Evolutionary biology underpins game

“Evolutionary biology underpins game,” like all past and future and Red Quest posts, is now on Substack.

Evolutionary biology underpins game. I started reading evolutionary biology even before Neil Strauss wrote The Game (and in The Game he cites David Buss and other evolutionary biology writers). I credit evolutionary biology with giving me some game awareness from an earlier-than-average age. The Red QueenThe Evolution of Desire… even Donald Symons (old-school shoutout), once I saw how differing incentives shaped average behavior for men and for women.

So. There was a post by a guy named “Riv”, who used to blog, and he wrote a now-deleted post about a date that went wrong or never went right. He wrote,

some people will say, “if she went on a date with you, the bang was yours to lose, and so you fucked up” — and i recognize that there is some truth to that.

Some people will say that and they are wrong. Girls go on dates for all kinds of reasons and are prone to change their minds for any reason or no reason. The more you experience women, the more you see what Good Looking Loser calls “sexual availability.” You may call it something else. Point of his post is:

The outcome of your interaction is already determined, in a lot of cases.

In most cases, the outcome is already headed in a given direction. But there is leeway, and all a guy can do is try to improve something in his game and then accept that he will always have losses. Many guys will micro-analyze an encounter or attempt with an outcome that the girl had already decided, because she wasn’t available for whatever reason.

Look at it from a biological perspective. Men always want sex because successful sex may lead to a child, and guys predisposed to f**king whenever possible got their genes into the next generation more often than finicky guys. Women don’t always want to have sex because children have substantial costs and it takes time to evaluate the quality of a guy. Waiting is easy and if she rejects one guy for some capricious reason, another will come along next week. Understand how men and women evolved to not have completely identical goals and preferences, and suddenly female behavior makes more sense. Or “sense,”  ha.

If we had a school system worth a damn everyone would be exposed to micro economics and evolutionary biology early. Take the concepts of supply-demand, shortages, and evolutionary biology and apply them to sex, culture, and dating, and suddenly lots of things make sense.

Most guys don’t know shit about anything because they don’t read enough. Harsh but true. Get off the Internet and into the library when you’re not opening. The more a guy interacts with women, the more apparent their capriciousness and randomness becomes. Stoic philosophy was developed by guys. Not a coincidence. Stoics acknowledge that any given person can only control himself.

Since most women don’t even understand their own internal desires or states, the likelihood of there being an intelligible reason for her rejection of a guy who’s generally done things right is low. And for her that’s okay. She can follow her feelings. Someone else will pitch her tomorrow. That’s why guys pitch a lot. She can reject five guys for random reasons, then the sixth can knock her up and BOOM! genes in the next generation.

The major exception to this principle is a guy who is stratospherically valuable. If the king wants it he gets it. In modern terms, famous actors, musicians, etc. will automatically sway a “no” girl to a “yes” girl. Not 100% of the time, but a lot more than I will or you will.

For normal guys, social proof can have a similar function. What might turn a “no” or “maybe” girl into a fast “yes” girl is seeing another girl get that man. Suddenly, he’s scarce. Scarce goods and services carry high prices. For this reason, it is also good to know the male-female ratios where you live, go to school, or work. Most non-engineering universities are now predominantly female (see the preceding link for details). San Francisco and Seattle are predominantly male. Philadelphia and New York City are predominantly female. Put a normal guy in an environment with fewer men and more women, and he will do better on average than the reverse.

Social proof won’t always work, but it can. There are girls who are mature or internally congruent enough to not let other women’s valuations sway their own. But those girls… aren’t so common.

Women also have emotional modules that protect them from cads. Women simultaneously want a guy who other women want but who won’t abandon them once they’re pregnant. That’s a tricky line and explains why female behavior often looks erratic to guys, who just want more sex with more hotties. Chicks are random for many reasons, including the way their preferences change over the course of their mensural  cycles and the way they want a hot, cool guy but also want a guy who will invest in their offspring… ideally both will come in one man, but often they won’t, so chicks oscillate among desires.

