I want to take some time to unpack Game Theory and how it applies to The Red Pill.
I'll start with a quick primer on the basic model of Game Theory. I'm going to demonstrate using the Hawk-Dove Game. This is glossing over dozens of hours you'd spend with a professor learning this material, so its quite a lot of info. Game Theory is a branch of Cognitive Science and Economics, and not directly related to video games/board games (a common misconception). It's a mathematical, technical way of looking at relationships and/or competitions.
Lets say that you have a partner, and you are in a relationship with them. One strategy is to be a 'dove', and not cheat on your partner, the other is to be a 'hawk'.
Player 2's choices | |||
---|---|---|---|
Strategies | Dove | Hawk | |
Player 1's choices | Dove | 3,3 | 0,6 |
Hawk | 6,0 | 1,1 |
Player 1's utility (perceived satisfaction) in each box is the first number, and Player 2's utility is the second number. If we chose the set Dove-Dove, the outcome is that both players get 3,3. [As a note to anyone familiar with the subject already, this is also the egalitarian and a utilitarian equilibrium. It has no basin of attraction.]
Lets walk through the possible outcomes if this Game was played once.
-
Dove-Dove: If both of you stick to the contract and do not cheat on your partners you'll have a healthy relationship. This is a egalitarian and utilitarian utopia. It does not occur in nature.
-
Hawk-Dove: You cheat on your partner successfully, and receive a massive amount of satisfaction. They are devastated, and swear they'll never let that happen again.
-
Dove-Hawk: Your partner cheats, and they receive a massive amount of satisfaction. You are devastated.
- Hawk-Hawk: Neither of you are happy, and you both cheat. The intimacy evaporates from your relationship. Believe it or not, this is the natural solution to this problem. If I applied a machine learning script called the Replicator Dynamic (a weighted best-response calculator of sorts) to this problem, and ran this against thousands and thousands of random combinations of strategies within this problem they'd all lead to Hawk-Hawk. Unless the person you're with never ever cheats, this is your best response, and its horribly suboptimal. But I digress.
Now, in the real world, this relationship Game isn't played just once - its played over and over again. This gives you the opportunity to anticipate your partner's moves, and select a best response to their strategy.
There are 5 primary strategies you (Player 1) can use in this game, assuming we are playing it multiple times. I'll walk through them quickly.
-
The Dove: You always will stay with your partner, and always choose to not cheat on them no matter what. This strategy is extremely risky, and you are subject to a considerable amount of predation by hawks. If your partner cheats they have no incentive to ever change.
-
The Hawk: You will always cheat on your partner. This strategy is fairly risky, because you can easily get trapped in a very bad outcome if your partners strategy is anything but Dove. Sadly, its what nature tells us to do. Its also where the expression 'can't turn a ho into a housewife' comes from, if your partner was unfaithful in the past she won't be able to resist cheating (even unprovoked). Many redpillers argue that this is what all women are like, deep down - its where the term AWALT comes from.
-
GRIM: This strategy cooperates at first. On the face of it, it looks like Dove. This strategy is compatible with The Dove, and is also compatible with The Hawk. This strategy is very popular with a lot of people, it basically cooperate on the first turn. But if ever betrayed, this person will become a hawk permanently, to protect him/herself. They might also decide to just stop playing the game altogether, but if forced to continue would become hawks. This is where jaded people come from.
-
GRIM with forgiveness: This strategy allows the player to forgive the other after 'penance' has been taken in the form of several Hawk-Dove outcomes. This is a little nuanced, but lets say you get cheated on by Player 2. You then say for 3 turns I'll cheat on you, but you cannot cheat on me. You're extracting punishment from the other player, and after a while you will switch back to both going Dove. I have never seen this happen in real life.
