Here is the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 1)
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
Part 8 — Wants and Choices
Part 9 — Hypergamy or Adultery
Part 10 — Hypergamy and Adultery
Today we will discuss:
Part 11 — Selection
Synchronicities are where two unrelated events seem to be closely related, as if they it were not a coincidence. Here is a very old post that I recently read:
I’m fairly convinced that if you ‘leveled the playing field’ and gave everybody $25,000 to start, then within 5 years, most of the people who are currently rich would be rich again and those who are currently broke would be broke again.
Not ALL. But most.
This quote was already in an earlier draft of this article. Then I read this comment, posted only a day or so ago.
IMHO, and in general, most people who are married with children are higher quality individuals than single adults. I noticed this while I was teaching in public secondary schools. When people came to the school, I could always tell whether they were parents of the students or not. Parents were generally taller, thinner, more attractive, better dressed, better hygiened, more confident, more dignified, more articulate, more intelligent, more purposeful, and had better manners. Not just a little bit, I mean they were a league above the book salesmen, government agents, IT technicians, security guards, solicitors, and other non-parents who came to the school. It was very obvious. Mothers were MILFS, fathers were deft, perceptive, and professional. (Granted, that’s here in Taiwan.)
These two comments seem to be discussing the same thing.
The effect that Zuby describes is a consistently repeated one.
There have been times throughout history when the possessions of the wealthy (along with their power and influence) were taken or significantly lost (e.g. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, the post-Civil War American South, and parts of Europe after WWII). Yet, in many of these cases, after only a couple generations the previous aristocracy (or a same-tier rival faction) had gained much of the former political or economic power.
It’s not just the rich. It has been well-established that a large percentage of poor lottery winnings will lose their winnings in a few years. Many athletes make millions, but end up broke. Land redistributions rarely result in the poor keeping their land. Generational wealth rarely lasts past the 3rd generation.
It’s extremely difficult to change a person’s trajectory. There is a sense in which poor people are poor and always will be, and rich people are rich and are destined to be rich. When this gets tested, it proves true more often than not.
What does this have to do with hypergamy specifically or male/female relationships in general? It’s simple: the people who have successful marriages are built different than those who don’t. Just as you can predict how a person will handle a sudden influx of money—by factors such as their birth (e.g. who their parents are), intelligence, existing wealth, or religious beliefs—you can also make solid predictions on a person’s divorce risk—and whether their wife will be hypergamous—without knowing who they are married to.
Now, let’s watch as Jack attempts to explain this phenomenon:
I’ve often wondered whether the experience of being married shapes people to be this way, or if such people are ‘chosen’ (by spouses or by God) for marriage and procreation. I think it is both.
Jack wonders if marriage shapes the married people, and it probably does to an extent, but it is even more true that the people shape the marriage. What each person brings to the relationship—who they are as a person—is of far more importance than how it changes them. In fact, who they are strongly influences how marriage will change them!
While I absolutely believe that God plays a strong external role in relationship success, we can’t discount the internal role that each person plays in choosing for themselves. As with the ability or inability to handle wealth, most people get what they want (whether spending habits or relationship habits), even if they attribute their outcomes to external forces.
Jack’s observations about married and unmarried persons reflects assortative pairing. “Better” people get married and “worse” people do not. “Better” people have marital success and “worse” people do not. I put those words in quotes because it’s not obviously anyone’s fault per se.
I’m objectively worse than Tom Brady at quarterback.
I don’t get angry at famous sports players because they can hit, kick, or throw a ball better than I can. They have skills and abilities that I lack. Some of that is because I have not bothered to train (i.e. my choice), but in most cases I simply lack the physical tools (e.g. body type) to even come close to getting the job done (i.e. completely outside of my control).
The same is true for relationships. The only difference, unlike football performance, is that we are not completely sure what goes into making a good match—whether inherent or learned ability—and it is subject to much debate. But we don’t need to know what the answer is in order to understand that it gets sorted out:
Men who should get married do. And they tend to get married quickly.
The Red Pill treats all men like tabula rasa—blank slates—with its one-size-all rules, axioms, and commandments. But just like I would get literally destroyed in a professional football game, trying to get a man to cheat assortative pairing (including trying to avoid being unpaired) may well be equally disastrous.
Men everywhere have no trouble understanding that differences in physical ability lead to wildly different—and somewhat deterministic—results, but have great difficulty accepting the same in terms of mental ability (or personality), even though the scientific evidence is equally strong.
Jack should have seen this difference between the married and unmarried and assumed it was just like the difference between a normal man and Tom Brady on the football field. But… he didn’t. Indeed, the most common reaction to hearing about how important selection effects are is to respond with derision.
Men who have had relationship troubles do not like to believe that it has anything at all to do with who they are personally. They have great trouble acknowledge anything that is loaded with connotations and overtones about self-worth:
In addition to this, and no matter how enjoyable or stable marriage is for the individual, being married is seen as a life achievement, like finishing high school, getting a degree, sticking with the same job for 10 years, etc. We know women see marriage as a life achievement, but it’s not a gynocentric view.
Also, one of the qualifications for a church elder is that he can manage his family well (1 Timothy 3:4). That implies (but maybe not requires) that he is married and has children.
Being married is—even in the modern era—considered to be perhaps the greatest life achievement. Society is largely structured around relationships and families. A steady marriage is a requirement for leading the church.
To fail at marriage is considered, by many, to be a personal defect of character. This is the blankslatist’s fallacy:
“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”
— A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003
Nevertheless, this is why hypergamy is so popular in the Dalrockian Manosphere. It provides a suitable scapegoat. Someone else is responsible. Hypergamy exonerates the individual man from taking the “blame” for his failures, which he believes must be related to a failure of someone’s character. Although it’s acceptable for a man to say “I’m not good at football and never will be,” it is forbidden to say “I’m not good at relationships and never will be.”
Consider recent comment:
Let’s consider your question…
“Was/is the ”market” right to have made Dalrock learn game again from Roissy to make his wife happy when ”she felt unloved”?”
…in light of Dalrock’s claims:
Behind both of these lurks blankslatism, the idea that everyone is an interchangeable cog differing only in their environmental programming, which can be changed if only you turn the right screws.
But women, like men, are inherently diverse, with diverse thoughts, opinions, motivations, desires, and feelings. They are not interchangeable, neither is there a standardized approach to male/female relationships.
It’s not just that women are different from men—as Dalrock asserts—it’s that they are different from each other.
Read what Rock Kitaro wrote under his most recent post (which I recommend everyone read):
That’s right. Dalrock apparently wanted the kind of wife—perhaps “younger, hotter, tighter, and free”—that such things are effective on, but other men do not. Dalrock didn’t seem to have one of these in mind:
There is a real division between people who think that there is a single kind of woman (and a single kind of approach) and the rest of us.
What Dalrock was taught—what he calls nonsense—is actually effective on certain kinds of women. It’s quietly effective. The people who are giving the advice are the people for whom it has actually worked. Those people—for whom it is effective—notably do not get online to go on-and-on about how you must do it or else divorce. They quietly go about their days with normal marriages to normal wives while the Dalrockians struggle with the choices that they prefer.
So Bonald is right when he says…
…and you can tell that Bonald likes a different kind of women than Dalrock by how he says stuff like this!
By contrast, Dalrock has nothing but disdain for men who have wives they like and don’t have to play games with. After all, his wife “fitness tested” him, so apparently yours must too! But all this shows is that he is, apparently, attracted to that kind of woman.
Dalrock’s approach…
…would be fatal to a marriage to a different kind of woman.
So the question is this: why are so many men attracted to women where the standard “nonsense” advice is ineffective?
Regardless of questions of right or wrong, most of the men who are successfully married are that way because they chose well. And most of the men who were unsuccessful got that way because they chose poorly. And if they all had to do it again and again, the results would likely be the same each time. The results are not random.
Most people get what they were “looking” for.
There is a certain view that those who are divorced have the best advice to offer men in similar situations. They are supposed to have been through it and know what to expect and how to handle it. Happily married men are purported to be naive about how things really are: they don’t realize how terrible women really are and their advice is misguided.
If you saw a correlation between marital trouble and people who speak ill of women online, would you try to improve your manners by ceasing to speak ill of women online? Or would you say:
The kind of men who might actually seek out the advice of married men won’t do so because they don’t need it: they already have what it takes and will soon join the ranks. They don’t need a Manosphere. By contrast, the rest already think they have all the answers and would never stoop to asking those naive and lucky married men for advice: “What could men who chose well have to offer men who didn’t (or don’t)?”
The rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Does it have to be that way?
There is a certain view that those who are divorced have the best advice to offer men in similar situations. They are supposed to have been through it and know what to expect and how to handle it. Happily married men are purported to be naive about how things really are: they don’t realize how terrible women really are and their advice is misguided.
Parents were generally taller, thinner, more attractive, better dressed, better hygiened, more confident, more dignified, more articulate, more intelligent, more purposeful, and had better manners.
If you saw a correlation between marital trouble and people who speak ill of women online, would you try to improve your manners by ceasing to speak ill of women online? Or would you say:
That’s just naive and luck-has-not-run-out-yet men blaming men and making excuses for women who they worship as goddesses.
The kind of men who might actually seek out the advice of married men won’t do so because they don’t need it: they already have what it takes and will soon join the ranks. They don’t need a Manosphere. By contrast, the rest already think they have all the answers and would never stoop to asking those naive and lucky married men for advice: “What could men who chose well have to offer men who didn’t (or don’t)?”
The rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Notice how naive Happily married men are treated similar to how JESUS disciples(or in your case the Dalrockian disciples who have even twisted Dalrock’s teachings to suit their own itching ears and lusts) wanted to treat the Samaritans( or naive Happily married men in the ever-failing latter-day Dalrockian Manosphere)?
Rejection in Samaria (9:51-56)
The section opens with the note in verse 51 that Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. The journey begins. It starts as the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven. Imagery of Jesus’ fate and destiny appears even in the start to this section. “Setting one’s face” to do something is an Old Testament way of speaking about resolve (Gen 31:21; Jer 21:10; 44:12; Lohse 1968:776 n. 45). Jesus is determined to accomplish God’s will wherever it leads.
Jesus’ path often leads to rejection. The lesson, however, is not rejection’s presence but how we respond to it. This short account is unique to Luke. It also is the only passage where Samaritans are portrayed negatively (contrast 10:25-37; 17:11-19). As Jesus heads for Jerusalem, we might think that a change of scenery and an outreach program in a new ethnic area might have more success than earlier efforts. This brief account makes it clear that rejection is not limited to Israel.
In Jewish eyes Samaritans were half-breeds, ethnic traitors, bad guys. When the nation was divided, Samaria was originally a name for the capital of the northern kingdom founded by Omri (1 Kings 16:21-24). Samaritans intermarried with other peoples in the region. They even worshiped at a different site, Mount Gerazim (Jn 4:20-24). Many recognized only the Pentateuch as inspired. Traditionally Jews and Samaritans were hostile to one another. So Jesus’ effort to reach out to them is culturally exceptional. It would be like ministering in a crossracial setting today. The reaction might be “What are you doing here?” and “Can you believe he ministers to them?”
Jesus sends messengers ahead to prepare the people for his arrival. Much like an advance public relations team, they were to help plan what would occur when he arrived. But the Samaritans did not welcome him. The explanation is that Jesus’ face is set toward Jerusalem. In other words, rejection is his fate. Even though that rejection will occur in the capital of Israel, the Samaritan reaction mirrors that coming reality. The world is not responsive to Jesus; rejection is widespread.
The disciples react with the wish to use their connections and power to launch a retributive strike. James and John ask for the ancient equivalent of nuking the enemy: “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” The disciples understand the great power they have access to, but the question is whether vindictive use of this power is proper. Is their hostile reaction justified? The request for “fire from above” recalls the ministry of Elijah (2 Kings 1). In their view, surely rejection means instant judgment.
Jesus corrects them. The text does not tell us what he said. In a story that is a little unusual in form, it simply notes that Jesus rebukes them and they move on to the next village. Many Gospel accounts end with a climactic saying of Jesus, a pronouncement that is key to the event in question. Here Jesus’ action speaks for itself. There is no saying; rather, the disciples’ saying becomes a view to be rejected emphatically. The disciples are not to wield their power as a club of judgment. Vindication from God will come later, as he deals with those who reject him. Warnings can be issued, as in 9:5, 10:13-16 or 17:20-36, but God is giving people time to decide to come to him. So the disciples are to preach the opportunity for salvation. If they are not well received, they are to move on. So having left this Samaritan city, Jesus and the disciples continue their mission in another village.
Acts 8 shows that the disciples eventually returned to this region with some success. Second Peter 3:9 may well be a theological commentary on an event like this: God is patient, wanting all to come to repentance; his judgment waits so that more may have time to come to him.
Does it have to be that way?
When you have unhappily & unsound-minded(who God has given over to depraved thought patterns against goodness, brotherly love, and the Spirit of Christmas) divorced MEN who most likely think the above incident is JESUS being ”hyperbolic” it sure does have to be that way.
God is patient, wanting all to come to repentance; his judgment waits so that more may have time to come to him.
Hence, GBFM, with his lifelong best buds MOSES and JESUS, hasn’t fully poured out the ”TERROR OF THE LORD” nor the ”WRATH OF GOD” on ALL those who stand against goodness, brotherly love, and the Spirit of Christmas(for the past 15 years)!
Derek
Maybe you should call hypergamy, a failure of NOT Vetting?
https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2023/10/23/brides-are-subject-to-vetting/
i didn’t see all the objections to vetting, selecting or assortive pairing there like people have with your ”selecting or assortive pairing” here.
It’s like when a lot of ”Conservatives” and ”Christians” were against ”gay marriage” but became all for it as ”same sex marriage” , just change the words and NOT the concept/subject and more people will like it.
You could really help people as shown here:https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/impact/2024/10/your-words-change-peoples-lives/
Your words can change people’s lives. This is how.
Every year, people from around the world take part in Amnesty International’s Write for Rights campaign.
It’s a really easy way to make a big difference by doing something “little”. It doesn’t take much time – all you need to do is write a letter, send a post or sign a petition. Honestly, it’s that easy to change the world!
Since Write for Rights started in 2001, millions of people have changed the lives of those whose human rights have been taken away. In fact, over the past 20 years more than 56 million actions have been taken, while over 100 people featured in our campaign have seen a positive outcome in their case.
It’s a privilege to see how your actions make a difference.
Meet three incredible people whose lives have been changed for the better and find out what people power means to them.
Artist and anti-war activist freed
After huge public campaigning, artist and anti-war activist Aleksandra (Sasha) Skochilenko was freed in a historic prisoner swap in August 2024. The deal was brokered between Russia and Belarus on the one hand and Germany, Norway, Poland, Slovenia and the USA on the other.
I am here thanks to you.
Aleksandra (Sasha) Skochilenko
Russian authorities arrested Sasha in April 2022 after she replaced price tags at a grocery shop with information about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She was charged with disseminating “false information” about the country’s military activities.
“I want to say a huge thank you to Amnesty International. It’s hard to put my gratitude into words, because, to a large extent, I am here thanks to you,” said Sasha.
Human rights defender acquitted
Rita Karasartova is a human rights defender and expert in civic governance from Kyrgyzstan. For over a decade she dedicated her life to providing independent legal advice, helping people whose rights had been violated.
I thank you all.
Rita Karasartova
Alongside 26 others, Rita was arrested for opposing a new border agreement giving control of a freshwater reservoir to Uzbekistan.
Charged with attempting to “violently overthrow the government”, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, Rita and 21 other defendants were acquitted on 14 June 2024.
“I would like to express my huge, huge gratitude. Your timely actions – these letters, petitions, signatures, and the huge number of letters that went to the court, that went to the prosecutor’s office – it was all very powerful,” said Rita.
“In fact, it was very empowering to us all… Of course, the acquittal was totally unexpected. I don’t even know how to process it in my head. We had been playing with all sorts of scenarios, different outcomes in our heads, but we didn’t think we would all be acquitted! I thank you all.”
Remember a lot of the unhappily married and divorced MEN in the manosphere see themselves as political or at least marital prisonerszlolzzlollzzzz.
The generalizations that married people are rich or more upwardly mobile, look better and are happier and smarter. Sure. I m sure that can be a true statement in circles such as his.
Highly educated. Smarter than average. That kind of thing.
That is now under the assumption that single people are not. But they *could* be if they just went out and married a good, christian gal who just happens to be way above average in the looks dept.
Easy to do. Women all want to be married (according to women…”where are all the men?”) and men just have to learn Game, have high confidence, get a STEM degree……and in some cases, move to Taiwan.
