TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
33
- Hide Preview | 406 Comments | submitted about a month ago by redpillschool [Post Locked]

As per our announcement last week today we launch our first ever ban-amnesty AMA debate threads in which anybody from anywhere on Reddit can come challenge our opinions and ideas with no fear of retribution, censorship, or banning.

WE ARE STILL ENFORCING REDDIT'S TOS AND POSTING GUIDELINES

This thread is specifically for those who would like to debate or challenge TRP but with a few enforced rules:

  • CIVILITY WILL BE ENFORCED, BE POLITE
  • ALL TOP LEVEL COMMENTS MUST BE A QUESTION OR CHALLENGE FOR TRP.
  • NO INCEL NONSENSE
  • PARTICIPATION IN THIS THREAD MUST INCLUDE GOOD-FAITH ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS

Feel free to debate and discuss anything you'd like here.

While you will not be banned for participating in either of our two threads, understand that we may remove your comments in this thread if you do not follow the rules.

If you rather, check out our LION'S DEN for an unmoderated war of ideas.

ARE YOU BANNED?

As per our announcement last week, we are offering ban-amnesty today. If you were previously banned, please PM me and I will unban you to participate in these two threads.

However, if you start wandering into other threads and start trolling, you will be swiftly banned. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED


IF YOU GET RATE-LIMITED

If you get rate limited because of downvotes, contact me and I will add you to our approved submitters list.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 15 Points about a month ago

OK,

I frequently have to deal with TRP mods and ECs coming to purplepilldebate and saying stupid things about RP. As a PPD red Flair, it falls to me to educate them properly on RP.

(just to be clear, on PPD we distinguish between TRP, which is the sub, and RP which are the ideas)

One of the things I’ve had to deal with is TRP mods and ECs coming over and debating that “RP is scientific” or “RP is science”. I then have to unfuck their heads on this point.

We’re not.

Claiming so makes us a Pseudoscience, because we don’t follow anything like a true scientific method. Claiming to do so when you don’t is the very definition of Pseudoscience.

This is not to say we aren’t “describing reality correctly”. Just to say that the methods we use to reach that correct description of reality aren’t scientific methods.

The latest EC to attempt to try this idiocy was /u/sadomasochrist .

Can you clear up, once and for all, TRPs (but not necessarily RPs) position here.

Does TRP consider themselves to be acting scientifically ? Or regard, in some sense, RP as the output of science ?

If not, can someone crack your ECs around the head and tell them to stop opening RP up to accusations of Pseudoscience by claiming this whilst wearing their Big, Shiny, “I am an important person” EC hats.

If you do think RP is in some sense a scientific endeavour/body of knowledge, I’m prepared to debate with you why we are most definitely NOT.

[-] Whisper 19 Points about a month ago

This is a semantic argument. You are arguing with them, in essence, about the definition of the word 'science'.

TRP follows an empirical process, because TRP as a process consists not only of the material written here, but also of the act of going out and talking to girls and testing this shit.

There are, of course, no double-bind, controlled, peer-reviewed studies. Get us some research funding and we'll talk.

I, personally, wouldn't describe TRP as science, but engineering... we don't sit around and try to describe the universe, we go out and get shit done. Some degree of science-like knowledge may be a side effect of this.

[-] sadomasochrist 5 Points about a month ago

+1

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 5 Points about a month ago

This is a semantic argument. You are arguing with them, in essence, about the definition of the word 'science'.

No I'm not.

Look Mechanics fix things, are knowledgable, use science as part of their work, are very useful people to know if you want your car fixed. But they are not scientists because they don't apply the scientific method so much as "bang it with a hammer, and lube it up, and if the car works jobs a good 'un"

Thats no slight on mechanics. If you want your car fixed....go to a mechanic.

Thats RP. RP is very good at fixing your "car". We know what we're doing. We show you how to bang it with a hammer the right way to make it go brrrrrrrm. Like the mechanics we might even use a bit of scientific knowledge here and there.... "the smelly liquid that you pour in goes BANG when you light it, and the change in pressure pushes the piston". See, using "science".

But they're not scientists. And any mechanic claiming "to be a scientist" or "what we do at Jakes Auto Shop is science" is taking perfectly respectable and useful mechanics... and making them idiot pseudoscientists.

TRP follows an empirical process, because TRP as a process consists not only of the material written here, but also of the act of going out and talking to girls and testing this shit.

Exactly. Like our mechanic listens to where the "squeek" is coming from, and thinks "Right, lets check the flux manifold first. Might be that". He's not doing science either.

There are, of course, no double-bind, controlled, peer-reviewed studies. Get us some research funding and we'll talk.

Right. And although you don't quite need all of the above to call yourself science.... popperian falsification and a few other things are enough... you can only call yourself scientists if you meet a certain minimum level of "using the sccientific method".

We don't. So any of us saying "RP is science" or "RP is scientific" is fooling themselves and others. We're mechanics... or engineers... GLO might be a "construction worker".... they aren't scientists, and what they do isn't science.

It's another, valid, way of understanding relaity that is not the scientific way.

I, personally, wouldn't describe TRP as science, but engineering... we don't sit around and try to describe the universe, we go out and get shit done. Some degree of science-like knowledge may be a side effect of this.

Exacatamundo. So.... Please tell the other EC's to stop misrepresenting RP as science.

It's correct. It has an accurate view of the world. It's useful. It will fix your car. But it's not science.

[-] sadomasochrist 2 Points about a month ago

Look Mechanics fix things, are knowledgable, use science as part of their work, are very useful people to know if you want your car fixed.

This was the entirety of my post. That we have a hypothesis that is subjected to loose peer review.

But I'm glad to know it touched you.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

Have you gone back and re-read your OP and comment exchange ?

This was not what you said.

Your OP was titled "TRP is scientific, not pseudoscience."

And in my very first comment to YOU that I said...

"Look. The way mechanics fix engines isn’t scientific either. They’re not using the scientific method in the same way RP isn’t. Nevertheless mechanics do get at the truth, and are very good at fixing engines. They have a seperate method... which includes a lot of trial and error... and includes a fair bit of “whack it with a hammer, and if that clears it, jobs a good ‘un”. It’s criteria is “does it work?” Which is a perfectly fine criteria, but not scientific."

So I am glad I touched you. To the point that you now recognise my analogy as so obviously true that you misremembered it as being yours (despite arguing vociferously against it at the time) despite your post not mentioning mechanics at all (and this not being the first time I've had to trot out that metaphor)

I take my words back earlier in this thread. It seems that you DO sometimes change the views of your opponent by debating. But only when you convince them so thoroughly that they misremember themselves as saying all the clever things you did.

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

scientific

Focus on that word long and hard.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

From my perspective you’re the one failing to do so.

You’re thinking there is a definition of that word that can apply to TRP. There probably is.

However, that’s same definition can be applied to astrology.

By using a definition that applies to TRP and Astrology... you’re tying us to the bad connotations of that association.

Youwantto tie us to “physicist” or (at least) “psychologists”... but you can’t because they use the scientific method and we do not.

All you succeed in doing is tying us to other “Pseudoscience” that claims to be science without applying the scientific method. Crystalology,Himeopathy, every quack in existence that claims to b science without applying the scientific method.

You’re not thinking about that word good and hard. You’re the one with the superficial understanding of what it means that causes RP to look a bunch of twats when our ECs are pressed on the issue even moderately hard.

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

You're not "one of us." You're not "we."

You are still arguing within the paradigm that hosts blue pill views. I'm glad you have a biological realism perspective of the SMP and women, but you've framed it within the mental schema which got most of us there in the first place.

Science is a tool to inform our reality, and we value the input of other men and our own judgement first and foremost and use many of the same methods of enlightenment that have been considered standard procedure within the scientific communities since we as a species started on our journey of knowledge.

I have seen very little of value in scientific literature in regards to this debate. What little value I have seen, I've tried to contribute by making it relevant within TRP.

For all intents and purposes I consider my AF\BB post essentially the seminal post on putting an end to the "science" debate. It's clear as day what you see from BPW\BPM is true for LTRs, and we host the STR side of the equation.

From there you can use my nAWALT post to understand how this situation plays out with women entering these arrangements in good faith.

And lastly "the deal" in my "Amy" post.

Outside of using a couple studies on LTR and STR preferences to understand this, you don't need any other studies after this to form a strong red pill lens.

And frankly, all the studies I've seen go through GREAT effort to try and handwave red pilled results. And since its soft science, they never make any causal claims.

So there's little difference between the debates here and the academic thought experiments. And in fact, their results are even less in touch or informed than many of our own users exchanging notes.

Ultimately they're beholden to speculating on their test design, while we exchange notes and come up with a conclusion as a new hypothesis until its proven false by someone else.

You're on the faggot side of this semantic debate and only god knows why.

The very logic you're using, if you're using it correctly, should result in you being a sexual marketplace agnostic. Yet you self identify as red pilled.

That's because you've taken the leap of faith and you're actually being a judge of the evidence you have, rather than deferring what is obvious to some arbiter.

If the scientific community was trustworthy in this regard it might be something admirable.

But let's face it. No one is making studies that demonstrate that the foundation of modern society is a house of cards.

And even if you believed this was all on the up and up, you'd have to move past the fact that what women say and do are not related.

Almost the entirety of this debate in academia and scientific communities is presupposed on a woman's word meaning something.

We've all learned, it's not.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

If the team here admits you were a better debater than sado, will you be happy?

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

No, that’s not the point.

I want the ECs to represent RP better. If they’re going to get the special hat, they’ve got to represent it well.

This is just one thing they should be able to agree not to do as an EC because doing so “represents RP badly”.

I didn’t actually expect this debate. I thought RPS would see the issue immediately and say something like “Goid Point. Always happy to find a way to make RP and our ECs more effective. We will make the official position that ‘we are not a science’l

Then I could have gone into something else.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Covert contracts are a bitch that way.

They seek to attract the people who need it, just not the whamen who judge it.

Not sure if that's a problem worth addressing though. If you wanted to attract women, you'd just make pretty YouTube videos and signal status

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

Almost like some sort of soft science.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

Just saying, there's no concrete causal claims in the decision economics of evolutionary biology. Just well founded speculation.

I mean do you still believe a woman's word?

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] itiswr1tten 6 Points about a month ago

In the same way I consider the vast majority of the social sciences and anthropology not actual science, I consider trp not actual science. However, both can be academic, and both may be applied to the real world to achieve objective results. Trp is partially a praxeology, partially an ideology, and ever more as each day passes part of the political conversation.

We have to contend with two things. The first is how we choose to Define ourselves and the way that our methods are applied. The second is how to deal with the reaction to our existence and continued existence. The ladder is gradually becoming more important than the former

As for your beef with certain EC posters I'm Not My Brother's Keeper. Some of these dudes are kind of wacky but I love them all

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

In the same way I consider the vast majority of the social sciences and anthropology not actual science, I consider trp not actual science.

Phew, at least a few of you are semi-sensible. Here at least you're adamiting RP isn't science.

Although social science is, by the criteria used to define science, perfectly scientific.... it may be wrong... by science doesn't guarantee being right. It just guarantees you follow the scientific method.

However, both can be academic, and both may be applied to the real world to achieve objective results. Trp is partially a praxeology, partially an ideology, and ever more as each day passes part of the political conversation.

Yeah, I'm not crazy on the ideology part. You're bang on with the praxeology part. Thats exactly right.

Like....say.... Mechanics... we're a praxeology.

Evolutionary Psychology is our science.

RP stands in relation to EP .... in exactly the same way that "Engineers stand in relation to physics"..... and "phramacists stand in relation to Chemists"... and "Doctors stand in relation to Bilogists".

We are the praxeology to the science of evolutionary psychology (at least in the sphere of sexual relations in humans).

We have to contend with two things. The first is how we choose to Define ourselves and the way that our methods are applied. The second is how to deal with the reaction to our existence and continued existence. The ladder is gradually becoming more important than the former

Yeah,my next question is foing to be on the former above, because I'm not crazy about how that is developing either.

I've just got to knock the other ECs heads together on science first, tho.

You're the only one so far to seem to have his head screwed on right (on this subject at least). Excellent going for the newest minted one. Some of your "senior" brethren... including your head mod.... are making a dogs breakfast of this one.

As for your beef with certain EC posters I'm Not My Brother's Keeper. Some of these dudes are kind of wacky but I love them all

Ah, my beef isn't with them. The problem is simple...

a) TRP defined EC's as authorative voices on RP (something I'm not crazy about)

b) Therefore, when they say things about what RP is people think that RP believes those things

c) Therefore, when they say something idiotic and disprovable on it's face... RP has a problem.

Because I like RP, but I spend most of my time defending RP to infidels..... c) drives me completely round the bend.

If you're going to wear a big hat, and hold yourself out as a "priest of RP".... then you better fucking be right about reality. If you're not..... you are not representing RP well.

[-] itiswr1tten 2 Points about a month ago

I view the tag as meeting this guy gets it, and it's also sperg defense. There are some guys with some goofy ideas, but that's just how it is in any alternative thinking space. My favorite philosophy Professor was a total nut job in many ways. I still respected the shit out of him, and in the realm of philosophy he had a lot of good things to say. I'd analogize our craziest posters to that professor.

I'm also not afraid to contend with anybody, red, blue, EC, whatever. All ideas are up for attack in the arena and the ones that don't survive weren't good ideas

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

Ok, then you shouldn;t come to PPD and describe them as "Priests" as has been done.

Nor should you say (as has been said) "If an EC says it, then it's part of RP doctrine".

Nor, even, "ECs represent RP".

If you do want to say any of those things.... they can't be saying really stupid shit all over the net.

Once RPS gives up the ghost I'll tell him why they can;'t say "We are scientists/RP is a science".... but as you're there ahead of him I'll tell you.

It goes like this....

1) Bloop/Person suspicious of RP says "Is RP a science ?"

2) EC correctly assesses that the bloop is trying to trap him. If he says "No we're not a science" the bloop will say "Then you're wrong. If you're not scientific how can we know RP is the truth. If you're not scintists this is all bullshit".... so..... EC says "RP is scientific"

3) NOW the bloop has got him against the ropes. NOW the bloop can make the EC and RP look foolish. The EC ends up saying things like "Field Reports are Peer Reviewed Articles" and "The fact that so many guys think it's right, is independent proof" and all sorts of other things shoehorning RP into a "science" frame. All trying to prove RP is science. All whilst the bloop maintsins (correctly) that it isn't, and continues to re-inforce the frame that "only science can tell you the truth"

4) The Bloop runs rings around the EC.... Everyone watching can see the bloop has won.... The RP EC storms off in a huff muttering about "Stupid Bloops" but everyone who's mind wasn't made up already can see the "bloop was right" and "RP was wrong". Everyone watching loses confidence in RPs ability to "correctly assess reality" if the ECs are saying the stupid shit the EC is clearly saying on this thread trying to pretend RP is science.

Result: Bloops 1 RP 0..... any non-aligned observers think RP is wrong.

How it HAS to go is this....

1) Bloop/Person suspicious of RP says "Is RP a science ?"

2) EC correctly assesses that the bloop is trying to trap him. If he says "No we're not a science" the bloop will say "Then you're wrong. If you're not scientific how can we know RP is the truth. If you're not scintists this is all bullshit".... so..... EC says "RP is not scientific. We're mechanics"

3) NOW the EC has the bloop against the ropes. NOW the bloop will start saying things like "If it isn't science, how can we know it's right ?". And the EC can answer "the same way your mechanic knows how to fix your car, he's not a scientists is he ? But he'll fix your car just fine". The Bloop ends up saying things like "Nothing that isn't worked out by the scientific method is true" and the EC can reply "Really ? How many science articles have you read on how to open a door ? Yet, surely, you can open doors can't you ?".

4) The EC runs rings around the Bloop.... Everyone watching can see the EC has won.... The Bloop storms off in a huff muttering about "Misogynist Neanderthals" but everyone who's mind wasn't made up already can see the "RP was right" and "the Bloop was wrong". Everyone watching gains confidence in RPs ability to "correctly assess reality" if the Bloopss are reduced to saying the stupid shit the Bloop is clearly saying on this thread trying to pretend only science can find the truth.

Result: Bloops 0 RP 1..... any non-aligned observers think RP is likely to be right ... and that this Bloop is a fucking moron, because who needs a science article to know how to open a door ?

By saying "RP is a science" the EC is.... extremely ironically.... buying into the Bloop frame that only science can ever find the truth. Once he does so AND makes the initial howler of trying to win in this frame (RP is science).... he makes RP look like a bunch of twats who don't know their arse from their elbow.

The way out of this one is the mechanic metaphor.

Here endeth the lesson. (For You). RPS might still bumble about making an arse of himself for a while before he gets it, but he'll get there in the end I'm sure. He's a smart guy.

Just as not as smart (it appears) as you.

[-] itiswr1tten 1 Point about a month ago

Science in internet parlance is often a masquerade for what the writer is substituting for religious dogma. Peer reviewed studies are required to refute the dogma sayer's arguments but not to support them. Etc etc.

I personally have very little interest in debating RP outside this event because I don't need to prove to anyone it works just fine. I'd rather spend my effort trying to get dudes to be better with women and get laid.

I don't particularly care how we come off in a sub that exists solely because we created original thought and they latched onto it. It's like extolling the greatness of the Kardashians to frat bros. Wrong audience

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

Science in internet parlance is often a masquerade for what the writer is substituting for religious dogma. Peer reviewed studies are required to refute the dogma sayer's arguments but not to support them. Etc etc.

Exactly. The way to make your point therefore is to point out where he is using it as religious dogma.... not to say "You religious dogma is right! So I must prove to you I am a co-religionist that believes the same silly things you believe in order to win the argument".

The way out is to tell him... You're using this as a religious dogma. Here is where that is wrong.

If you do it that way, you win the argument and (more importantly) look to unaligned lurkers as though you are talking sense, and maybe they should look into this RP thing after all. Those guys talk sense.

I personally have very little interest in debating RP outside this event because I don't need to prove to anyone it works just fine. I'd rather spend my effort trying to get dudes to be better with women and get laid.

You aren't debating to prove it to them. That never fucking works. They NEVER change their mind.

But for every 1 guy/gal you are talking to on PPD.... there are approximately 2,000-3,000 lurkers reading that thread who are unaligned. They have no dog in this fight. They are easily convinceable by the right arguments, when they see those defeating the wrong arguments.

If RP wants to re-orientate it's intake away from "Dumb incels excited by the chance to be mean and trolly about women" to "Clever Redditor, who are excited by the chance to learn new things being described by clever men who know their stuff".... then you've got to come and debate in such a way as that is who you attract.

If you don't.... your intake will continue to be dumb incels and idiots.... and TRP will continue to lose relevance and go down the pan, as it's original smart and clever userbase is overtaken by it's new dumb and trolly one.

I don't particularly care how we come off in a sub that exists solely because we created original thought and they latched onto it.

We didn't latch on to anything. We exist to debate RP. Not to promogulate any view. We are not "TRP for being purple" where we try to sell a "purple" view of dating.

We exist so TRP had a place to (originally) debate TBP and (now) can debate anyone who wanders by. It's there for RP to strut its stuff in front of a wider world.

Never changing the mind of 1 person they are talking to. Often changing the mind of the 3,000 readers any particular thread gets.... if you're good enough, and if you can use the truth of RP to show the world how we're right.

It's like extolling the greatness of the Kardashians to frat bros. Wrong audience

You're thinking of your debate partner as "the audience". He's not. He's "your opponent".

When (say) Jordan Peterson debated Cathy Newman on Channel 4, did he change Kathy Newmans mind ? Fuck No.

Did he.... by exposing his thought to the world and making her look like a dumbass.... convince a few thousand, a few million, people to come listen to him more on his site ?

Yes. Yes he did.

As a result he gained thousands of people coming to hear him talk.... and got to spread his views far and wide to those with the brains to listen.

Thats what PPD and sites like it offers TRP.

The person you are talking to is your megaphone, your billboard, your TV station.... the people in the crowd, driving by, watching the show, the lurkers are your audience.

TRP is in massive decline, because it's currently playing to a dumb audience. Largely incels.

PPD offers you a smart audience. And if TRP wants to ever re-achieve the quality it once had.... the quality needed to write further sidebar articles, to extend RP well.... it has to find a clever audience to play to.

