you start out in your mid-twenties without an athletic background you can just forget the whole thing.
Similiarly, a guy starting in the 40th percentile of male attractiveness might through hard work, and application of game, move into the 55th percentile. But that’s still not going to net him a ton of pussy, especially not if women’s tendency for hypergamy is really strong. If the gains from game are on that order only guys who are close to being alphas already will benefit a lot from practicing game. The men lower than that gains far more from changing enviroments into one where they actually are in the 90th percentile (eg, move to Thailand).
The facts, as I perceive them:
* A very small number of bootcamp students, lair members and forum members in game communities actually rack up a lot of pussy (as in 10+ lays). I think Sinn said something like less than 5% does so.
* Pretty much all game bloggers who write about getting laid a lot are guys that had a lot going for them even without game. Superfit black dudes, sharp wits, bartenders, high energy freaks, strip club managers, etc. Moreover, most of them are aging into their peak attractiveness, getting better reputations and so on, so their success rates would have improved even if their methods remained exactly the same.
* I do not know of a single credible example of a shy nerd who through game went on to bag a lot of women. In this case the absence of evidence is pretty damning. Sex is incredibly important to all men, so if a little hard work and study is all that is required we should expect to see a lot of men getting out and getting laid. Especially guys into game.
* Even without any theoretical framework what-so-ever guys who approach a lot and try to get laid, occasionally do get laid. From what Tyler Durden reports it doesn’t seem to matter at all that much what you do, as long as you are a cool, confident guy.
* The elements of game that seems most effective (social proof, being genuinely confident and happy, etc) are all things that are difficult to fake. Maybe even near-impossible for normal men. And men who can easily do so are probably socially talented enough to be attractive to women anyway.
* Most of the easy, big gains when it comes to game seem to be in removing major social malfunctions like being super-clingy, feminine and constantly self-effacing.
* In short, the evidence for female hypergamy is overwhelming but the question of game’s efficiency is very much up in the air.
Isn’t the main problem with quantblogging about this issue the fact that such an approach relies almost entirely on what women *say* about their sex lives? I mean, it’s been noted time and again that women, for rather obvious reasons, tend to be less than candid about their sex lives – perhaps even to themselves, not “counting” this or that, and so on.
I think that in order to get accurate “data” about the sex lives of men and women, you’d need to get private detectives to monitor them and record the actual behavior, rather than relying on what they self-report. As we often say, when it comes to sex and related matters, do not listen to what women say, but rather observe what they do.
Yeah, I’d like to see that fella’s stance on how wonderful his sweet wittle woman is if she ever leaves him.
I suspect his being forced to witness his testicles sliced off before his very eyes, his kids kept from him with the approval of the State, and his ass being sold into slavery will force him to eat a lot of crow.
“Most of the easy, big gains when it comes to game seem to be in removing major social malfunctions like being super-clingy, feminine and constantly self-effacing.”
Don’t forget hygiene, wardrobe, and body language. Taken together, those six behavioral/presentation modifications would do a lot for the average joe.
ASD’s objections to the lack of quantitative underpinning for game are right on. Really the only way you’re going to solve that one is to conduct an experiment in which you randomly select a buncha average dudes off the sreet, divide them in two, and pit the sexual exploits of the “control” group against the Roissy/Roosh/Mystery trained group and see what happens. Even then it’ll be difficult to demonstrate since there are so many variables.
Some things to consider that might be skewing Ron’s numbers and your conclusions:
1)Not all alphas are PUAs. They’re the guys who could get all the girls, not the ones who necessarily do. 2)
How attractive “alpha-ness” is to a woman varies throughout the month, depending on hormone levels. When she’s most fertile she’s also most attracted to the alpha and also most willing to flirt and most willing to go out, say to parties or clubs, where they might meet one.
3.) Also, ability among women to delay gratification varies. One woman might be especially receptive to an alpha’s advances. Another might let him just “number-close” her and then head home to ride her boyfriend like never before.
Dude, men with one or two lifetime sex partners still considerably out reproduce men with lots of sex partners.
Men with more sex partners are starting to catch up, but you also have to remember that most of those are on the low intelligence end of things who will screw anything not high end players.
The introduction of birth control means that natural selection is now selecting for two :
1. those who have an explicit desire for children
2. the stupid and impulsive
The future of the male sex will be made up of two separate groups: religious betas and low IQ thugs.