Tucker Carlson, made this statement almost a decade ago. “Married men live longer. Have better sex lives (but all I hear on the ‘sphere is talk about ‘dead bedrooms’), have better careers, have something to live for.” He could not understand why marriage was declining. Per usual, then and now…………….”men need to step up” statements. Men need to “learn Game, be confident, go to the gym, get a STEM degree and have male hobbies”
Marriage has become an elite thing. Not necessarily elite as in rich n’ powerful. Elite more to the lines of a social class of sorts.
Fewer and fewer men are deemed “marriage worthy” by women. Even at a young age. Women will argue that men are “boys” until the age of 40 or whatever. Elite men will argue “men who want to be married can be, very easily, just do thing women like (burp, fart, have confidence, tell dirty jokes…dont ever be nice, go to the gym, get a STEM degree, join a church that is bold n biblical, have male / masculine hobbies, have a mentor, have fellow like minded men as your friends, make sure you invest and have the college fund saved for your kids by the time you are 25, have your life purpose and mission figured out by the time you are 17, dress well, approach women daily, spin plates, be funny……..), you have to do things that women want and like in a man (according to women) and if a divorce happens?????
Its her fault!!!!!
Now, I will defend the benefits of marriage. It is better for children, of course income (most married women work today, even part time…most men dont have and cant have careers like Jack and Company. A small town away from “feminism” doesnt need 50 doctors, 50 lawyers, 50 engineers, 50 airline pilots….it needs men to butcher, harvest, farm, build, repair, maintain the society)
Just deluded is what they are (including Tucker Carlson) in these matters.
Most married people resemble that TV show “Roseanne” (hence why it resonated) over “Family Ties” (which was watched for its leading star appeal only, MJF)
The divorce rate is highest among the poorest and those with the lowest intelligence (including worst education). Among men, the divorce rate is very much scaled according to class. But, as you note, these are just descriptive generalizations. They are not deterministic (or prescriptive) for individuals. Nevertheless, what Jack noticed is a stereotype that corresponds to actual reality.
Thus: most, but not all.
What do we serve by telling men that they all have an equal chance of marital success, when this is not true? Who is served by lying to men?
It’s funny you say that, because according to Charlton and Dutton, society once had very highly intelligent men in the lesser positions, but due to dysgenics, the average intelligence (‘g’) has declined. There is nothing wrong with intelligent men doing “lesser” work. I’d argue that the Anabaptist farmers have been doing this for centuries.
In my hamlet where I grew up (just outside of Lake Placid, NY) there was a farmer. Small dairy. Not a “rich landlowner” nor “gentleman farmer”
He was a translator in WW II. He spoke four languages fluently. After the war, he came back to the small family farm and did that until he died. He married. Had a few kids. They all took over the farm after he died. Just a “dumb” farmer.
My grandfather returned from the war from a Japanese POW camp to go back to mining slate in Wales.
I get what you are saying.
Look how strongly intelligence is inversely correlated with divorce, even in the raw data that hasn’t been corrected for potentially confounding variables (e.g. urban vs. rural, religious vs. non-religious, and the “suicide belt” and the “bible belt“).
If this were broken down by county, the results would be even clearer.
(See here and here)
You can see the same intelligence effect for gun violence incidence here and general crime rate here. This effect is known in HBD circles as “The Map.”
“Marriage has become an elite thing. Not necessarily elite as in rich n’ powerful. Elite more to the lines of a social class of sorts. ”
One example often coming up is the male role model of “Government Issue” (GI), which some commentators like to advertise as the “Christian way of life”. Despite it being incompatible with the Gospel, people also turn out being unable to live as a civilian after deployment, usually ending with divorce and adultery at home. Turns out a brain trained on the battlefield doesn’t prepare well for boring domesticity and shopping groceries.
The shrinking American white middle-class picket fence environment is more or less based on someone else (tax payer’s) money. The people working on the actual market (getting taxed) no longer live that model and therefore no longer get married.
Rubbish. Most of the marriages of the men who came back from WWII did succeed. And these men saw the bayonet charges of the Japanese. The horrible combat and conditions that even the generation in Vietnam didnt experience. Many of them never got paid for their combat until a decade after the war ended.
Men had a humilty once. We dont have that now
This is why I commented about current deployments and not about service in the Roman legions.(The effects of veterans struggling with civil everyday life are well researched with MR imaging, so it’s not a life script I recommend.)
However that is not the actual point. The fundamental idea is that the government’s money makes things work in the “cultural” Christian religion and that idea is fundamentally flawed, because it’s based on someone else paying that lifestyle. How is the “someone else” demographics funding the military-industrial complex and funding marriage and their offspring at the same time? Answer: They simply don’t.
In modern times the real taxpayers who happen to keep the infrastructure running no longer get married and no longer have children. Thus the civilization ends itself.
MR,
As you are a non-American, I sometimes find your comments to be almost inscrutable:
This appears to be a roundabout way of agreeing with the two-pronged Charlton / Dutton / Woodley / Kierkegaard thesis on dysgenics:
First, you have mutational accumulation. The genetically unfit do not die off anymore and they end up breeding. Historically, those with higher-than-average mutations did not pass on their genes to any meaningful extent. Mortality in those groups was extremely high, giving a massive advantage to the highly intelligent. With changes to criminal justice and advances in modern medicine, warfare, and environmental safety, that is no longer the case.
Second, you have divergent reproduction rates. The least intelligent are reproducing much faster than the most intelligent. In the time it takes for the intelligent to produce one or two kids—below replacement fertility—the poor and unintelligent may already have 3, 4, 5, or more children and a grand-child or two. This creates a very strong downward selection pressure on intelligence. Of course, many highly intelligent people are not reproducing at all.
Combined, these two factors account for 1 to 3 points of decline in general intelligence (‘g’) per decade.
Third, in America and Europe, illegal immigration is having a similar dysgenic effect.
Just as it did with the Romans, these factors will end the current iteration of “high trust” civilization. Good outcomes will continue to be isolated to (mostly religious) communities that maintain high average intelligence through higher-than-average breeding.
Peace,
DR
The idea of “too much stupid babies” has been around since the early 20th century and was actually what lead to the extinction of Western society.
Or in other words: The Western attempt of eugenics fired back. While Margaret Sanger promoted eugenics to “prevent” the babies of the “wrong” race, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant middle-class was happily applying her methods on themselves giving in to sin. They even changed Christian doctrine to achieve that starting with the Lambeth conference of 1930, even defining their behavior as “moral obligation” further down.
My personal interpretation of the decline is that of fully deserved Divine judgement or “What you sow is what you reap.” The “illegal immigration” is pretty much the end of that story.
I don’t follow your logic. How did that idea lead to the extinction of Western society?
Illegal immigration is a footnote in the century or two of dysgenics. It’s the “nail in the coffin,” so to speak.
Speaking of Sanger, a long while back Planned Parenthood of one of the midwestern states sent a Tweet from their verified account pointing out that without widespread abortion, there would be much more crime (i.e. many more black babies). I think they were trying to appeal to pro-choice right wing voters. The point is, they’ve never actually given up their race-based eugenics.
I was actually surprised that they still were willing to say it out loud.
I recommend reading: https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-abstract/96/3/880/704272
The “geniuses” have eradicated themselves within a century using their own eugenics. Historians won’t treat that as very “genius”, if you ask me.
Ah, yes. I understand and agree.
Again….the world has always needed its “ditch diggers” and people who fixed the roads, took the trash to the dump, drove the taxi, clerks who moved paperwork at banks, the night watchman and the operator on the telephone (or now help desk / customer support).
If everyone has a “very high / above average intellect” then no one really does because everyone is an engineer, a doctor, a financial analyst, a research scientist, a pilot, a “leader” and no one is working to keep the underpinnings of society functioning because everyone is of “very high intellect”
Has IQ gone down? Sure it has. Are most IQ tests useless in the respects of actually giving “predictions of future outcomes?”
Sorry but me not following a pattern of shapes with a math equation and chosing the correct one doesnt “deem” me or “the west” to idiocracy. I dont understand me reading a paragraph and not able to define its past particible makes me “only allowed” to be a gas station attendant.