PPD can be a small chunk of that. You're going to have to find other places like PPD as well and in those places you've GOT to make arguments that appeal to a clever audience because they are right and not to a dumb audience because hur hur hur girls suck, amirite.

Thats whats getting you the incels.... and it's causing a downward spiral as long as when the dumb userbase goes off and represents TRP elsewhere it does it in that dumb way.

[-] itiswr1tten 2 Points about a month ago

Hmmm. Interesting point. I'll save this for later

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

out of curiosity. Why are you so hell bent on winning over people who clearly do not want to be won over?

Most of those "arguments" are just mocking the percieved lack of status of the speaker. Back when PPD used to highlight insightful debates (how many years ago was the last?) whisper had a wonderful explanation why BP thinking people will never agree to anything RP.

If you're worried about appealing to a larger audience, than logic isn't the way to get there. If it was, MGTOW and MRA would be killing it...

They aren't.

People only care about status first, and emotional engagment second. The logic is a distant third, and even then, people want the appearance of logic, not actual logic. thats why a handsome man with a PHD can tell you about homeopathy, use fancy words, and people buy sugar water for thousands of dollars.

If you're really worried about losing the narrative to spergs, be more attractive than spergs.

for as RP as you claim to be, I'm surprised you never figured this one out yet

[-] party_dragon 1 Point about a month ago

Although social science is, by the criteria used to define science, perfectly scientific.... it may be wrong... by science doesn't guarantee being right. It just guarantees you follow the scientific method.

"Scientific method" requires experiments. That's not something social studies can do (proper, reproducible, controlled experiments). Therefore, they cannot be social ~sciences~, only social studies.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

No, they do experiments to the level required to be called science (and way above the level done here).

Other sciences sail much higher over the "minimum bar". Physics etc.

But social sciences inch over that bar. With the seat of their pants just scraping it on the way through.

And RP (for all that I love it, and for all that I think it has discovered a correct view of the world) gazes longingly up at the bar and sighs "Well, if one day some RP gazillionaire creates the Institute for Sexual Strategy and endows it well, we too could get over that bar".

[-] party_dragon 1 Point about a month ago

But social sciences inch over that bar. With the seat of their pants just scraping it on the way through.

Sure.

Overall, 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05) compared to 97% of the original studies that had significant effects. The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 3 Points about a month ago

Yes. Thats an absolutely perfect example.

There is a replication crisis ... thats science working. They are attempting to replicate studies, failing, and therfore removing previous scientific beliefs as incorrect because they failed replication.

Thats what science is.

I'll believe RP is science when I start seeing Sticky Threads that say "Replication Crisis in RP: Three Articles Struck from Sidebar as Theories Failed to Replicate".

Thats the point.

Once the replication crisis has passed, psychology will be much more accurate than it is now as they will have struck from the record all the bad stuff that failed replication because it was not true.

If there was a similar replication crisis in RP (i.e. if it was reaching the minimum bar that Psychology is) then by the end of it the sidebar would be significantly more correct and useful than it is now.

Thats the "win" condition, right ?

Or has RP given up on making their view of reality as accurate as it can be ?

[-] party_dragon 2 Points about a month ago

Maybe when the replication crisis passes, psychology will be a science. Still unlikely, because (1) 5-sigma experiments involving people are too expensive, (2) many experiments are unethical (e.g. TRP stuff), (3) it's too censored by PC, and (4) people can alter their behaviors after psychology discovers them so that makes it really hard for it to move towards "better understanding of reality" (i.e. reality keeps changing).

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

Maybe when the replication crisis passes, psychology will be a science.

No. Science is not "things that are true".

Science is "a method for correcting errors within a body of thought".

The replication crisis IS the science.

When Einstein proved Newton wrong (in certain areas) it didn't mean that Newton wasn't a scientist, or that the previous physics was not a science. It showed that it was a science... because it was capable of correcting errors within itself.

Still unlikely, because (1) 5-sigma experiments involving people are too expensive,

No one ever said science had to be cheap. And no-one said science has to reach 5 sigma.

(2) many experiments are unethical (e.g. TRP stuff),

Again, that doesn't stop it being a science. It does stop it from using certain methods to look at certain subjects... but other, perfectly scientific, methods still remain available.

Neuroscience didn't stop being a science when they were no longer allowed to put electrodes in chimps heads anymore. They just had to find other, more ethical, ways of getting the same data and correcting their errors.

(3) it's too censored by PC,

This actually would stop it being a science. If (and I'm not accepting this yet) they were prevented from correcting their errors by the actions of Political Correctness. If they were forced to stay wrong, it would no longer be a science.

Much as if a TRP member reports an FR, and it was deleted for "saying that RP didn't work in this situation" that would prevent Rp being a science. It would be an attempt to stop error correction at work.

(4) people can alter their behaviors after psychology discovers them so that makes it really hard for it to move towards "better understanding of reality" (i.e. reality keeps changing).

<eyeroll> You can scientifically study dynamic systems. Both by studying how and why they change. And also by studying the current state.

I'd also heavily dispute how much humans are really changing. The genes that build us are certainly changing no faster than they are for all the other animals, and I think that society is much more a "construct built to serve the purposes of genes" much more than we give it credit for.

We're not divine beings created by a divine spark.

We're animals, like all the other animals, created by genes to do one, single, job.... copying those genes.

Our psychology are an outcome of that process no different than beavers psychology, or birds psychology, or chimp psychology.

And our society are an outcome of that process no different than a beavers dam, a birds nest, or a chimp using a stick to poke into a log to get termites.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

The crisis is in that there aren't replication studies being done.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

No, that want the crisis. That was the “Oops”moment when they realised they realised that they had to live up to the promise of the scientific method.

The crisis cane when they did so... and realised they’d fucked up by not doing them earlier/quicker/better and by so doing had been believing false stuff.

Like a good science they didn’t ban anyone who pointed this out and yell at them “Read the Sidebar dumbass, it says it’s true right there” but instead went about correcting all their errors.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

You're trying to dominate someone who is either inarticulate, or frames the issue differently than you do. It's no wonder you don't get the result you want, you're as persuasive as a brick.

I know the PPD system, re-frame the argument so the logic is sound, then passive aggressively berate someone until they acknowledge it. I am not even mad, it's a great example of holding frame. If I were going after the stem degree 35 year old female demographic, I'd probably do the same.

But at a certain point, you clearly understood that it's not meant to be a science, not in the way you want it to be. It's never going to be given the rigor of mathematics, and it's a fools errand to assume it will be. Like I said earlier, at best you're going to get a social science level of rigor, and I mean this as a pejorative statement. It's a bunch of non-science educated tinkerers engineering a set of systems and mental models to navigate the world. don't make it more than it needs to be.

End of the day, it's hobbyests who use some of the ideas of the scientific method, of persuasion/marketing, and a bunch of tools women use in relationships, retooled for male sensibiltiies. All this is to achieve a certain aim, happier and more fufilled men.

In that regard, and with it's messy implementation, I find it does the job rather well, and the longer it goes on the better it will get at it.

As for this need for a solid impenetrable logical veneer? I've seen many MGTOW/MRA and invel channels on youtube with hour long rants and anime AVI's have great internal logic, that won't persuade anyone to do anything. If you want to go down the logic route, have at er, but I wouldn't compete with the guys who cannot get laid and jerk off to Jung all day.

And not part of this idea, the idea that you've been fairly good at implementing RP, yet I've not seen you able to guide TRP/MRP to any direction in line with your views... why is that? Why do you find it easier to nag the guys who put in the work here until they do what you want?

And in the least persuadable way I've seen in a while.

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

Although social science is, by the criteria used to define science, perfectly scientific.... it may be wrong... by science doesn't guarantee being right. It just guarantees you follow the scientific method.

Because I like RP, but I spend most of my time defending RP to infidels.....

You basically are an infidel. You're arguing within the very construct which functioned as our self imposed prisons.

We broke free by letting go of irrational skepticism and embracing a pragmatic approach to our lives, rather than waiting for our lives to be spoon fed to us by our new god science.

OH GREAT SCIENCE, TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE.

Meanwhile you're subjecting yourself to a bunch of people with a 150iq finding new and creative ways to distort uncomfortable truths.

Someone just tried blasting me with some study about how women "don't like dominant men."

Basically 20 pages of absolutely nothing being said with paragraph after paragraph of "well, basically we can't say anything concrete, but maybe this warrants further study."

We're done with our study, women like being choked, having their hair pulled, slapped around and fucked silly. They choose abusive men over "good men" because female arousal is counterintuitive.

We don't care if you can't validate it with a study because we're too busy getting our dick sucked and giving a shit about whether or not we can align it on top of "science" is worthless.

I did a close enough approximation of that with my AF\BB post. If you need "more science" after that, then you're not here to better yourself, it's just an academic masterbatory exploration. And if that is your actual purpose, then TRP would trigger the fuck out of you, because the end goal N count, good sex etc. It can't possibly accommodate your wishes.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

As for your beef with certain EC posters I'm Not My Brother's Keeper. Some of these dudes are kind of wacky but I love them all

Wait, I thought the whole point of EC was you all keeping each other in line? If someone has repeatedly demonstrated good knowledge and whatever whatever dick sucking fluff, they get the EC tag. And if they drop the ball and go full retard, you should be pulling EC flairs, no?

[-] itiswr1tten 3 Points about a month ago

Plenty of EC flares have been pulled in the past. But I don't make that decision, and I'm the newest EC so I don't play intra fraternity politics. I do encourage participation and civility

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

Plenty of EC flares have been pulled in the past. But I don't make that decision, and I'm the newest EC so I don't play intra fraternity politics. I do encourage participation and civility

What forms would I have to fill out to file a formal complaint?

[-] itiswr1tten 3 Points about a month ago

I'd say just do the digital equivalent of shitting in your hand and throwing it at us.

Being serious for a moment, they're just words on the internet. Ignore lists are very useful and necessary features of a forum.

[-] Littleknownfacts 2 Points about a month ago

I'd say just do the digital equivalent of shitting in your hand and throwing it at us.

Cool, I'm off to a good start so far.

Being serious for a moment, they're just words on the internet. Ignore lists are very useful and necessary features of a forum.

I got too much FOMO for the ignore button. Plus I'm a little addicted to rage.

[-] itiswr1tten 4 Points about a month ago

Clearly. It takes a certain type of person to deliberately seek out something they hate and go shit on it over and over again without a real goal in sight. Bravo

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

Clearly. It takes a certain type of person to deliberately seek out something they hate and go shit on it over and over again without a real goal in sight. Bravo

Hey I don't seek it out. But if he says something profoundly stupid at me, I want to be able to properly shame him for it.

[-] sadomasochrist 2 Points about a month ago

The vanguards. A senior EC can send it up the flagpole for you though.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Have a trusted opinion for TRP.

It's the same reason MRP and TRP have such weird beef. Each group does their own requisite work, thought, effort. Each group assumes that their 'status' (and ill use it loosely here) carries over to the other group.

It doesn't. Same as (and I'm sure you know) just because someone is an EC doesn't mean they get leeway in your sub.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

It's not for us to circle jerk with. It's a quick nod to the readership that this person is more likely to be espousing useful information.

It's not an award, it's a filter

And if they drop the ball and go full retard, you should be pulling EC flairs, no?

remember neoreactionsafe?

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

It's not for us to circle jerk with. It's a quick nod to the readership that this person is more likely to be espousing useful information.

And what happens when they stop being likely to be giving useful information?

It's not an award, it's a filter

So then it really has no relevance to people outside of your little hierarchy.

remember neoreactionsafe?

Yes. Is he no longer endorsed or whatever?

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

No he's not. There's been a few over the years, apologies if we don't announce it so everyone may sleep at night. If you feel that raw about sado (I assume that's where you're going with this?) perhaps you should take it up with him

So then it really has no relevance to people outside of your little hierarchy.

Isn't it obvious? Outside people can take what they like from it. It's not meant as a reward, idiots then try to game the system to get in the 'cool club' which is the exact sort of behavior we are filtering against. Some may treat it as such, we can't control that though. As long as things are moving in the right direction, we try not to sweat the small stuff, no one benefits from purity spirals.

I have to ask. I gather you were part of that RPW exodus from back in the day? The seething disdain coming from your posts is disproportionate to your responses.

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

No he's not. There's been a few over the years, apologies if we don't announce it so everyone may sleep at night. If you feel that raw about sado (I assume that's where you're going with this?) perhaps you should take it up with him

Can I ask what was the final straw in the NRS story?

Sado is one of a few. And I do, in PPD. Often. Much to his embarrassment.

Isn't it obvious? Outside people can take what they like from it. It's not meant as a reward, idiots then try to game the system to get in the 'cool club' which is the exact sort of behavior we are filtering against. Some may treat it as such, we can't control that though. As long as things are moving in the right direction, we try not to sweat the small stuff, no one benefits from purity spirals.

Idk in the PPD announcement thread there were many reds saying "don't listen to the uneducated trolls, ECs are the ones with the goods!" Well if we are going to be giving special attention to ECs, shouldn't you be monitoring what the ECs continue to day after they get the fancy flair? That's literally asking us to give ECs special meaning.

I have to ask. I gather you were part of that RPW exodus from back in the day? The seething disdain coming from your posts is disproportionate to your responses.

Yes I was. But I have nothing against the mods/ECs here in general. Just a few that I've personally interacted with that were exceptionally and consistently terrible. Redpillschool for example, has thus far been a charm. Itwaswritten is making a lot of the mistakes that newbs to PPD make, but it does seem like he's learning and adapting and I have faith he isn't an idiot. There's a few others in this thread who's usernames I forgot who have also been witty and held their own in real debate. My seething disdain is reserved for only the individuals that really have earned it.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

K

[-] redpillschool 5 Points about a month ago

I don't think science, as a field, is safe from cultural biases. Scientists risk careers suggesting things such as racial differences, sexual differences, problems in "trans theory," or even climate change.

So for that reason alone I'm skeptical that even if RP was 100% true, that the scientific community would agree.

Couple that with the fact that I consider psychology and sociology very soft black-box type sciences, that often wander into the realm of unprovable and non-falsifiable, you really don't have much to lean on for or against TRP.

In the heat of an argument it's useful to post stats but we all know you can get stats to say anything. I'm sure I'm guilty of doing just this.

On the other hand, stats can help inform us of cultural shifts and such.

My measure of whether a particular facet of TRP theory is true is whether or not it matches my experiences, whether others have similar experiences, and whether the conclusions and predictions made from it work / come true.

You can use things like divorce rates and average marriage ages to fill in the gaps, but I don't think it would pass as a scientific journal.

I think TRP is more men comparing notes than it is double-blind studies.

This can appear to others as simply confirmation bias- we ignore reports that disagree with us and discuss the reports that support us. But I don't think that's what it is.

When a report is so counter to our theories that it's a complete contradiction, I think most of us think - well you can tell me women don't respond to XYZ but .. they do when I do it so I'm going to keep doing it and safely ignore this bit of science.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

OK,

There are lots of interesting things there. Some of which I agree with, some I don’t. In the interest of brevity I’m going to skip to the part where you answer my question....

.

Ah. It seems we have a problem. It seems as though you didn’t answer my question.

All of the above may be relevant to our discussion, but I don’t know... because you didn’t answer the question.

Now, perhaps I wasn’t clear... or perhaps you missed that bit (I do tend to ramble on). The question was

Does TRP consider themselves to be acting scientifically ? Or regard, in some sense, RP as the output of science ?

If you could answer THAT with your big, important, shiny, “I’m a representative of TRP” hat on then we’d know whether some of the other points you made were relevant because of the answer is “No” then we don’t need to discuss the above. Just “why are the ECs acting like idiots then?”

If it’s yes, we can go through some of the above if you like.

But it’s the question above that has to be answered before we know which “fork” of the debate we’re going down.

Thanks.

[-] redpillschool 6 Points about a month ago

I think I did answer it, just not within your false dilemma.

It wasn't really a yes or no question.

Do I think that we're performing double blind studies on TRP? No.

Do I think the scientific community would consider our work to meet their standards of proof? No.

But-

Do I think the scientific community in this social climate could come to our conclusions even if they were 100% true and easily testable? No.

We're men comparing notes.

Do I think our theories have predictive power? Yes. To a very large degree. And most guys here agree.

Is there a chance that all 300,000 users here experience flukes on a daily basis and we're actually 100% wrong? Well, yes, but that seems unlikely.

Is there a chance that what we do works but not for the reasons we think? Sure.

Does that make it science? Not in the way that a university would acknowledge, but I would say in the way that all great thinkers in history have managed to function in this crazy place we call earth - it's pragmatism, hypothesizing, and testing.

Are some things wrong? Probably. Can a lot can be improved on? Sure. And we'll keep updating and iterating as we go.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

I think I did answer it, just not within your false dilemma. It wasn't really a yes or no question.

It is very much a yes or no answer. If you apply and use some form of the scientific method you are a scientist, and your results are science.

If you do not.... you may be right... your view of the world may be correct... you may be very useful... you may have discovered an excellent way of working out the world. But you're not a scientist.

Mechanics are excellent at fixing your car. Mechanics fix things, are knowledgable, use science as part of their work, are very useful people to know if you want your car fixed. But they are not scientists because they don't apply the scientific method so much as "bang it with a hammer, and lube it up, and if the car works jobs a good 'un"

Thats no slight on mechanics. If you want your car fixed....go to a mechanic.

Thats RP. RP is very good at fixing your "car". We know what we're doing. We show you how to bang it with a hammer the right way to make it go brrrrrrrm. Like the mechanics we might even use a bit of scientific knowledge here and there.... "the smelly liquid that you pour in goes BANG when you light it, and the change in pressure pushes the piston". See, using "science".

But they're not scientists. And any mechanic claiming "to be a scientist" or "what we do at Jakes Auto Shop is science" is taking perfectly respectable and useful mechanics... and making them idiot pseudoscientists.

Do I think that we're performing double blind studies on TRP? No. Do I think the scientific community would consider our work to meet their standards of proof? No.

Do you (crucially) do something Popperian Falsification ? No. Do you do any of the things that would qualify RP as a science ? Maybe, a few sorta. Do we meet the criteria therfore to be a "scientist" or "do science" ? No.

So we're not scientists. Makes our views no less valid. Use the mechanic metaphor.

But any EC that says "RP is science" or "Rp is scientific" is wrong, and fooling himself and other people.

We're men comparing notes.

Do I think our theories have predictive power? Yes. To a very large degree. And most guys here agree.

Yeah, I'd agree too... Like our mechanic would listen to where the "squeek" is coming from, and thinks "Right, lets check the flux manifold first. Might be that".

But he's not doing science either.

He's trying to fix a car using the non-scientific method of "trying shit out to see what works based on a good knowledge of what different squeeks on a car probably mean".

Is there a chance that all 300,000 users here experience flukes on a daily basis and we're actually 100% wrong? Well, yes, but that seems unlikely.

To be scientists you have to elimte that unlikely thing, have to want to do so.

Look... A scientist hearing that squeek cannot assume "Oh it's probably the flux manifold. Try replacing that". Thats not being a scientist.

he has to prove to an extreme level of accuracy that it MUST be that, and can be no other thing. He then has to publish that. Other people must try to prove him wrong. They have to fail to do so. THEN he gets to say "that squeek is caused by the flux manifold".

Thats no fucking good to a guy trying to get his car fixed. He's been sitting in the waiting room for 4 and a half years and the car is still broken. Because although the scientist is now sure the queek is the flux manifold, he has no fucking clue how to fix flux manifolds.

What the guy needs is a mechanic... who does not really give a shit if it "really was" the flux manifold to a P>0.05 level, or for peer reviews, or for falsification..... who will just use his knowledge of cars to fix the damn thing. If he changes the manifold, and thats not it, so he changed the doo-hicky whatadooby next and that works. Jobs a good 'un. Here is your back sir, 30 minutes later, working like a dream.

Does that make it science? Not in the way that a university would acknowledge, but I would say in the way that all great thinkers in history have managed to function in this crazy place we call earth - it's pragmatism, hypothesizing, and testing.

Not in a way anyone would acknowledge.

Because you're not "doing science" you are.... in essence.... "fixing cars".