Must…restrain…urge…to…mock…
Don’t be quite so quick. Mr. Guhname has enough game to snag a pretty women and may be saying such things because he has enough moxy in other areas. Roissy has a post up on how selective beta behavior can actually boost your status.
Needless to say, this is a very bad way to get the girl if you are already putting out too much betaness.
Sometimes the craziness on game blogs goes a little overboard. Some perspective:
http://www.datinggroundwork.com/seductioncommunity
“Dude, men with one or two lifetime sex partners still considerably out reproduce men with lots of sex partners.”
They do…right now. Read those Inductivist links I posted. Even Guhname was forced to concede that alphas are starting to catch up with betas.
“Don’t be quite so quick. Mr. Guhname has enough game to snag a pretty women and may be saying such things because he has enough moxy in other areas. Roissy has a post up on how selective beta behavior can actually boost your status.”
Are you so sure? That post I linked was the culmination of a series of posts on marriage in which Guhname showed the same stupidity over and over. I’ve been reading him long enough to know that his behavior isn’t “selective,” it’s pathological. See this link. Even after Roissy called him out on his nonsense, he never responded.
Asd – â€The basic claim of game is that there’s techniques that can turn *any* guy (or close to it) into a notch-racking machine.â€
Personally, I take “Game†to mean something quite different. I take it as “skills†a man posses – which he can utilize in specific ways, in specific circumstances, to enhance his attractiveness to women.
My conceptualization of “Game†comes not from Roissy (who I see as one who demonstrates how Game can be employed situationally, as in the “techniques” you refer to), but rather from my introduction to the term in relation to male/female relations from the 1995 movie “Fridayâ€.
Prior to it use as metaphor for a man’s skills at attracting women, I’d heard the term used to describe an individuals ability to play basket ball – in which “Game†can only be seen as the abilities one posses and has honed for use in competition.
When the term was used to instruct the movies lead character Craig (Ice Cube) that in order to “get†a girl to “hookup†with him, he doesn’t need his sister to arrange it for him, but rather that he needs “Gameâ€; it seemed intuitive to me that this was meant to refer to his own set of attributes/well honed skills which would obviate the need for someone else to set him up, and allow him to attract and hold the attention of women himself.
Now, perhaps I am alone in this interpretation of what “Game†is. Admittedly, I’m not personally particularly familiar with the lingo of the (so called) black community. And, perhaps my view of what “Game†is has been unduly biased by the way I was introduced to the term 14 years ago.
So, I’m quite willing to sit back and consider the way(s) in which others might view what is meant by this hotly-debated term “Gameâ€.
alphas are starting to catch up with betas.
Most of those “alphas” are low IQ, low class guys who screw a bunch of hood rats who are too stupid to use birth control properly. While that is a serious problem, I wouldn’t classify them as alpha, which, even by Roissy’s limited definiton, involves attracting quality not just quantity.
The true alphas, again using Roissy’s limited definition, aren’t reproducing. Between them all, the top pick up gurus have almost no children.
Birth control is creating more cads at the bottom, but also more dads at the top.
“Between them all, the top pick up gurus have almost no children.”
I honestly doubt any of the “top” pick up gurus are anywhere near the top of alphaness (in the Roissy sense) or at all typical for guys in the top 1% of male attractiveness.
Those guys are often freaks and much more interested in selling stuff than anything else.
“Most of those “alphas†are low IQ, low class guys who screw a bunch of hood rats who are too stupid to use birth control properly.”
According to Ron G’s data the cads were a little smarter and made better money than the dads. Is there anything to support your position?
Iceberg Slim talks about learning the pimping game in 1936, and I am pretty sure he uses something like “having game” as a term for the ability to handlling women.
So even if he made up the term it’s still been around since 1967 as a way to describe the ability to attract and control women. Albeit with an emphasis of turning those women into whores.
Incidently Iceberg Slim inspired both Ice Cube and Ice-T a whole lot.
So yeah, the term has a long history in black pimp culture and hiphop prior to the modern usuage. I don’t think that’s the definition Neil Strauss thought of as he rather describes it as a way to disconnect emotionally and view pickup as a computer game. It’s quite possible he just threw that in to make his book appear cleaner. As a music journalist there’s no way he was unaware of the black usuage.
Ron doesn’t break down each group by IQ, but the “alphas” were more frequent in the dropout, high school and jr. college groups.
I actually thing Malloy and Guhname make some good points about divorce. Much as I respect Roissy and commenters like Dave from Hawaii, it is actually a little more complicated than just continuing to act alpha. All of which is to say that while game can help us understand why many relationships go south, it does not provide a unified theory of divorce.
Here is Slumlord/The Social Pathologist (psychiatrist and Roissy admirer) on what he sees in his practice:
http://aliasclio.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/alpha-beta-gamma-delta/#comment-134
It’s not that different from Guhname and Malloy’s analysis.
As the only Black regular poster here I thought to offer a few comments.
Yes, the term “Game” has existed in the Black community for decades, and does indeed refer to one’s skills and abilities to handle Women; however, Iceberg Slim and other pimps aside, “Game” was never a codified, easily accessible system of information that could be used by any Man to improve his chances with Women. As Slim says in his book, the Game was to be told, but not sold-which makes perfect sense, since such a skill had a direct impact on your bottomline.
Most Black Men do a lot of Game things instinctually; a Brotha like myself wants to fully realize his potential, so I avail myself of Game information and use that to augment my natural talents. The result is quite formidable, much like say, a Michael Jordan who works hard on the fundamentals of the basketball game despite his prodigious natural born talent.
I give Mystery and Style a heck of a lot of credit though for really cracking the code for our time in the form of Game, and I disagree, a Man who carefully studies Game and then goes out and applies it, WILL improve his lovelife. Individual results will vary, however, and one of the biggest problems I’ve seen is that a lot of guys get frustrated because they’re not pulling the “HB10s” of the world. Well, they’re a lot of reasons for that, some of which have nothing to do with Game. The point I’m making here is that a lot of guys didn’t manage their expectations, a key tenet of Game wrt the number of Women one deals with. Having realistic expectations is another core tenet of Game, in fact, without an honest assessment of oneself, one cannot be successful with Women. Period.
As for the socalled Quantbloggers, I’ll simply say this: Toni Morrison said it best, we write what we know. The vast majority of these guys simply don’t know enough about Women, Love, Sex or Pussy, to say nothing of Game, natural or assisted, to be able to write intelligently on it. Hence the reason why they sound so ridiculous, despite all the pretty graphs and colors.
What it really boils down to is this: if ever there was a bad time to be a High IQ White Guy, this is it. Not only do Women no longer need a Man to take care of her or her kids, the larger society is now saying in ways big and small, that they don’t need you either. Not when we can get Sanjay or Chang to do the very same thing for a fraction of the price. It all adds up to a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of the Quant/HBDsphere, and is in my view no accident that it sprouted up almost in direct proportion to the Game/PUA community-think about it. That the Betas CANNOT GET LAID is a huge sore point for them, made even more painful in an to-add-insult-to-injury way by the likes of Mystery, Matador and VH1.
The big problem here is that for all their IQ strength, they have no power to change or influence public policy, and aren’t socially saavy enough to woo the Women they want into bed with them. As any real Gamer knows, most Men DON’T get laid. Least of all White/Asian/Indian guys w/a IQ over a certain number.
I’m just sayin’, tho.
The Obsidian
“I actually thing Malloy and Guhname make some good points about divorce…it does not provide a unified theory of divorce.”
That’s not my point. My point is that Guhname based his thesis on a false premise (that women who divorce want “to trade up”), Roissy called him out on it, and he had no answer. The man cannot comprehend the precepts of game and thus cannot argue in good faith. If he keeps putting garbage in, he’s going to get nothing but garbage out.
“Here is Slumlord/The Social Pathologist (psychiatrist and Roissy admirer) on what he sees in his practice…It’s not that different from Guhname and Malloy’s analysis.”
The difference between Slumlord and Guhname is that Slumlord, being a “Roissy admirer,” is not approaching from the belief that women are behaving the same way now that they did fifty years ago – Guhname is.
“Most of those “alphas†are low IQ, low class guys who screw a bunch of hood rats who are too stupid to use birth control properly…Between them all, the top pick up gurus have almost no children.”
You’re making a false distinction. An alpha is an alpha is an alpha. It doesn’t matter if he’s using BC or not – if he can attract lots of women, he’s an alpha.
“Birth control is creating more cads at the bottom, but also more dads at the top.”
Agreed. The problem is that the “cads at the bottom” will soon outnumber the “dads at the top.”
“The basic claim of game is that there’s techniques that can turn *any* guy (or close to it) into a notch-racking machine. But I am not aware of much evidence of this being true.”