Met plenty of people in my life of “high intellect” evidently but cant balance a checkbook, cant run or supervise a team, their personal space (home) is abysmal and WAY too many use their “laziness” as an excuse or “crutch” as to why they cant work a normal job or hold one down until “they are noticed of what a genius they are” by the world and are given a cushy job to evidently express this “intellect”
Edison everyone claims is a genius or was. If Edison was in the modern schol system today, he would be medded up, diagnosed with ADHD, throw into special ed by all the “high intellect experts in psychology, education” and the like.
Edison himself evn claimed a thousand times that it was hard work and determination over his intellect……and he was educated at home by a woman, (gasp!!) his mother because he was “just not smart enough to be in school”
We have taken IQ as a socirty…..like marriage and have “deemed it as such” where if indeed a person is of above average intellect or higher
They MUST be good. They MUST be capable. They MUST be trustworthy and they must be “looked up to”
IQ is a good start to a perhaps a framework or baseline but the way (the Mano sphere) has muscled it up to eugenics, racial nonsense, predetermination, “Gods Love” and everything else demeans it more than actually has people at least trust it
I have an IQ 0f 92. Tested many times.
The United States functioned without taxes “taxes” (federal) for the first 140 plus years of its existence.
The “high intellect” people in their diabolical ways created the Federal Reserve in 1913, and thus the real financial problems began. It wasnt the struggling farmer, or the tanner, or the wagon repairman.
It was “high intellect” people who created this mess, and the “lower, stupid people” PAY for it.
We put too much on “IQ” and the like and less on actual sacrifice, work, loyalty and duty. Something low intellect people can actually attain.
[Editor: Comments merged for readability in-thread]
I disagree that we put too much emphasis on IQ. Many of the problems you complain about exist because we do not put enough emphasis on IQ and have not done so for generations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 put a stop to merit-based hiring based on IQ by making it illegal. SCOTUS ruled in 1971’s Griggs vs. Duke Power that the use of an IQ test violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. That was five-and-a-half decades ago.
The banning of IQ tests for hiring led to the demand for academic degrees as a proxy for intelligence. For a few decades, companies could hire based on merit by looking at college degrees and performance. But in recent decades academic evaluations have gotten increasingly watered down with tests getting easier and easier to pass. This has resulted in massive grade inflation. These days some school districts have already eliminated giving out Fs!
Most people are blankslatists and, when asked, will say that IQ tests are fake or do not accurately measure anything important.
Most of the things you complain about are larger problems than they would be otherwise because merit is not used to determine who decides policies.
IQ matters for divorce:
IQ matters for crime:
IQ matters for gun violence:
Pick whatever other metric you want to look at, including health, wealth, education, fertility, lifespan, etc. Virtually every conventional measure of life success that you can think of shows a similar effect. Even non-conventional measures like color perception, reaction times, and weight discrimination correlate positively with intelligence. Intelligence is, by far, the most important number that accurately predicts outcomes of the group.
People are forced—kicking and screaming at times—to acknowledge the genetic influence to height, weight, and strength, because it’s physical and only a fool denies it. And yet, there are many fools who do deny it, claiming that men and women are interchangeable. Recently all the Democrats voted that a male playing a female sport was fine because of this. They are living in a world of fantasy.
People don’t want IQ to matter either. But denying this is just as much a world of fantasy as denying the reality of the physical differences. They choose to believe that each person can purely determine their own destiny and are offended that a number on a test can often predict future outcomes better than people can predict their own outcomes. But even if it is true that people are complete free agents, how do you explain that those free agents will nonetheless freely determine their own destination in predictable ways?
I’ve said nothing about eugenics or predetermination because it isn’t relevant. Acknowledging the reality of differences in intelligence isn’t demeaning either, though as the A.W.F. Edwards quote shows…
“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.” — A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003
…many people project their own opinion onto others that it really does matter. The only reason IQ is demeaning is because people assume that differences in biology would imply moral differences, and so they deny that biological differences exist because their ideology demands it. So when someone like me points out that biological differences actually exist, they apply their ideology and criticize me for saying that I’m arguing for a moral hierarchy. But that is obviously circular reasoning based on their own assumptions.
Check your assumptions. Are you a blankslatist who believes that genetics do not matter and that God has designated each person equally as a purely free agent? Or do you believe that there are meaningful differences between people that strongly influence the course of their lives, for better or worse?
Do you believe, as scripture states, that God passes the consequences of the sin of the fathers onto the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate God? Can he not do so through genetics just as much as through the environment?
Blankslatists typically understand that their view of equality is morally binding on everyone else, including those who don’t share their view. This is largely behind all the condemnations of the alternative views. But it’s just projection.
Disagree Derek. The reason why you have this stance is because you have a higher IQ. “of course if we used IQ to determine everything, there would be fewer problems” is the typical answer
Do you suggest a society setup like “Brave New World” where low intellect people watch sports, drink beer and conduct manual labor, sent to war… and people like yourself get to decide on “matters of policy” because you just “happen to have a higher intellect”? People of higher intellect should just be paid mre because this? They should have the “right” to procreate while mass sterilization should be done to the masses???? Or would “some” be allowed to keep society function with a heavy handed policing of them to “keep them in line”?
I have frequently criticized the “Myers Briggs” as well. An intellectual battery of sorts that associates personality types and thus….only “certain” personalities are “good” and others are “bad” and the good ones (deemed good) should automatically be “leaders” while the rest should be “accept your station in life. Jesus love you!”
Have this personality type? “Oh, you have to accomodate to my style and work life balance”
A less deireable personality type? “This person is lazy, and need to buck up, stop complaining and just work harder!”
Part of this skeptical take by me is the Internet itself. Everyone is ISTJ (the rarest personality type and of course worthy of a Harvard education). Everyone is “way above average intellect” and yet…….all these folks running everything because of this “high intellect” has made many things worse.
I heard in the 1990’s nonstop “Did you know Bill Clinton got As all through school and college?! He’s really smart! We should only let smart people be elected”
How did that turn out???????
I hear at my job daily of “Im very intelligent, creative, thinking-out-of-the-box, gifted, I was in Honors classes all through high school. I graduated a year early on my degree track”
And yet…..I’m helping them catch up on their paperwork, their contracts, their delegation of duties because “they are so smart and have a high Q ”
We’re turning into a society where so many are evidently “brilliant” and “leaders” and fewer and fewer are doing the actual work or what it takes to get a job done.
Science and the supposed “geniuses” I am surrounded by daily…..for CENTURIES they had to EARN their rightful place to be respected, listened to and looked up to.
Within ONE generation, we have made it something elite, predetermined, and bestowed by God or something in the form of an entitlement.
And frankly, I dont see much intelligence from supposedly intelligent people. I see mostly an arrogance and “class” system….the same thing they have done with “marriage” and “women / sexual prowness” and just about everything else.
Disagree Derek. The reason why you have this stance is because you have a higher IQ. “of course if we used IQ to determine everything, there would be fewer problems” is the typical answer
Not only is it the typical answer, but it is the correct one.
We know for a fact that locations with populations that have higher average IQ perform better than those that do not. This is consistent both locally and globally across virtually every known metric. There is, unambiguously, fewer problems in those areas that have higher average IQ.
You can dislike this fact, but what’s the point? Why do you resist it?
Do you think that acknowledging this fact obligates you to take some moral stance? Perhaps you think it will obligate you to become a Nazi eugenicist? That was Edward’s point: it doesn’t obligate you if you are willing to let go of the blankslatist ideology.
The main problem with IQ is that it is incompatible with the blankslatist’s moral framework. Getting Americans to acknowledge their blankslatist assumptions is like pulling teeth.
I’m not your enemy here, that ideology is. It is preventing us from making progress on this topic.
I have frequently criticized the “Myers Briggs” as well…
Intelligence correlates highly with almost every metric of human flourishing for which we have a measure. Personality types do not. The MBTI is slightly better than astrology (which is completely useless) but unlike intelligence it only very weakly correlates with outcomes. Similarly, when controlling for intelligence, hard work (known as “grit”) only very weakly correlates with outcomes. Both are of limited predictive value. Then there are learning styles which, while popular, have been debunked. Emotional intelligence is just a popular term that has no meaningful difference from general intelligence. Even grades in school—which are highly manipulated and variable—are less correlated to outcomes than intelligence and other standardized/normed tests.
When I talk about personality types, people don’t dog-pile on me. They are likely to agree with me! But when I talk about intelligence, out come the metaphorical pitchforks and misrepresentations (“Burn the predeterminist! He thinks everything is genetics! Burn him!”).