And the sidebar isn't "the state of a scientific field".... it's a "mechanics manual".

And the TRP front page is NOT "Harvard Physics Review"..... it's "Mechanics Monthly".

And field reports aren't "Peer Reviewed Articles".... they articles in "Mechanics Monthly" saying "Here is the way I found to fix a car when you hear a squeek coming from the flux manifold".

Are some things wrong? Probably. Can a lot can be improved on? Sure. And we'll keep updating and iterating as we go.

You're thinking about this wrong.

Your thought process seems to be "If I admit we're not science then we are wrong" or at least "If I admit we're not science then there is a good chance that we are wrong".

When the mechanic admits not being a scientist.... does that make him wrong about how a car works ?

Would you really listen to a "mechanical Science" major tell you "your broken car is probably cause by A" .... and then a greasy mechanic with 40 years under his belt saying "Listen mate, don't listen to the egghead. It's probably B. Seen it a million times".... and then go and DO what the scientist said ?

No. The fact that the mechanic is NOT a scientist is an ADVANTAGE concerning his ability to fix fucking cars.

[-] redpillschool 2 Points about a month ago

It is very much a yes or no answer. If you apply and use some form of the scientific method you are a scientist, and your results are science.

If I test a hypothesis and analyze the results, am I a scientist? I guess by your definition I am. I don't think all scientists would agree with your definition.

Do you (crucially) do something Popperian Falsification ? No.

I would argue our theories are very falsifiable. Did acting this way make things better? Yes / No

Did you get laid tonight? Yes / No

Is there a chance that all 300,000 users here experience flukes on a daily basis and we're actually 100% wrong? Well, yes, but that seems unlikely.

To be scientists you have to elimte that unlikely thing, have to want to do so.

I'm sure you understand that no matter how many tests scientists do on gravity, there's a chance that every single test has been a fluke.

We have a forum collecting experiences from men. Every day longer we participate and every new member that joins pushes us closer to "not a fluke."

I'm really not sure what you're on about to be honest.

I've told you my view. We're guys sharing notes, coming up with ideas, testing them and revising them. I don't think any scientist would call it science, but I don't think the well respected fields of psychology or sociology would arrive at red pill theory even if we knew it to be 100% true (in a hypothetical situation where we had a phone call with god or something).

So you seem really stuck on this mechanic metaphor. I don't know what to tell you. If that makes you happier you can think of us like grease monkeys. Just oiling up so we do our sex better.

But make sure you fit into this metaphor that not only are we mechanics fixing men's sex lives- we're doing so in a culture that claims mechanics don't know how to and cannot get laid. And yet we're able to figure out how to "fix" men's problems without a manual or school to teach us.

And how do you come upon such knowledge? Trial and error. Test and revise. I think that's something you'd classify as science. But I mean I don't know why you're so obsessed with words.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

If I test a hypothesis and analyze the results, am I a scientist? I guess by your definition I am. I don't think all scientists would agree with your definition.

No you are not.

You'd have to do that. And record the results. And then do other experiments in order to rule out other factors than those you are assuming were the cause of the result. And submit it for an independent group to attempt to disprove it. And then accept their result, if they showed in their experiment you were wrong.

Then you'd be a scientist.

If I "form a hypothesis" (red hats make me horny). I test it (put on red hat). Then get horny (get results). Then anaylse my results (hypothesis proved. Red Hats make you horny).

I am not being a scientist. I am being a twat.

As you'd soon discover if you went to the next stage a real scientist has to go to.... perform other experiments (put on a blue hat?).... and submit results to independent groups (Independent Group: Our results we're when we put on red hats, did not get horny).... and accepted the results (Oh, OK then. Hypothesis seems to need more work. Doesn't look correct).

Critically, you didn;t attempt popperian falsification.... trying to prove that your hypothesis is WRONG. Preferably with an independent review (article in journal) or independent testing (as above).

I would argue our theories are very falsifiable. Did acting this way make things better? Yes / No. Did you get laid tonight? Yes / No

Thats not popperian falsification.

You're not attempting to rule out other causes .... "Things got better, did they do so because of what I did ? Or because of some other factor ? More testing needed".

You're not submitting to other groups trying to show you're wrong (see above).

You're not, in fact, performing the scientific method at all.

You are putting on hats, getting horny, and assuming the hat made you horny.

Thats not to say that you do around here is wrong. And that the results you get are wrong.

You are using "trial and error" and a few other things.... "reading scientific articles".... "collating results from multiple instances".... etc etc... to get at the truth.

Like a mechanic does.... and with similar success.

But what you're doing is NOT science.

"Not being a Science" != "Getting a false view of the world".

You're getting a true view of the world... but you're not performing science to do it.

Just as your mechanic is fixing the car, and probably working out what the root cause is.... but he's not doing it by science either. He too is using "trial and error" and "reading the manual" and "a lifetime of experience" and occasionally "just banging it with a hammer until it works" to get to the right result.

We're mechanics. We're not scientists... and it is very important that if you're going to get ECs to represent RP they understand this perfectly well.

I'm really not sure what you're on about to be honest.

Well, I'll let you into the endgame here.... One of your ECs figured it out like a champ. It's only you and all your other ECs that have blundered about like idiots....

Once RPS gives up the ghost I'll tell him why they can't say "We are scientists/RP is a science".... but as you're there ahead of him I'll tell you.

It goes like this....

1) Bloop/Person suspicious of RP says "Is RP a science ?"

2) EC correctly assesses that the bloop is trying to trap him. If he says "No we're not a science" the bloop will say "Then you're wrong. If you're not scientific how can we know RP is the truth. If you're not scintists this is all bullshit".... so..... EC says "RP is scientific"

3) NOW the bloop has got him against the ropes. NOW the bloop can make the EC and RP look foolish. The EC ends up saying things like "Field Reports are Peer Reviewed Articles" and "The fact that so many guys think it's right, is independent proof" and all sorts of other things shoehorning RP into a "science" frame. All trying to prove RP is science. All whilst the bloop maintains (correctly) that it isn't, and continues to reinforce the frame that "only science can tell you the truth"

4) The Bloop runs rings around the EC.... Everyone watching can see the bloop has won.... The RP EC storms off in a huff muttering about "Stupid Bloops" but everyone who's mind wasn't made up already can see the "bloop was right" and "RP was wrong". Everyone watching loses confidence in RPs ability to "correctly assess reality" if the ECs are saying the stupid shit the EC is clearly saying on this thread trying to pretend RP is science.

Result: Bloops 1 RP 0..... any non-aligned observers think RP is wrong.

How it HAS to go is this....

1) Bloop/Person suspicious of RP says "Is RP a science ?"

2) EC correctly assesses that the bloop is trying to trap him. If he says "No we're not a science" the bloop will say "Then you're wrong. If you're not scientific how can we know RP is the truth. If you're not scintists this is all bullshit".... so..... EC says "RP is not scientific. We're mechanics"

3) NOW the EC has the bloop against the ropes, the Bloop is in his frame. NOW the bloop will start saying things like "If it isn't science, how can we know it's right ?". And the EC can answer "the same way your mechanic knows how to fix your car, he's not a scientists is he ? But he'll fix your car just fine". The Bloop ends up saying things like "Nothing that isn't worked out by the scientific method is true" and the EC can reply "Really ? How many science articles have you read on how to open a door ? Yet, surely, you can open doors can't you ?".

4) The EC runs rings around the Bloop.... Everyone watching can see the EC has won.... The Bloop storms off in a huff muttering about "Misogynist Neanderthals" but everyone who's mind wasn't made up already can see the "RP was right" and "the Bloop was wrong". Everyone watching gains confidence in RPs ability to "correctly assess reality" if the Bloopss are reduced to saying the stupid shit the Bloop is clearly saying on this thread trying to pretend only science can find the truth.

Result: Bloops 0 RP 1..... any non-aligned observers think RP is likely to be right ... and that this Bloop is a fucking moron, because who needs a science article to know how to open a door ?

By saying "RP is a science" the EC is.... extremely ironically.... buying into the Bloop frame that only science can ever find the truth. Once he does so AND makes the initial howler of trying to win in this frame (RP is science).... he makes RP look like a bunch of twats who don't know their arse from their elbow.

The way out of this one is the mechanic metaphor.

Here endeth the lesson. (For You). RPS might still bumble about making an arse of himself for a while before he gets it, but he'll get there in the end I'm sure. He's a smart guy.

So.... this is the problem all you're fucking about trying to pretend RP is a science is causing.

Unaligned men.... trying to decide whether RP is correct or not... reject RP not because it's wrong. But because your ECs (and you seemingly) make a terrible hash of trying to pretend to be something you are not in order to "win" the argument

I've told you my view. We're guys sharing notes, coming up with ideas, testing them and revising them. I don't think any scientist would call it science, but I don't think the well respected fields of psychology or sociology would arrive at red pill theory even if we knew it to be 100% true (in a hypothetical situation where we had a phone call with god or something).

If you're not s science, and you're admitting so..... Stop the ECs from saying you are. You look like twats.

Tell them to say "We're not scientists, we're mechanics"..... and RP will be significantly better represented by those ECs every time they say it.

So you seem really stuck on this mechanic metaphor. I don't know what to tell you. If that makes you happier you can think of us like grease monkeys. Just oiling up so we do our sex better.

Yes, because it's the best metaphor (this is not my first time on this rodeo bull.... it's about number 25.... other metaphors work, but this works best, and saying "we're a science" makes us look like twats, and gives people a false impression that RP is "a bunch of twats making things up" rather than "a bunch of mechanics who can fix human males")

And how do you come upon such knowledge? Trial and error. Test and revise. I think that's something you'd classify as science. But I mean I don't know why you're so obsessed with words.

No, I wouldn;t classify it as science. Neither do scientists. Neither does anyone else. Neither does the dictionary.

And every time an EC or another "authoratative figure in RP" claim it is science... We. Look. Like. Twats.

And men who would have had the chance to understand RP turn away.... and go listen to some blue-pill idiot and fuck themselves over.

[-] redpillschool 1 Point about a month ago

And men who would have had the chance to understand RP turn away.... and go listen to some blue-pill idiot and fuck themselves over.

Honestly anybody that needlessly pedantic probably wouldn't get along here anyway.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

No. The person you are talking to is indeed a lost cause. The bloop above is NEVER going to change his mind. He is NEVER going to join RP.

BUT.... on a each thread we have 2k-3k lurkers.

They are unaligned. They come to PPD to hear arguments from both sides, and work out whether it's worth coming to TRP.

If you fall into this trap they get the impression "TRP is a bunch of idiots making stuff up, seems like it really is all misogyny and idiocy with no real clever and new thought here".

If you do not fall into this trap they get the impression "TRP is a bunch of clever guys who know their stuff, seems like it really is a much clearer view of reality than the stuff I normally read. Maybe I should bear the misogyny and idiocy to go hang out and learn more of this clever stuff from the clever guys on TRP".

If they do.... you get "Clever, clear sighted, free thinking guys who want to learn new concepts" subbing to TRP.

All you're getting now is incels. Because no-one sees you making clever arguments anymore. All they see is ... guys acting like twats and getting things wrong.... and misogyny.

So all you get are twats interested in misogyny.

What you need are the clever free thinkers.... and things like falling into this trap are whats preventing that happening.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

PPD is not, and never will be, a feeder sub for TRP, nor should it be.

If anything, when we ban masses of incels, peterson fans etc, I love how they flood there instead of here with their nonsense.

[-] SteelSharpensSteel 1 Point about a month ago

Follow up question - what do you think can be improved on?

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] whatsthisgarg 2 Points about a month ago

/u/-TheGreasyPole- We learned from Aristotle not to expect more precision than the subject matter allows. Your question is an exasperating straw man. Nobody is posting their Masters thesis on here. It's not the scientific method. That doesn't mean it has nothing to do with science.

My measure of whether a particular facet of TRP theory is true is whether or not it matches my experiences, whether others have similar experiences, and whether the conclusions and predictions made from it work / come true.

This is what it is. Basically TRP is just all anecdotal evidence. But when it describes and predicts every single significant moment in your entire life (my experience), it has enormous explanatory power. The End.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

It's not an exasperating strawman.

It's a trap frequently set for RP posters, that ECs should know better than to fall into. It becomes "exasperating" when they fall into it, because they've trapped themselves into a sitaution where they can only lose (although, it's an argument they should easily win).

It's an opportunity to show off the robustness, cleverness, truthfullness and usefulness of RP.... that ECs and TRP posters commonly cock up so badly they look like idiots.

[-] whatsthisgarg 1 Point about a month ago

We learned from Aristotle not to expect more precision than the subject matter allows.

You ignored this part. You are being excessively pedantic. If someone uses the word science or scientific you don't hold them to professional or academic standards unless the context is appropriate.

Or maybe you are just a colossal fucking nerd.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

Well. I’m certainly not going to argue I’m not pedantic.

But words have meanings.

The meaning for “science” RP is trying to use here would equally well apply to... astrology, or to crystalology.... it would not apply to, say, physics because they use the scientific method and we don’t.

So I guess you can say “We’re scientists... but only in the same way astrologers and Crystal ologies are scientists, not in the way physicist are scientists” then I guess you can go ahead.

But that’s the point. Youwant some of the respect to physicists to rub off onto you... and don’t want the bad reputation of astrologers to rub off into you... so you’re fundamentally claiming something here that you’re not entitled to claim if you say “we’re sccientists”

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Language, Cap

[-] max_peenor 3 Points about a month ago

“RP is scientific”

Let's be super honest here. There is a very low bar for that. Anything that at least attempts to record results seems to get a pass as science in most venues. With this in mind, I think you'll find RP science across the map here--some is direct and some is just thinking out-loud hoping for revelations. Both are useful. Neither are by any means conclusive.

In terms of how I believe science should be described, I think Whisper has nailed it. TRP is better described as engineering.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 3 Points about a month ago

Let's be super honest here. There is a very low bar for that. Anything that at least attempts to record results seems to get a pass as science in most venues.

No, you want there to be a low bar for that so you can claim to be scientific. There is actually a high bar for that.

With this in mind, I think you'll find RP science across the map here--some is direct and some is just thinking out-loud hoping for revelations. Both are useful. Neither are by any means conclusive.

It's not science. It's trial and error... it's sharing results... it's reading some science... it's working things out.... it's a means of getting to the truth that works. But that is not science. It is just a means of getting to the truth that works.

In terms of how I believe science should be described, I think Whisper has nailed it. TRP is better described as engineering.

Absolutely. So thats at least 2-3 of you who have worked out the trap people set for RP when they ask them "Is TRP a science?"

Someone still has to tell RPS though. He hasn't worked it out.

Here is the trap I'm trying to teach your EC's to avoid. You'd be surprised how many fall into it. About once every 6 months an EC comes to PPD and falls in the exact same hole and looks like a twat.... and generally gives the impression to any non-aligned or scientific minded observers that RP is a bunch of bullshitters who don't know what they're talking about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/aq797q/the_sea_of_civility_official_noban_freeforall/egerohu/

[-] max_peenor 2 Points about a month ago

There is actually a high bar for that.

Your bar is not the world's bar. Spend some time near a university campus in CA and you'll find they strap that title on everything they do. I find it particularly entertaining when one of the bastions of STEM is called computer science which is performs as software engineering. As practiced in the vast majority of the industry, it is neither a science nor is it engineering.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

Your bar is not the world's bar.

No. The dictionary definition is the worlds bar.

You can fool some of the people some of the time into ignoring that (largely dumb incels)... but the smart people TRP desperately needs can't be fooled by that.

Spend some time near a university campus in CA and you'll find they strap that title on everything they do.

Yes, by being idiots about it...sure.

It's not going to fool anyone worth a damn.

It wouldn't have fooled the original creators of RP back when they created it. They were smart enough not to be fooled.

The reason TRp is in decline is.... those smart people see through the arguments you make now and only the dumb incels are buying it.

NOT because you're any more wrong than you used to be. RP is still right. But because you are now presenting it in a way that only fools dumb people.

Like saying "RP is science.... because using the definition of people hanging out in a CA bar for science, we're scientists".

Any smart person will think "this place is full of idiots" and will not sub. A dumb incel will say "Well, that seems like a smart answer. Where do I sign up?"

I find it particularly entertaining when one of the bastions of STEM is called computer science which is performs as software engineering. As practiced in the vast majority of the industry, it is neither a science nor is it engineering.

Well, I happen to agree with you there. Computer Science (as it's practised) should not call itself a science. Software Engineering should encompass the computer science curriculum and swallow that up.

[-] max_peenor 1 Point about a month ago

science[sahy-uhns] SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR science ON THESAURUS.COM noun a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. any of the branches of natural or physical science. systematized knowledge in general. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. a particular branch of knowledge. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

a particular branch of knowledge.

I'll go with that one as a basement and that could be pretty much anything, including dedicated navel gazing.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 2 Points about a month ago

scientific method[sī′ən-tĭf′ĭk]

n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Using the principles of the scientific method are necessary to call an investigation scientific.

Or the results of such an investigation science.

a particular branch of knowledge.

m_p: I'll go with that one as a basement and that could be pretty much anything, including dedicated navel gazing.

Well, yes. But thats why thats not a good choice from those dozens I can see available in your thesaurus.

Look I just went to the same site (thesaurus dot com) and searched for "hat". One of the results is "lid".

I can't pick that one out and claim now that hats now describe saucepan lids perfectly well.

Doing science means utilising the particular principles and procedures of the scientific method. Fields or people who claim to be doing so, but who are not doing so, are pseudoscience or pseudoscientists. Not scientists.

pseudoscientificDictionary result for pseudoscientific /ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəntɪfɪk/Submit adjective falsely or mistakenly claimed or regarded as being based on scientific method. "the pseudoscientific nonsense of their theories"

By calling RP theories scientific theories, you are claiming they are based on the scientific method, and because you do not use that method you lay yourself wide open to being described as pseudoscientists... because (lets be fair here) that is what you would be if you said RP was science, you were a scientist, and RP theories were scientific.... someone trying to claim an authority that they have no real right to lay that claim to.

RP is not following the scientific method. Most obviously by not attempting to falsify it's theories..

Discussion of "Are RP theories false ?" is actually a banned topic of debate on TRP. You would mod away any serious attempt at falsification.

If Newton had written a sidebar article... Einstein would have been banned before he got the chance to post The General Theory of Relativity to the front page.

You can't do that kind of thing and then claim to be a science.

You can do that kind of thing and still be right. Or at least you can still be right enough to be incredibly useful to anyone reading your theories just as Newton was (and remains) incredibly useful despite Einstein.

But you can't be science if you do that. And claiming so really, genuinely, makes us all look like idiots... especially when there is an alternative way of answering the same question, or expressing the same view, that makes us look like the intelligent, truthful, insightful people that (some) of us are.

[-] max_peenor 1 Point about a month ago

Using the principles of the scientific method are necessary to call an investigation scientific.

Look, I understand you and I have twice noted that my bar is much higher. I'm telling you that's far more stringent than is accepted in general now. I gave you the basement example and it pretty much is a catch all for everything.

I'm not being obtuse here. This is how people actually operate. You don't operate like this and nor do I. We don't matter.

you are claiming they are based on the scientific method

This is where it all goes to shit. I see no end to survey studies pushed as scientific evidence in pretty much every venue. These are not an example of the scientific method, since there is literally no experimentation. Yet hordes of people accept this as science.

Einstein would have been banned

Kinda not Rule Zero and all, so yeah.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

I'm not being obtuse here. This is how people actually operate. You don't operate like this and nor do I. We don't matter.

But it’s not how they operate. Under the definition you want to use... Astrology and Crystology are “sciences”. No-one calls them science.

So I guess you can say “We’re scientists... but only in the same way astrologers and Crystalologists are scientists, not in the way physicist are scientists becaus me they use the scientific method and we do t” then I guess you can go ahead.

But that’s the point. You want some of the respect to physicists to rub off onto you... and don’t want the bad reputation of astrologers to rub off into you... so you’re fundamentally claiming something here that you’re not entitled to claim if you say “we’re sccientists”.

By all means claim RP is equivalent to astrology. That’s not going to get the effect you desire.

Only claiming something like “Oh god, of course we’re not scientists... we’re more like engineers or mechanics” gets you the effect you want (good assumptions rubbing off on RP).