- Tit-For-Tat: This strategy is an almost-perfect counter to all of the other strategies. It basically says you start by selecting 'Dove', and on subsequent turns simply do what the other player did in the previous turn. This strategy was argued by Robert Axelrod as 'weakly dominant', in other words it was at least as good as most all other strategies. Not all game theorists believe that Tit-for-Tat is as good as it sounds, including my mentor, for technical reasons that aren't really relevant. In reality you're probably better off not playing with a player who isn't a Dove, or GRIM, but even then if you never find out about the cheating you are very exposed.
This model isn't quite what real life is like. In real life, hawks can conceal themselves, and pretend to be doves. This makes the game even more unfavorable to anyone who isn't a hawk, and you still suffer the consequences of receiving severely diminished affection from your cheating partner.
Lessons Learned
In essence, the game isn't worth playing. Being seriously invested in a relationship means that you have to choose an outcome that is very risky (a Dove or GRIM). People that have been unfaithful to their partners in the past are deeply suspicious of future partners and clingy. They realize just how easy it is to violate the relationship and fuck other people, then conceal it. They're terrified of that happening to them. People realize that if there are no consequences, then they can just do whatever they want to. I know so, so many people with no morals who will happily breach the terms of a relationship because why not? There's literally no reason in Game Theory why they shouldn't. There's an abundance of other people to go be with if you're caught cheating. This leads to deep spiritual dissatisfaction though, of course. You start eating fast food too much and your brain becomes rewired to crave those short bursts of flavor and fat.
I've thought about this model for a long time, and tested it against my close friends. I have one particular friend who has had at least 10 orbiters in the 2 years I've known her. I've watched guy after guy wait for their turn, completely oblivious to the fact that she was spinning them like a madman. I honestly think she might have it figured out, at least to her benefit. There are literally hundreds of men that are lining up on tinder, waiting for their chance with her. It makes perfect sense. She's a hawk, and if the other person becomes a hawk she can just leave and find another in like 2 hours, not counting those already on her phone. These poor oblivious men spinning in and out of her life.
We all want to be a dove. We all want to trust and love our partners. But without someone who is willing to truly fight their inner nature, this is impossible. And whats worse is that you could probably never tell the difference anyways.
Bottled_Void 5y ago
Well that's the worst ever example of game theory applied to relationships I've ever seen.
You presume relationships to be a (near) zero sum game, for every person that wins, someone loses an equal amount. You presume that cheating is double the reward of staying monogamous. Basically, your entire premise is completely flawed.
If you're saying that if there is no repercussions for cheating, then there is nothing to stop you from cheating, then yeah sure go for that. But that's not universal to every relationship. Every single relationship will have a different payoff matrix.
And for all your viable strategies you didn't come up with the most common strategy employed in society for monogamous relationships. You don't cheat, if they cheat, you leave them. You don't let them get away with it and you don't turn to cheating yourself.
NeedingAdvice86 5y ago
Bhahahhaa.....I know.
But I will take it a step further.....who in their right mind would take relationship advice from someone who is wasting hours upon hours contemplating, analyzing and actually putting such a presentation together?
Because you can be certain that poster isn't spending any time around any real women but instead is stuck in their mom's basement reading the musings of other inexperienced dolts theories and philosophy about something with which they have no experience or understanding.
I ain't taking advice from those people.
To the Op......get off the computer, put down the slide ruler and go find some actual real life women to converse with...
[deleted] 5y ago
This is an incredibly simplistic introduction but lays out the foundations well. This is something TRP needs more of, many young men aren't exposed to game theory. Follow up posts by this author, introducing additional variables, and iteration writ large, would be helpful.
Don't let the great be the enemy of the good.
[deleted]
Adeus_Ayrton 5y ago
If you find out. Which I suspect isn't what happens most of the time. In that case, you're being taken advantage of.