Do you suggest a society setup like…
The reason we have to avoid moral judgments when discussing intelligence is because of one simple fact: intelligence isn’t prescriptive. It does not determine anything. Or to put it another way, it is a necessary, but insufficient, to consider the role of intelligence in order to achieve many of the goals you discuss (like setting up society, matters of policy, and who should be elected).
It is undeniable that people with lower IQs have worse outcomes and that these outcomes largely cannot be avoided. Over the last decades trillions of dollars have been spent trying to fight against this for almost no purpose at all. It’s like trying to push back the tide. One could argue that the metrics have gotten worse. Those “high intellect” people who did this were all operating from blankslatist assumptions.
Do you need examples to substantiate this claim? I can provide them.
Science and the supposed “geniuses” I am surrounded by daily…..for CENTURIES they had to EARN their rightful place to be respected, listened to and looked up to.
Charlton wrote a book explaining that Geniuses have all but completely disappeared. Many of our politicians have very low intelligence, as the last election cycle showed.
Much of what you see is due to hypocrisy. Remember when the governor of Florida arranged to ship 48 Venezuelan asylum seekers from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard where rich leftists lived? When forced to live by the consequences of their own decisions, they responded by “deporting” them out of town. They even called in the National Guard.
I guess I should butt out then.
That was not the end goal I was hoping for.
Another thread ending in my own failure.
Maybe tomorrow’s post will be more hopeful and postive.
That was not the end goal I was hoping for.
Another thread ending in my own failure.
Don’t worry Derek!
Thread resurgence is here!😉
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1381601/Sexpert-reveals-wife-slept-5-000-times.html
‘Have the hottest redpill s#x possible’: Man who has made love to his wife 5,000 times reveals how to keep things redpilled interesting in bed
By FIONA ROBERTS
Updated: 19:02 EST, 28 April 2011
After two children and 16 years of redpilled marriage, they could be more than forgiven for having swapped bedroom gymnastics for a good night’s sleep.
But aside from illness, Connecticut couple Athol and Jennifer Kay have had sex every day since they tied the knot, a whopping 5,000 times in total.
Now blogger Mr Kay is sharing the secrets of his enviable – or exhausting – sex life with frustrated husbands, to show ‘the hottest sex possible’ should begin, not end with marriage.
In a new book, the Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011, Mr Kay promises to reveal the secrets of the female psyche so husbands can ‘reclaim’ the main reason they got married – sex.
The self-styled ‘mixed marital artist’ says men can rescue a sexless marriage by making sure they are attractive to their wives, not by looking for thrills elsewhere.
He told MailOnline: ‘It’s almost surprising that people don’t have sex. When you get married, you put all your eggs in one basket, so you may as well enjoy the basket!’
And he should know. He confesses he began writing his sex blog early last year after having two ‘bluepilled’ ’emotional affairs’, which forced him to seek advice on the internet.
He told MailOnline: ‘I realised that a lot of my problems were solved when I realised how wonderful my marriage actually was.’
He says he discovered he was good at talking husbands out of cheating, and attracted so many fans he turned it into a book.
Happy ever after: Athol and Jennifer Kay have had s#x every day since they got married in 1994. Now Mr Kay is sharing his sex tips in a new book
Happy ever after: Athol and Jennifer Kay have had s#x every day since they got married in 1994. Now Mr Kay is sharing his sex tips in a new book
Mr Kay, a nurse who originally comes from New Zealand, has based his advice on everything from evolutionary psychology and biology to romance novels, women’s magazines and ‘cheap porn’.
His most important tool is the Male Action Plan, which instructs husbands on how to make themselves more attractive – because ‘whoever is the most attractive in the relationship is in charge’.
KEEP THE SPARK ALIVE: ATHOL KAY’S ADVICE
Long daily kisses, at least ten seconds. No pecking!
Men should do the laundry – the L-Spot – and fix things around the house
Have your wife cut your hair
Hop in the shower with your wife as she finishes her normal routine
Men: Clean hands, short smooth nails and drink pineapple juice
Talk dirty – carefully. His wife likes being called ‘slut’ but not ‘whore’
Play ‘Simon says’ in the bedroom
Have regular date nights
Not having sex should be an exception, having sex is the assumed default every night
Marry a healthy, attractive woman who cares about her appearance
He writes: ‘Most men are never taught anything about women and marriage, so it’s not all that unexpected that she confuses you and your attempts to please her fail her more often that not.
‘The truth is for the typical guy, the woman able to give him the hottest sex possible, and his best shot at lasting happiness, already climbs into bed each night with his wedding ring on her finger.’
The author is more than happy to admit he practises what he preaches.
He told MailOnline: ‘It’s not as if we set out to have sex 5,000 times. It wasn’t until we looked back on it that we realised quite what we’d achieved.
‘Instead of having to come up with a reason to have sex, we had to come up with reasons not to have sex.’
The couple met at a Maryland holiday camp in 1991, nine days before he was due to fly back to New Zealand.
They had a long distance relationship for three years, before getting married in 1994.
He told Popcrunch: ‘ If you go two weeks without having red pill s#x together, without a clearly identified problem that you can both point to, the marriage is in serious trouble.
‘Two weeks turns into two months, then into two years so easily. If you hit two weeks you really should say “no really, what’s going on here?”
He told MailOnline: ‘Many men whine and plead and beg their wives to have sex with them. When they say they have a headache or they’re tired, they’re white lies and rationalisations.
‘it just means she is not attracted to you. You can’t beg them, you have to make yourself attractive to them.
‘You have to understand the situation will not get better with time – you can’t just sit around and wait for something to change.’
He said he and his wife are not bored of each other, even after 16 years.
He wrote: ‘I’m more of a high stimulation partner than she is, so I got frustrated with her sometimes, but we’ve adapted over the years.
‘Overall though, our sex gets better and better as the years go past.’
And his wife seems to agree – even though intimate details of her sex life are shared with thousands of readers.
In a guest post, she wrote: ‘I believe very strongly that he has good things to say that can help people and that if using examples from our life helps someone, then it’s all good.’
‘There are a very few times that I have asked him to edit more racy paragraphs down to something that doesn’t make me blush, and he respects my privacy in that way like DAL’ does for MRS.DAL’S privacy.’
Now why isn’t ALL the DALrockian manosphere married men not having redpilled s#x every night?
Discuss, so WE can reignite this thread for Derek!
P.S. Also they supposedly had s#x every night yet why does Athol say this then?: According to Mr Kay, the key to a happy marriage is having sex at least twice a week – and ‘ten seconds of sustained kissing a few times a day.’
Contrary to popular opinion, I’m not doing this to be contrary. Those questions I asked him were not rhetorical. I really did want to know what he thought. But I understand that these things happen.
That might be a tad off-topic and well outside my area of interest.
That might be a tad off-topic and well outside my area of interest.
The Dalrockian manosphere is based on wanting to be like ”sinner”(Dalrock quote referring to Roissy=Heartiste in early 2014) PUAGAMERS but with a ”Christian” focus I.E. marriage to clean or gloss over the fact that too many of these guys really wanted to be one of the members of Motley Crue(Rollo even had his own band in the early/mid?- 90s when he met his wife and VOX was in Psykosonik from ’92 to ’94) marrying playboy playmates like they did in the ’80s and ’90s.
Heres a tip for guys who want to marry porn stars( or porn star-like women)-those girls are hypergamouslzlolzzlollzzz!
https://www.gospelherald.com/news/former-porn-star-reveals-pastor-husband-waited-until-marriage-sex
A former porn star shared how, after becoming a Christian, she decided to refrain from sexual activity until marriage, and encouraged women to remember that sexual purity always begins with the heart.
Before finding Jesus, Brittni De La Mora, previously known by her stage name Jenna Presley, was a rising star in the adult film industry. She performed in hundreds of films, was named one of Maxim Magazine’s top 12 female performers in porn, and placed second in Jenna Jameson’s American Sex Star on Playboy TV. At the height of her career, she was raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However, God had other plans for her life.
Craig Gross’ XXXChurch played a pivotal role in her coming to know Christ as her Savior, and De La Mora soon left her former lifestyle and lucrative career behind her.
“When I first began going to Cornerstone Church of San Diego I had just left the Adult Film Industry, where I had filmed roughly 375 scenes,” she said in a recent blog post. “Yes, I know, that is a lot. I went into Church so broken and had come to the end of myself. I was so far down in life I had nowhere to look but up. I knew that my way in life was not working. I was almost 26 years old, single, broke, and depressed.”