Saying this is science, when we don’t use the scientific method, has the opposite effect. We get associated with astrology or homeopathy, because like they do we’re associating ourselves with science without using the scientific method... that means bad associations we don’t want (this is all bullshit, dismiss without reading) gets associated with us.

I see it happen literally every day in PPD. And lurkers reading those threads (who are persuadable) come away thinking we’re like astrologers and should be dismissed... and not we’re like engineers/mechanics who have lots of useful knowledge to impart even if that knowledge is gained using non-scientific methodology.

[-] redpillschool 2 Points about a month ago

Someone still has to tell RPS though. He hasn't worked it out.

Man you are obsessed with this topic and arguing about the definition of science. If you haven't figured it out yet, we don't particularly care about the "is it science?" question. Call is sharing notes I genuinely don't care.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 3 Points about a month ago

It's not an obsession, it's a debate.

And it's one I'm trying to use to correct the ECs where they're wrong about RP.

Isn't that what this thread is FOR ? What else did you hope to get out of an open debate but to correct your errors ? Thats the "win" condition.

It's about making TRP better at what it does than it currently is now.

Your guys are not as good at this as they once were. The quality is declining of your userbase, and even your ECs. You guys need to bring it back up to somewhere like it used to be, or all you're going to attract is more dumb incels, further extending the downward spiral.

I want you to halt that spiral.... because RP doesn't deserve to die under a weight of incels and idiots simply because it's "High Priests" got lazy and forgot how to present RP views in a clever, honest and authoritative way.

This was just my warmup. An easy one I could knock out quickly before V Day.

You guys have got slack. You've been missing leg day. And the quality of TRP (and RP generally) and so the future existence of RP is on the line.

You need to go lift again.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

debating that “RP is scientific” or “RP is science”. I then have to unfuck their heads on this point.

Good. Praxeology is right at the top of the sidebar. The most charitable interpretation you would use is it uses the scientific method. Theorize, test, assess etc. But expecting controlled experements, double blinds, at best you'll get peer review.

To call that science is a stretch though. Are you sure you're just not misinterpreting the arguments? Sado has a habit of being overly verbose

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

I would link you the post but your automod is vicious.

He titled it “TRP is science, not pseudoscience”..... and went on to describe FRs as equivalent to peer reviewed articles, guys saying “this works for me too!” as the equivalent of proper replication etc etc within the body, enumerating such things as a list.

It’s about half way down the first page of his submitted tab.

He went “full retard” with it. No half measures. Never go full retard...

Anyway, the way I explain it is (as you said) a praxeology.

As “Medicine” is a praxeology drawn from the science “Biology”.... or “Engineering” is a praxeology drawn from the science “Physics”.... so “Red Pill” is a praxeology drawn from the science “Evolutionary Psychology”.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

I think I know the one you're talking about. I took it as tongue and cheek.

Sado is sado. he means well, but you guys seem genuinely triggered when he goes off. For that alone I enjoy what he writes

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

It's not scientific. It's more of an art form. It's hypothetical theory based on observation and collation of anecdotally gathered data, put into practice as an art.

[-] -TheGreasyPole- 1 Point about a month ago

Yeah that works too.

I prefer the mechanic analogy, but this works perfectly well and avoids the pitfalls of calling it science.

(Oh, and hi Lewis! Sorry we had to ban you, we really tried for an awful long time not to do so, but by god you just couldn’t stay civil)

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

We've already had that discussion. And I doubt you're sorry. I was civil; you guys just wouldn't apply the rules fairly or consistently. There are people far less civil than I am who still post there.

[-] zettaflareduck 13 Points about a month ago

Has TheRedPill made your life happier? And both for yes and no: in what way?

[-] VisiblePlan 16 Points about a month ago

Yes, I am now more attractive to women, wealthier, and more fufillied than before it.

[-] krowitz 12 Points about a month ago

Yes, because I now understand that I only get to worry about things I can control, and let go of things I can't.

I honestly sometimes reminisce how happy I was when I was innocent. But everyone has to grow up at some point, and I did here.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

yes, because I now understand that I only get to worry about things I can control, and let go of things I can't.

That’s like AA right?

[-] krowitz 1 Point about a month ago

It is what it is.

[-] whatsthisgarg 9 Points about a month ago

Has TheRedPill made your life happier? And both for yes and no: in what way?

Yes, absolutely. In what way: it has given me the courage of my convictions.

Not only that, it has made everyone around me happier. Women want to be controlled.

[-] SeamusAwl 8 Points about a month ago

Has TheRedPill made your life happier?

Absolutely. I get more of what I want and have quit getting mentally abused by my own covert contracts. I know that my potential is only limited by myself. On top of all that, I know that when I want to get laid, my wife is very enthusiastic about her body becoming my playground.

&#x200B;

[-] valourtore 8 Points about a month ago

In the beginning, no, because I realised that I was a loser at that point and would die out like I deserved to. The acceptance that I was worthless to all humanity (but especially myself and females) hurt like a throbbing wound.

After just 1 year of acknowledging my shit and using TRP to fashion my understanding of reality and inner values, I have literally improved in every facet of my life and am actually proud of how far I have come. I can’t wait for more life.

[-] RedPillLawyerGuy 7 Points about a month ago

Yes. I now consciously make my choices based on whether or not they will improve me, not me+1, not me+whoever. As a sexual strategy, the red pill is about understanding how biology and societal norms interact; those are two areas with definable rules and patterns, so there's very little unpredictability.

[-] burnyr 7 Points about a month ago

No. It made me aware of the worthless sack of shit that I am, too lazy to get anything done while at the same time removing the ability to go back to my previous, more ignorant self.

[-] BuzzLightGear321 2 Points about a month ago

+1 for being only no and being honest. Red pills can suck, especially since they make you immune to blue pill bliss.

[-] zayelion 2 Points about a month ago

There is a distinct possibility that I am wrong here, but I am fairly certain that realizing that "one sucks, but one can fix it eventually" does not compare to the agony of female psychological abuse normalized by our society used when they feel "mildly misunderstood". Blue Pill methods I would not call by any stretch bliss.

I'm being slightly sarcastic, my point is most of us are coming from pure pain.

[-] redbananaboard 6 Points about a month ago

Yes, the principles changed my life for the better. Applying TRP principles helped me to improve myself mentally, spiritually and physically. As a guy that was raised by a hard-working single mom and two shitty minded uncles, I missed many valuable lessons every man that wants to be a real man needs to learn. Lucky me I found the knowledge I needed. Now three years after embracing TRP I'm healthier, balanced, both mentally and physically stronger. I'm happy every day as I'm living life in harmony with my goals and dreams.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

Wow that’s great! Good for you.

[-] Vikingcel 4 Points about a month ago

Yes. Just getting closer to understanding the real world makes my life happier.

[-] zayelion 3 Points about a month ago

Yes. It is easier to communicate with, and predict women. Hearing "women are crazy" I see as appalling now. Women now describe me as charming, crude, and nice not creepy weird and passive-aggressive now. Its easier to express my feelings and for me to understand the feelings of women.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

It’s interesting that you mention it’s easier for you to express your feelings. Seems contraindicated per the sidebar.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

He probably does express them. Just not to women, or to his woman/women.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

When asked “has red pill made your life happier?” He literally said “it’s easier” to express his feelings. I’m not caring at whom that expression is directed. I think it’s great that he is happier. As far as I can tell a lot of the trps have no idea who and what they are. I don’t mean that patronizingly at all. It’s just that I’m very definitive in my feelings and thoughts.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

As far as I can tell a lot of the trps have no idea who and what they are.

This has nothing to do with expressing feelings to anyone. You don't have to vomitpuke your feelings onto people in order to know "who and what you are".

It’s just that I’m very definitive in my feelings and thoughts.

Experiencing feelings and thoughts is not the same as expressing to other people those feelings and thoughts.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

Ya I think it does, but we can disagree. S’ok.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

It doesn't. But yeah, let's agree to disagree.

[-] SmokinGrunts 3 Points about a month ago

Without a doubt, yes. Mentally, Physically, and Socially. I've been able to watch myself grow into an independent, self-motivated man who doesn't need to rely on anyone but myself.

[-] heronmarkedblade1984 3 Points about a month ago

It has saved my marriage in the last year, see my reply in the other non civil thread, I'm not sure if we are supposed to link to other discussions. But YES both my wife and I are MUCH happier post red pill

[-] anonlymouse 3 Points about a month ago

Yes. It allowed me to make sense of what went wrong with my past relationships, and now I can be myself, rather than having moderate myself based on feminist indoctrination.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

It's made my life more fulfilled and more functional. I get what i want and need much more easily and efficiently now.

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

YES

[-] Proto_Sigma 1 Point about a month ago

Yes.

I value my health much more and have become physically stronger,better nourished and better rested as well as more physically attractive.

Beyond that I feel more comfortable interacting with women and now have a much better grasp of interpersonal dynamics.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Fufilled. Happy is a misnomer. Happiness comes and goes

[-] banana_apple_pear 8 Points about a month ago

I was very lucky in life: I'm 183 (6 feet), I'm healthy, I was able to complete an education at a university, I didn't lose all my hair in my early twenties, etc. Nevertheless, I had very little success in my life with women. That is, until I started making some changes. The most important ones: a few plastic surgeries, an upgraded wardrobe and lifting. In particular the fact that I started to lift seriously (in October 2017) was inspired by TRP (previously I was only doing some simple exercises in my room with two cheap dumbbells and a pull-up bar, without consistency).

And gues what? In 2018, I slept with twice the amount of women I had slept with in all the previous years of my life! That doesn't include all the kisses yet. Instead of being invisible in the club, girls now actually approach me! Even men come up to me in the club haha, to compliment my body (almost never in a homosexual way, btw ;-). )

(of course, I often also had a lot of luck, for example with logistics, but on the other hand, it is often said that luck is when opportunity meets preparation, so while I shouldn't take all credit, I can take a bit).

I still haven't finished reading the side-bar yet, so normally I'm not allowed to post here, but today I finally have an opportunity to do so, and I wanted to use it to thank everybody for making TRP possible, in particular for hammering on the importance of lifting. Having experienced some success with women has given me quite some inner peace and confidence. My life feels much more interesting and awesome now, and I feel better about myself.

[-] BuzzLightGear321 7 Points about a month ago

Thank you for not posting before finishing the sidebar, most people disregard that rule

[-] PimPedOutGeese 3 Points about a month ago

Plastic surgery? Interesting.

What did you change?

[-] banana_apple_pear 3 Points about a month ago

I had protruding ears and had them put closer to my head. Also my nose was fucked up due to kickboxing (a bit crooked with a hump on the bridge), so I had that fixed. And finally I had an ugly mole removed from my body (but girls could only see that mole once I took my clothes off hehe).

I also want to point out it's quite taxing on the mind. The first weeks after each facial surgery I was obsessing a lot about how I looked. I was standing in front of the mirror 100 times a day, worrying about if everything was symmetric, if the tip of my nose wasn't too upward-pointing, etc. It's easy to become perfectionistic. I really had to force myself to stop obsessing. Now I'm extremely happy with the results, but in the beginning it wasn't always easy.

[-] jarjar_the_darth 7 Points about a month ago

How did you guys find TheRedPill in the first place? I'd just be interested in stories about joining this community.

[-] AnAbsoluteSith 11 Points about a month ago

Kept hearing horror stories about this place and figured I had to witness the dumpster fire myself. Was pleasantly surprised to find a lot of what I read here lined up with a lot of my experiences and observations, and connected man dots for me.

[-] rukken 9 Points about a month ago

Must have been an askreddit thread with a title 'What are some absolutely horrible vile subreddits?'. If reddit hates something, I have to check it out.

Concepts like 'laws of power', 'frame', 'dark triad', 'powertalk' made so much sense. Blew my mind, so I stayed.

[-] VickVaseline 8 Points about a month ago

I Googled, "Why has every girlfriend I have ever had always treated me like shit?" TRP was the top hit.

[-] Persaeus 8 Points about a month ago

google - "why doesn't my wife love/fuck me anymore?"

[-] FereallyRed 8 Points about a month ago

Rearended at 90mph by a pickup truck. I was on a motorcycle. Should be dead. Aftermath... couldn't gym, chronic pain, grew into the couch, drank too much, got fat and whiny. Wife stopped fucking me.

I googled something like, "why won't my wife fuck me?" and ended up on married red pill. That led here because my relationship has always been nontraditional.

I'd become beta. Realized that. Fixed that. Fixed marriage, to even better than I was doing naturally pre wreck, as seeing the matrix makes you aware of it's pervasiveness.

I stay because I see it work, not to fix relationships, but to "unfuck yourself". Ownership. Discipline.

[-] Persaeus 3 Points about a month ago

I'd become beta omega (aka a POS).

ftfy. alpha and beta are the two orthogonal sides of the male attractive coin. alpha makes her wet and beta makes her comfortable. omega is just gross and useless.

[-] curious_curtain 2 Points about a month ago

TRP seems to favor walking out of a relationship rather than trying to mend it. It also favors, at the most extreme level, never commiting to a woman, yet you made use of TRP knowledge to fix your marriage. How could you make the balance between RP strategy and blue pill behavior (i.e. being married) while still holding to TRP principles?

[-] FereallyRed 2 Points about a month ago

That's a meaty question.

Truth is, I don't belong completely in either sub. Or maybe I belong in both.

There are similarities, and there are wide differences, and infighting does occur.

However, first correcting your misinterpretations and assumptions, then summarizing the strategies both subs use, then explaining why I chose to keep my wife and spin plates and maintain subs, then defending how or why it does or does not align with trp or mrp rules, would take about four pages and four hours.

I know, because I've done it before.

I'll just leave a few quotes and passages...

From MRP...

We are men that subscribe to The Red Pill (TRP) philosophy of sexual strategy, and are dedicated to applying it in marriage or in Long Term Relationships. This sub was created independently to address the needs of married men to discuss relationships issues."

Our goal is to help newly unplugging men trapped in loveless, unhappy, low-sex marriages. By becoming stronger and more assertive men, they can bring a lot of happiness to their marriage and LTRs. We encourage men to grow in those areas before reaching the point to "next that bitch." MRP was specifically created so that married, committed men could have a place to discuss marital issues without the younger crowd immediately howling: "NEEEXXXXT!"

  • u/BluepillProfessor

From TRP...

TRP is a toolbox that you use to achieve your goals. Your goal is the "what is this about". And no two men will have the same goal, nor the same route to getting there. So if your goal is to train a woman to please you, you use the tools within TRP that are suitable to that goal and ignore the rest. There is no underlying philosophy to TRP other than "apply the scientific method to methodically figure out what works" and "don't let people trick you into thinking that their goals are yours".

  • u/HumanSockPuppet
[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Yup. sometimes there's tradeoffs. Next isn't such a sound strategy when some simple tweaking will allow you to still see your kids more than every 3 months for a week

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

A ring doesn't change human nature.

RP isn't anti marriage per se, it's against divorce and what comes with it.

[-] PimPedOutGeese 7 Points about a month ago

My first two girlfriends I had ran amuck on me... And when the second (basically my first sex relationship) left.... I really wanted some company. Preferably hers..... After time that didn't matter... I wanted company. I was never successful with women before. I can remember asking this girl for her phone number at Home Depot (we both worked there) and she got upset, ripped a piece of paper, wrote on it some number, which I'm sure was fake, and gave it to me... (so cringe worthy... Even back then it didn't feel right).

Then a really good friend said look what I found...

This was back in early '00s. When PUA was Al the rage lol. So I started learning from David D'Angelo and his CNF (what's he doing these days anyways) and inner game. I had INSTANT success! Within a month I was getting more booty than I have had in my entire life LMAO.

Then I started hearing about others that was Prime back then.. Neil Strauss, mystery, etc... I read Neil's book The Game. I started seeing videos on PUA. Online dating was somewhat popular back then and not overly saturated. My "game" was working on those women. Great! I then had a big move across the country. What I learned was still getting me where I wanted to be... Then one day it kind of stopped. Online dating was garbage (because I was out of shape... Thx RP) and my old "techniques" just wasn't working. Google became my friend and I found RP...

Again instant results. But what was so insane about it this time was the MENTALITY SWITCH! I never learned that. Inner game is BY FAR the most important tool! Yea spitting some lines is good and all... But without inner game not only will you screw it up but the girls will see right through it.

Anyways longtime lurker really... This AMA made me post!

[-] valourtore 7 Points about a month ago

Metoo happened and I started wondering about all the fuss. Hopped onto media to find disproportionate supporting of the female side, followed by a chorus of feminism and toxic masculinity press. As a man started wondering if I am evil because I am a man and I need sex. Kept searching in “progressive” news outlets like the Guardian and NYT (which I then respected) only to receive the same POV offering high and lofty opinions on why men need to be conditioned to be feminine. Apparently this was what women wanted. This actually disgusted me on an instinctual level. Was it self-interest? Yes, with a touch of real-life experience and observations offering the exact opposite results.

Started looking for alternative POV and discovered Chateau Heartiste and Dalrock, which at first seemed absolutely anti-women as if to deny them agency, but I continued reading because it was so banal and as I read, I could not deny what they said. Applied their lens to all relationships and was horrified. It was all true (according to my personal experiences). I had been lied to all my life, promised the Disney romance and the old dream of a beautiful family...

I took a good hard look in the mirror. I was entitled. I was worthlessly average. Yet I had believed that it was all to be mine. Now I know I have to work to become anything, and the world would not give a shit if I died in a ditch one rainy day, but at least then I would die with pride, having struggled to become something.

I still can’t shake the unfairness that women are born with (and grow physically into) beauty and are valuable for it alone (so long as they are average everywhere else). Perhaps because I’m still at the stage where every women my age is valuable because she is young, doesn’t eat too much and wears makeup alone. I recognise that as they age they become more open to relationships, but getting TRPed before being in a deep relationship is a double-edged sword: I don’t think i will ever love a woman the way the old me would’ve, but now at last I love myself.

[-] Whisper 6 Points about a month ago

I observed things around me and came up with it, then I went out the internet and talked to some other dudes who were doing the same thing.

We never expected it to get this big, or provoke such intense scrutiny.

[-] max_peenor 5 Points about a month ago

I registered this account to troll another sub and someone sent me a link to here telling me how horrible it was. Very quickly I started recognizing some themes from my life that had evaded explanation so I started participating. (This lead me to abandoning the troll plus my oldest reddit account, but that's another story.)

So yeah, that's why I have a ridiculous username.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

Wow!! I’m so glad you shared this info. I used think you were so awful cuz of it and now I know you’ve got an actual sense of humor!!

[-] GeminiSix6 3 Points about a month ago

For me it was the Red Pill movie. Which ironically has nothing to do with this sub other than the name. Anyway I'm happy I found as the harsh truth has made me better myself.

[-] krowitz 3 Points about a month ago

Had a nasty breakup and know that deep down inside it is the best for the both of us. Pressured by people around me to do my best to fix it and cave to what that woman wanted, I tried googling for something to read that affirms what my instinct says. Funny enough, it sent me here.

[-] WarViper1337 3 Points about a month ago

I first heard about TRP a few years ago when some youtubers I watched kept mentioning it. At the time I didn't fully understand what the reference was. My LTR was also going down hill during that time (it was founded on blue pill principles and there was just no saving it at that point) and I think I had ran across some other video talking about TRP in depth and that person also mentioned the TRP subreddit. That was when I first landed here and started absorbing the side bar. My life has been better ever since. I am in better physical shape now than when I was 20 years old and I am still improving. I went from virtually no compliments on my appearance to "He is the one that works out all the time and can kick all of our asses". I am now happier doing things that fulfill me and just acting like the man I was meant to be.

[-] zayelion 3 Points about a month ago

"The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature: Matt Ridley" doing more research into that brought me to Rollo's books. I think its kinda intresting the sentiment in all those books doesnt match this subreddit much at all. I've found the MRP much more informative for "what to do", and here for "a collection of all roads of action, more theory"

Red Queen is a really good primer for people, it dives into some logic expressed in Rollo's second book. Honestly it should be in the sidebar. But thats my opinion. ... its like an misogynism vaccine.