Nicolas0631 5y ago
but this isn't important as long as you don't know and you have a nice experience. If you have a bad relation, you should stop it even if the other is the perfect dove.
chrisname 5y ago
Iterated prisoner’s dilemma (your “run a machine learning script on thousands of games”) actually favours tit-for-tat with forgiveness (only cheating if the opponent cheated in the previous two rounds) as the optimal strategy.
alt_account_6 5y ago
Just for clarity, hawk dove is a different game than prisoners dilemma. Although I think you are right about tit for tat with forgiveness.
chrisname 5y ago
What are the differences? I did AI so we touched on game theory but didn’t go deep into it. It looks fundamentally the same: two opponents who can either cooperate or compete. In a single round the dominant strategy is always to cheat, but iteratively, tit-for-tat with forgiveness dominates.
What I found really cool about this is that it predicts that a certain percent of players who always cheat is a stable population, and it’s near the same as the percentage of people who suffer from antisocial personality disorder (5% IIRC). If there were more of them, they would eat each other, so the population stabilises.
alt_account_6 5y ago
The difference is explained here. Btw chicken is another word for the hawk-dove game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)#Chicken_and_prisoner's_dilemma
I think it changes the ESS as well, and the basin of attraction (the attractive pull each outcome has on mixed strategies using a learning equation like Reinforcement Learning). Don't quote me on that though.
Also incidentally what you're talking about in that last paragraph is an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy, the ability of a population to successfully fend off invaders, or "mutants". Unfortunately ESSs have a set of pretty complicated rules I won't attempt to explain here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy
Nicolas0631 5y ago
For me this is not the same as prisoner dilema. You assume that nobody can even be ok with being "cheated" and that most value in a relation is from sex loyalty. This is not only overly simplistic but wrong.
For instance, many prefer to share a wonderful hawk than to have exclusivity on a dove they don't like. Many just prefer to be alone and so don't give a shit of what their plate are doing of their free time when not together. Many think dove is more important than actually sharing something true and deep even if that's not exclusive. Also many think it is unnacceptable to ever cheat from a moral standpoint and will never do it.
Sumsar01 5y ago
Game theory is mathematics not economics or cognetive science.
RPAlternate42 5y ago
this is a bastardized version of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" except your dove-hawk variables need a wider spectrum to describe the relationship between the people. I'd start modeling the spectrum based on the SMV variables.
But it gets way more complicated, because she may be smokin' hot, which makes her SMV high, but she is messy, can't cook, regularly drinks to inebriation, and fucks like a tube sock, so her relationship value drops while her external SMV is high. She may also be a 5/10 but be perfect in every other way, so while her SMV is lower, her relationship value is high.
Being in the relationship immediately skews her value to him.
But the real problem is that, this being a Men's Sexual Strategy forum, this should be framed in a way where the default setting is never accepting hawk-like behavior in a woman in an LTR with you, doesn't matter if she's a 10 or a 5 or a 1, cheating is cheating.
And this is why the hawk-hawk is the most likely outcome; by hawking first, she effectively ends the LTR.
No man should ever accept being a dove in a hawk relationship.
tempolaca 5y ago
I cheated in the past, like, a lot.
It's not worth it. This is my reasoning: When I was in a LTR, I cheated a lot. And then she dumped me, turns out, nothing really changed. I can still fuck a lot of women. This caused the breakup to be 100% negative. Lost the LTR and gained basically nothing.
Other times when I was younger, a breakup means free pass to fuck anything, and that lessened the pain of the breakup, a consolation prize.
If you cheat in a LTR, when breakup happens, it will be 100% negative and you will gain nothing. You will not gain freedom or more sex, because you had it anyway.
On the other hand, my LTR never was so happy than when I cheated. I could fuck her non-stop senseless because fucking mutiple girls, you never get tired of a single one. After 2 years of LTR I can still fuck her multiple times a day, like the first week we met. Weird, I know.
[deleted] 5y ago
This is the surprising irony behind cheating. Men who cheat are happier (and their LTR too) so long as they don't get emotionally involved (emotional affairs) and don't get caught.
chrisname 5y ago
I’m different, in my last LTR I cheated on her a few times and I just didn’t really want her any more. That’s probably why I got caught. Of course, when I stopped cheating, she slowly lost all attraction to me while my attraction to her went up.