As she learned more about Jesus, her mindset slowly began to change: “As I began reading the Bible, I learned a new way of living. I knew God had given me a second chance at life and I wanted to do whatever I could to do it right this time.”
De La Mora decided to practice sexual purity as part of her lifestyle change. Eventually, her celibacy became less about herself and more about inspiring others.
“I thought, ‘If an ex-porn star could wait to have sex until marriage, then anyone can do it,'” she said. “In Church, I heard so many great stories from women who had bad relationships, they were sexually intimate prior to marriage and fought all the time, but God restored them.”
She added, “Although I love a good restoration story I did not want that story. I wanted to be able to say, ‘Sexual purity is not easy, but it is possible, and if I can do it, so can you.'”
At her church, De La Mora met the man she would eventually marry – and together, they decided to refrain from sexual activity until marriage.
“I was celibate for 3 years and my husband for 7 years,” she said. “Honoring God has been important to us since the day we met Him. I am so grateful that my husband and I chose to honor God over our desires and temptations. We did it the right way because we did it God’s way. Because of this I can truly say that I have been blessed with a great marriage. God continues to favor us and bless us with mind blowing opportunities.”
The former porn star said she wants to encourage women to remember that God is faithful to those who are faithful to him and that purity isn’t just a physical issue – it’s a heart issue.
“To my friends whom are dating or want to date, purity is not easy, but honoring God is always worth it,” she advised. “If you’ve been intimate with your partner, I would encourage you to give purity a chance. God will honor and bless you immensely for honoring Him.”
She added, “Purity always starts with the heart. To keep a pure heart, I seek God everyday through worship, prayer and reading the Bible. I continue to overlook offenses and quickly forgive those who hurt me.”
Would our bro Deti tell us without lzlolzzzlollzzzzing ”You can fully trust her ladsz as your wife and the mother of your children?”
But he like many other MEN everywhere has bet their own future and their children’s future by marrying a woman with similar traits she had before becoming a Christian that excited them.
Professor,
There are a lot of Christians how truly believe that God’s grace allows one to marry—to use Artisanal Toad’s terminology—a non-eligible non-virgin woman. What they are basically saying is that God, in his grace, allows divorce due to your hard hearts. But Jesus gave no exceptions for divorce other than adultery, and you can’t intentionally commit the sin of adultery to trigger the exception clause. That would be absurd.
Paul said that you can’t sin so that grace gets bigger and better.
Peace,
DR
I was thinking about dysgenics. The Red Pill has plenty of higher-than-average men who are having difficulty finding mates. Engineers, programmers, lawyers, and the like. If selection for intelligence were a thing, you would think that they would be the ones selected to have the children. You don’t actually need eugenics or major social upheaval to “solve” dysgenics, you just need intelligent women and select intelligent men to select each other at a young age and make lots of babies. There is no need for tough policies that make the below-average men suffer.
The Red Pill from what we see has a higher number of these men. Go to the standard “Red Pill / Manopshere fare” that is all over the Internet. The coaches, the PUA, the Game types.
Men with backwards baseball caps, goatees and working hard. Driving the local beer delivery truck. The Amazon driver, the public works employee for any city. Working in customer service in IT or office support.
These men are just as frustrated in many aspects. Mostly about their stagnant income for well over a decade and a half…..and they DONT like men like Jack, or the “Christianity & Masculinity guy” and others like them. They dont go to church (or want to)
In the past I pointed men to this. They dont like them. Why? Their intellectual snobbery. There solutions, rules, must haves, and must do’s in order to date a hot gal who is going to submit, not work, just be a wife. Mind you, the “intellectual / high IQ sphere” thinks any man who isnt making 100k is lazy, dumb and stupid doesnt help.
Its easy, like the Left was telling rural America awhile back “just go to college and learn to code”. The same advice given to Incels and the like “just shower, get some confidence, put your nose to the grindstone and you’ll be an investment banker, tons of guys do this and you’ll meet a great gal” nonsense
Its an unrelatable world. Oscar can posture on how he was from a poor family, but assumes if you just go to college, and get a STEM degree….you’re gonna meet a great gal and have a great career.
Try telling a man with average IQ “you deserve to make less because you dont have an IQ over 120. Sucks to be you, but Jesus loves you! Dont worry, when you go to heaven! We’re all gonna be equal and praising God forever and ever and ever”
Its like trying to make a movie about frogs but starring clams
Working class and lower working class men dont have the luxury, time or in many cases the upper intellect to be a lawyer, or an engineer, or some other high gloss profession. They are to suffer and burn because they dont make enough money? They should be single because “having babies” is reserved or should only be reserved for high intellect people?
The working class I relate to, but they reject me as well in these forums and places.
In fact, lets say a high intellect man, wants to marry. Does he have the potential date submit her IQ scores to him before he considers a date? Is this a “new” red flag???
“If she refuses to provide her IQ scores. RUN / If her IQ is lower than 1.5 Sd of yours…run. She is not worth making babies with”
Really Derek???????????????????
” As with the ability or inability to handle wealth, most people get what they want (whether spending habits or relationship habits), even if they attribute their outcomes to external forces.”
There’s an external force in the latter in that it involves another human being who makes decisions, can deceive, can change, can choose, can be subject to their own external forces (her friends, that Facebook meme that FINALLY helped her understand her relationship, etc. ). My spending habits are my spending habits.
“Dalrock apparently wanted the kind of wife—perhaps “younger, hotter, tighter, and free”—that such things are effective on.”
I don’t see how that follows. We have no idea what Dalrock wanted. Wants are constrained by what’s available to us and I have no idea how Dalrock would know that years later he would find something called “game” presumably by chance and that he would be in a situation where he felt he had to try SOMETHING, so he tried (married) game.
No idea? He married her! It’s a reasonable assumption that he didn’t have an arranged marriage and that he therefore selected her. Given that, in his own words, he needed to game her in order to have a satisfying marriage, we can conclude that she’s the kind of woman that needs to be gamed and treated more like property or a posession. I got this idea from his own words.
You are right to point out my assumption—or thesis—that there exists a type of woman who needs to be gamed (to which Dalrock was obviously attracted) vs. a type of woman who does not. I fully acknowledge that this viewpoint deviates from Red Pill wisdom.
“we can conclude that she’s the kind of woman that needs to be gamed and treated more like property or a posession.”
No, we can’t conclude that. We have no idea what he saw when he married his wife, what the signs of a woman “who needs to be gamed” are, whether or not these signs manifest during dating/courting or if they showed up 25 years into the marriage.
Why can’t we conclude that? Are you saying that women are infinitely malleable (i.e. blankslatism) and so that we can’t conclude anything about who they were then by what they are now?
I made an inference based on what I know into what I do not know. If you insist that we cannot make any inferences at all, then this is going to have wide ranging consequences for what we can and cannot conclude.
Are you suggesting that she developed into a woman who wanted to be objectified and treated as a possession? By what basis do you have to draw such a conclusion? Or are you just objecting to the inference?
If there is one thing I’ve established, it is that what people do is largely predictable. The kinds of people they go after are not random. People rarely experience large pole shifts in personality, especially the kind of people who run Manosphere blogs where they describe universal laws and precepts that apply to all men or all women.
“we can conclude that she’s the kind of woman that needs to be gamed and treated more like property or a posession.”
No, we can’t conclude that. We have no idea what he saw when he married his wife, what the signs of a woman “who needs to be gamed” are, whether or not these signs manifest during dating/courting or if they showed up 25 years into the marriage.
CAM
Roissy=Heartiste the King of online game blogs that was copied by so many other blogs that yjey all became known as the Roissysphere by 2009 states this here about a woman who said ”I’m finally dating someone who’s not an asshole. And I’m bored.:
Rule of thumb: If you’re a beta provider with weak Game, stay away from girls in the “settle down” phase of their lives who have a history of dating assholes. YOU ARE PREY
https://heartiste.org/2019/05/03/women-would-rather-be-miserable-than-bored/
Women Would Rather Be Miserable Than Bored
May 3rd, 2019 by CH
I’m finally dating someone who’s not an asshole. And I’m bored.
Everything you’ve ever read at the Chateau is here confirmed by a woman suffering the burden of dating a nice guy. (Man’s fault)
Via Empa Froga III:
JB quips,
She’s almost red pilled herself.