That’s completely wrong. The “claim of game” is that it can make any man more attractive to women. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or lying.
“A very small number of bootcamp students, lair members and forum members in game communities actually rack up a lot of pussy (as in 10+ lays). I think Sinn said something like less than 5% does so.”
See above. Not every guy is cut out for sport-fucking.
“Pretty much all game bloggers who write about getting laid a lot are guys that had a lot going for them even without game. Superfit black dudes, sharp wits, bartenders, high energy freaks, strip club managers, etc. Moreover, most of them are aging into their peak attractiveness, getting better reputations and so on, so their success rates would have improved even if their methods remained exactly the same.”
Guys with advantages get bigger returns – I fail to see how this invalidates game. As for “peak attractiveness,” yes, their returns would have improved on their own, but with game plus their attractiveness, their rates are even higher.
“I do not know of a single credible example of a shy nerd who through game went on to bag a lot of women. In this case the absence of evidence is pretty damning. Sex is incredibly important to all men, so if a little hard work and study is all that is required we should expect to see a lot of men getting out and getting laid. Especially guys into game.”
Ever hear of a guy called Mystery? How about another dude named Roosh? And it’s not “a little hard work and study” – it’s A LOT of hard work and study. Nobody ever became a master of anything without elbow grease.
“Even without any theoretical framework what-so-ever guys who approach a lot and try to get laid, occasionally do get laid. From what Tyler Durden reports it doesn’t seem to matter at all that much what you do, as long as you are a cool, confident guy.”
Yes, you can get laid with dumb luck. You can also become rich by winning the lottery. Relying on luck is a bad survival strategy.
“The elements of game that seems most effective (social proof, being genuinely confident and happy, etc) are all things that are difficult to fake. Maybe even near-impossible for normal men. And men who can easily do so are probably socially talented enough to be attractive to women anyway.”
Ever hear the phrase “fake it ’til you make it?” It’s possible to fake confidence early on. The point is to leverage it into results which then provide real confidence.
“Most of the easy, big gains when it comes to game seem to be in removing major social malfunctions like being super-clingy, feminine and constantly self-effacing.”
And this is a bad thing because…
“Even without any theoretical framework what-so-ever guys who approach a lot and try to get laid, occasionally do get laid.”
Apparently, 10% of women will accept sex when offered randomly.
So, if a guy goes up to a random woman at a bar and asks: “Will you have sex with me?” 10% will say yes.
if he can attract lots of women, he’s an alpha.
No, quality matters. You’re missing my point that a lot of these “alphas” are racking up the numbers with low quality chicks, both looks wise and intelligence wise.
The problem is that the “cads at the bottom†will soon outnumber the “dads at the top.â€
Agreed, but what is happening at the bottom doesn’t much affect the dating market for higher IQ guys like us. Besides, there’s a pretty simple cure for the “cads at the bottom” problem: end welfare. But welfare is pretty much irrelevant for anyone middle class or above.
Thursday:
“No, quality matters. You’re missing my point that a lot of these “alphas†are racking up the numbers with low quality chicks, both looks wise and intelligence wise.”
Quality and quantity both matter. I’ll concede that these low-class trashers aren’t the cream of the alpha crop, but because they’re getting lots of action, they’re above the average middle-class schmuck. In Roissyese, they’re “lesser alphas.”
“Apparently, 10% of women will accept sex when offered randomly.”
Link?
because they’re getting lots of action, they’re above the average middle-class schmuck.
Uh, no.
As someone with some weight in the section of the blogosphere that ‘quantbloggers’ reside, I will declare that a quantblogger who is not an ‘Outside the Box Thinker’ (OTB), is not that good of a quantblogger either.
The best quantblogger would be one who analyzes data too see what no one else has previously seen. See my case on the fiscal/economic costs of the divorce industry for an example.
“That’s completely wrong. The “claim of game†is that it can make any man more attractive to women. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or lying.”
In general guys like Roissy, and you, claim that game makes a *big* difference for people who studiously apply it rather than a modest improvement. So far there isn’t much beyond anecdotes to support that. The typical guy who shells out a few thousand on bootcamp and seminars doesn’t seem to benefit all that much from it.
“Guys with advantages get bigger returns – I fail to see how this invalidates game.”
It makes it a lot less likely their dating success came from game than from simply being attractive and getting out and approaching more.
“Ever hear of a guy called Mystery? How about another dude named Roosh?”