The desire for “hot guy” but also “investment guy” explains why women will produce both “shit tests” and “comfort tests.” Guys who are new to game and bad with women have never experienced “comfort tests,” so when they start the game they become too much of a jerk and scorch leads that could pan out with a little less asshole and a little more deftness. Guys who present as players will be rejected by some chicks who are genuinely looking for commitment.

Women have multiple conflicting internal desires, and those conflicts manifest themselves in ways that seem strange to guys. Once a guy begins to understand the underlying mechanisms, he can start to accept the situation and how random chicks are. He can also realize that his algorithm is simple (f**king more hot chicks is always better) while hers is complex.

I’m rolling off topic here, but the important point is that women’s decisions are often arbitrary and beyond a certain point trying to analyze why they make a given decision becomes pointless. The woman herself likely doesn’t know. She’s reacting to pure feeling (like you, men, are when you see a hot woman and get aroused because the woman is signaling that she’s healthy and can bear healthy children). Whatever story she tells herself, or you, about why she’s done what she’s done is a post-facto rationalization.

If you get zero traction with a hundred women something’s probably wrong. If you get total traction with ten women in a row you’re not trying hard enough. Somewhere between those poles lies game. Game is the art of imperfect information.

Are guys doing game more likely to meet incoherent and incongruent girls? Seems possible: girls who know they want a guy and a family, stat, don’t put up with operator “game” guys. Those girls are also likely to be over age 25 in modern Western countries. They look for provider guys (not automatically a negative thing IMO, just a description) and if they  know what they’re about they get one by filtering out hot casual sex guys.

Chicks who have a coherent plan that they genuinely want, and then execute it, will try to filter players, and they’re willing to overlook some features (often looks, presence, social dominance, that kind of thing) in order to achieve their real goal of children and house. Those girls are out there but game guys don’t get exposed much to them for obvious reasons.

Lots of girls think they want this because society tells them to want it, but many don’t actually want it, so they come off as incoherent and incongruent. Or they want it, but not when they meet a hot guy who they like. They say “I want a nice guy to settle down with” and then have sex with a random two days later. Guys notice and think, “Oh, girls are dumb. Girls are stupid.”

Not exactly. They experience internal conflict and desire that shifts from day to day and sometimes even hour by hour. It can shift based on where they are in their cycle. Guys who want casual sex are looking for girls who have shifted into an openness for casual sex, even though their superficial long-term plan might be “marriage with a sweet guy.” Guys want to be that two-days-later guy.

Girls who really like sex and are sex positive (also not a big group) aren’t as much into “game” or games per se. Their beliefs (sex is fun and we should have more of it) are congruent with their actions. These are also pretty rare. Most don’t openly advertise their beliefs because they’ll be besieged by dudes and ostracized by chicks. Chicks know that the biggest threat to boyfriend or husband investment is another chick, so chicks will socially attack other chicks who seem “promiscuous,” negative term that could also mean “sex-positive.” The male social world is a bit simpler than the female social world, and a lot of guys don’t appreciate this.

Most girls are neither looking for pure providers nor being overly sex positive. Their stated beliefs (“I want a ‘good’ guy”) often don’t match their actions (“He’s hot and I’m a little drunk, soooooooo YOLO!”), so guys think they look flakey, wishy-washy, uncertain, and incoherent. All that is really an outcome of not having interrogated their inner, evolved belief structure or what they want out of life and men.

Plus, how you as a man present yourself will affect how girls present to you. I’ve written about this before… I do the sex-positive, zero-judgement thing. I try to bring girls to sex clubs and BDSM events. That loses me some girls but gains me an entire universe of next-level game that I haven’t read about anywhere online among pickup or manosphere guys.

These curious-seeming features in female psychology emerge from evolutionary biology and the fact that men can have an almost unlimited number of babies, given a sufficient number of attractive fertile women (think Genghis Khan, sultans, emperors, etc.). Women can have a finite number of babies, usually under 10, and are therefore keen to  make sure that their babies are fathered by the right guy. Female mammals have been choosy for many millions of years. We are not going to fully overcome that with a few decades of cultural propaganda, birth control, and effective other contraception.

If you want an intelligent counter-point to what I have written above, consider Against Human Sexual Selection. It argues that in most human cultures for most of human history, most marriages, kidnapping, etc. did not include (much) female choice and was instead instigated by men and family. I think it understates female choice, but I don’t think it’s 100% refutable, either.