KeffirLime 5y ago
I'm not so sure you're looking at it the right way.
If the entire SMP is 100%, your LTR is 0.00001% of that. You're giving up 99.999999% of the SMP for that miniscule fraction, whereas by cheating you enjoyed the benefits of that 0.00001% while still having access to 100% of the SMP.
Add in the odds of how often a relationship that starts ends in forever(probably another 0.0001%), and the sacrifices that need to be made for that, especially considering the male strategy of spread seed over the females of select quality mate, I'm not sure you lose as much as you think you do.
[deleted] 5y ago
Best strategy to turn your Gf into a dove is to be a lot higher value than her, use hypergamy to both of yours advantage. make it extremely unattractive to cheat on you. You can accomplish this, if you have women who are orbiting you, but you NEVER cheat. So you are a good role model with abundance.
Tell her what you think about cheating women, how disgusting they are etc., make it clear her life will be garbage without you.
[deleted]
abdueler 5y ago
So Islamic mariages are the ideal ones.
[deleted] 5y ago
Prefer to think of them as Old Testament marriages.
[deleted]
FractalNerve 5y ago
I was thinking something along the lines, the repercussions for cheating are not zero in conservative relationships.
Cheating is not only desastrous, it can sometimes turn into blood wars and deaths between families. Remember Romeo/Julia, where just contact between a pair has already repercussions without modeling cheating into the game theory.
The most ugly repercussions I know are in Arabic and Pakistani/Hindu countries (even imported to modern countries via immigration). Stoning woman alive, getting whipped to death or throwing acid into the face and sometimes "just shooting the cheater" are some of their ugly responses to "breaking the contract". Note, cheating doesn't even have to really happen, basic contact or desire can already be reason for punishment.
This even happens with the help of the government and creates a powershift for men. What does that mean to happiness in relationships?? Serious question, are their trustable studies comparing happiness in western to eastern marriages and relationships in general ?
abdueler 5y ago
Well I'm a married Muslim man. Cheating is non existent in my social circle or even friends of friends. And I'm not even living in a country where Islamic rules are applied. Cheating is viewed as obscene and disgusting. As a Muslim woman she is taught to serve and obey her man. Not to speak or hang out with men unless it is necessary. The same applies to men. So as a Muslim man I have a good faithful obedient woman and she has a provider that will look after her. After she agrees to marriage she doesn't have the right to divorce (legally she has but before God she would still be my wife). So this type of relationship requires both to be religious so you won't be sleeping around. Also as a man I have the right to marry up to 4.
I think this kind of marriage or LTR is what TRP is looking for. At least after reading for a year my belief in my religion got stronger because the rules set on marriage made sense. At first it looks like harsh but this in the long run produces happy long marriages where you can raise children and support each other. I get what I want and she gets what she wants. We are both happy. Love builds up in time. Also because she can't get away from me I can invest in the relationship without fear.
[deleted]
FractalNerve 5y ago
You are right. Ideal TRP goals are to be in a Muslim relationship, independent of the religious beliefs, but the structure provided is sound for stability with occasional drama, due to harsher social rules.
Poolooloo 5y ago
The part you're neglecting here is that this game isn't just played multiple times over the course of a lifetime, but over generations and we are the evolved outcomes of this game being played for at least a few billion years.
Pair bonding developed somehow. Most species on earth don't have it at all. It's not a prerequisite for reproduction by any means yet somehow the dove-dove strategy emerged through the chaos. The reason is because of parental investment. It also makes sense why many relationships begin dove-dove, and then one or both transition to hawks over time. As the offspring become older and more independent, less parental investment is needed so breaking up is less of a risk from a Darwinian standpoint. But in pregnancy and infancy extreme investment is needed. This is where the "7 Year Itch" comes from. After about that amount of time has passed a child is old enough to potentially subsist for an extended period without direct parental support.