Those are terrible examples.
Mystery is a manic-depressive, and those are notorious for getting laid a ton while manic. He’s also bright, tall, intense, extrovert, personally dominant, strong ego and so on. Any claim on his part to have started out as an average shy guy is pretty much marketing.
I don’t care to go back and check out Roosh’s background, but it is apparent that he is a pretty cool guy at heart.
If those are the best examples you have of guys overcoming their inhibitions I’m going to stand by my assertion that there are very few, or no, successtories of guys going from shy to player.
“Yes, you can get laid with dumb luck. You can also become rich by winning the lottery. Relying on luck is a bad survival strategy.”
The issue here is whether thinking about game makes a big difference from someone simply approaching a lot without help.
“Ever hear the phrase “fake it ’til you make it?†It’s possible to fake confidence early on.”
Yes, I’ve heard of it and I am challenging the idea that it actually works in conveying confidence and high social status.
Consider the following thought experiment:
We take two randomly selected groups of men of a 100 or so. One group gets the best off-field coaching the pickup elite can provide, the men in the other group are completely on their own.
Over a year each man is magically incentivized to do his utmost to be as attractive to women as possible. They’ll receive a million for each lay with an 8, or some such nonsense. Everybody is simply doing their best.
What differences in terms of number of decent lays do you expect between the two groups?
To me it seems pretty unlikely that it would be bigger than 10%-20% or so. If the efficacy of game is larger than that we should see a lot more nerds to notch wizards than we actually do.
“What it really boils down to is this: if ever there was a bad time to be a High IQ White Guy, this is it.”
As long as they stay in the US or similiar countries, yes. But there’s never been a better opportunity for white nerds to score huge number of women than now.
Just relocate to a suitable third world country and it’s a piece of cake to get a hot young wife, or a series of them if you make good money. Or simply bang hundreds of whores.
Sure, they won’t be getting the whole intense love and passion thing, but that wasn’t on the table to begin with.
I’m one of those shy guys who has seen his success go way up. Growing up, I was the shyest of the shy. I would often have trouble talking to guys. I got better at that, but women were a complete mystery to me. BTW I don’t want to be a player myself, but I have a lot more opportunity since learning game and am grateful for it.
In the past there was a time (a couple years) when I would actually force myself to do a lot of approaches, but just doing a lot of approaches without knowing what to do did not work so I pretty much gave up for a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izBbP2kro-c& obviously
Seriously though, in the classic experiment http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1300/J056v02n01_04 zero women said yes.
Seminar attendance does not corelate to Game success, since to become even slightly successful with Game, a man has to overcome the hardest barrier of all – the ability to do daygame approaches.
Most men cannot do this, so they go nowhere.
But those that can, do quickly attain success far beyond what other men of their type do. Moreover, they create many chances to practice other areas of Game.
* Most of the easy, big gains when it comes to game seem to be in removing major social malfunctions like being super-clingy, feminine and constantly self-effacing.
So what are you complaining about? Doesn’t this contradict the rest of what you are saying? Isn’t this a highly desirable outcome for most guys?
I am going to put a number to it. Having Moderate competence in Game is worth about $2 million in net worth in terms of SMV. I have written elsewhere what Mdoerate competence of Game consists of, which is similar to your own statement in italics, plus the ability to do a lot of approaches confidently.
This will put a broke man on par with a somewhat wealthy man, all else being equal.
Plus, no one can tax your Game, swindle you out of your Game, extort your Game from you, etc.
Hence, working on Game is generally a better use of a man’s time, in terms of SMV, than staying late in the office for two years in the hopes of winning the big promotion only to pay 45% of the marginal pay inrcease in taxes that support misandry.
Bingo. That is why these supposed smart people are not OTBs, nor do they have much direct experience with women, and hence not sufficiently qualified to discuss Game.
I find it funny that everyone who hates Game, from manginas, to BetaCons, to quantbloggers, has far too little experience with women to comment. It is much like if an SWPL who watches 10 minutes of CNN a day acts as if they can authoritatively declare the John Bolton or General Petraeus are ‘idiots’ who ‘don’t understand other cultures’ and ‘damage America’s image in the world’.
No one who actually HAS a lot of direct experiene with women will dismiss Game. You don’t see naturals dissing Game.
“I’m one of those shy guys who has seen his success go way up.”
For shy guys improving to even having female friends and being able to flirt are subjective huge improvements. Usually that does not translate into much in the way of sex.