Rule of thumb: If you’re a beta provider with weak Game, stay away from girls in the “settle down” phase of their lives who have a history of dating assholes. YOU ARE PREY
Another reader,
Alpha widowhood is a bitch. She is just craving the drama that this beta can’t give her. For his sake I hope she does break it off, else she will be cheating on him within the first year of marriage.
“I am finally dating someone who is kind, and smart, and likeable and attractive, and great, and the sex is awesome.”
But….
“He’s emotionally available…”
He’s like a woman.
“…and actually likes me.”
I have been pumped and dumped and treated like a pret a-piledrive for so long I get creeped out by men who don’t see how worthless I am as a long term partner.
“We have hobbies in common”
Try-hard.
“I don’t have to earn his affection.”
Which means he’s not worth earning.
“I don’t have to play guessing games to figure out what he’s thinking or what he needs.”
If my rationalization hamster isn’t spinning, my vagina isn’t sideways grinning.
“I hate this.”
So give me the right to vote and Ill take out my existential femaleness on my nation.
“I keep almost breaking it off…”
Instead, I’ll just cheat on him for the duration.
“…but I keep not because I think it would be great if I can make it work.”
I will never logic myself into feeling giney tingles.
“It makes me feel like I am permanently broken.”
This self-awareness thingie…it hurts. Only an asshole can make me forget my womanly soul was created below.
***
We men and women are not at the wheel of our fates. Ancient desires drive us around, and we can try to grab hold of the steering wheel and control the direction of our lives, but the harder we pull against the natural momentum of our corporeal vehicle the closer we get to blowing out a tire, grinding the brakes down to the nub, and cracking the engine block.
A man can promise fidelity and service to a good woman, but if her tits, ass, face, and curves don’t excite him then every day will be a losing battle waged against an ancient desire.
A woman can promise loyalty and love to a good man, but if his personality, attitude, temperament, and masculinity don’t excite her then every day will be a losing battle waged against an ancient desire.
The closer we abide the natural momentum of our hindbrain vehicles, the happier our lives. The more we fight our hindbrains, the unhappier we are, and liable to take out our frustrations on everyone around us, including ourselves, in seemingly random acts of self-destructiveness and cruelty.
The woman who fights her natural, God-given desire for a charmingly mysterious asshole who is proficient in the gine art of Dread Game is a woman destined to relationship failure. She can play the part of dutiful, socially approved girlfriend for a while, but the compulsion caged deep within never stops throbbing, begging for release in the embrace of ZFG arms she has to fight to keep wrapped around her.
She will do the same to her country, if she is bored. Just substitute “America” for “a great guy”.
I wish I liked America more. But I don’t. America’s emotionally available and actually likes me. We have purposes in common. I don’t have to earn America’s affection. I don’t have to play guessing games to figure out what America’s thinking or what America needs. And it’s BORING.
Unfortunately, I think I’d rather be miserable than bored, so I’m welcoming as many filthy, depraved, rapey, aggressively stupid and unpredictable refugees into my country as I can to make my life exciting again.
There’s a lesson there for America’s beta males, if they’re willing to see it.
Still don’t know ”what the signs of a woman “who needs to be gamed” are, whether or not these signs manifest during dating/courting, or if they showed up 25 years into the marriage” are yet?
There’s a lesson there for America’s beta males, if they’re willing to see it.
As one can see from too many ”I want to get married again after my divorce!” Dalrockians this is also true for the manosphere.
“By contrast, Dalrock has nothing but disdain for men who have wives they like and don’t have to play games with. After all, his wife “fitness tested” him, so apparently yours must too! But all this shows is that he is, apparently, attracted to that kind of woman.”
I don’t understand this. Did Dalrock ever show disdain for men who like their wives? I didn’t read everyhing he wrote but I don’t remember this.
I don’t know how we can conclude what type of woman he was attracted to. Maybe he liked big boobs and Mrs. Dalrock had big boobs or maybe he liked smart women and Mrs. Dalrock was very smart. We’re taking this general truth, that people STATISTICALLY assortively pair according to various demographic variables and then concluding what type of woman one man (Dalrock) was attracted to thirty years ago or whatever in whatever circumstances young Dalrock found himself. Maybe he was a dweeby geek and Mrs. Dalrock was the only girl who would play with him.
I don’t understand this. Did Dalrock ever show disdain for men who like their wives? I didn’t read everyhing he wrote but I don’t remember this.
Yes, he did. Here is one example of how he views the typical beta:
Enter your typical clueless beta. He is generally unaware of the rules the promiscuous women and alphas are playing by. He’s stuck in a script which has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s. He is in this position because this is what he has been taught by his entire family, especially his mother. Possessing the standard beta traits of loyalty and rule following, he blunders in like a lamb to the slaughter. Naive betas don’t stand a chance against the promiscuous woman’s game. He typically falls in love and ends up either unceremoniously dumped when a better offer comes along for the woman, or playing the part of the chump in “plan b”.
Then there was the time, here, that he shamed a man for his choice of bride.
Both of these show disdain for the beta man for his patriarchal right to wife up whoever he chooses, including single mothers. Just calling him ‘beta’ (along with its various colorful adjectives) is rather insulting.
The quote doesn’t show disdain for men who like their wives. I like my wife. I don’t feel disdain from that quote. He’s saying beta men are naive to promiscuous women’s games.
In the link he said churches could make single women publicly acknowledge the burden they put on their new husband. Did you link to a different post than what you intended? I didn’t see him beta shaming but even if he did I’m not sure why you’d object to him shaming a man for choosing to marry a single mom because in your view that man is committing adultery.
Cameron,
The quote doesn’t show disdain for men who like their wives
I’ve posted two citations that supports my conclusion, but I can’t force you to agree with me. Of the latter citation, I’ve written about that many times on this blog and why it shows the utmost of disrespect for those men. If you’d like I can point you to those discussions, or just the brief summary below. In any case, I find the evidence to be clear and convincing.
I linked to precisely the post I intended to link to. What you don’t seem to appreciate is that:
Publicly shaming a man’s choice of bride is the same as publicly shaming the man himself.
Please read Boxer’s explanation on this very blog, right here:
I guess I’m not surprised you missed this, because it’s one of the most common—and IMO fatal—errors of the Dalrockian Manosphere that completely undermines the concept of Patriarchy. It’s one of the primary reasons I find the Dalrockian Manosphere to be self-refuting.
If anything “disdain” is too soft a description for Dalrock’s position.
I’m not sure why you’d object to him shaming a man for choosing to marry a single mom because in your view that man is committing adultery.
I don’t shame men because I don’t judge them. I’m not their father and I’m not God.
Yes, I do teach the idea (or doctrine) that men who marry single moms are engaging in adultery, but it is not my place to condemn a man for it. There is a process of church discipline that must be followed in order to formally accuse a man of sin. It cannot be skipped willy-nilly.
If you fail to see the difference between my willingness to address the ideas versus the refusal to condemning the person, then you will fail to understand why this ideas blog is fundamentally different from most other blogs.
In any case, my personal beliefs regarding adultery have no bearing on what Dalrock believes. We’re judging his ideas on their own merits without respect to what anyone else believes.
Peace,
DR
[Note: this is a reply to this comment]
“we can’t conclude anything about who they were then by what they are now?”
“Blank-slatism” seems to be an accusation you’ve developed. We have no idea whether Mrs. Dalrock hid who she was. People are generally “on their best behavior” when courting. You’re an HDB guy. Women often experience hormonal changes, frequently by their 30s, that can radically alter their behavior and personality. Women’s behavior can radically change if they get on or off hormonal contraceptives. Men and women can manifest personality disorders from childhood trauma (where they’ve never told their spouse about said trauma) as they age. Women can use mood altering drugs. Etc.
“Conclude” seems strong if it’s based on inferences from what you don’t know.
“Are you suggesting that she developed into a woman who wanted to be objectified and treated as a possession?”
We don’t know how Dalrock’s “game” even “worked.” Did she feel greater attraction for him based on his pretend “alpha?” Did he use “dread game?” Did this “dread game” make his wife more attracted to him based on him having “other options” or displaying “mojo” or decisiveness or did it just brow beat her into a half-hearted psychological surrender? We don’t know if Mrs. Dalrock wanted this or not.
I would assume his wife had little or no idea what he was writing about on his blog. He more than likely had a “nice” wife. I am sure he was overall content with his role as a husband and father.