Only recently with the invention of contraception has the game fundamentally changed where sex is just a drug and not an act of procreation. Women these days almost certainly fuck guys they would not have because they aren't worried about getting pregnant and have the option of terminating the pregnancy. The risk now is considerably lower on the female side of the equation. It's a different game entirely, but we're still wired the same as we were 200, 2,000, even 20,000 years ago.
[deleted]
htbf 5y ago
This is retarded on so many levels I'm gonna be cringing for a few hours.
ex_addict_bro 5y ago
#metoo
weezylane 5y ago
The point of redpill is to turn you men into attractive hawks for whom female hawks are willing to turn doves.
scissor_me_timbers00 5y ago
Boom, this is the crux of it all. This is another way of restating my maxim: you must be more virile, than she is feral.
The blue pill illusion is not realizing just how fucking feral women are, especially sexually, and softening up to try and relate to them as a dove. When in fact they crave virile, competent MEN, which instinctually tames her feral nature. At least partially, in that it invokes a female submissive attitude. Social controls are required for the full domestication of the female tho.
But you could strongly argue that the increasing tameness of men since the industrial revolution led to men becoming more and more like indoor cats and losing their virile instincts, and that this is the root of feminism. Women look around them as see the dandied up soft bod men doing office work like them and think “he’s no better than me, I could do anything he could”— and oftentimes in modern day she’s right.
This leads to the illusion of gender equality in the last century, which leads to loosening the leash on women, which leads to social breakdown and declining female happiness because what they really want to be with high status virile competent grown males. And not the soy cuck of a modern metropolis.
[deleted]
officerkondo 5y ago
Look who just discovered the prisoner's dilemma and Nash equilibrium, so now everything looks like a nail.
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
So the issue I have with this representation is its binary nature. To wit some Doves are quite happy sharing the Hawk with another Dove in order to continue to have access to a high status Hawk.
Likewise, some Doves are also perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to their Hawk’s philandering if he keeps it on the down low, and she gets to be the wife, live in the nice house and have nice things and so forth.
It really depends on how big of a pimp hand that the Hawk has.
omega_dawg93 5y ago
iow, the typical marriage from the 1930's until about 1972.
​
alt_account_6 5y ago
I see what you're saying. I am not sure I agree that can knowing about your partner cheating be the basis for a healthy ongoing relationship, but that can be explained by modifying the payoffs a bit. If a woman who was being cheated on was receiving more utility by being in the relationship than not, it would maybe be possible to remain a dove. But she'd be less happy than if she was in a dove-dove scenario, meaning that she isn't acting rationally in that situation by staying with a non faithful partner, given she could find another with relatively low cost. Obviously OND reduces costs to basically zero.
It might help to look at this discussion ceterus paribus, at only one's satisfaction based on cheating or not cheating being present. There may be outweighing factors like financial costs, social costs, costs of finding a new partner that make it worthwhile being in that relationship, but if you accept that being in a monogamous relationship is better than being one of two or more then the model works. Does that clear it up a bit?
The world is more complicated than a set of 4 outcomes, but really all its saying is that one person cheating is evolutionarily desirable for that person, that both cheating is undesirable but evolutionarily natural, and that no cheating is optimal but not natural. I could have picked really any numbers to illustrate that.
twofones 5y ago
I can appreciate the game theory but women really do have a natural revulsion to stable, unthreatening, predictable “healthy” relationships. You have to wait until she’s wrinkly for her to even find stability palatable. And even then women have an endemic level of drama and jealousy that must be present in the relationship for her to even know the relationship exists. The lower the better for men but instability MUST be present. Stability aversion is an artifact of hypergamy.
warburgio 5y ago
' she'd be less happy than if she was in a dove-dove scenario' nope
Poolooloo 5y ago
You need to consider that the world has historically had far higher levels of inequality and much less wealth than today. When the doves are all broke but the hawk has enough to provide for 10 or 20 families it makes sense to stay faithful to the hawk.