So have you actually banged a bunch of chicks or gotten a girlfriend hotter than you “deserve” based on personality and social status?
I read that Agnostic piece contemporaneously in GNXP. I didn’t post anything in comments questioning it because I had no social science basis for doing so. Nonetheless I flat out don’t believe it. Well there IS one thing I do believe. That is that there WAS a diminution of slutty sexual activity beginning it’s commonly said as soon as the 70s were over but really beginning around 1984 or so. When the aids thing hit, and it hit FAST in consciousness as a huge scare when it did. Aging boomer girls were already turning away from casual sex and big into clamping their husbands down from dreams of open marriages and so on, but that was the big thing. It did go down in the second half of the eighties and much of the 90s. Not completely atall and there were pockets, but a lot. Came back in the oughts, or really by the late 90s in NYC.
The thesis put forth by the Audacious Epigone and Mr. Guhname (I’ve already busted Agnostic’s balls enough for one month) is that the sexual marketplace hasn’t changed tremendously since the sexual revolution, which runs counter to Roissysphere and seduction community conventional wisdom.
All this GSS and other stuff is based on a house of cards. Those cards are that females don’t lie, or don’t lie much in anonymous as reported surveys about sexual activity including number of partners or incidence of infidelity. I’m here to tell you that girls lie HUGE about such stuff and do so reflexively, as part of their personality almost, and do so so thoroughly that only the most reflective even fully realize how much they’re doing it. I’m talking about the big numbers girls. Girls for whom the answer is 7 or maybe 5 or less probably come in fairly accurately, because they figure they aren’t really even supposed to be virgins anymore, THAT is rather shameful, and anything that’s well within single digits is probably ok for almost anyone but real prude/can’t get sex guys they don’t care about anyway. That’s the urban girl feeling.
But if you think girls for whom the true answer is 15 or more, not to mention 30 or more, give their true answers much at all except possibly to a guy that loves or they believe loves slutty girls, after much showing of same, you know nothing. Because I’m such a guy (who does love the extremes including sluts for some/many things, but hardly for having my babies or committing to durably) and I’ve gone through the process of getting good true slutty stories, and eventually true slutty numbers, out of numerous girls. I know what they say to begin with and I know what they finally say after all that. I know some/many of the rationalizations. (e.g. guys whose names they can’t remember don’t count. Guys who had no emotional impact on them don’t count. Guys they can barely remember at all, and then only with effort, don’t count. Only guys they had a relationship with count. And so on.)
“In general guys like Roissy, and you, claim that game makes a *big* difference for people who studiously apply it rather than a modest improvement. So far there isn’t much beyond anecdotes to support that. The typical guy who shells out a few thousand on bootcamp and seminars doesn’t seem to benefit all that much from it.”"
The improvement any guy will see from game depends on the work that he puts into it and to a lesser extent, his genetics (lepers ain’t getting any). Simply going to a bootcamp is insufficient to turn a man into a PUA, any more than taking one piano lesson will turn a man into Mozart.
“It makes it a lot less likely their dating success came from game than from simply being attractive and getting out and approaching more.”
All the detractors claim that. To quote Roissy:
“this is a common anti-game complaint — that the success of game is merely a reflection of the increase in approaches. it’s misleading if not outright false. yes, there will be a jump in volume during the initial learning stage of game and a consequent increase in number of notches, but once you have absorbed the fundamentals you can pare back your approach volume while continuing to enjoy the higher notch count and the better quality. there are many “LTR” PUAs out there who have done just this — mastered the game, then used what they learned to date and screen women to find that perfect girl with whom to slip willingly into monogamous commitment.”
“Mystery is a manic-depressive, and those are notorious for getting laid a ton while manic. He’s also bright, tall, intense, extrovert, personally dominant, strong ego and so on. Any claim on his part to have started out as an average shy guy is pretty much marketing.”
And yet, despite all of those qualities, he remained a virgin well into his mid-20′s. It wasn’t until he began working on his own method of seduction that he saw any success.
“I don’t care to go back and check out Roosh’s background, but it is apparent that he is a pretty cool guy at heart.”
He’s a cool guy NOW. But where did that coolness come from? In his own words:
“I look like Teen Wolf spawn and except for my height everything the modern 20-something American woman finds attractive in a man is a quality I don’t possess. Girls make fun of my hair almost every night I go out, but they still compliment me in the end, something that I noticed is increasingly. Don’t get me wrong I feel very comfortable in my skin, but when I’m banging a girl I don’t believe it was because of my look. I believe it’s because I said the right things with the right attitude, with the right moves, and with the right body language.