The quitting economy

The quitting economy: When employees are treated as short-term assets, they reinvent themselves as marketable goods, always ready to quit” should remind you of “Company loyalty is dead. Switch jobs every 18 months to two years.” It’s not employees who killed company loyalty: employers did.

Regardless of who killed it, it’s gone and isn’t coming back. Structure your career appropriately. Whenever someone talks about the virtues of loyalty to a company, remember that they’re really trying to take money out of your pocket.

I can’t believe I have to post this: talk to girls, or buy it

I can’t believe I have to post this, but here goes.

Riv had or has a problem because he has or had no good leads. In response I wrote:

You actually have two choices:

1. Buy it.

2. Cold open.

You need to do one or both of those. When you have a new girl you will stop caring about the old ones.

You can read a bunch of other pretty dumb comments at the top link. I’m not going to repeat them all here. Most of the comments are based on misreading, or pouring ideas into my suggestion that aren’t there.

To be clear, I do (of course) emotionally bond with women.

But I also realize that I can only control myself, not others. No matter how into the woman I am, I can’t control her. She’ll do what she wants (which is what all people d0). Heartbreak happens.

When heartbreak happens, you can rage futilely against it. Maybe that is the right thing, for you, for a time. Or you can accept it as a part of life and even enjoy the pain, sort of like how you can enjoy the pain of deadlifting.

A growing experience with a new woman helps release the pain of the previous one. Action is usually better than rumination.

One of the only effective ways of making the old girl come back is to have a new one. Women want what they can’t have.

Kind of like… men.

Does this sound familiar? If you’ve read stoic philosophy it should.

Women also judge men based on social proof. When you have a new woman, that’s social proof. Social proof is why this ridiculous Snapchat gambit worked.

The best women go all the way for their men. She puts 100% into her man. If you are not getting 100%, the relationship is never going to be as good as one in which she willfully and joyously gives 100%. If she stops giving 100%, the relationship is over. The remaining question is, how long will it take the man to recognize it?

If she leaves you, that is… not 100%. So it’s time to buy it, cold open, online date, touch up old leads, do whatever you need to do. Talk to more girls. While you can’t control any particular girl, just as you can’t control any given hand of poker, you can make sure you can achieve your ultimate dating goals. Effective men work to achieve what we can, and let go that which can’t be achieved. When a lead is dead, talk to more girls. In general, talk to more girls, and talk to new girls. That part of the process you can control. Time spent chasing dead leads and dead relationships is not time spent opening new possibilities.

Later edit: Since the post above, Riv has stopped doing any sort of game altogether, as far as I can tell, and set his site to “private.” He’s constantly on Twitter, exhorting guys to stand up straight in pictures, or something. At one point I believe he was trying, but that point seems to be in the distant past. I wasn’t thinking of him when I wrote this post, but I could have been.

I hope this is just manosphere porn

Dalrock tells a story that I hope is imaginary:

The other day a woman mentioned her frustration with smartphones to my wife.  The woman’s complaint was that her husband would play or read on his smartphone while she browses through stores.  My wife asked why that was bad, and the woman explained:

Because now he isn’t miserable.

I hope the story is made up, but let’s assume it isn’t: why would any man go shopping with a girlfriend or wife? When I’m with women, the only shopping that includes both of us together involves groceries, sex toys, or, rarely, lingerie. If women want to shop for anything else they can do so on their own time, because I don’t contribute anything, and I don’t like wasting time. I don’t stop at malls and don’t go to any generic clothing stores.

This really strikes me as an epidemic of guys who are unable to say “no” and mean it. Guys who can say “no” have entirely different lives than guys who can’t. Being able to say “no” is linked to an implicit willingness and ability to walk away, if you must. It’s not an ultimatum but it is a different condition than the one most guys seem to inhabit.