And women tend to be more forgiving of physical cheating than emotional cheating. The "she means nothing to me, it was just sex" argument is much more reassuring from a woman's perspective because it means she isn't going to lose material investment, and sperm is insanely cheap.
[deleted] 5y ago
I would be very interesting to see this modeled out properly in a multivariate analysis. We could include factors such as men and women's differing needs, deception, the relative success women have at being hawks vs. men who don't seem to fair as well, optional birth control, legal enforcement of child-support, etc... Would be quite interesting. If we allowed it to play out iteratively it could probably predict much of what we have today and possibly tell us what is in store for the future.
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
She might be more happy if she had the Hawk to herself, but that’s not the right comparison. The right comparison is, would she be happier sharing the Hawk than having another Dove to herself. While I agree that the model is relatively simple, it does not take into account female hypergamy.
Cheating for a man is natural, but his woman cheating is far more disastrous for him than his cheating would be to her. Because while the woman knows the baby is hers, the man must have faith. Thus it is arguable that male philandering is compensation for a lack of certainty that a given offspring is his.
Game theory, while useful As a tool, has limitations. In this case there’s an assumption from the beginning that it’s “better” to be in a monogamous (dove-dove) relationship, perhaps because this is the western ideal. But why?
redpillschool Admin 5y ago
A Hawk who is attractive enough to be shared might make her tingle more than any Dove who can be tamed, and the minute the Hawk is tamed, the numbers change and she doesn't want it.
nebder 5y ago
Shooting off on a related tangent-
I’m firmly convinced we are in the process of the paradigm shift in family makeup as we speak. We are transitioning out of the TMM (traditional monogamous marriage) model in favor of a co-parenting 50/50 visitation split model. I am about 2 years into the second version of raising a family and find it to be highly effective anecdotally.
2comment 5y ago
It works as long as the economics hold for it. Split living expenses on a lot of things works to more than a shared family under one roof, but since women been expected to work and 2+ car families have become the norm anyway, that's the way it's evolving and suits women just fine if they can have kids for multiple men. Chads and top level betas win, the rest lose. It's practically the destined outcome given how the game is played.
Of course, we're firmly in a petroleum economy and no alternative is even close in any metric to competing, so that means things can change in a heartbeat (I figure 2042ish when 1P reserves are tapped out but it's highly speculative).
nebder 5y ago
A divorce will change the fixed overhead of the original family into 2 sets of fixed overhead for each household. The variable overhead of adding a kid(s) to the household is actually rather negligible compared to the fixed overhead of the household.
With the above premise, the man typically gets double dipped and has to pay all his overhead plus a share of the ex-wife’s overhead due to child support coming from the man. The 50/50 custody agreement without support is about as fair as it’s going to get.
BRAVOSNIPER1347 5y ago
this doesnt make any sense in real world society.
alt_account_6 5y ago
This model is merely saying people prefer to cheat, but both people cheating is undesirable, and draws a series of logical conclusions from that. I'm not arguing that the real world isn't more complex, this model only focuses on one key element to facilitate understanding of our more complex reality.
guyau 5y ago
I think the point was that reducing human relationships to evolutionary game theory is incredibly reductive. A LTR is not a prisoners dilemma of two people trying to reach their own biological goals. Perhaps there's a level at which this type analysis is relevant, but the level at which we live, think and reflect upon what's important in life is over and above biological egoism.
VasiliyZaitzev 5y ago
I want to be clear that I’m not faulting you for the effort, but I think where the issue lies is that men and women are not “equivalent” players, in terms of the hand they are dealt at the start. Also, while it may be considered “easy” for a woman to go find a new relationship” that ain’t necessarily so. Indeed, her inability to do that over a short time is the foundation of the “baby trap” - if her current partner says “no kids, thanks” then she would have to go out, find a guy who is as attractive as the current guy, makes as much $ as the incumbent and then “test” him to be sure he’s not secretly a loser or otherwise defective (alchy, druggie, etc).