…
“Last point I wanted to make: charisma is a learned quality. You don’t know charm without hundreds of sexually charged interactions with the opposite sex. My early experiences with women were rough and awkward and I had trouble smoothly stringing together sentences that kept a girl’s attention. But now I can do it without trying and it’s not because I was born with it but because I’ve had so much practice.”
“The issue here is whether thinking about game makes a big difference from someone simply approaching a lot without help.”
“Approaching a lot without help” is the equivalent of wandering an uncharted jungle without a map and/or compass. You might find your way out, but you’re just as likely to die without even getting close. Game is the map to the uncharted jungle of sexuality.
“Consider the following thought experiment…If the efficacy of game is larger than that we should see a lot more nerds to notch wizards than we actually do.”
That’s still an improvement. More lays is more lays is more lays.
In fact in anything goes fights, small knife-wielding guys skilled in Escrima, Kali, Arnis, or Silat are pretty deadly. They have to be — their art is honed by what allows them to survive in violent SE Asia.
By the same token, Game practitioners are forced (for those skilled) to adjust to what works, and schools that charge money compete with others, to provide the best results. I agree that Joe Average won’t turn into Don Juan, but marginal improvements mean the difference between no relationship for three years for guys in their twenties, who are Joe Average with nothing special status/power-wise, and something.
I think I was a bit muddled to begin with, and there’s a lot of unnecessary confusion. So I’ll try to make a clearer restatement.
1) I think proponents of game claim that following its various principles will render a lot better results than becoming confident, dressing snappy and approaching a lot of women. That is a middling guy will not only be able to move up to his proper market value, but go significantly beyond it. Especially the proponents who try to sell something, many of who are simply hucksters with little ability to help.
2) I think this leads to that men should certainly try to eliminate their flaws and becoming more manly, but that there isn’t much to be gained once you’ve become as much of a cool guy as you can reasonably maintain. If you’re naturally pretty mild-mannered and do not enjoy socializing with strangers all that much you really shouldn’t be shooting for more than a plain looking girlfriend, a fling every few years and control of the relationship. Not that many guys have the ability to become seducers.
3) I think personality traits are not all that mutable. If you do not have the biology for fearless behavior you’re pretty much not going to be able to change that without resorting to drugs or completely remodel your social environment.
4) I do think certain guys can go from monogamy or celibacy to score large number of women through studying game. But that only applies to guys whose natural inclinations and gifts already had them at the cusp of alphahood. Much like men with little training but great natural athletic ability might become highranked in sports, but normal men can forget about it.
5) For guys with money and little aptitude for seduction relocating to a country were providers are in demand will result in far greater payoffs than grinding away at seduction seminars and doing routines.
Thursday — that is not true for the Ghetto Black community, or for that matter Black professional athletes (Karl Malone has a passel of kids, some legitimate, some not, by various women).
Moreover, the sweet spot for high Testosterone is not “stupid” but average IQ. The highest T levels are found in those with average IQ, around 100, while the T levels drop off equally as one gets to lower IQs and higher IQS. Thus a man with a 130 IQ has the same level of T as a man of 70, on average.
Women don’t select for stupidity, they select for violence, intimidation, and low impulse control, over everything else, when they have security in terms of economics and physical safety. This pattern is remarkably “successful” in replicating itself for millenia and more — BUT can be very vulnerable to societies with superior male cooperation (women selecting for the most T produces little male cooperation) and lower T, higher IQ, even to the point of mass-infantry shock battle (leaving better weapons aside). The Western Way of War has basically been to line up heavy armored and armed infantrymen, as many as you can, without gaps and flanks protected, and stab/slash/spear the enemy in a battle of total annihilation. Nothing subtle and depending on male-cooperation to keep ranks close.
I don’t see religious betas doing anything but caring for the kids of Medium IQ high T thugs — clearly women prefer that type of man, and the danger is loss of male cooperation in society leaving it vulnerable to outsider forces.
Stalin believed Quantity had its own quality. He may have been right. If a guy who doesn’t care about “Quality” has sex with say, 1,000 women and of that, say has 100 kids, while a “quality” man has sex with 8 women, and has one kid, who “wins” the reproductive race?