[-] Metalgear222 3 Points about a month ago

My buddy told me to stop wasting my time on girlsinyoga pants sub and start reading here. First discovered book of pook and I was hooked. I read something like 6 hours a day for the first few weeks.

[-] Mojiitoo 2 Points about a month ago

I was always into picking up, but something seemed wrong. Used to be shy and introvert, the Game and stuff made me confident and extrovert. Also Simple Pickup on YT were my heroes.

But still something was missing. Like, I talked to a girl for over an hour, made her laugh, and still she ends up kissing somebody else 10 minutes later.

After I discovered reddit, somehow came back to r/seduction because I was on a dry spell for the first time in years (gained weigth and became lazy) which kinda was the level I used to be, and then I got redirected here.

All puzzle pieces fell together (smv, women date up and not down, be fit). 13 KG down and more confident than ever before.

[-] anonlymouse 2 Points about a month ago

I was on MR. They were talking about how TRP were the real mysoginists, and how it was unfair they were getting lumped in together. So I figured since others were wrong about MR, that they might be just as wrong about TRP.

[-] PerplexingPegasus_ 1 Point about a month ago

At first I seen someone retweet a Patrice O’Neal video on twitter. Later binged his black Philips show and Tom leykis.

Still didn’t know about the red pill but what made me truly discover the Red pill was the Toronto Minivan massacre. The news brought up the term “incel” as the guy participated in those subs, being curious so I did more research and stumbled on the subreddit. Read the sidebar and everything clicked regarding all my past relations.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

I've been around since before TheRedPill subreddit was founded. I was in the manosphere pre-subreddit. Found it through reading a political website, and a link to an article by Kay Hymowitz which was in turn linked to the old Roissy site (now heartiste).

[-] BuzzLightGear321 1 Point about a month ago

Had a wild ride of a first relationship where I lost my virginity, but she went crazy, fucking friends, FRA, breaking up and then begging to get back together, threatening suicide, etc.

I thought to myself "Either I'm extremely unlucky, or people have not been honest with me in regardless to dating and women". Went looking for answer, found mgtow, then TRP. I was unlucky, but I was lied to too.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Proto_Sigma 1 Point about a month ago

I was into a youtube channel called ManWomanMyth I thought he was kind of whiny but made good points. Somehow or another (I honestly forget the details, maybe a link in the comment section) I found The Red Pill at the end of my senior year of High School.

I made this account just to post here ( it was my introduction to reddit and TRP remains one of a handful of subreddits I use). I ate up the sidebar and some of the archived post and started trying to turn my life around.

[-] whoareyou31 5 Points about a month ago

Totally believer of TRP but Imma be real I dont think it has produced any results for me. I like to believe that Im not doing it right but Im having some second thoughts.

[-] KeffirLime 10 Points about a month ago

It takes time.

It's certainly something you are able to implement better once you've already been successful with women, which is a paradox in itself.

You're supposed to behave and think like someone who's getting tons of women when you're getting tons of women.

The best way I can describe it isn't it snowballs, once you get through the first few layers it picks up a lot of momentum and you generally get a lot of perspective.

The self improvement, discipline, lifting, confidence aspects can only benefit you, once it leads to sex, all else will fall into place

[-] whoareyou31 3 Points about a month ago

Ive has many successes with women already. I just want hotter girls. I feel like me trying to implement RP ideals and method is not effective compared to how I used to be.

I do like that aspect about RP the most: self improvement. When people say RP is pickup artist shit or only use to get girls I tell them no RP is about me, women are irrelevant. Its about my self improvement.

[-] KeffirLime 5 Points about a month ago

Precisely that, you're putting too much emphasis on them, hence pedastalizing them and making them harder to obtain.

When you don't view them as "hotter" or "better" women, you'll approach them as just another women and be far more successful.

[-] antariusz 3 Points about a month ago

Exactly. Treat every single girl as if they are a 8 and you fucked a pair of 10s last night and you’ll be fine.

I mean no one is going to “turn down” an 8... but you aren’t going to treat her “special” either.

Works better when you actually have had threesomes with 10s. And then you got strep throat from one of them, so you’re like I’d have rather spent time with an 8 that wasn’t going to get me sick, and then you realize again that all women are the same anyways.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

women cluster aronud the mean, with everything.

If you're fucking 7s, realize there are no 8s 9s or 10s. It's all makeup and accutrements

[-] MentORPHEUS 9 Points about a month ago

I like to believe that Im not doing it right

Possible. I embraced TRP because it not only explained so many things that happened to me in the past, but became predictive of future behavior as well.

[-] realpillzzz 2 Points about a month ago

What did it explain?

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

but became predictive of future behavior as well.

So like the opposite of a mutual fund? Whose behavior did it predict? Yours? Like you had a feeling you’d soon be getting lots of hobbies?

[-] MentORPHEUS 1 Point about a month ago

Whose behavior did it predict? Yours?

It improved predicting peoples' responses to my different potential behaviors, as well as the outcomes of their various behaviors toward me and others.

Prime example, the sequelae of supplicating behavior toward a bitchy disrespectful woman, versus treating her unreasonable behavior as that of a child.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

supplicating behavior toward a bitchy disrespectful woman, versus treating her unreasonable behavior as that of a child.

Ya I’m totes on board with that! I can’t stand little bitches that let you walk all over them then cry about it. Go you.

[-] FereallyRed 5 Points about a month ago

Go to askTRP and post your issues.

[-] sadomasochrist 3 Points about a month ago

Are you trying these result to obtain a girlfriend, and\or would you say that you are better than most other men?

[-] clavabot 2 Points about a month ago

In the same boat, if you find an answer link me <3

[-] BloodSurgery 8 Points about a month ago

Why don't you search the answer for yourself? Instead of asking for it being delivered to you.

[-] itiswr1tten 7 Points about a month ago

Because if they actually took fucking ownership of their lives all their problems would gradually go away

[-] clavabot 2 Points about a month ago

^ exactly

[-] clavabot 1 Point about a month ago

If we have similar issues your solution should work for me to some degree, that would be an answer to my issue, then I do this process over and over until I find the most optimal answer for me

[-] Metalgear222 5 Points about a month ago

The solutions are always the same. Improve SMV at all costs. If it’s not working for you, you’re not trying hard enough. The world is full of BPers right now, that makes an RP-educated man’s mind high value and in high demand. The only other aspect is putting the work in instead of reading something, feeling good for 30 mins and then going back to your shitty life and habits. I don’t even have to ask details, I already know this is hitting home for you.

[-] banana_apple_pear 4 Points about a month ago

How do I prevent the boyfriend-zone without being player-shamed? I have the impression a lot of girls immediately want a relationship with me. I don't want to lie to them and play with their hearts/feelings, but I think that telling them upfront something like "I'm only interested in sex" is also not good (that's also why we often give reasons to take a girl back home. "You have a beautiful view over the city from my balcony, come over to check it out").

So in other words, my question is how I can have sex with a woman without creating any expectations of a relationship? Any tips regarding this? Or is it just a matter of finding the slutty girls and avoiding the innocent ones?

[-] Metalgear222 9 Points about a month ago

There’s full posts on this. The way I see it there’s 2 main options:

Recommended: dodging the question for as long as possible (any decent-self respecting woman will eventually move on if you don’t give them the commitment they seek, which is fine)

My stance: be upfront. i tell my plates straight up i don’t do monogamy and that my standard is likely way too high for them to be LTR material, but that it shouldn’t stop them from trying. The truth is unicorns are MADE. this paves way to be “training” them into better companions for my own interest. it may not be popular opinion but i do prefer to leave them better than i found them. This means getting them to fully submit, eat clean, workout, quit smoking, reduce drinking, educate themselves, learn to cook, find fulfilling careers, etc. Some of us don’t mind our women in our societies going to total shit; me I refuse to let the world burn around me, so I’ll continue to put forth the effort. I do this in reverence of nature and the balance of masculine and feminine energies, something I highly value.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 2 Points about a month ago

This is gonna sound strange but I respect that

[-] itiswr1tten 4 Points about a month ago

Where you're failing is you're overtly communicating. That is not a turn-on for women. You need to learn to covertly communicate that you are a fun guy who isn't willing to be tied down just yet. The most effective strategy is to state, honestly or dishonestly, that you are OPEN to a relationship but take your time getting to know the girl first.

Even if you pull this off perfectly, some plates are going to break. That's just how it is. I'd say my game is Rock fucking solid and it still happens to me on the regular. C'est La Vie buddy

Better to be the player than the simp either way

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] NextBad 4 Points about a month ago

Honesty and finesse, Just say your looking for fun and not anything serious. I found having this attitude brought more sex than a relationship. Most young women just want sex, but don't want to seem like sluts.

&#x200B;

Women may want to chase you , if they like you, but the more you stick to your guns the more they will like you, it's a interesting cycle.

[-] ParanoidFolkStories 4 Points about a month ago

Why is feminism, socialism, and other branches of leftism despised so much?

I don't see how this is harmful to society, most liberals I've met are just students I talk to that are pretty chill, not like the radicals you see online

[-] max_peenor 14 Points about a month ago

There are plenty of Endorsed Contributors that are avowed leftists. I certainly don't despise them at all. I'm not a big fan of the brands of leftism that wish to overturn the Constitution of the United States. I'm a huge fan of free speech and our fundamental rights to defend and fend for ourselves. If you have a brand of leftism that fits in there, and many maintain they do, then go for it.

feminism

Let's be very clear about one thing here. Feminism and its sexual revolution has been a stunning victory for the top 20% of men. We no long have to give commitment or resources to get regular sex. Personally, I love feminism, however I can also see it will be the undoing of civilization as we know it.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

There are plenty of Endorsed Contributors that are avowed leftists

Who?

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Me.

I know people need a basic safety net to prevent overthrow of a system. the pareto principle is just too stabilizing without a check to its results.

Also, I like how things like EI, or a BI (if they could ever make it not retarded) would free people from coerced labor. Of course I accept that means a balance between freedom and free riders

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] RedPillLawyerGuy 11 Points about a month ago

Center-left here.

&#x200B;

I enjoy classical feminism -- the idea that women and men are legally equal (same legal rights, due process, autonomy over person, etc). Modern feminism tends to swing in the direction of "men and women are biologically equal" (anything you can do, I can do too). This is lopsided to me, and ignores basic biology.

&#x200B;

Socialism, at its root, encourages laziness. Marx's main idea was that everyone would work as hard as they can, and only take what they need. This is an unrealistic view of human nature, because every person wants the opposite (to get as much as they can with as little effort as possible). In addition, today's incarnation of socialism focuses more on equality of results, rather than equality of opportunity. The New Deal, to me, was perfect socialism -- it created jobs and government agencies committed to thoughtful regulations -- but today it wouldn't be enough for the left unless the jobs paid better than local businesses, and it was so watered-down with bureaucracy trying to make all the outcomes equal.

[-] redpillschool 3 Points about a month ago

I enjoy classical feminism -- the idea that women and men are legally equal (same legal rights, due process, autonomy over person, etc).

Really you could say that's just classic liberalism.

[-] Proto_Sigma 2 Points about a month ago

Off topic but The New Deal sucked and permanently altered the relation between government and citizen, weakening restrictions on government power in the Constitution. On top of that an increasing economic literature suggesting that it prolonged the Great Depression rather than shortening it.

My politics don't fit neatly on the spectrum so I try to eschew it but as far as economics go I'm about as far right as it gets(free market purist), so make of that what you will.

[-] RedForEducation 2 Points about a month ago

I'm convinced that things changed whether femenism was around or not.

If you look, the timespan between only landowning men having the vote, to black men, non landowning men and women having the vote is a generation.

It was already moving in that direction, femenism just rode the coat tails afforded by the industrial revolution

[-] zayelion 2 Points about a month ago

Same, and well said. I'd like to add that modern feminism a victim mentality and any social change or development will have an authoritarian element to it. Right or Left, authoritarian actors simply want power and for others to suffer in the case of feminism, BLM, and Israeli, its a revenge fantasy that only flips the nouns of the statement and does not remove the injustice. That is not to shame proper wage comparison, even handed policing and justice systems, and a nations right to protect itself. "The left is eating itself" colloquially.

[-] Metalgear222 10 Points about a month ago

Many of the lessons and advice learned here tell you to take responsibility for your life. We’re told no matter how shitty things are pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get to work to improve yourself towards the goal of self-actualization. You mentioned 3 things:

Feminism - victim mentality with tons of misinformation peddled that breeds contempt towards males and healthy relationships (referring to the balance between masculine and feminine energies)

Socialism - the idea that you should not be self-sufficient and reliant on a system outside of yourself. Counter-productive to self-improvement. Especially when this system mandates you to have to care for others that may or may not care for themselves. (Example - welfare)

Leftism - largely a victim mentality again counter productive to self improvement. Teaches us to be coddled and weak whereas strength and discipline are really the lessons that should be taught.

[-] AllahHatesFags 8 Points about a month ago

Feminism and socialism are two very different parts of leftism, so I will elaborate:

Feminism is the cause of all the problems in the current sexual marketplace and is destroying the family unit that all successful societies are built around. It is a horrible, toxic ideology that blames men for all the problems in the world the same way that Christians blame Satan. It also encourages unchecked hypergamy, rigs the family court system against men, derides any criticism of female behavior as "hate speech" that should be banned, glorifies obesity, and attempts to redefine rape and sexual assault to mean any unwanted male attention or contact regardless of how long ago it happened or whether or not there was any sort of penetration.

Socialism is all about economics, I personally support it for reasons related to automation, the environment, and out-of-control crony Capitalism that keeps wrecking the economy with no repercussions for these fucking Wall St. assholes responsible. I'm pretty sure my opinions on socialism are in the minority here, though. I think a lot of the guys here hate it because they associate it with handouts given to those worthless single mothers and lazy bums, not realizing that even the most hard-working man still can't compete with a machine that can do his job faster and better and doesn't need breaks, food, or wages and that all the people who will be put out of work by it can't just magically find new jobs.

[-] Proto_Sigma 1 Point about a month ago

Limiting the power of government to create cronies is a great way to get Free Market Capitalism "All the creative energy and none of the Cronyism."

Just saying.

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 4 Points about a month ago

Why is feminism, socialism, and other branches of leftism despised so much?

Because they are all about doing what you're told, taking what you're given, with no reward for hard work and talent - everyone gets a trophy.

I don't see how this is harmful to society, most liberals I've met are just students I talk to that are pretty chill, not like the radicals you see online

So lately someone tried to tell me that being PC was just about "being polite"- ofc, if that was the case than nobody would mind. Except it's not. Try deviating from the "approved" narrative. If you do, the Left wants you hunted down, shamed, fired from your job, your wife raped and murdered and your kids indoctrinated.

Socialism is for losers who can't succeed and don't want anyone else being "better" than they are. And when socialism fails we are told it's because it wasn't "real" socialism. So I guess it's "almost socialism" But let's have a look at the record, shall we?

Given how badly "almost socialism" has turned out, well, everywhere, I suppose that's lucky--remember Venezuela? Somehow "Scandinavian-style" socialism didn't bloom there. Or in Somalia. Or North Korea. And so forth. Ofc, there's no "pure capitalism" either, but the difference is that while "almost socialism" has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions, "almost capitalism" has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and will continue to do so, so long as it is permitted to.

That's why socialism sucks.

[-] redpillschool 4 Points about a month ago

Why is feminism, socialism, and other branches of leftism despised so much?

I believe in live and let live.

Anybody who doesn't believe that is bad in my book.

They want to interfere with my life, then it's war.

That includes censorship and anti-male laws.

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

Because they function on idealism, as opposed to pragmatism.

[-] EkMard 0 Points about a month ago

All violations of the private property rights of individual persons, enforced through violence, are intolerable. Any unwanted interference into my life will be met with violence.

[-] BuzzLightGear321 4 Points about a month ago

Question for mods after today: What were your expectations coming into this free for-all? How did it turn out in your opinion? Will you do it again?

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

They wanted ppl to sit with them at lunch!

[-] zayelion 3 Points about a month ago

If you dont reproduce whats the point? Hard mode or deadbeating seems like the only option. I understand if one loses frame (I love the biological step-mother plan) then government is gonna make you pay. But ignoring that whats the down side that outweighs the misery while in frame?

[-] Metalgear222 3 Points about a month ago

Not everyone is meant to have children. Furthermore, many women are not suitable as partners to have children with. Thus spawned the need to be more worried about our best interests and legal repercussions for our actions. That means that we can still appease the sex drive were biologically hardwired for while minimizing the risk involved.

A happy life doesn’t have to include females, it’s just kinda nice to have them around from time to time. They’re largely a waste of time, but not all of them. There are instances where they can enhance your life and add to your happiness. It’s all about maintaining the correct frame though.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

If you dont reproduce whats the point?

you're searching for the top of the mazlows heirarchy, RP is more of a middle-solution

[-] Littleknownfacts 2 Points about a month ago

What would you describe as the attributes of AMALT?

[-] itiswr1tten 17 Points about a month ago

Men are naturally much lower empathy creatures. There's a very interesting study that I believe is titled "Salty lemonade" that addresses this.

The study basically goes like this: a Confederate adult authority figure introduces lemonade two groups of either all boys or all girls age 6 to 8. The Confederate insists that the lemonade is delicious and she likes it very much. The Confederates job is to make perfectly clear to the children that he or she is emotionally invested in how good the lemonade tastes to the children.

The lemonade is either made far too sweet or is salted. Basically, it tastes like shit. What do the groups of boys do? They tell the Confederate that it tastes like shit. No amount of the Confederate insisting that she likes it very much matters to the boys, they'll tell her it tastes like shit.

What do the girls do? They will come up with any level of mental gymnastics, placation techniques, and question dodging to agree with the Confederate. The researchers came to understand that from a very young age women are taught to be agreeable, and to pursue a social strategy that protects their likability with others, particularly authorities and superiors.

Most "AMALT behavior" is tension created by this empathy gap.

[-] peterlongc 10 Points about a month ago

empathy is not agreeableness.

what you are describing is agreeableness.

if anything, in your example empathy would give you the chance to see the ruse for what it is while agreeableness simply has you go along with the authority regardless of whether you had any sense that you were being played for a fool.

the distinction is important because empathy is the greatest social power a person can have, while agreeableness can be seen as a mixed-bag. (TRP tends to see consider it as a definite weakness if I'm reading the place correctly)

[-] itiswr1tten 5 Points about a month ago

I'm not attempting to conflate them, but together they can be a very disadvantaging set of traits for men

Also when mainstream media discuss the salty lemonade experiment everybody chimed in to agree that they thought the solution was more empathy for boys AKA make them more like girls. I take issue with that

[-] peterlongc 4 Points about a month ago

I understand that you do not want to conflate them and I agree that they are conflated very frequently.. which can be understood and explained. However, I would suggest that its valuable to separate them completely and TRP particularly would do well to recognize the difference. I would suggest that there is no disadvantage whatsoever to empathy properly understood and in fact it is the combination of agreeableness and lack of empathy that is most problematic.

The raging 'nice-guy' incel is an example of low empathy and frustrated high agreeableness... they do not properly understand women and suffer for it.

[-] Proto_Sigma 1 Point about a month ago

Do you have a link for this study? It sounds incredibly interesting and I'd like to read through it.

[-] zayelion 1 Point about a month ago

Thats insightful, thanks.

[-] Whisper 7 Points about a month ago

I wouldn't.

Might be true, but TRP is goal-oriented. I'm not trying to teach young bros how to seduce men.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Whisper 2 Points about a month ago

If you're looking for the differences between my opinions and what's on the spoon, you're bound to be disappointed, because I'm the one holding the spoon.

If that isn't "useful" for whatever you intended to use it for, then you have my sympathies, but that's about it, because I don't know why you would ever have expected me to sit around speculating about what men are like in the first place.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Whisper 3 Points about a month ago

You really, really, really need me to be some sort of sheep, don't you?

In case the "holding the spoon" metaphor wasn't clear, TRP is largely a collection of my opinions, and those of a handful of a couple of other dudes of very similar mindset. So what you're doing is looking for is a difference between my opinions and ... my opinions.

I don't really understand why you are so upset that you're not finding all that many. Are you just having a bad day?

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] CrazyHorseInvincible 2 Points about a month ago

Okay, that's enough. This supposed to be the civil section.

