Why I don’t accept most generalizations about men and women and you shouldn’t either

In a private chat, Red Pill Dad and xbtusd have been talking about their respective experiences and the qualities that might be possessed by different women at different ages. Each of them has stereotypes and generalizations supported by their experiences, yet they’re very different guys who live in different places and have led different social, economic, educational, and dating lives. Their conversation reminds me of the dangers of generalization.

Think about the tiny number of people you’ve interacted with in your life. I have maybe, I don’t know, 2 – 10 people, depending on how you count, who I’m very or pretty close to (know a lot about means I know a lot about them), maybe a couple dozen I know a little bit well, a couple hundred who I vaguely know, somewhat recently, by first name or face (could be 1,000), maybe 10,000 I might conceivably have interacted with since I was a freshman in high school (maybe a bit more, maybe less)… that’s not a lot of people, if you think about it… some of these numbers might be a little low, but even if you assume I’ve had some vague interaction with 30,000 people over the last 30 years, that’d be 1,000 a year, way too many for more than idle passing on the street, that sort of thing… 500 a year is probably too many, even counting schools… point is, however one slices these numbers, I don’t have substantial interactions with that many people, and I haven’t, in my whole life. I checked, the United States has 330 million people in it, and 330 million is a huge number, so huge humans can’t comprehend it.

I interact with a minuscule number, who have been filtered in some way… school, college, work, social inclinations, religious inclinations, big-city living. In the last 10+ years, my social world has focused on people who are doing non-mono, or don’t mind people who are doing it, and that’s done a lot of filtering, too. Can I draw true conclusions from this small, unrepresentative sample? How am I supposed to generalize based on this tiny sample? Red Pill Dad has his own socialization biases, as does xbtusd. Xbtusd has been doing non-mono for a while, and, while I don’t want to give the exact number of years he’s been involved, it’s a large enough number that his social life has recalibrated around other people interested in doing that, which means the kinds of women he meets and f**ks are different than a general sample of women where he lives, let alone a general sample in the United States. RPD’s social life hasn’t been calibrated that way, which leads him to a different set of experiences and generalizations. Many of his women come from cold approach at bars. The women who are at bars are different from the women who aren’t.

Whatever you see in the media, is based on highly unusual people, circumstances, stories. “Normal couple has a child, goes to work in the morning, hangs out with their parents, drinks coffee” never makes the news. No one cares. Wild dysfunction, crime, bizarre claims, hyperbole… these things make the news. Don’t succumb to salience bias. Just because it’s in the news, doesn’t mean it’s common, or even relevant. The news is by definition abnormal, which is one problem with reading it, or, worse, watching it.

Matt Yglesias has lately been harping on an important point for Democrats, that The median voter is a 50-something white person who didn’t go to college and lives in a suburb of an unfashionable city,

Fully 6% of the American population lives in the New York City metropolitan statistical area, which is genuinely a lot. But if you add up the 50 largest metropolitan statistical areas, they together add up to only about 42% of the population. The 50th-largest metro area is Birmingham, Alabama and number 51 is Rochester, New York.

Democrats, Yglesias says, are driven by young, urban, college-educated people who are very different from the median voter, and we all see the results of this sad mismatch, which Democrats are mostly blind to. Getting away from that point about political commonality, though, almost everything ever written about game and non-monogamy comes from people living in or familiar with a handful of places: Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York City, London. “London” is included in the “London Daygame Model” (LDM). Neil Strauss, author of The Game, lived in Los Angeles, maybe still does. Los Angeles and London are not like other places within the United States… they are not like Rochester. The kind of women I talk to, that RPD talks to, that xbtusd talks to, are much younger and much better educated than the average, and almost any woman who talks to any of the three of us for longer than “would you like oat milk or regular milk?” is going to be more sexually open and curious than the median woman. The supposed generalizations you read online come from extremely unusual people. You are an extremely unusual person: you’ve met a very small number of the total number of people out there.

We’re evolved for groups of up to 150, not countries of 330 million… these numbers and factors are also why I don’t buy red pill guys’ generalizations of women, or feminists’ generalizations of men… the generalizations are almost always built on a tiny, selective, unrepresentative sample. With the red pill guys’s talk, I usually don’t get to meet the guys, figure out if they’re cool or lame, any of those things… they’re text in boxes, with the lack of context that “text in boxes” implies. With many feminists in the media, I can see their names, look up their pictures and go, “Yup, that explains why you have some of the views you do, views that pretty girls are unlikely to have.” Pretty girls almost never write, so podcasting has helped pretty girls find their voice, and the voice of pretty girls is, no surprise, different from feminists working in the media and struggling to make $40k/year working 50 hours/week. Men and typical women can barely imagine the world of privilege that pretty girls inhabit.