I’m not a tyrant (women don’t like tyrants, and the ones who do aren’t the best ones), but I have boundaries, and I enforce them, kindly for the most part, and without rancor, but they are there and they exist. Women who want to go shopping, should go with their girlfriends, not me. I’d prefer a book, or to work out, over shopping. Consumerism and materialism may be baked into the current culture, but just because they aren’t doesn’t mean we can’t say no. Learning to fix something is better than learning to buy something. The character in the book THE AVERAGE AMERICAN MALE goes shopping with his girlfriends and lets his relationships go stale.

One of many reasons not to get married: being married inhibits your ability to say “no” and mean it. Marriage doesn’t remove that ability, and arguably married guys need to be able to say “no” even more than single ones, but it can inhibit it.

“Exit” is the only real tool modern guys have in relationships. Remove or make it more costly, and guys pay. A book I read recently got me thinking about how I should write a post on why exit is so important for modern guys, despite many modern guys being pussy whipped in unattractive ways that makes their wives’s desires for them shrivel.

Company loyalty is dead. Switch jobs every 18 months to two years. [Career]

I already said this in “Don’t End the Week With Nothing,” but today I read “Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less.” The headline really is the article.

Always be ready to job hop if you are in most of corporate America. You are unlikely to advance if you keep the same job for too long. Company loyalty may have been a thing when your parents or grandparents were in their employment primes, but it isn’t anymore.

This is also why you need to live in a big city. Big cities have more companies and opportunities in them. The dating advantages of big cities are well known, but the employment advantages are similar. Avoid most jobs that will take you to small or rural places, unless maybe your industry depends on them.

The best book about modern corporate America is The Alliance. Don’t be a complete dirtbag, but do set expectations appropriately on both sides.

Corporate loyalty is dead. Loyalty in marriage is close to dead and is at best an uncertain gamble.

A few big companies are alleged to pay people in ways that reward staying for long periods of time. Some of the name tech companies are supposed to do this. But that’s not the majority of companies, and if you can get a 50 – 100% raise, take that money.

This is a short post because there isn’t much to say. The evidence is in front of you. You are only as good as your next opportunity.

The solution is always, “Sleep with another girl.”

Too many guys focus on trying to get a single girl who won’t sleep with him. Try once, and if it doesn’t work, the solution is simple and always the same: Sleep with another girl. If you can’t do that, start with that problem. When a girl says no, you’re usually done with her and you need to find someone new. You cannot sell a product to a person who is not in the market for that product, no matter how bad you want to make the sale.

The best way to get over someone is to get under someone else.

This advice is hard to take at first. I heard variants of it when I was a teenager and didn’t want to take it then. Now it seems so obvious to me that I’ve almost forgotten how hard it is for most guys.

“Sleep with another girl” is also one of the many reasons a man shouldn’t marry. If he marries, he’s likely impeding his ability to sleep with new women. Marriage is no upside and extensive downsides for men. Don’t do that.

Men, game, and social media strategies

As far as I can tell, there are two good, functional social media strategies for guys thinking about the game. Strategy one is the one I follow: no or minimal presence. I have an Instagram account but don’t use it and have never used it, despite my interest in photography. I have a Snapchat account but only use it for 1:1 communication. Facebook is there mostly so I can chat with women, again 1:1. Some women who disappear on text will reappear when contacted through other mediums, and this has led me to some lays. Less is more with any form of communication (which is a form of scarce, valuable attention).

The other strategy is to fully play and invest in the social media game. That means consciously only posting pictures that demonstrate higher value, which usually means action shots, or shots of you with lots of different pretty girls who provide a form of social proof. To me this looks hard to pull off, try-too-hard, and exhausting, but it seems possible to leverage this when it’s combined with other game. I don’t think the cost-benefit is there, but I know a couple guys who seem to work this angle. Don’t know how successful it is because everyone lies about their sex lives, but I suppose it’s possible to generate lays via social media for some guys.

In either case, public interaction with a girl’s statuses or pics should be minimal or nonexistent. You’re a busy guy living in the real world who isn’t here to water thirsty women. We’ve all seen the thirsty “like cascades” any moderately attractive woman gets when she posts a basic pic of herself in a dress or bikini. Those “likes” are obvious demonstrations of lower value. I’d love to omit this paragraph as being bloody obvious but these things happen all the time. I rarely use social media and even I see them. Facebook and Instagram appear to be the worst platforms for attention-seeking girls. When I hear girls talking about them I like to poke fun at their interest in lame guys who are creeping on them online all day. Usually this gets laughs and good engagement. Girls know the validation is shallow but they crave it anyway.