[-] KeffirLime 7 Points about a month ago

Competitiveness, sexual variety, aggression to some degree.

However men are less dependent on their emotional state hence less prone to make decision based purely on them, leading to less instances where the result is uniformly "AMALT" or predictable.

This is neither good or bad.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

Best answer.

Sexual imperative and social imperative. Sexual imperative: Spread the seed far and wide. Social imperative: To win.

[-] EkMard 5 Points about a month ago

All men prefer unlimited sexual supply. Not every male is a man. All men have the capacity for rational thought divorced from emotion.

[-] moonlandings 1 Point about a month ago

the M in AMALT is males. Doesn't matter if they are men, by any definition or not. Saying AMALT only applies to a subset of males but AWALT applies to all females is intellectually dishonest.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Littleknownfacts 0 Points about a month ago

Not every male is a man.

No true Scotsman fallacy?

[-] Vikingcel 7 Points about a month ago

A newborn baby can be male, but that doesn't mean he's a man.

[-] Littleknownfacts 0 Points about a month ago

????

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

he'es describing a distribution curve

dont be daft

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

he'es describing a distribution curve

dont be daft

I'm not being daft. But how well would it hold up if I said "any female that is hypergamous isn't a real woman therefore there's no such thing as AWALT"? You'd laugh me out of your sub. It's the same ridiculous line of reasoning he's proposing.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

I'd probably ignore it so long as it was obvious you're here to learn or help with rule 0.

You can disagree without making it a big deal ya know

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

I'd probably ignore it so long as it was obvious you're here to learn or help with rule 0.

You can disagree without making it a big deal ya know

That's pretty much what I did until you commented so....

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

There it is again. You've got a passive condescension about you, very off-putting.

I am pretty sure this is why you tend to get a very negative reaction from RP guys in your sub. you basically ask them to beef with you.

I still can't figure out why though. I assume you are otherwise well put together and pleasant to talk with

[-] Littleknownfacts 2 Points about a month ago

There it is again. You've got a passive condescension about you, very off-putting.

Yeah, I'm not here to put on. Lol I'm here to debate and call out bullshit. That's the whole point of this thread.

I am pretty sure this is why you tend to get a very negative reaction from RP guys in your sub. you basically ask them to beef with you.

I don't get bad reactions from most rp guys. I don't know who you think your talking to.

I still can't figure out why though. I assume you are otherwise well put together and pleasant to talk with

Seems obvious, debate is antagonistic. If I were trying to make friends I'd go to literally any other sub.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Debate against ideas is antagonistic, but whether you know it or not, it reads as indignant with post hoc rationalization slapped onto it. Stop arguing the man and focus on the ball.

Edgy teenagers call out bullshit. debate corrects errant ideas. To which am I speaking with?

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] atticusfinch1973 5 Points about a month ago

I think men are more literal and intrinsically problem solvers than women. Men also have an easier time detaching their emotions from a situation (in my opinion).

[-] anonlymouse 2 Points about a month ago

AWALT doesn't literally mean that, there's always going to be someone here or there who doesn't actuall fit all the criteria for AWALT. What it means is "the girl you've found isn't a unicorn". The point is not to let your guard down, and get screwed over. For a similar set of characteristics to apply to men, you'd first need to be in a country where the legislation disproportionately favours men in relationships the way it does women in most of the world. Broadly, AWALT is that women will take advantage of any opportunities that will get them ahead, even at the expense of men.

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

Yes, I know what AWALT means. Thank you captain obvious.

[-] anonlymouse 1 Point about a month ago

You obviously don't if you're asking the question. In every country where AWALT applies, AMALT does not.

[-] Littleknownfacts 1 Point about a month ago

You obviously don't if you're asking the question. In every country where AWALT applies, AMALT does not.

Oh wow no I didn't read your comment at all actually. But no you are very wrong and if you think there is any country of women that aren't hypergamous, you need to go back to square one.

[-] anonlymouse 0 Points about a month ago

It doesn't matter if they're hypergamous if the laws aren't set up to screw you. If a divorce just means you don't need to deal with her anymore, that's not a problem if she wants to move on to someone better than you.

[-] Metalgear222 1 Point about a month ago

AWALT also echoes Briffault’s law which tends to be true in nearly every instance that it presents itself. This is further supported by both anecdotal experience of hypergamy/branch swinging and statistical evidence like the overwhelming majority of divorces are initiated by the wife.

[-] RedForEducation 2 Points about a month ago

Hard to say, other than second hand.

I've not fucked men enough to know what the problems are. But generally leaning towards an aspie sensibility seems common.

We love to make sense of the world, we do have problems with underlying assumptions at times.

[-] wokein 2 Points about a month ago

Why do you guys refer to beta nice guys as men who treat women well, when in reality they are needy losers?

[-] remember_that_girl 9 Points about a month ago

We don't? I imagine a beta nice guy buys her gifts, tells her he can't live without her and tries to please her, only to get her annoyed and disgusted.

Then the nice guy gets angry, because he thought he'll get great pussy in return for being nice and expects his covert contracts to be honoured.

Then he starts screaming at his woman and possibly abuses her.

They don't treat women well. The women don't treat them well either, which is fair.

[-] wokein 3 Points about a month ago

I know those men who buy gifts for girls (usually one girl they love) when she has a boyfriend and she continuously lies to him.

I think these men have big egos, and dont realize the woman isnt attracted to him.

They’re the type of man who once in a mutually satisfying relationship will drop everything once their oneitis needs him. These men love the drama

[-] max_peenor 5 Points about a month ago

beta

That's a large net. There are plenty of attractive, masculine and successful men that have no problem being romantic providers for a single woman. Hell, most of us were that at one point. However the pill tells you there are costs for doing that and in ways that are not intuitive or socially obvious.

And yes, you will find a lot of losers in that net too.

[-] KeffirLime 4 Points about a month ago

Well depends what standard you're using. If they're doing nice things for a women, like buying her shit, taking her places, spending time and energy on her, then objectively those are nice things, it's not to say he is a nice person.

The fact that he has covert intentions fueling his actions is a more relevant talking point,one we acknowledge and advise against.

[-] wokein 3 Points about a month ago

I'm not saying these are not nice things, but they do them for women who don't even like them in the first place. Which is why I don't understand when they complain about 'WOMEN LIKES ASSHOLES NOT NICE GUYS'

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

I'm not saying these are not nice things, but they do them for women who don't even like them in the first place. Which is why I don't understand when they complain about 'WOMEN LIKES ASSHOLES NOT NICE GUYS'

These two sentences have nothing to do with each other. As for the second sentence, so called "Nice Guys" see women dating and fucking men who don't do the "nice" things they themselves do, and conclude "she likes assholes".

[-] itiswr1tten 3 Points about a month ago

Huh?

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

There's two different kinds of nice guys.

There's a small number of needy losers, the NiceGuys(TM), who get all cringey and violent and dark when "rejected".

There's a much larger number of genuinely affable, friendly, good men who are true nice guys. But they're beta and sexually unattractive.

[-] Drippyskippy 2 Points about a month ago

A somewhat common topic of discussion on PPD is the lack of nuance with TRP "doctrines". Point and case is AWALT. Any idiot knows that not all people are exactly the same. Therefore, saying all women are like that in response to cheating or branch swinging is factually false. I was a frequent browser of asktrp and this was a common response to posts about women who did something perceived as wrong or immoral. I welcome anyone to try to debate against this point that AWALT is actually true, that all women are the same.

My personal interpretation of AWALT would be something with more nuance. All women posses certain biological impulses like finding the best mate (hypergamy) in order to mother healthy children. Men aren't any different, men like young good looking and fertile women. Everyone is born with these impulses, however each individual chooses their own path. For example, some people want kids, others don't want kids. We each make a choice, which can either go towards our biological impulses or against our impulses. Likewise, a married woman can be offered sex from a high status good looking male who isn't her husband. Some women will decide to cheat on their husband and others will not. This is elementary understanding of human nature. Clearly, AWALT is false, so its about time for TRP to come up with something a little more accurate and nuanced in regards to AWALT.

Something that I find interesting about TRP that they agree with Feminism on is their hatred of MGTOW. For different reasons no doubt. While I understand that TRP and MGTOW have different goals, I've never understood the hatred. I personally am not a fan of many MGTOW communities (the reddit one being a good example). However, to me it just seems that TRP people's hatred seems misguided and morphs more into jealousy. Generally speaking, TRP people start off as beta who strike out with women. Therefore, they find TRP to start getting the vag. MGTOW on the other hand, generally start off as being at least mildly successful with women then realize shit isn't worth it. MGTOW also don't spend a lot of their time trying to improve themselves for women, which is a primary reason why men start learning and practicing TRP methods. Basically, I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint, from my viewpoint it isn't logical unless jealousy plays a role in the hatred.

[-] FereallyRed 6 Points about a month ago

AWALT stands for "all women are LIKE that."

The First Rule of gun safety is, "Treat all guns LIKE they're loaded."

This gets beaten into your head because shooting something you don't mean to shoot will ruin your whole day.

Are all guns really loaded? Fuck no, but you better be aware every one has the capability to hurt you. So assume they're all going to hurt you until you can check and see for yourself that your gun's safety is on.

Notice the word... LIKE.

We know not all women are loaded.

MGTOW has morphed into a whiny volcel refuge, and therefore those who have no interest in helping themselves warrant no help from anyone else. Pissing into the wind. Beating your head against a wall. Spreading their helplessness like the affront to trp that it is.

Incel IS an insult.

To me, to themselves, to the male population in general, and to the entire ethos of the redpill.

Involuntarily celibate

That means they want to fuck, but can't. UTTER BULLSHIT.

The redpill subs tell you that, yes, you can fuck. Then they lay out how you can mazimize your looks, your attitude, your confidence, and your game so you can actually go fuck.

BUT you actually have to do some work. Incels WON'T. That's a voluntary choice.

So incels are not involuntary, they're lazy, and have developed intricate ego protection strategies to cover the fact they're too lazy to do well, anything but be little whining internet bitches.

(muh canthal tilt is why I can't get laid! poor me. Should I get surgery?)

Which is in and of itself unattractive.

I have absolutely no use for someone who's not interested in putting in some effort. If you're not interested in fixing you, why should I be interested in trying to help?

Nothing involuntary about these bitches at all.

Cut them off and ban on sight No value in or out.

[-] Drippyskippy 1 Point about a month ago

The First Rule of gun safety is, "Treat all guns LIKE they're loaded."

This isn't my first rodeo on TRP. I have heard the gun analogy many times. It still doesn't dispute the fact that AWALT is an over simplified and factually incorrect way to describe an entire gender. I get that it is used in a way to warn ignorant men of female impulses. It is just an extremely poor way of doing it.

We know not all women are loaded.

I interpret this statement as being in agreement to my post on AWALT. If you know this is the case, why continue to use AWALT? As I stated, your people need to get together and come up with a better more accurate acronym if you want AWALT to be taken seriously by intelligent people. TRP talks a lot about self-improvement which I can 100% get behind, but maybe some of you should work on improving TRP as well. It is one of the reasons why I consider myself a purple leaning red instead of being entirely red pilled, because I can't get behind inaccurate doctrines. Not to mention many women find it sexist, but in TRP's defense, many snowflakes find facts sexist. The difference is, AWALT isn't a fact.

Here is an idea. MWALT. Many women are like that. There I gave it nuance and it isn't an entirely false acronym now. So, when do I become an EC?

As far as my points on MGTOW, you typed out quite a few sentences that made me very confused. You used a lot of shaming language and therefore I'm having a difficult time figuring out if your a feminist or red pilled. Many of the talking points are the same, which in my eyes doesn't bode well for you. Generally, people who use shaming language are more trying to convince themselves of something than trying to convince others.

MGTOW has morphed into a whiny volcel refuge, and therefore those who have no interest in helping themselves warrant no help from anyone else.

Here is the part that you forgot to mention. TRP actually does endorse (last time I was here) short term MGTOW. Therefore, your statement is proved wrong by your own group. MGTOW men do have interest in helping themselves and improving. What do you think about a MGTOW who does work out, who does eat right, who does dress well, but he doesn't do it for women, he does it for himself? Which leads me back to my original question about the hatred red pills have with MGTOW. Its illogical unless jealousy is part of the hatred.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

[-] FereallyRed 2 Points about a month ago

AWALT - we both agree the acronym may be too nuanced for both autists and bloopers. I thought the gun analogy would help, maybe my alternate explanation of awalt simply being a normal distribution bell curve on which you place all women on the horizontal axis, and the observed behavior at the vertex. The VAST majority of women fall in the two standard deviations closest to center.

The long tails and outliers on both ends exist,

But we don't care about those. TRP teaches you the behavior of most women, as that maximizes your understanding of most women.

Common saying here is TRP gets you women, not woman.

AKA even though unicorns and demons exist, they're so rare it's inane to spend any time thinking about them.

Any better?

As for MGTOW, I'm full aware of the "pure" version, which aligns well with advanced TRP. I wrote this years agosource....

"MGTOW. Not the sour grapes version, where you're so hopeless as a human you can't get a woman even if you have a chloroform rag and a rape van, The version where you truly realize that you are the prize, that women and sex truly are lagging indicators of success. They're chocolaty treats the restaurant trots out to the big spenders after they've dropped hundreds. I have no higher branches in my vicinitiy. I have a tree service to take care of that. Women chase me, not vice versa. I take an interest in you, you know that this is an audition to come play with the big boys for a while if you measure up.All is recorded. If you have to chase girls, be dependent on their whims, put up with their bullshit, fucking FEAR them then you've already lost. They have the power and the control. Because you have curled up into a little dickless ball and given it to them. You've given a grenade to a 5 year old with a god complex. WtF are you thinking? Thanks for making yet another crater that slows my morning commute. (Jk, only plebes commute - it's a metaphor.) Women only have as much power as we willingly hand over to them in a desperate pathetic hopeful sacrificial supplicative gambit to get some pussy. FUCK THAT. Pussy comes to me. Anything else and you're doing life wrong. Successful men get fucked. Without even asking. What are you doing in your life where that's not your reality?"

That sound like I don't get it?

But that's a far cry from what MGTOW is now.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

[-] Drippyskippy 1 Point about a month ago

AWALT - we both agree the acronym may be too nuanced for both autists and bloopers.

You mean not nuanced enough. The acronym itself doesn't lend itself well to nuance.

The VAST majority of women fall in the two standard deviations closest to center.

I get what your saying. TRP uses AWALT as a generalization to attempt to help men understand most women. But once again this is another simple failure to recognize how the English language works. The term "all" in AWALT and the idea of the "majority" are not one in the same. If I told you all the cookies were taken from the cookie jar and the majority of the cookies were taken from the cookie jar, people with a basic understanding of the English language would understand the difference. This reinforces my point that AWALT is not an accurate term.

Your post regarding MGTOWs only helps my argument in why I believe there is jealousy involved in why TRP's hate MGTOWs. You really are only helping me make my points. You're correct in the fact that MGTOWs have all the power over women because many MGTOWs cannot be controlled by women, like most men can (thirsty men who think with their dicks). There is a significant amount of power in that aspect, I could see why TRP men who self-improve for others would be jealous of that power. Men's sexuality can be seen as a burden and as a weakness because it does make them weak to attractive women (many men have a hard time controlling it). Many MGTOWs don't posses that weakness because they have been down that road and know where it leads. As with anything else, not all MGTOWs are the same, so this isn't true for all MGTOWs. I understand that there are aspects of the MGTOW community that are absolutely garbage. It seems everyone wants to shame MGTOWs for the more negative aspects of the group without even looking at the positives. Based on this understanding, we know that many MGTOWs have more power over women than most red pills. Do you not believe that red pills would be somewhat jealous of that power?

&#x200B;

[-] Patriot29 2 Points about a month ago

The "all" in AWALT is not nuanced. It is not a generalization. AWALT as applied to your daily life should be treated as a generalization, but the term itself is not. In other words, you must generally assume that all women will at some point submit to their hypergamous nature in order to prevent yourself from getting burned in the sexual marketplace. However, the "all" in AWALT is stating the unwavering TRP principle that ALL women are subject to hypergamy. They may not all submit to their hypergamous nature, but they ALL have the proclivity to. This is why the loaded gun analogy is spot-on. There is no nuance to this principle. Any more refining would be contradictory to TRP.

&#x200B;

u/Auvergnat's response to you above gives a series of analogies to illustrate the point that human beings are slaves to their biological survival imperatives. ALL humans are predisposed to crave fats and sweets but not all humans submit to those cravings. ALL women are predisposed to hypergamous impulses, but not all submit to those impulses. Our survival instincts always persist in the modern day even though there are some people who successfully subvert these imperatives (either through self control, societal pressure/ostracization, etc., as explained in Auvergnat's response).

&#x200B;

The "all" in AWALT is describing what TRP espouses to be the laws of female nature. There is no nuance in the law itself, but rather the nuance occurs in the application of the law to the real world. We can observe that not all women succumb to their hypergamous instincts. However that does not draw anything away from the principle that all women possess the potential to.

&#x200B;

Perhaps an even more basic analogy is the laws of physics. I don't remember much from what I learned years ago in physics, but I do remember the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. A tennis ball held at the edge of a rooftop contains potential energy. When the ball dropped from the rooftop and put into motion it converts that potential energy to kinetic energy. All tennis balls possess potential energy, whether or not they actually turn that potential into real (kinetic) energy. It would be wholly inaccurate to state that "many" balls contain potential energy. ALL balls contain potential energy, even if in application there are some balls that never do anything with that potential.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

[-] Drippyskippy 1 Point about a month ago

The "all" in AWALT is not nuanced. It is not a generalization. AWALT as applied to your daily life should be treated as a generalization, but the term itself is not. In other words, you must generally assume that all women will at some point submit to their hypergamous nature

This isn't a logical approach though. You have an acronym that means one thing, but you're supposed to treat it as something entirely different from its meaning in practice. It wouldn't be any different than a woman saying all men are trash then confessing her love to an alpha male. Its cognitive dissonance.

ALL women are predisposed to hypergamous impulses, but not all submit to those impulses.

Exactly, I think you and I see eye to eye more than we don't. This is where the nuance plays a role in the AWALT acronym because you're accepting that not all women are the same because they make different choices. Yes, all humans have certain impulses, but we all make different choices. However, this aspect of AWALT isn't ever explained because of how simplistic and misleading the acronym actually is.

&#x200B;

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

who says it has to be logical? It only has to be effective.

Guys focused solely on logic are how we get 2nd wave MGTOW and incels. Internally logical, but failures

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

plus, how would you even notice the long tail distribution without healthy experience at the top of the bell curve?

[-] Zahlix 1 Point about a month ago

So incels are not involuntary, they're lazy

I think incels spaces are just populated by the wrong people but deserve to exsist for other people in actual need of an anonymous space to vent.

As an example: Body positivity was meant for people with crippling diabilities, amputations, disfigurations or vitcims of crimes such as acid attacks. Body positivity was annexed by fat-activists who blamed anyone but themselves for their misery.

The same can be applied to the incel spaces. There literally are people who are involuntary celibate. Again: certain disabilities, genital mutilation victims, birth defects, horrible disfigurations etc. Just like the fat activists have taken body positivity hostage, the basement dwellers have taken the incel space hostage.

[-] FereallyRed 1 Point about a month ago

Agreed.

It's like those pathetic fucks that have never served, but buy a uniform from a surplus store and walk around in it to harvest feels.

Stolen Valor parasites

Repellent.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

If only they'd pretend to be supply techs, no one would bat an eye.

They all have to be super secret special forces though

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Should women treat men like they're all loaded guns too?

[-] FereallyRed 2 Points about a month ago

Don't know, no care. I man.

In man cave. Wall scratches made for man.

Girl and girly men not like scratches.

Not care.

Girl like when dragged back to cave by hair. Make sex. Feel gud.

No drag girl back to cave by foot.. warm happy place fills with gravel. Not make that mistake again.

But seriously, I believe women should be aware of men's imperative to spray his DNA everywhere possible. The issue is women are taught this from a young age. They know this. Men are taught that women are innocent Disney princesses that will fall madly in love with you if you'll only act right, like Prince Charming. Sacrifice yourself and you'll win the fair maiden.