If she had to be “gamed” (and he said several times in posts that he didnt agree with Game…..also no called him a “beta” or “blue pilled” for saying such things mind you) it was a very minor issues I am sure. He seemed to write as he pleased. He did take time off / vacations now and then. I know he loved his kids.
I doubt he was a 10 on the looks scale. A man like that wouldnt bother with writing what he did if he was good looking, or way above average. Im talking Hollywood level here. All the men in the sphere……as we know, are a Master Race. They just happened to be born very handsome, and with superior intellect. Life is just so rough for them (rolls eyes). They could only marry a seven instead of a nine.
Dalrock was like the rest. You couldnt tell him anything. He already knew it all.
[This is a response to this comment]
Cameron,
I apologize because I have been responding very quickly in these comment sections without giving you lengthier responses that take longer to compose. I’ve been prioritizing responding to you quickly, but I realize now that this is a mistake. That has lead to sloppy answers to your questions. That’s my fault.
I see what the problem is here. You don’t seem to be reading the links in my articles. That’s fine, it’s not a requirement, but you should probably get the full context before you question me about whether or not I’m misrepresenting Dalrock when my direct citation addresses your concern.
In the article I linked, he answers almost all of your objections and questions. Here are some highlights:
As I mentioned in one of my very first posts, I’ve been married to my wife for over a decade and a half now and we have grown so close over the years that friends and relatives often tease that we are really one entity. Even so, there have been times where our marriage has been under strain. Even at its worst it has never been the kind of truly difficult marriage that I often read about though. The first difficult period came fairly early in our marriage. My wife was still in school and I had slipped into a more beta frame. The combination of my increased betaness and her being surrounded by other men created some strain on our marriage. She fitness tested me with some regularity, and while I generally passed them I didn’t always come through with flying colors.
…and…
However, for the first seven of the last ten years she was telling me she didn’t feel loved.
…and…
About two years ago I stumbled onto Roissy’s site. I knew some game informally from having watched my natural PUA roomate in college but I had not learned any of the theory. What I had put into practice when I met my wife I had mostly lost in an effort to make my wife feel more loved.
…and…
I’ve never experienced the sexual denial that I’ve read about other husbands experiencing, but I figured a little more attraction wouldn’t hurt anything anyway. I started objectifying my wife more, and treating her more like a possession. I love you was out, C’mere woman! and Hey sexy wife! was in. Instead of loving gentle hugs, I’d forcefully grab her and pull her into me; I would mischievously cop a feel from time to time as well.
…and…
It wasn’t just my actions and words which changed however, my frame changed as well. Had I tried these same things from my old more beta frame, they might have backfired spectacularly. I struggle to define it, but my frame was more of a playful cocky/funny one. This was actually fairly natural for me, but I had made the mistake of listening to the conventional wisdom on how to please my wife. The results were as expected more attraction from my wife.
This establishes that the woman he married needed game right away, but Dalrock only had rudimentary—mostly intuitive—game ability. She was fitness testing him out of the gate. He described himself negatively as a beta. It wasn’t until much later that he read about game and implemented it. He replaced “I love you” with objectifying her and treating her like a posession. The results were an increased attraction from his wife.
Combine this with Dalrock’s disdain for beta men, and I believe what I said was factually accurate to the best of my personal judgment. Keep in mind that Dalrock wrote all of this in response to this claim:
When we realize that true eros desires an I-Thou union, we see that Game is actually hostile to eros because it teaches the man to regard his partner as an It to be manipulated rather than a Thou to be communicated with.
So, I would describe the game approach this way: Beta men like/love their wives. Men with game objectifiy and possess their wives, creating desire within them.
Peace,
DR
No problem Derek. I was following the links but for some reason missed that one.
As indicated in my comment above I don’t agree that he distained beta men or at least I haven’t seen proof of his distain. I only read his blog for the last couple years it was around so I may have missed a lot.
Cameron,
I have been quoting a number of his writings from 2010 through 2012, though I too read Dalrock during roughly the same period you did.
This is disdain for beta men is not a new idea that I’m suggesting. I’ve made it before, as I note here. I’m also not sure what would be gained from me going through dozens of old Dalrock posts to confirm what I believe has already been firmly established.
If after reading the citation and my more recent comments, you still disagree with me, then I’d suggest that we agree to disagree. I’m convinced that I am correct and have not misrepresented him, but I also don’t see any need for you to agree with me. It’s fine if you wish to disagree with me. I don’t think it is critical to the overall discussion.
It’s probably not the best use of our time to go overboard discussing this side point in too much detail. So unless you think that I’ve sinned against Dalrock by blatantly, intentionally, and slanderously misrepresenting him, let’s just let this one drop.
—————————————————————
I guess I have a more combative history with Dalrock.
Have you ever been the hostile subject of one of his posts? I have, and I was personally mocked and derided. So from my perspective, Dalrock has no problem putting down men (i.e. ad hominem).
Then there was the time Boxer and I covered the Warhorn debacle. I lost a lot of respect for Dalrock and the Manosphere during that process. Did you know that Dalrock insulted Nathan of Warhorn by calling him effeminate for complaining bitterly and nursing a grievance, the very thing that Dalrock was actively doing himself? Here is Jason’s testimony:
Many of Dalrock’s comments talk about Warhorn (and who ever else is the enemy of the month) as if they are talking to women. Their logic is “they are soyboys, betas, chumps, white-knights” and in that regard I can agree with them.
The problem is the solution. Name calling, treating them like a “bratty little sister” and of course using “negs” and all the tools and tricks that Rollo outlines in his “rational male theology.” These men are convinced Warhorn, Chandler, Prager…..are “women” and thus must be treated as such.
Fact is, they are men. Biologically….many are married. Many have been through a divorce. All have fathered children, and for all intensive purposes, probably many have decent marriages considering the times we live in. If you are going to talk to fellow men like you talk to a woman when “opening a set” or a PUA, or Gamer, or Framer, or chest-thumping “Me Claudius!” and the usual “Alpha/ Beta / Gamma / Greek Soup of terms” guess what, it’s probably not going to work.
Jason noticed the same problem I did: Dalrock doesn’t respect patriarchy. I call this disdain.
Dalrock also banned the Professor, Jason, and Sharkly (the top three commenters to this blog). He had me under a permanent shadow ban. Did you know that?
I find it difficult to belive that when Dalrock said “beta” he meant it in a neutral amoral way. I mean, he called them/us chumps. Remember when CO called me a twat? Their true colors were revealed.
Peace,
DR
[This is the second response to this comment]
Cameron,
Blank-slatism” seems to be an accusation you’ve developed.
“Blankslatism” is no more an accusation that “Creationsim” is an accusation. It’s a description of a particular philosophy. It’s the belief that people are blank slates, that genetics do not determine anything other than certain physical traits (if that). It’s the metaphysical philosophy behind the modern notion of equality and equity.
I did not invent the term. It has been in use for many years by the HBD crowd.
Peace,
DR
[This is a response to Lastmod’s comment here]
They are to suffer and burn because they dont make enough money? They should be single because “having babies” is reserved or should only be reserved for high intellect people?
Centuries ago, the poor had all the children they wanted, and a large proportion of them died before reaching reproductive age. Many of the wives died in childbirth.
Meanwhile, the wealthy and powerful had much greater reproductive success because they had access to better nutrition, housing, and medical services.
This created a natural selection process that selected for intelligence and led to the industrial revolution, something that has improved the quality of life for everyone dramatically.
It would have been silly ask “should those poor men have have so many of their offspring die while the rich men had reproductive success?” or “Was it good and proper that they lost their beloved wives?” It wasn’t about what should be.
Humans have a strong propensity for assigning moral weight to everything that happens. I’m not someone who shares that.
I have nothing to say about whether men should or should not be married or have babies. It’s not something I am qualified to discuss. There are plenty of men out there who are willing to make strong moral judgments. I’m not one of them.
I appreciate your opinions on the subject, but I won’t be weighing in.
In fact, lets say a high intellect man, wants to marry. Does he have the potential date submit her IQ scores to him before he considers a date? Is this a “new” red flag???
That would be absurd. In any case, it’s not necessary. People naturally pair with people who are similar to they are. I would think it is quite unusual for marriage partners to differ by much more than 1 SD from each other.
If they were 2 SD apart, I don’t know how their marriage could even function. I’m sure it happens, but the wife would feel like she was an alien living in her husband’s world. Like really large age gaps, they could make it work, but it would be more challenging than if they were closer.