Most guys I know seem to choose neither good strategy. They use social media way too much. They post dumb shit that demonstrates lower value. They toss off thirsty “likes” and compliments. They’re promiscuous, unconscious users who don’t integrate any strategy into what they do, and in the process they waste their effort. Don’t be those guys. Most of the guys I work with, especially the ones who aren’t getting ahead, do this. Guys who give their attention away show that their attention has no value.

Everything you say, write, or post on social media can come back to haunt you. I’ve seen this happen.

Someone just posted about the value stoicism has in their life. I loved that post. Social media is usually the opposite of stoicism. Before you post, stop to ask: 1) will this post help move me toward getting laid? 2) what good thing can happen as a result of this post? 3) what would Marcus Aurelius do this position? 4) what does the man I admire most do on social media (I thought hard about this one… the guys I admire most, who I actually know, don’t have much time for this shit, and they know it’s not going to get them laid).

When you check social media and post there, what are you not doing? You’re not thinking for yourself. You’re not at the gym. You’re not learning new skills, like Shibari or riding a motorcycle or photography. You’re in an intermediate state that is neither being nor doing. The guys who pursue the second strategy I mentioned above are at least consciously pursuintg their goals via social media. I’ve read guys saying social media is poison and while I don’t 100% agree they have a point.

Social media is video games for women, and men should play a better game. Most guys have a short window (one month at most, often just a week) between meeting a woman and getting her in bed. Social media interaction is not a good way to spend that time and if anything demonstrates lower value. Doing things is man frame, while talking about things is female frame. Prefer to do things. Are you watching others, or are others watching you? Why? You should be able to answer the question. When you have sexual abundance, you won’t care much about social media.

Plus: “The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures.”

Don’t marry unless you’re ready to pay

I mean “pay” literally: “How Did Johnny Depp Find Himself in a Financial Crisis?” includes this gem: “Depp’s fiery, 15-month marriage to the actress Amber Heard cost him another $7 million.”

Depp got literally nothing out of that marriage apart from sex and some bad PR when she accused him of domestic violence. There is no reason for a man to marry today. Marriage is only a transfer of financial and attention assets from a man to a woman, as well as lawyers and whoever else can grab a piece of the action.

You probably won’t lose $7 million, but you may lose a lot more proportionally speaking. These stories should remind you that marriage is a loser for men.

There are no shortcuts. Don’t believe everything you read online.

Do not believe everything you read online and every story you hear. Many stories strike me as implausible at best. Some may have elements of truth but many, I think, lie by omission at the very least.

I was reading one of Krauser’s books and am reminded of why:

You see what I did there, comparing myself to Casanova? That’s what players do. We blow smoke up everybody’s ass. Our relationship to humility is complex; we must fake it with girls to induce them into emotional intimacy, and we must genuinely humble ourselves in private to work on our inner game issues.


The near misses and sense of falling behind were bad enough. It didn’t help that Steve had been talking about a couple of guys who were doing well at precisely the point I wasn’t. They weren’t really cold approach guys, but they were game-aware. One was a former student in his mid-fifties. Apparently, he played at being an aristocrat. He wasn’t particularly rich, but he fronted the image of it and went on gold-digger websites like SugarDaddy and MissTravel.

(I kind of do the opposite of the mid-fifties guy: I try to downplay work and money, even though I could flaunt both. I have seen guys try and I think basic masculine identity and polarity work better and are truer.)

But it isn’t what it seems,

He’d subsequently dug around and talked to the guy some more, and it turned out he’d been fronting to Steve only marginally less than he did to the girls. While he was indeed getting some decent success, it wasn’t quite as good or free as he’d claimed in the original story. Per the photos, the girls weren’t that hot. Moreover, there weren’t that many of them because a lot of girls turned him down when they discovered he’d lied about himself.

This guy had done a respectable effort at hustling – it’s not easy for a fifty year-old man to bang young hotties for free, after all – but like most people he’d dressed it up into something larger than it was.

Sound familiar to you, if you’ve been reading the Red Pill for a while? It should. It sounds very familiar to me. You can read some of the skepticism about other people’s claims in my past commentary on Reddit.

Especially for guys who say they slay while also achieving many other goals.

There’s a tension between chasing women and accomplishing other things in life. For all their seductive pleasures, women are dream-killers. So long as there’s a sniff of hot pussy wafting along the air, I’m off like a hunting dog chasing a scent. I couldn’t multi-task this area of my life.

Really being a player if you are not already extremely good looking or have some other advantage is extremely hard. Being a player is a part-time job in itself. This is part of the reason I augment regular sex with some paid sex. The former is repeatable but the latter is damned efficient and the quality of the woman can be very high. Throughout my life I’ve had goals other than fucking women and consequently I have never developed really good cold-approach skills. There are no shortcuts but I’ve tried to be efficient and that has also driven me towards the consciously non-monogamous community. Chances are that if there’s a shortcut to sex I’ve tried it.

All have drawbacks. Some fit my personality.

To conclude the Krauser bit,

The lesson of both older men’s hustles was the same lesson I’d been learning for years: consistently banging younger-hotter-tighter is difficult. Every man who is pulling it off has dedication, fortitude, a spark of ingenuity, and above all – a system. I had yet to meet the man who was getting younger-hotter-tigher handed to him on a platter.

Same here. I have seen some stupendously wealthy guys use money to get it (I think there is a kind of rich-guy-hot-younger-girl circuit in most major cities, and I have seen glimpses of it in mine). I have seen some guys with unusual lifestyles pull it. But this is like 1 – 2% of men and I doubt they are reading this.

Adventure_Sex_coverKrauser says that he notices patterns in his game and that some of those patterns were “well-theorised, because I’d discussed it with friends, like Tom or John.” It’s hard, I won’t say impossible but very hard, to become really good at anything without some help, from friends or mentors to help you, and from some rivals to push you. If you are attempting to do something totally alone you will likely never get as good as you could be. This is also a reason I have never gotten as good at game as I could: I have never met anyone truly committed to reaching the top. In my experience most guys who get into game or going out to meet women just want to find a nice, pretty girlfriend, and once they get one they stop. They don’t question the underlying structure of the date-marry-children social script.

While you need to not believe everything everything you read, you should know that progress is possible, that hard work does pay off eventually, and that you can improve yourself from where you are now. Almost everyone around me, including colleagues, and all my normal friends think my total aversion to sugar, indifference towards cars and many other consumer goods, and disinclination towards marriage is weird. I see them putting in average effort and getting average outcomes. Every day you have a choice between picking up the video game controller or the barbell. You have a choice between practicing the skill that will lead you to the beter job or watching TV. You have a choice between stuffing your face with basic carbs or learning how to roast sweet potatoes and beets. The choices you make will impact everything that happens in the course of the rest of your life.

All of us are living in an “unnatural” environment, by many metrics. This has bad aspects (gross food, sedentary lifestyles, car-based travel that requires no physical effort) and good aspects (can fuck many hot women if you achieve masculine polarity and learn game, can be better than many other people, can travel the world on airplanes, can read as many books as you have time to read, which is a new phenomenon most of you don’t take advantage of). Once you realize this you should try to take the good parts of the environment and jettison the bad. This is hard to do. If there are two themes in all my writing they are “this is hard” and “achieve masculine identity and the rest will follow.”

I said that you will accomplish more if you choose to do so, and you will, but “more” and “better” are relative. In real life, most of the player guys and player stories I hear are exaggerated, or simply untrue. Not universally and not all the time but most of the time. I read some of the stories here and doubt them. If you improve your life and don’t accomplish some of the things some guys here claim they have, don’t worry about it. Those claims may not be meritorious. Work on yourself every day and positive things will happen, but online anyone can claim anything. Watch real life with your own eyes.

There are no shortcuts, but there are some high-value guys who aren’t any good at delivering that value. For them, a little game and encouragement can create spectacular results. I wouldn’t call that a shortcut, however. I’d call it learning to deliver what you’ve got.