Meanwhile, [Gaston]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bdyzc5sdQo) is hogging all the sweet babes. That's why we need the warning.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Well it sounds so barbaric. Can't we have a warm hole without gravel. Can't we be pulled by the hair and then cuddled after? Also, can't we also agree that being pulled by my hair is something I want and I wouldn't just let any man do that. There needed to be something between us on a different level. Maybe I just see that, what I want is a man who can do both.

[-] IvyExcess 2 Points about a month ago

And TRP helps men become that. I am a barbarian and an aristocrat, and when girls I meet eventually do see both sides, they do fall powerfully in love. I have heard many times "I have never met a man like you before" or "you're like a real life james bond" and girls who have been used to assholes at the bar or nice guys from college meet me in a tertiary context, I fuck them quickly and mercilessly, and if I see a glint of something in their eye, I'll open the door to my kingdom just for a second and give them a peek into a world they've never seen. Some like the tour and leave, some recognize what I am and stick around, some short circuit cause they dont know how to play me, and at that point it's my choice what to do. If I like them, I will allow the spell to unfold and they will inevitably be enthralled until I decide it's over. I have alpha widowed several women this way, and taken alpha widows, unlocked them again from their previous alpha, and kinda "fixed" them in a way. If you are a man who puts all of this stuff together, and still somehow has benevolence inside, you can make your dreams come true and leave the world a little more ordered than you found it, including the women you contact, but most importantly, yourself.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

After care is important, yes.

Treat her like a slut, don't make her feel like a slut.

[-] Auvergnat 5 Points about a month ago

My personal interpretation of AWALT would be something with more nuance. All women posses certain biological impulses like finding the best mate (hypergamy) in order to mother healthy children. Men aren't any different, men like young good looking and fertile women. Everyone is born with these impulses [...]

And with this, you understand AWALT better than many newbies on asktrp who haven’t yet bothered to read the sidebar and other recommended red pill material. Yes, AMALT too.

Where you get it wrong is in your second part:

[...] Everyone is born with these impulses, however each individual chooses their own path. For example, some people want kids, others don't want kids. We each make a choice, which can either go towards our biological impulses or against our impulses. Likewise, a married woman can be offered sex from a high status good looking male who isn't her husband. Some women will decide to cheat on their husband and others will not. This is elementary understanding of human nature.

An elementary understanding of human nature would be acknowledging the incredible strength of our most basic instincts, particularly the ones that directly exist to ensure our survival, reproduction, and the survival of our offspring (arguably, all instincts do).

For example, you have a natural drive to drink water, particularly strong when you happen to be dehydrated. Can you choose to not drink a glass of water when you are thirsty? Of course you can. But will it be an easy, neutral or rational choice? Of course not. And if you happen to be dehydrated so very thirsty, you can totally expect of yourself a large number of self-negotiation, self-delusion, rationalisation, and lack of self-control to stop yourself from resisting taking action to fulfill your biological imperative of surviving.

Try telling a fat guy who is craving his daily overdose of fat and sugar that he can simply choose to not eat it. Yes people should have self control, but it’s quire obvious it’s not that simple.

Of course it also does not mean that nobody has self control. If it were the case, everybody would be fat, men would rape everything female in sight, and monks would be unheard of. Similarly, AWALT does not mean that every woman will branch swing given the opportunity. Some may have self control. Or the imperative to keep your family intact for you children’s survival may be stronger. Or the risk of social ostracism (or physical retaliation in other/older cultures) may dissuade her.

What it does mean though is that the urge WILL be in her. And it will be in her whether she’s your mother, your adorable sister, or that next-door-neighbour girl who looks like an angel.

And THAT is the real reason for that expression, AWALT. It only was invented as an answer to those guys who think they found a unicorn (“she’s not like that” - “Dude. All women are like that.”) in order to save their sorry ass from dangerous delusions, or as an answer to blue-pillers who want to undermine TRP theory by turning a female-universal trait (the craving for branch swinging due to hypergamy) into a personality trait (“not all women cheat”), which effectively conveniently throws away the human nature observation that AWALT was meant to be.

[-] RedForEducation 4 Points about a month ago

Once a guy gets it, it flips a switch for him.

None of this is meant to be factual truth. It's positive mental models we use to anchor our decisions, in order to achieve positive outcomes for men.

If it's useful, we adopt it, if it's not, we don't. keep this in mind when reading anything

[-] MrGreySD 2 Points about a month ago

It's quite simple. Here's a more succinct explanation. Of how I see it.

All women are biologically hypergamous. Hence "ALL" of them being "LIKE" that. (yes, maybe a few with mental disorders are completely devoid of it, but let's not be autists)

BUT, there are many cases where SMV of existing guy, emotional bond, religion, honour, loyalty, avoidance of guilt, avoidance of social ruin, need for stability, etc, would override her natural biological instinct. I.e. she is still LIKE that, but there are other forces overriding it, stopping her doing it.

In some cases, these forces are so strong that she would never do anything.

In some (many) cases, all it takes is one weak moment to temporarily lower these forces.

[-] Reisiluu 1 Point about a month ago

"In some cases, these forces are so strong that she would never do anything."

If her emotional bond, loyalty and honour never allow her to cheat or divorce her man and make her want to maintain mutual attraction, then why does it matter if she has instincts shared by all women? By suppressing them she is indistinguishable from a NAWALT. It seems redundant to state that All Women Have A Quality Shared by All Women, and odd to pay no regard to a woman's character which is determined by her choices.

[-] MrGreySD 1 Point about a month ago

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Understanding AWALT (i.e. the basic hypergamy instincts are always there for all women) is important because it allows you to truly internalise:

  1. She's ultimately not within your control and is likely to leave at some point
  2. Always focus on improving yourself and your life

By "never", I only mean whilst the override force is still strong enough.

Obviously pay attention to character if you do want a long term relationship. E.g. lack of honour/loyalty would come under bad character. But know that even the good ones can leave at any point.

Regarding LTRs. If a man has stayed happy and loyal with 1 woman for 5+ years, you've got to ask if that man can really be high value. He's going against his biological nature.

[-] DonLandsman 2 Points about a month ago

All women have it in them to be Like That. All women have the capacity to be Like That.

All women are Like That sometimes. A lot of women are Like That much of the time. A few women are Like That all the time.

It's also intended to be a heuristic and something of a shock treatment. Many newly red pilled guys have to be really shaken out of the Women are Wonderful mindset. They need to be shown this so they can take women down off that pedestal they've got them on, and so they can see women as the flawed, imperfect human beings they are.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point about a month ago

Any idiot knows that not all people are exactly the same.

In some ways, all people are the same. We all need water and oxygen. We will all die if you shoot us in the head. Our contention is that in some ways when it comes to how a woman will react in a sexual situation, all women are the same.

So in reality you are the one with an oversimplified "everyone is unique" type argument. You feel uncomfortable with broad generalizations because you are raised as part of the special snowflake generation - and I don't mean that as an insult - it was a part of the orthodoxy of those who educated us that it would be better for our self esteem and general well being if our differences and unique qualities were emphasized rather than our commonalities. Thus you recoil in disgust from the statement that "All women are like that."

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

. You feel uncomfortable with broad generalizations because you are raised as part of the special snowflake generation

Lol at u replying to this with yet another generalization.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] PerplexingPegasus_ 2 Points about a month ago

What do you think your life would be like if you didn’t find trp?

[-] someonesopinion6969 4 Points about a month ago

I would've probably killed myself by now

[-] PerplexingPegasus_ 1 Point about a month ago

Tough... I’m glad you’re staying strong.

[-] krowitz 2 Points about a month ago

Fat. Still waiting for the ONE who would love me for me. More time for watching TV shows and playing video games.

[-] Zahlix 2 Points about a month ago

I found TRP after I started improving myself while looking for resources. I propably would have done the same things but the reading material sped up the process.

[-] Selfishaltruist181 2 Points about a month ago

in a sexless relationship, letting someone with the maturity of teenage tell me whats right.

[-] Gramlights 1 Point about a month ago

Constantly feel sorry for myself and have to depend on others for happiness

[-] ExaltedR3V3NG3 1 Point about a month ago

Worse, chances are I could either keep being more miserable due to having no framework to stand up or worse, get into a incel woe-is-me group

[-] BuzzLightGear321 2 Points about a month ago

Mods, are some posts allowed/created mostly for the sake of triggering trolls/incels/etc in order to ban them?

[-] FereallyRed 2 Points about a month ago

You know this is no ban day, right?

[-] BuzzLightGear321 1 Point about a month ago

Obvious not this post. I'm using this post to ask a question about other posts.

[-] FereallyRed 1 Point about a month ago

That juice is not worth the squeeze.

You don't belong here, you'll stand out rapidly.

[-] banana_apple_pear 2 Points about a month ago

What to do when your long-term girlfriend flirts with other guys? This happened to me twice with the same girl. First time in a bar . The other guy turns out to be able to speak her language fluently (she was a foreigner), he lets her drink from his cup, they're talking and laughing, he's disqualifying her so now she tries to win him over, he bought her a drink when she lost hers, they even exchanged phone numbers and started texting.

Second time I was at a house party of some friends. One of my friends starts flirting with her (not first time they did that).. the cocky-funny; busting-her-balls type of game, starts connecting with her..

I don't really know what to do in such a situation. On one hand, I find it extremely disrespectful for a gf to do this. But dumping her is exactly what the other guy wants, I'm one of the obstacles and by dumping her I remove myself from the equation, giving him free access and thus he wins. But by putting up with it, I lose my self-respect, respect for the girl, and I build up anger.

Trying to outwit and outgame the other guy also feels stupid; then it's as if we're battling for my girl.

Any tips on how to deal with these kind of situations?

[-] aDrunkenWhaler 8 Points about a month ago

Simple. You dump her. She is not LTR material and doesn't respect you. Flirting around should be enough for this, although it just might be a shit test to see how you react. But exchanging numbers and texting settles it. Most likely she fucked other guys while with you.

But dumping her is exactly what the other guy wants

Who cares? He means nothing. You should probably thank him for exposing you EXgirlfriend's whoreness and saving you future trouble.

A solution to help with this problem (not in your case though, your relationship is done), is to apply dread game. Let her do what she wants, and you go flirt with other girls. Remove your attention from her. She'll come around.

[-] toobass 5 Points about a month ago

Too much investment in your part, a man with options is a man without need. If she likes to flirt with other guys, demote to plate. Start lurking more, and reading the sidebar.

[-] krowitz 4 Points about a month ago

When a situation makes you uncomfortable and you see no way through it, walk away.

[-] sadomasochrist 4 Points about a month ago

Demote to plate.

[-] 321PK 3 Points about a month ago

Drinking from his cup!?! Next!

[-] i_have_a_semicolon -3 Point about a month ago

Ok, here's a weird suggestion. Tell her what you think of her behavior. If she doesn't apologise, say goodbye

[-] Metalgear222 8 Points about a month ago

Do not do this. Speak through action, either demote or flirt with other girls in front of her.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 2 Points about a month ago

I guess from my perspective if you play this game don't be surprised if it works and she reacts "positively" to the latter. Like why would you want a woman who is so oblivious to everything to that extent. At least see if she has an ounce of self awareness and the ability to admit to being wrong if you're about to ditch her anyway. There's no loss here. Even if she does apologise, you can still dump her.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

speech is 90% actions and body language.

Once you open your mouth, you admit you've failed in your ability to communicate

[-] [deleted] 1 Point about a month ago

[deleted]

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

What can I say. your crew bring out the best in people.

It's not wrong, communication is very clear through actions, words are deceptive

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

I’m envisioning myself circling you while engaged in interpretive dance sequences as I try to ask you to “press 9” from the back of the elevator.

words are deceptive

People are, more so than the words I think.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Body language is limbic brain, very difficult to recieve with it

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Well, unfortunately I unlike you have not evolved the trait of telepathy so I prefer to use words , and be explicit. I believe it clarifies enough. Unless you're of average intelligence and unable to articulate your inner thoughts so other people understand then

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

[Mod hat on] This is the civil thread, keep that in mind when you get passive aggressive [mod hat off]

If one isn't on the spectrum, they are aware that body language is the primary way we converse with each other. Words are not the primary mover of information among people IRL.

In all but the most specific pet peeves, if someone is acting like shit towards you, chances are they know it's shitty towards you and don't care. Asking them nicely to stop won't change that.

Do you not agree that subtext and body language are how we articulate, or do you disagree that body language is the primary driver of information when people converse

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

I apologise for being uncivil. It wasn't intentional. I didn't view my tone or writing as passive aggressive or any kind of aggressive. I was saying that words are needed to communicate complex thoughts. Also when it came to average intelligence, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to everyone. I'd expect that someone of above average intelligence can indeed communicate just fine. I personally have ADHD and fail to pick up on body language and facial expressions frequently, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand when I notice. I just find directness is better than assuming. Honestly, if you haven't communicated to her that the behavior is unacceptable how would she know or assume that? And if you solely rely on body language and don't let up if she does question "what's wrong?" Then you're robbing her the opportunity to correct her mistake and right her wrong , be better and improve herself - if that is how she would react to being told that their behavior is unacceptable.

Again I apologise it was by far not intentional for me to be uncivil or passive aggressive. Again my point was simple that body language and facial expressions can't be a perfect substitution for actually communicating thoughts and feelings, and that maybe only people of above average intelligence can be introspective enough to find the words to articulate their complex thoughts and feelings in a way that others could understand

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

I mean, you're not wrong, it's that many men have tried the direct conversation you speak of and it doesn't work, at all.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

The way I see it there are 3 options

1) dump 2) reverse her tactics back on her by flirting openly with other women 3) communicate

2 I think is the best option if you want to remain with the girl. But why do you want to remain with the girl if she's already disrespecting you one, and two that the only way to achieve her favor would be via these dread tactics which are an exhausting act to play up over and over for some dumb hoe. So why one would go with number 2 even if it works is beyond me.

Now between 1 and 3, they're about equal in my eyes - 1 of course would be the obvious choice. But, if you try 3, and it fails, the end result is the same as 1. No loss or harm. If you try 3 and you succeed well done , you've identified a more self aware than average woman and a woman who is able to admit fault. She's a rarity of course but it's not possible to know unless you've already presumed you've got nothing to lose. You don't know if you're with a woman in the center of the bell curve or at the edge until you test her.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

Women know very well what they're doing and why. She's not oblivious. She doesn't need her BF to tell her what he thinks. (1) She already knows what she's doing and why. (2) She doesn't care what her BF thinks. If she cared, she wouldn't do it.

Men's first mistake is talking to their women about their feelings and telling women they're doing things they don't like.

Women know their BFs don't like it when they flirt. That's why they do it.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Ok, i guess i just don't agree with this perspective. For instance one shouldn't attribute to malice what could also be attributed to ignorance. Men perceive women as flirting when they're just being their normal selves. Thats their personality. Many women are just naturally friendly, bubbly, social, etc. They dont perceive their own actions as flirting. This is something that body language and expressiveness simply do not cover and why one cannot assume just because someone is friendly, happy, passionate, excitable, etc that they are flirting. Or someone who is engaged in the conversation means they are flirting.

So, once it's clarified and/or given the benefit of the doubt that the actions didn't cross the line of actual flirting and could be attributed to simply the girl being a gregarious, social, person, it shouldn't be assumed that she was Flirting because she knows the BF doesnt like it and thats why shes doing it.

Yes, "oblivious" is a common phrase i would use to describe women with regards to their own behaviour without an outside perspective. Women can have blind spots too. One such blind spot could be that their outgoingness could be misconstrued as flirting. Perhaps there is little one can do to curb that behaviour if it is "natural" and unintentional, besides just being more self aware and less ignorant that other people wouldn't misconstrue your personality as flirting.

[-] DonLandsman 1 Point about a month ago

Many women are just naturally friendly, bubbly, social, etc. They dont perceive their own actions as flirting.

Your original post was about women flirting. Why are we now talking about nonflirting?

I'm not talking even about malice. Women know what they're doing. They know what effect they have on men. That is why they do it.

Of course she is going to say she wasn't flirting. She will say that even if she was flirting.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Ok I'm not the one saying the original question. I am the one who gave advice to see if you bring up the behavior to her to see how she reacts.

Why would a woman who actually wants to be with her man knowingly flirt with other men? Maybe it's because men let her without straight up telling her it's unacceptable. Second, again, based on what he person originally said I can't even tell if the chick was actually flirting or he was just mate guarding her behavior because she was being friendly to other men.

I guess I just don't get that her saying she isn't flirting doesn't mean she can't admit she understands why the behavior might make a guy she's with uncomfortable, apologise, and be more conscious of it next time. If she tries any tactics to deflect blame and not take responsibility she like many other women is a lost cause.

But the point is - to determine for yourself if this particular girl could be capable of that level of reflection

[-] AutoModerator 1 Point about a month ago

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] banana_apple_pear 1 Point about a month ago

Question for anybody experienced in spinning multiple plates.

Do these girls also fuck other guys besides you? How do you feel about that? Does it happen a lot? Do you experience any jealousy or insecurity? Are you ever curious about if they're seeing other guys, what they're like etc.?

[-] aDrunkenWhaler 5 Points about a month ago

Depends on what rules you set. Usually, I don't give a fuck. No jealousy or insecurity, don't ask, don't care. But if I like her and want to give her more of my time, the rule is she doesn't fuck around or it's over.

[-] FereallyRed 3 Points about a month ago

Plates are by definition people you see ONLY FOR SEX.

Therefore she has no say in what you do with your life, and you should expect the versa. Expect your plate is fucking other men.

No jealousy or insecurity because we're just both really lifelike sex toys.

[-] itiswr1tten 3 Points about a month ago

Basically as plates we are exceptionally talented clit flingers and dick slingers.

She should be (ideally) receptive to sex.

There's a reason we fight off the plates and not the other way.

[-] shoup88 1 Point about a month ago

The Manipulated Man makes it clear that the primary reason women don’t accomplish as much or are ambitious and bright is because they do not work, and they did not grow up in a environment where women worked. Nowadays the vast majority of women work, as did their mothers.

Do you still think the Manipulated Man is relevant today, and if so, why?

[-] Selfishaltruist181 2 Points about a month ago

This is interesting, my mothers parents were blue collard workers, and she herself works as corporate leadership. She is a feminist with typical values that you'd expect (minus the misandry). My mom had me when she was 18 and then immediately had to enter the rat race of a corporate office. First I'm sure it was to try and support and raise me, later she started to love it, and now she is hugely successful. I think she was able to achieve this because of her lack of need to settle down, because she had both an alpha husband (with some blue pill values) and a son already.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Or she was just very determined. My mom had me mid career and is very successful. I'm very successful in my early career (software engineer who is passionate about the work and strives for nothing but excellence). I haven't had kids yet but I am going to get married. What I think is that it's simply incorrect to assume "all" women can't participate in the workforce on the same level as men. Of course there will be those who believe we have been propped up and primed to succeed ; but in my experience, true excellence, talent, and ability will shine through with actions and results. So whether or not you were boosted is irrelevant since majority of people who get the boost won't wind up at that level if they're not really good.

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

Well true excellence and the ability to play the political game. There was study done involving a survey on four types of people.

  1. People who work well and get along with others

  2. People who work well but don't get along with others

  3. People who don't work well but get along with others.

  4. And people who are dead shits.

They found that other than 1st group, people would much prefer to work with a complete Luddite who's good with people, than a genius who's an asshole to everyone.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Ok great. The excellence striven for includes being in that first bucket

[-] max_peenor 1 Point about a month ago

Well, women have always worked, it's just a question of how they worked. I could go on for hours about this, so I'll just get to a single point and save you the rant.

Careers aren't as important to men as women think that are.

They really aren't some life validating experience. They have always been a way to grind men down for decades to maximize the extraction of resources from them. While we may enjoy what we do, the vast majority of men would rather do those things on their own terms.

So then when women enter the same game, it really should be no surprise that they are miserable. Men aren't miserable, but they've been conditioned for millennia to accept the situation. For women, it's a new and foreign. So now they dump pills and booze in their bodies at record rates.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

I didn't read a lot from that perspective in there.

It was more of male instincts being used against us now

[-] redpillschool 1 Point about a month ago

It was more of male instincts being used against us now

Which is the takeaway that's relevant today.