It’s highly probable that the genes of the “quality” man is selected out, because in highly stable environment with low risk, ironically the “K” strategy of reproduction is not optimal for humans, rather the “r” strategy of as many offspring as possible.
This is because human kids need so much care for so long. The “r” strategy can only come into play when having so many kids pays off in relative good times with stable resources and low threats — the “K” strategy is useful when pretty much ALL resources have to be husbanded against threats, economic and physical. Western society is based on a modified “K” strategy with not one but several kids that need high parental investment.
Average IQ, but low impulse control/high-T level men are the best bet for reproduction. THEIR genes will get passed on, with the result that the populations in the West will resemble them increasingly.
Whiskey, just about any guy can have sex with tons of women if he doesn’t care about quality.
they select for violence, intimidation, and low impulse control
Some women select for these things, but a lot prefer much more subtle manifestations of high social status. Roissy himself has written about how the crude game of many black men can be a turn off for a lot of white and asian women.
Hey Obs,
I disagree that these troubles with women are mostly endemic to certain groups of men.
From my perspective, as a latino in new york city, I’ve seen them all struggle.
And if they do get the woman, and play by the “rules” they have a hell of a time keeping her, staying happy or escaping the financial ruin of divorce.
There’s no doubt that game principles can help an innumerable amount of men ACROSS the spectrum.
Also have a question for you, have you explored any other works of game besides Mystery’s and Style’s?
thnx
I don’t read any of these quant bloggers on a regular basis, but I’ve read lots of their articles linked from other places. My impression is that these people, as smart as they are, have perfected the hyper-myopic art of missing the forest for the trees. In fact, they believe that the right methodology to derive correct conclusions about the forest in general is to gaze at the fine patterns of some particular tree’s bark through a magnifying glass.
This is not to say that they don’t produce interesting insights occasionally, but their general approach often leads to silly numerological games that are completely detached from reality. That post by Agnostic about the declining rates of slutiness is a prime example (I think I saw several other similarly themed posts by him too). If that fellow had been there to analyze the state of the Soviet Union in 1929, he would have concluded that now that the greatest upheavals of the revolution are behind them, the Russians can expect a period of general stability and normalcy. After all, the data would show uniform trends of stabilization — never mind that all these numbers were of fifth-rate importance compared to the issue of who’s outmaneuvering whom in the Politburo.
The quant blogger attempts at recognizing and interpreting the relevant contemporary social trends by playing with data from GSS and similar sources are similarly blinded by entirely unreasonable implicit assumptions about what factors actually cause social trends and give strength to them. In these matters, a few paragraphs of sober common-sense discussion is often worth more than a whole book of statistical numerology.
Of course, it goes without saying that the quality of writing of individual quant bloggers differs greatly, and also their inclination to jump from cautious observations into conceited numerological fantasies. Yet, considering all that I saw on these blogs, I don’t think I’m being too harsh.
Why now? The internet. All this stuff migrated from newsgroups to forums and eventually popped out in books for mass consumption like The Game.
Game is still seen as caddish by the general public and anonymous handles are still prevalent. You’re going to need the anonymity of the internet to build any momentum.
Wocka,
Replies below:
W: Hey Obs,
I disagree that these troubles with women are mostly endemic to certain groups of men.
O: Its been observed that Men w/IQs over a certain number, say, 130 or so, have marked difficulty relating to others, much moreso than Men w/lower IQ counts.
W: From my perspective, as a latino in new york city, I’ve seen them all struggle.
O: hmm…
W: And if they do get the woman, and play by the “rules†they have a hell of a time keeping her, staying happy or escaping the financial ruin of divorce.
O: That’s just it-the old “rules” simply don’t apply anymore, and the sooner Men wiseup to this fact of early 21st century life, the better.
W: There’s no doubt that game principles can help an innumerable amount of men ACROSS the spectrum.
O: Absolutely. And I think a big problem as to why it doesn’t help more Men than it could is for a simple lack of managing expectations.
W: Also have a question for you, have you explored any other works of game besides Mystery’s and Style’s?
O: Not really, though I suppose I should if for not other reason than to cover the bases, and that’s on my Fall To Do List. Among other things I need to really get into the Ross Jeffries stuff. But having a bit of a background in psychology anyway, and having always been a persuasive communicator, working the Old Jedi Mindtrick was nothing new to me. ;)
The Obsidian
{ 1 trackback }