Evolutionary biology underpins game

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. Another Riv post, this one about a date that either went wrong or never went right.

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.

Yes. In most cases. All a guy can do is try to improve something in his game and then accept that he will always have losses.

Look at it from a biological perspective. Men always want sex because successful sex may lead to a child. Women don’t always want to have sex because children have substantial costs. 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. Someone else will pitch her tomorrow. That’s why guys pitch a lot.

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.

This 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 to walk and explains why their behavior often looks erratic to guys, who just want more sex with more hotties.

It’s also 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.

Women have multiple conflicting internal desires, and those conflicts manifest themselves in ways that seem strange to guys. Once a guy beings to understand the underlying mechanisms, he can start to accept the situation.

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. If you get zero traction with a hundred women something is 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.

I also think about whether guys doing game are more likely to meet incoherent and incongruent girls. Girls who really know that they want a guy and a family stat don’t put up with operator “game” guys. They look for provider guys (not a negative thing IMO, just a description) and if they  know what they’re about they get one. They have a coherent plan that they genuinely want and they execute it. 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. 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.” Not exactly. It’s an internal conflict and desire that shifts from day to day and sometimes even hour by hour.

Girls who really like sex and are sex positive (not a big group) aren’t as much into “game” per se. Their beliefs (sex is fun and we should have more of it) are congruent with their actions. These are pretty rare.

Most girls are neither looking for providers nor sex positive. That’s why their stated beliefs often don’t match their actions and why guys think they look flakey, wishy-washy, uncertain, and incoherent. All that is really an outcome of not having interrogated their inner belief structure or what they want out of life and men.

I should also note that how you 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.

Advertisements

Author: The Red Quest

How can we live and be in society?

4 thoughts on “Evolutionary biology underpins game”

  1. >> he 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

    Full yes. If something “works” 5% of the time, that’s a good close rate. But that means it doesn’t work 95% of the time. And it’s not important to know why… certainly not for each case.

    Like

  2. >> 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.

    Here you seem over-confident in your analysis. I’d say… 50% chance you can have sex with that girl. This is not the pickup… this is the date. And likely there were texts before that, as well as the pickup. So… yeah, it’s very likely yours to lose.

    Yohami says a girl is out with you because you are her best option. If you were not, she’s be with some other guy… to your point, she gets lots of offers. That’s a powerful point.

    Like

  3. >> Women simultaneously want a guy who other women want but who won’t abandon them once they’re pregnant.

    I love your point about evo-bio. Yes.

    I’d say women want three things:
    — Resources/protection (“wont abandom them”)
    — The approval of the tribe (so they can get ^)
    — Good sex

    It’s that last part that is the most negotiable. Evo-bio is actually very friendly to the POV that game is part of the story (The Mating Mind) of modern humans. Not just bio-fitness. Not just social-fitness. But romantic-fitness. Sigma style pyschological-fitness. Once she shown some interest, even mild interest, she is very often… yours to lose.

    It’s not just safety and propagation of genes… not in her conscious understanding of life, anyway. So “good sex” (#3) as long as it does not disqualify her for #1 or #2… is a compelling sell.

    Like

  4. >> 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.

    This is the hottest part of this post.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s