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

I always disagreed with the definition of Alpha TRP has. I agree with mostly the standard dogma about strength, power and building yourself up (e.g. self improvement) what I disagree with is the perceived selfishness and loner attitude you have to act like to be an alpha. TRP (as in what most posters seem to use the definition of alpha as) always describes an alpha as this stoic lone wolf. An alpha needs a pack to be an alpha, ergo, the TRP doesnt teach men how to be alphas, only how to increase their SMV.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

I don't see how. Alpha behaviours are about sexual desire...

If it doesn't make em wet, it's not alpha

[-] MikeTyson91 2 Points about a month ago

If it doesn't make em wet, it's not alpha

Exactly why I don't agree with anyone saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are alphas. Lol.

[-] cupshadow 1 Point about a month ago

Elon Musk is the living proof that money doesn't make you alpha. I admire his smarts but holy shit, he's desperate for affection.

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

Question, if you were female would you much rather sleep with the captain of the hockey team or the vice captain? It's hypergamy man, you want the person on top of the social ladder, not the bottom. My point is having sex isn't the pinnacle of being an alpha, leading other men is.

[-] 321PK 1 Point about a month ago

Question, if you were female would you much rather sleep with the captain of the hockey team or the vice captain?

Whichever was hotter and had nicer teeth.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

sexiest mullet = sex

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Not as it's defined here, there is no ambiguity on this.

Alpha and beta are placeholders to describe sexual and comfort behaviours. serotonin and dopamine inducing activities.

If you want to talk about leadership, that's a different discussion, but it's nothing to do with alpha as it's defined here.

e.g. corey worthington is considered alpha bhudda, he's leading nothing.

[-] Zahlix 1 Point about a month ago

I am not sure if this is a misconception. Usually I hear many guys in here talk about the importance of male bonding.

I think the surface perception of TRP being lone stoic lone wolfs is based on wishful thinking + self reporting in here. Of you course you can't rely on others to fix and improve your life (hence the lone wolf) and of course you can't run around the real world spilling your emotions everywhere (hence the stoic). At the end of the day, life boils down to a few crucial friends that you will keep for the rest of your life. It is these kind of relationships that you should focus time and energy on.

I would like to see more discussion in here about how to help a friend that needs advice. How do you carry yourself to comfort a parent who is dying? How do you motivate your friends to rise with you instead of leaving them behind.

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

How do you carry yourself to comfort a parent who is dying? How do you motivate your friends to rise with you instead of leaving them behind.

Yeah I get that, i think that stuff would just get shot down as off topic. I do get what you mean, there's not a space on TRP for male bonding or discussing life events, its more about sharing of information on gaining SMV. I wish there was an off topic board, I'd love more ways to talk about gaining power and leading people. I think it'd be very valuable to have that kind of discussion between red pill men. I think your getting at the same thing, a unfiltered discussion of red pill men about life other than SMV.

[-] A_Edgelord 1 Point about a month ago

What is TRP's roadmap for the normie 20yo newcomer seeking you unfuck his life?

[-] RedForEducation 3 Points about a month ago

sidebar is the goto.

[-] A_Edgelord 0 Points about a month ago

I assume I'm doing something seriously wrong then, because I've read the sidebar like 5 times already and found no concrete, actionable advice out of it other than "lift".

[-] RedForEducation 2 Points about a month ago

Be specific. What's your scenario and end goal?

[-] A_Edgelord 1 Point about a month ago

scenario: 19yo european male. Discovered trp in 2016 and gradually went from submissive skinnyfat faggot to kinda confident guy with a good body (not great yet). I have read almost every piece of trp theory out there, but I got demotivated about self improvement over time so nowadays I rarely think about trp at all.

Studying stem at a great uni. Learning guitar and drawing. Used to shit my pants at the thought of asking someone for the time, worked at it and now I can talk to strangers no problem (I rarely do so tho because I dont see the point).

Very limited circle of friends (2 guys who I go out with every weekend). One relationship with a hb5 a year ago but I broke up with her before we had sex because she wasn't good looking enough for me, so I'm still a virgin. No idea how to approach women who don't show heavy IOI's.

goals

1) just get a fucking girlfriend already, it is really important for my sanity at this point.

2) Get a bigger circle of friends, same reason as above.

3) Get good at what I'm studing and eventually make a shitton of money.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

Yeah, so have you adopted the idea that validation seeking is bad behaviour that attracts predatory women?

Have you approached? Have you built stong networks? Do you even know how to make small talk?

Do you have financial and professional goals? teh corporate land posts are in that vein.

1) just get a fucking girlfriend already, it is really important for my sanity at this point.

Children with dynamite. a great article that explains why you're still focused on pussy too much

2) Get a bigger circle of friends, same reason as above.

What do you do that makes you interesting enough to have friends?

3) Get good at what I'm studing and eventually make a shitton of money.

stem is vague. Have you looked into the career prospects? Are you aware of the time/money tradeoff? Do you know the lifescript of the work hard betas who make money? what do you make the money for?

Your issue isn't one about anything but frame and covert contracts. you have all these plans, and you will get resentful when they don't reward you as you expect.

And because you've never been fucked, you don't even know what you're missing, or how a girl can fuck a guy after 45 minutes and not care to tell her husband etc.

you've not taken the pill yet, you're trying to square the circle of your blue pill mental models

[-] MikeTyson91 1 Point about a month ago

Heal your autism then, it's the only way. No one's gonna chew it for you, so no need to act dumb here, pal.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

Step one, lift Step two, organise your lifting into a routine and create a time management plan Step three, start reading books on how to lift better and apply to your lifting Step four, start using your gains from lifting to learn how to talk to people Step five, With your chiseled body from lifting, talk to the opposite sex Step six, repeat step five till you get laid Step seven, realise that females only like you for your SMV (sexual market value) and are hypergamous (meaning to mate or join with someone of better SMV than themselves) by nature.

Basically it, the red philosophy is about waking up to the truth of sexual dynamics, and trying to unlearning all your bad habits.

[-] A_Edgelord 2 Points about a month ago

start using your gains from lifting to learn how to talk to people

So what am I supposed to do, ask my biceps for advice on how to hold a convo? Jokes aside, could you explain that a bit better?

[-] Selfishaltruist181 3 Points about a month ago

Improving your body will give you confidence. If your standing around with a bunch a guys who are all skinny shits, and you look like a Greek god, do you think you feel pretty good in that situation? If you don't, you practice till you do. Improving your SMV is about two things, looking good to other people and looking good for yourself. If you look good, you will probably feel good, and in accordance with that you will act confidently.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point about a month ago

[deleted]

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

Agree.

[-] MatrixofLe3adership 1 Point about a month ago

Rollo's blog isn't as good as IM's

[-] sadomasochrist 1 Point about a month ago

You must pay respect to Black Sabbath to even discuss rock music.

[-] MatrixofLe3adership 1 Point about a month ago

but then sometimes you just want to move on

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 0 Points about a month ago

Trp: what is your reading list in prioritized order for a man who has found himself a woman who appreciates him for who he is but wants him to understand female sexuality "theory" a bit better. Obviously advocating for plate spinning, cheating, higher dreading, awalt, no communication whatsoever etc would be bad for the couple as it would plant seeds of doubt and Paranoia in his head and she is just as willing to admit fault and change herself for the better. Could you suggest readings and guidance on how to view women as women, but also wife them up and keep them on their toes in bed? I mean there has to be right.

[-] krowitz 2 Points about a month ago

The Rational Male. That's all you need for what you listed.

&#x200B;

Spoiler: >!fully understanding the first book would have you understand that the Red Pill is not supposed to fulfill your Blue Pill fantasies!<

&#x200B;

Oh, and read Uncle Vasya

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Why can't they fufill blue pill "fantasies" If the woman is a willing participant

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

If your SMV (sexual market value) is high enough and you generally act in a alpha way, you can get your girl (whom from now I'm referring to as a plate) to probably do anything you want. Your plate will put up with this if she doesn't want to lose you. There's a huge problem with all this though and it relates to you, abundance. If your scared to lose your plate, your plate will have the power in the relationship. Abundance is about not being bound to one plate, (so as in you would have multiple plates) and this will stop you fearing losing one plate. Abundance allows you to have the power to decide the relationship and the terms of it, whatever that maybe.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

What if you don't want to call her a plate ? I also don't understand that if you do have an outlier women how to adjust the approach

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

if you do have an outlier women how to adjust the approach

The point i was trying to make is you will lose your power to control the relationship. If she knows you think this, she will have all the control in the relationship. She doesn't like your friend mark? well hes gone, otherwise you lose her. She doesn't like your parents? Well your no longer spending Christmas with them. The only real answer i can think of is to pretend like you have a billion other girls so she would fear losing you.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

What if she already feels like she could lose you, and would never try to seize power like that in the relationship and tries to be fair?

[-] Selfishaltruist181 1 Point about a month ago

The term for that is the dread game, thing about the dread game is it effectiveness decrease with time and it's potentency decreases with use.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

So what if for example this woman is aware she is dreaded could she be moving that ahead via her own will because she wants to be dreaded?

[-] Selfishaltruist181 0 Points about a month ago

For example say you use the whole "you have to do X otherwise Il break up with you" first time she might cry and do what you want, the second time she might be hurt and do what you want, by maybe the fifth time she will see your full of shit and she will shrug it off. My advice is honesty. Explain what you want and if you don't get say you can find a girl who will do what you want. Don't do this to manipulate or even with malious, it's just a fact. It's honesty, you can get another girl, but your the only you she will ever have It's better than say not getting laid then cheating and then having the relationship blow up your face all because you couldn't say that to your wife. Thing about girls is you can't make them do what you want, but you can ask, and if they say no you can find another girl that will say yes. That's the main concept of abundance.

[-] krowitz 1 Point about a month ago

She may be a willing participant and there is a chance it stays that way forever, but it really is outside your control. You can do everything right, she can still change her mind.

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

That's all true. It's a risk not all people are willing to take.

[-] itiswr1tten 1 Point about a month ago

Go to marriedredpill sub. There's a fork in the road

[-] i_have_a_semicolon 1 Point about a month ago

Idk the place seems a lot like "how do I make my bitchy shrew submit to me before I lose my mind and have to lose half my shit and custody as a consequence"

[-] itiswr1tten 1 Point about a month ago

There's a lot of that, MRP is partially a hospital for fucked marriages

[-] trpthrowama -3 Point about a month ago

If women are so evil why do you bother chasing them?

[-] redpillschool 25 Points about a month ago

I would challenge you to demonstrate that we think women are evil. I like women.

[-] Vikingcel 15 Points about a month ago

If we are evil, why do women chase these redpill studs?

[-] itiswr1tten 14 Points about a month ago

I love women. Are you sure you're not the misogynist?

[-] Whisper 12 Points about a month ago

I don't. I do shit to make them chase me.

[-] clavabot 4 Points about a month ago

That flip tho

[-] redpillcad 11 Points about a month ago

I dont hate women at all. Today when a woman isnt above criticism its seen as misogyny. I love women for what they are, not for the equalist bullshit jammed down society's throats

[-] haughtyhay 11 Points about a month ago

The feminine-favoring psychosocial conditioning is so hammered in to your brain that you think any post that doesn’t praise women is hating on women. There is a large difference between the two.

[-] Persaeus 10 Points about a month ago

redpill does not think women are evil. evil lies in the difference what society teaches women are and what they actually are.

[-] Mojiitoo 10 Points about a month ago

I love women. Now they love me too.

[-] krowitz 9 Points about a month ago

They are not, and we don't chase them.

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 8 Points about a month ago

Women are not inherently evil, as a group, although some constituent members are, same as with men.

So your premise is wrong from the start. I enjoy the company of women, the value that they bring to my life, and of course, fucking them.

I don't hate women and I don't think anyone should. I keep meaning to write a piece on it, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

[-] 321PK 2 Points about a month ago

Why don’t you get your 18 yo gf to write it for you?

[-] FereallyRed 2 Points about a month ago

That's not what 18 yo's are for.

Second, who cares if she can write?

Third, he's probably busy WITH the 18 yo.

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 3 Points about a month ago

Nah, it's a school night. I don't keep them up late. They blossom under my strong, masculine leadership. Their parents like that their grades are improving.

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 2 Points about a month ago

Which one?

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] LongDongLondonDon 8 Points about a month ago

Believing that women are evil is inherently contrary to what RP believes and teaches; someone who is familiar with RP would know this.

[-] RedPillLawyerGuy 5 Points about a month ago

I'm sure we don't think women are evil. Women have biological tendencies, like men do. When men ignore those tendencies, they deny reality, and end up getting hurt. When they accept those tendencies and act accordingly, the probabilities of a favorable outcome go up.

As an example, one of the tenets of the red pill is "abundance mentality." That means that men are biologically predisposed to pursue multiple partners. Women are predisposed to believe that men do this anyway, and naturally a woman wants to have the highest value man she can find. So if a woman sees that a man has the potential to have multiple partners, she is more likely to pursue him. In the end, it's not really men chasing women, it's a man pursuing multiple women, and an individual woman seeing/believing this and trying to convince that man that she's all he needs.

[-] KeffirLime 5 Points about a month ago

There is no evil or good there is simply human nature, understanding it and then displaying the traits that you've understood to be favorable.

Harbouring hate or resentment only hurts the holder because his pre conceived ideas never lived up to expectations.

[-] MisplacedSanityP 5 Points about a month ago

Substantiate that any post in the history of TRP that has been well-received called women evil or even implied it. The ideology at its core doesn’t judge women, it only makes claims about them and then we deal with the claims. Take hypergamy for example, we don’t call women evil for leaving a man for a better man. Anyone here with half a brain will not dispute that it makes sense for them to. We accept that the idea of hypergamy is true, then figure out how to act accordingly.

[-] redbananaboard 3 Points about a month ago

If you're still chasing women you haven't dominated TRP principles to its core. Women are not evil or the enemy, but they're not the main destination in your journey. They're just a happy complement to your life. Like it or not we're bound to each other. It has been like that since the beginning of time and it will always be. We're made for each other by natural design. Now you'll see lots of "hate" to girls on TRP, but is a phase. It's part of the process while you're waking up to reality. but tbh most of the post you think are "hate" is just criticism.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] TheRedPike 5 Points about a month ago

Please don't hotlink any subs. We don't ban linking, but automod will nuke hotlinks on sight (inlcuding our to our own). and that will be inconvenient to you. Put links through something like archive.is.

[-] Shady-mofo 1 Point about a month ago

Thanks for the heads up

[-] zayelion 1 Point about a month ago
  • Women arent evil, why are you sexist?
  • Its hunt or be hunted, engagement is inevitable.
[-] WarViper1337 1 Point about a month ago

I do not think women are evil. Also I don't chase women. Ever since I incorporated TRP principles into my life women now pursue me.

[-] EkMard -3 Point about a month ago

The target audience for this question is TRP. Non-TRP bloops are welcome to reply, but they might feel offended.

Humans evolved. Physical differences emerged. We classify humans into races and sub-races and even further. Do you believe that all humans are fundamentally equal? Do you believe that they can all co-exist in a flourishing orderly society, inter-marrying? Why? Why not?

The division of humans (and I differentiate between humans and people) into races is vague, yes. Race is social, and the boundaries are too blurry for comfort, yes.

Certain racial and sub-racial groups have an elevated general intelligence required for modernity, while others have a less developed one. It is true that culture and the environment created racial differences. Culture is now racially determined though.

Certain racial and sub-racial groups are biologically pre-disposed to certain personalities, criminal tendencies and modes of self-identification. Racial discrimination through appearance is deeply rooted everywhere. As the progressive worry, there is still large-scale racism prevalent in the most tolerant of societies.

Humans of all kinds are the result of thousands upon thousands of years of evolution, leading to particular strains of phenotypical variety (e.g. thin lips or full, large heads or small, freckled pale skin or sun-protected black-brown skin) among different populations. Skull variety. Scientists are able to decipher one's sub-racial group by looking at one's bones.

It is imperative for the various racial groups to self-segregate, voluntarily, into an order stratified by race and ethnicity, in different regions, such that children born in the future do not deal with lack of an identity of their own, such that the incredible diversity among humans is not lost, such that the highly-civilised, overall-intelligent societies that White Europoids have created not be decreased in social cohesion, in economic efficiency, acting as a nanny hosting every person they can, without benefit. Especially in the face of other societies, East Asian, Jewish, Arab, South-east Asian, and all of African, staying monolithic, staying the same.

I invite everybody to destroy this argument.

[-] redpillschool 14 Points about a month ago

It is imperative for the various racial groups to self-segregate, voluntarily, into an order stratified by race and ethnicity, in different regions, such that children born in the future do not deal with lack of an identity of their own,

Disagree.

I think cultures work best if segregated by shared values, but the color of your skin isn't important.

[-] party_dragon 1 Point about a month ago

<3 wow literally 90% of political issues would be resolved if people took this mentality seriously

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Battagliare 1 Point about a month ago

If only race would only be the color of your skin.

[-] cheetopapito 7 Points about a month ago

Criminality, anger , and other negative attributes arent inherent in races. They get formed by their environment. If that was the case then the Africans and Arabs would have been the most civilized groups in the world at this moment, because they were the first to start civilization. While the Aryan and Nordic races were still savagely living in small communities and were beating each other with sticks, fighting over food, the Arabs and Egyptians built cities, studied the stars and waged warfare. Nowadays those same people that started civilization are behind the people that were the savages, because of politics/war. Not because of their race.

No race is inherently “better” than the other, it all depends on the circumstances. The only difference between the races is in their appearance.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] remember_that_girl 5 Points about a month ago

I honestly fail to understand this fascination with races and skin color that some people on the left have.

Of course we can peacefully coexist as long as we either share the same culture or at least abide by the same rules.

Color? For fuck's sake, you can put two PoC twins in front of me and I could hate one and be the best friend with another.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] zayelion 3 Points about a month ago

Certain racial and sub-racial groups have an elevated general intelligence required for modernity, while others have a less developed one. It is true that culture and the environment created racial differences. Culture is now racially determined though.

This given is faulty. Take any human group, beat them down, isolate them, limit them to the poor classes and do this over the course of about 100yrs. You are describing class differences and cultural differences caused by access to unbroken generations and financial freedom.

Next speaking from a genetic point, humans suffered near extinction recently and are not that different with the greatest genetic diversity being in Africa. Which races are inbred poodles, which races are wolves? Genetic diversity is the point of sexual reproduction and our protection evolutionary. What you are suggesting is self genocide.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] Proto_Sigma 3 Points about a month ago

While there are substantial variations in the means between groups, there is even greater variation within groups.

The fundamental social and moral unit is the individual. While group differences are useful in examining larger populations they often break down at the individual level. Just because Whites are usually taller than Asians doesn't mean that there aren't going to be really short white guys and really tall Asian dudes.

We benefit as a society by judging individuals on there own merits. Not only is this just, but we all benefit as it allows maximum talents to manifest.

As another example, women are generally less interested in STEM than men; very few of them have the desire to become engineers or top scientists. However, you will get the occasional Marie Curie, and if only 1 out of 100 women are sufficiently oriented towards systems and willing to make the necessary lifestyle sacrifices to become engineers we should let that part of the population through. It's not like we have more of those types than we know what to do with- an identity blind meritocracy would allow for the best to rise to the top regardless of group and would benefit everyone involved.

The 'White Europoid' argument doesn't make sense as well because in the United States many non-White groups actually perform higher on many economic and social indices than Whites do- we can hardly say that they damage the economy or social cohesion. If we were to segregate by racial group or sex explicitly we would lose a great deal of human capital unnecessarily.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago
[-] BloodSurgery 2 Points about a month ago

How is this TRP related at all? Also, the last line. Come on lmao

[-] EkMard 1 Point about a month ago

This is not related to sexual strategy. I await your counter-argument.

[-] RedForEducation 1 Point about a month ago

This is not related to sexual strategy.

The only point that matters

[-] sadomasochrist 2 Points about a month ago

The race realism discussion has been essentially outlawed, sometimes even explicitly and legally for some 50 years. No one is going to be able to answer this concretely for a very, very long time.

But if history is any indicator, no, we can not be a big happy family.

[-] [deleted] about a month ago