It’s just much easier to pull the goalie.
Dick may be cheap and plentiful, but high grade dick is pretty rare, especially if a girl is used to it. The Hamster doesn’t want to trade down.
virginlor 5y ago
Women are gifted social manipulators, if they want something, even if it's wrong, they will emotionally manipulate themselves and you in order to change the facts and vindicate themselves
[deleted]
AutoModerator 5y ago
Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Sotokun3000 5y ago
Haha nice one, was trying to draw a similar payoff diagram quite recently with a former LTR.
Was having suspicions whether she had cheated or not, and it’s amazing how putting it down on paper on what would have been her best move can clear your thinking. The numbers show the truth when emotions can skew logic.
It’s always prudent and wise to have in mind what your “opponent’s” best move is. When in doubt, put it down on paper. It obviously reduces your expected spiritual/partner payoff but it reduces the downside too. Now internalising this equilibrium and accepting it is another topic, tricky in its own way
Kyogata 5y ago
Another good reason why one should never take advice from a psychologist or an economist.
Both disciplines are so mired in failure, because of their inability to explain the human condition, and rely on either flawed methodologies resulting in non-replicability (psychology) or flawed assumptions about humanity and 'nature' (economics) as to render even a good methodology produce startlingly wrong results.
[deleted]
ozaku7 5y ago
You know what the difference is between you and women? Women aren't afraid to use everything in their arsenal to protect themselves and get what they want, while you try to play the game according to rules which in their world are basically handicaps.
If you can't let your emotions drive you to protect yourself, you are a loser.
I've had chicks that started acting up and no reason or logic would calm them down. Only when I just got pissed, told them i am sick of their shit and would rather cancel our plans instead of going out with their grumpy ass.
Suddenly they feel fine. What do you know.
TheGoldenLeprechaun 5y ago
For the vast majority of history up to the present day, and in most of the world successful men have had harems. Which is why on average everyone have twice as many female ancestors. Even now, in everywhere but the west and Europe, successful men still have second and sometimes third families. Not only that, but adultery / cheating is dealt with pretty harshly. This whole post is beta mate guard thinking. When your'e smashing ho after ho it's just a matter of the best girl sticking around and proving herself time and time again throughout all your antics.
TL;DR Betas (vast majority of men) hardly get laid, aren't in "relationships" to be cheated on. Women share the attention of successful (alpha males) men and "cheating" is no more than being passed around as they get cum-pumped and dumped.
Note: The new rising phenomena is the stay at home girlfriend strategy. Where the girl has no skills, no job, no kids(#childfree), who levels up in world of thotcraft all day shopping for the branch swing, meanwhile betaman who thinks he's alpha is out working.
scissor_me_timbers00 5y ago
Lol “thotcraft”. That’s all these modern women know. Even her “career” is all part of this process of posturing and adorning herself to attract alphas (although a deeply misguided attempt). They go to college and wear “smart” glasses and spout off all the most fashionable opinions. God it’s all so insufferable. Nietzsche had some lines on roughly this. About how all of woman is mendacity and surface adornment, aka “thotcraft”.
Whisper 5y ago
This sort of thing is interesting, and worth exploring, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
One of the most dangerous things about mathematical or computer models of human behaviour is that getting humans into a formal representation system in the first place requires so many simplifying assumptions that your resulting conclusions, while absolutely empirical for your special assume-the-chicken-is-a-sphere-to-make-the-math-easier model humans, do not have much predictive power for real humans, especially for the kind of outlier that actively practicing red pill men aspire to become.
In other words: make models like this, think about them, learn from them, but don't regard them as conclusive.
Aro2220 5y ago
What do you think the results of this will be in another 30 years?
Less and less family structure. More and more reliance on the government...
This is certainly intentional and you are just looking more closely at some of the secret sauce that's got us all in chains.