For work reasons I’ve experienced a fair number of cities, at least briefly, and that’s shown me how overtly or subtly different many places can be, different enough to make generalizations about large groups (like “men” “women” “women in their 30s”, etc.) suspect. We’re all seeing the world reflecting back to us that which we put out. If I run into a super religious person, that person is unlikely to spend a lot of time with and around me. One could multiply that example by thousands of other people and see similar results. Selection bias is everywhere, distorting our perception, and showing us ourselves.

RPD and xbtusd (and every other guy) have built different social, communal, and city worlds. We’re united by our love of pussy. They have different networks and intersect with different people’s networks in different ways. The ways those networks differ help reinforce or change their world views. Cold approach guys often have many many interactions with many women, and many of those interactions are poor, and a lot of poor interactions will lead to different views than a smaller number of positive interactions. We’re probably not built for mass rejections, and our brains struggle with mass rejection (this is not an argument against cold approach or learning cold approach). For all the ranting about SJWs and wokes that I do, I also have to realize that many of them exist in networks that reinforce their wrongheaded beliefs. Everyone they know thinks the way they do. They don’t read me. Our worlds differ. Many people who are most vocal online are real-world failures. Meditate on that.

Author: The Red Quest

How can we live and be in society?

7 thoughts on “Why I don’t accept most generalizations about men and women and you shouldn’t either”

  1. Yes, your last sentence is a real clincher.

    The problem with manosphere discourse is not so much generalizations imho, but the fact that often you don’t know whether it is real or not, whether you are taking advice from frauds or really experienced players (save for guys like Kill Your Inner Loser who are very transparent).

    Sex is an incredibly opaque part of life and tends to drive systematizing and rational people like me nuts. Where I live unemployment is high, yet I know *how to* start looking for a job, what to do, which steps to follow… that is not the case in sexual relationships.


  2. Quality women are normally locked inside social groups. I’ve sometimes wondered about the type of woman agrees to meet up with a random guy who hit on her in public. The woman has to be socially isolated, several levels below the guy in looks, or exceptionally footloose and fancy-free. Many players report that their lays-to-approaches ratio is about 2-4 percent. That’s similar to the prevalence of mental illness in the general population.

    Anyway, I find generalizations useful. It’s possible to get a good enough sense of what is normal and reasonable in one’s environment. It doesn’t matter what other cities, countries or ethnicities are like because you’re never going to pick up women in them. Most guys are limited by economic realities or family to a certain location and social class.

    Marginal differences can have surprisingly large an effect. For example, even if promiscuous women were only about 10% of the population, them getting on Tinder, Instagram and OnlyFans, and away from bars and clubs, will drastically hurt men’s chances in night game.

    So the “sky is falling” rhetoric of the Manosphere is accurate enough for the typical guy. I have a good memory and can notice that women are significantly worse and more scarce than 10 years ago. Maybe it would be negligible in a good social scene, but access to them is scarce too. For example, men are much more interested in sex clubs and swinging, which is why the clubs turn away single men.


    1. >>Quality women are normally locked inside social groups.

      Often, but not always: plenty of chicks have exhausted the men in their local social groups. They’ve recently had a breakup, or they’re feeling lonely because the other girls have landed quality men and they’ve not. Others have recently moved to new places, or have had a falling out with their social groups, and so on. Then there are tourists and travelers open to or looking for adventure, https://theredquest.wordpress.com/2021/08/08/traveling-tourist-girls-and-the-fate-of-daygame/. Night/day game does work.

      A lot of chicks will want to evaluate the man’s social group a bit, and maybe mesh groups.


    2. With all respect, this is just wrong:
      “It doesn’t matter what other cities, countries or ethnicities are like because you’re never going to pick up women in them…”
      If that’s what you believe, it’s probably true for you. But for the rest of us..?

      I’ve not just moved cities but moved countries. More than once. And picked up women from every possible ethnicity.


  3. I’ve been ranting about this with friends. Of the closest hot girls in my life, only a few have an IG account, and rarely do they post thirst traps (if at all). It ain’t hard to find guys complaining about how girls excessively social media. This is just confirmation bias from a subset of women who excessively post tons of T&A shots.

    There is a shit ton of pseudoscience in the “manosphere” and among PUAs. It’s one thing to draw generalizations from real legit studies, and using it as a back-pocket guide with caveats. But drawing incorrect generalizations about men’s/women’s behavior, based on personal anecdotes and logical fallacies, is irrational and creates sexist attitudes that we are all better off avoiding. Why give SJWs ammo?


    1. I’d guess a few things.

      Availability heuristic. Girls with lots of social media followers are obvious.

      A lot of guys are trying to do online dating and Instagram dating. As with the previous point, this means they’re missing a large market segment.

      Deteriorated in-person social skills and abilities. So that the chicks in real life, don’t respond well to the guys complaining.

      I think it’s true that there are more social-media narcissists than there used to be, and a lot of girls will make a go at being one, for a short period of time. So there’s a bit of truth in it, but the whole structure is way overstated.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: