“Enrollment Shortfalls Spread to More Colleges”

Enrollment Shortfalls Spread to More Colleges.” A few of you have noted that I seem pretty “pro-college.” I’m not pro- or anti-college. College is good for guys who have the skills and inclination to succeed, and who go to relatively inexpensive state schools and major in real subjects like computer science, engineering, economics, etc.

College is terrible for unmotivated, low-IQ guys who go because their parents told them to, or because it’s what you’re supposed to do after high school. Colleges are fleecing those kids and their families and they (the colleges) just don’t give a f**k to stop. They should be ashamed of themselves but that’s like saying the guys selling tobacco should be ashamed of themselves… shame rarely beats the profit motive.

Date-onomics (yesterday’s post, you should read it) points out that most non-engineering schools also have more women in them than men. If you are an 18-22 year old guy who wants to get laid, being in college is much better than not being in college, all else being equal.

Most expensive private schools are overpriced and will saddle you with too much debt. Most people who go to schools like Ithaca and Bucknell (named in the article) are just stupid and wasting their money. “Bucknell, where the full cost of attendance is nearly $70,000 a year, had a discount rate of about 31 percent and underspent its financial-aid budget by about $1.2 million.” 69 percent of $70 grant is still $48,000, or two to three times as much as a guy with a brain should be spending.

There is an anti-college brigade in the Red Pill world… many of their points are accurate, as college can leave you deeply in debt with nothing to show for it. College can also be an awesome, life-affirming experience. It really depends on you. Lots of guys are going to college who have no business being there, because they lack the cognitive abilities and the work ethic to make it make sense. But lots of guys should be in college because the college wage premium is real and most people are not self-taught prodigies who will make it on their own without college.

Too many guys appear to spend college doing the minimum necessary to get by and spending all their free time playing video games and watching TV or porn. For them, they might as well not go. Some guys appear to spend college developing themselves and their skills and their ability to meet with and bond with and interact with other people. For them, college is great.

Date-onomics: players should go where the gender ratio is good

I keep mentioning Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game in private, and I finally mentioned it in a post, but I didn’t elaborate, so: small changes in male-female ratios have pronounced effects in sex culture. If there are lots more guys than chicks, like engineering schools or military bases, there’s a lot of monogamy, a lot of long courtships, longer waits for sex, and more transfer of financial resources from men to chicks. If there are lots more chicks than guys, like liberal arts colleges and New York City, there are more hookups, less monogamy, shorter courtships, and more casual sex. In American cities, there are profound differences in male-female ratios. In most cities, there are more single college-educated females than single college-educated males. San Francisco and Seattle are exceptions: those cities have more dudes than chicks. New York and L.A. have among the most skewed ratios, in favor of men, in the country: both have far more chicks than dudes. Get out of SF and Seattle if you can. Choose similar jobs in NYC or LA.

If you are a guy, you want to go where the chicks are and the dudes aren’t. I have said before that there are really three levels of game: 1. Your interpersonal game itself, 2. Your underlying value and 3. Your environment. Ideally, a guy will try to improve all three at once. If you have strong game and value, but a terrible environment, the game may still be very hard for you, because you are competing heavily against all other men. If the opposite is true, you may still succeed despite yourself. Date-onomics also explains why so much of the online advice guys give each other is useless… we don’t know how cool a guy is, what his life is like, what he looks like, how he acts around other people, or where he lives. The last one is important, as guys who live in cities will do better than guys who live in rural areas (a lot more men than women) or suburbs.

It’s strange to me that almost no players talk about this. Many players talk about Mark Manson and The Book of Pook, but this should be on the player’s reading list, despite its extremely Blue Pill framing.

The author says “I realize most people do not want to think about supply and demand when contemplating matters of the heart.” Players sure as fuck should. If you are a player or just a guy who gives a shit about your sex life, don’t take the job in San Francisco. Take it in L.A., NYC, or almost anywhere else instead. If you are a guy debating whether you should go to college, the author writes “By 1992, the female-to-male ratio among freshly minted graduates reached 54:46. At first glance, 54:46 may not sound like much of a gap, but it meant 17 percent more women than men graduating from college.” “By 2012, the college gender gap has doubled to 34 percent more women than men.” College is where the chicks are, so there can be good reasons to go there.

The book also uses college education as a proxy. If you’re a guy who looks, acts, earns, and behaves like you’re college educated, whether you actually are or not is probably irrelevant. If you’re a guy who behaves like an idiot and you don’t have good game, then you are probably not going to get chicks whether you went to college or not.

Admirably, the author is willing to use words most mainstream authors will not “A surplus of women in cities may be a geographic manifestation of the general phenomenon of hypergyny, that is, women’s marrying up.” I think the correct term is “hypergamy,” but whatever, that’s something almost no one admits in the mainstream (except Jordan B. Peterson, whatever his other flaws).

To be sure, New York has downsides in that it’s expensive as fuck all. Birger has tables from the Census showing the male-female ratio in different cities. Chicago has 40% more college educated chicks 22-29 and 20% more college educated chicks age 30 – 39. Same in New Orleans. Same in Vegas (although I don’t like Vegas as much because of the lack of foot traffic on streets; it is also about driving). Austin, Texas is not as favorable to guys, but Houston is. Nashville is favorable to guys. Philadelphia is.

The book has story after story about supposedly “gorgeous” women age 30 – 45 and their travails dating. I do not sympathize much with those women because they just waited until their sexual market value had begun to decline to value marriage. Much like this chick and numerous others you’ll read about in the media, all with the same whine about the same predictable problem. The highest-level men don’t care that much about women’s careers; high-level men just want a woman who is economically functional. I myself like hearing about teachers and nurses, because they are economically functional without being married to their jobs. I’m not as thrilled by women in the corporate rat race who are sweating because they can’t fit a baby and their careers together. I, like many men, think those women are fine for casual sex but problematic for relationships. This book helps explain the spinster epidemic overtaking us all.

I’m getting off topic, but players need to know that where they live will affect how their dating life works. A bunch of guys writing about the game right now seem to be living in the Bay Area… maybe that’s why they’re writing about the game… the Bay Area is game on hard mode. Bully for them but I would refer it on easy mode.

Roy Walker didn’t like New York, but he’s comparing it to London/Europe, so I don’t have his perspective. It does seem like Eastern Europe and Russia just have hotter chicks than any other country, but, again, I don’t have the experience to offer personal testimonials.

This book is also useful for guys who have a son. Girls do much better at school than boys because they typically mature faster. A 5 year old boy is about as mature as a 6 year old girl. Same with a 15 year old girl and a 16 year old boy. If you have a boy, try to get him to start school relatively late, compared to his peers. That will likely improve his school prospects. Most people don’t do this and that’s part of the reason there are way more girls in college than boys.

In summary, ignore the Blue Pill wrapping and please read the book for yourself, taking from it the important lessons about environment. I am guessing that far more urban, college-educated women read books than do rural, not-college-educated men, so the author has wisely decided to pander to his audience. Many guys report that the game feels way different in some cities than in others, and that has been my experience as well.

An article that inadvertently reveals why women who don’t have kids are permanently damaged

The article is not about that, however, “An Ode to ‘the Moms:’ My friends’ mothers gave me Band-Aids, drove me home, and taught me something about grown womanhood.” The amount of anti-maternal material in the media is epic, so it’s nice to see a small corrective. One unstated point, though, is that women aged 40+ (maybe 35+) derive the majority of their meaning in life and status among others from their children.

The corollary is that women who don’t have kids are (typically) damaged in ways that cannot be easily reversed. There is adoption, though that is unusual. The vast majority of women care much more about their families than their bullshit careers (most of the women the author praises are teachers: I have said before that my ears perk up when I hear women who are teachers or nurses, as both jobs allow women time off easily for families). Most of our society and media work hard to conceal this point.

It’s super fun to be a woman at the height of sexual market power, ages 16 – 28, but it’s not so much fun for childless women over the age of 40. Sexual market power shrinks and will never go up again. That is why so many spinsters are bitter, and no amount of feminist posturing will change that.

Guys can derive more meaning from sex and sexuality well into their 40s (perhaps beyond). I argue that most guys should also have families, but most guys need not even really think about that until age 30, and need not seek to execute it until at least age 35. It takes that long to build up your game, your career, and your knowledge of and experience with women.

Most chicks feel anxiety and uncertainty, and most guys never realize it

The three phases of the seducer | Hans Cormyn” is a good Nash essay that hits something I have been trying to articulate here and there and yet have been unable to articulate… it’s the third point in this series,

THE THREE PHASES OF THE SEDUCER.
— First Phase: “Does she like me?”
— Second Phase: “Do I like her?”
— Third Phase: “What do I need to do to make her feel beautiful?”

The “Third Phase” only happens, though, when the chick is deeply into your world/frame. Kind of like what I write about in “Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is” and “The holidays are coming up: shit tests, comfort tests, and gifts [intermediate and above]:” a chick has to feel that she is earning validation of her beauty from a high-status, cool guy in order for that validation to mean anything. Lots of chicks can get meaningless validation from whoever… but that validation is garbage. It’s like a moron admiring your intelligence. If a moron compliments you on how smart you are, do you take the compliment seriously? Of course not. Same thing here, with chicks.

Most chicks, when you get underneath their social surface and social armor (many guys never do), are just not very confident. Even many very beautiful women are insecure about their looks, their relationships with guys, etc. Many women really are like liquids, looking for vessels to give them shape and purpose. The better you know chicks, the more apparent this becomes.

Even a lot of bitchy, unappealing behavior comes from a place of weakness, fear, and uncertainty… not a place of strength. When I have written about trying to build women up… this is what I am trying to get at. Most chicks are adrift and need a man’s approval, but most guys don’t recognize this dynamic and only perceive the surface level. That was true of me for a long time.

When we laugh at or ignore shit tests, when we’re non-reactive to some kinds of typical bad female behavior, when we laugh off rejection and go find a chick worthy of our attention… we are working at these deeper levels. I think I only began to access these deeper levels around age 30. It took me like 15 years to figure out they exist. It’s hard to get below the surface level. I think a lot of guys who get this low, find a woman or two or three they want to be with and drop out of the conventional dating market.

Over time… a lot of time, too much time… I’ve figured out that even a lot of very attractive chicks are insecure about their looks, bodies, and performance. Why? They are comparing themselves to chicks who are +2 or +3 above them… they are comparing themselves to bullshit photoshopped advertisements… they are comparing themselves to the chicks they think the guy they most desire can get. There is still a lot of sex negativity in society, so chicks are worried because they know guys want sex (just as chicks do), but chicks worry about their reputations, what will happen if they seem to like sex too much, etc. etc. Chicks compete with each other quite a bit, and many chicks are worried about what their stupid friends will think of their sexual behavior. Mature, psychologically stable chicks won’t have these problems, or will understand that they need to mute these problems, but the number of mature, psychologically stable chicks is small.

So a guy who a chick heavily invests in… she really wants his validation and reassurance. That is valuable to her. Validation that she is beautiful, that she is not a slut, that she is doing good and normal things, etc. She is probably pretty uncertain about herself because she is looking “up” at the hottest/coolest/most whatever chicks (and dudes). You can call this an aspect of hypergamy if you want… I’m not a huge fan of emphasizing that idea, so I’ll mention it and move on. A girl wants to feel like she is replaceable but simultaneously that she will not be replaced.

That’s a hard place to be.

The girl I call SA girl… was not convinced of her own (phenomenal) good looks. Neither was a girl I met a couple years ago, who worked at a coffee shop…. very solid 8 while naked, yet convinced of all sorts of weird stuff, like her butt was too big (quite small, actually, too small for some guys likely), or that her boobs were asymmetrical (they were, very slightly, which is totally normal). And the number of girls who have a love-hate relationship with sex… too many to count. That is why Dr. Ruth is so famous, as she talked about sex honestly and positively… even today that is quite rare.

So a lot of chicks are scared and looking for validation from top guys. Sort of like guys are looking for validation from chicks; is my dick big enough, do I last long enough, am I better than her ex, can this girl finally bestow confidence on me, etc. etc. All the insecurities that the Internet seduction boards overflow with.

A lot of guys are insecure themselves, and/or chasing girls way above them in SMV, and/or wrongly fixated on one girl whose acceptance or, more often, rejection they hang their whole self-image on. If you’re a guy in middle or high school… and your experience of chicks is based on chasing the top 10% of chicks (there are some age effects at work too, more on those later), many of whom are themselves uncertain, scared, etc… you might perceive chicks as having all the power. “Bottom” guys who never adequately develop themselves, yet desire top-tier chicks, experience the same. Many of them experience chicks as having all the power, and guys as having little or none.

I perceived life that way until I was in my early 20s or so. It took me a long time to understand the chicks’s perspectives… to read evolutionary biology books… to talk to chicks who I might perceive as having the power, to realize the chick herself doesn’t perceive that… to understand the weird paradoxes that underlie a lot of female psychology. For a guy, too, understanding that a lot of chicks are just f**king random goes a long way to explaining a given woman’s behavior. The woman herself probably doesn’t know what’s driving her… how can a guy expect her to articulate it to him? Male sexual desire is also a pretty simple algorithm: more sex with any acceptably hot chick is a win. Female sexual psychology is more elaborate, more contingent, more confused, more uncertain. Guys try to solve it like it’s an engineering problem, only to discover a lot of chicks don’t work that way.

A successful player gets to know chicks… and sees many of their internal uncertainties… and realizes that chicks need the guy to help them be whole. Ms. Slav has some of that, though the ways in which she does are too specific for me to state them here. The girl I call “#2” in the book had a LOT of that, because she couldn’t process her own inner roaring sexual desire with her societal conditioning, so she needed me to process it externally for her. SA Girl had had a bad boyfriend or something like that and had somewhat stunted sexual expression and expectation because of it. Low-cut top girl seemed to be pretty complete, actually, though she has other problems in my view. Peaches also seems pretty complete. Most the chicks I slept with in college weren’t that complete, but largely as a function of age, their own uncertainty, and the uncertainties of the guys around them.

Young and inexperienced guys think chicks have all the power. That’s because they don’t get that 1. Chicks bear greater sex risk via pregnancy, 2. From puberty well into the 20s, chicks have greater sexual power than dudes on average, and 3. Most chicks are looking to “date up” and often have the ability to do so. Almost all guys can find at least ONE CHICK who will be into them… the problem is the quality of that chick…

There is also the notion, now somewhat common among guys in the seduction community boards, that chicks just get their sexual market value, while guys often have to earn their SMV. This is basically true. An attractive girl just shows up to the dance, if you will, and has a lot of value by virtue of being hot. There are a small number of guys like that, but most guys have to earn it or build it. What “earning” or “building” means will differ by age.

By age 30, the sexual marketplace switches around a lot of the time, since guys are willing to date from age 18 on up, while most chicks want their age or older. They get fewer options and their biological clocks are ticking. Many are encumbered by children. So a lot of guys from puberty well into their 20s perceive chicks as having all the sexual power… and yet that can change, if the guy keeps working on his value and is willing to date the full spectrum of chicks. Guys also don’t realize that some percentage of young chicks are getting trained by much older dudes in sex arts and confidence. I didn’t fully get that when I was younger… now that I have been the trainer, I get it.

Then there is the sex itself. If you understand female physiology, you understand that most chicks cannot orgasm without clitoral stimulation (there are exceptions; one of my favorite girls was an exception). That is why I wrote Tell your girl to use a vibrator during sex, and other bedroom tips. Chances are that she needs her fingers or your tongue on her clit to orgasm, and this is not always easy/simple during PIV intercourse. But most chicks never think to add toys or, if they do, they worry that the guy is going to think he is not enough or, worse, that she is a sex-crazy slut. Many guys, meanwhile, feel they are not a REAL MAN if she does orgasm ALL OVER HIS MAGIC PENIS. Because it is MAGIC, she CRAVES it uncontrollably. Sometimes this can happen, yes, and it has happened to me… more often, she needs the full-body experience. But she wants it without feeling bad. Who can deliver that feeling to her?

YOU can.

Guys who don’t work to develop their value, game, etc., never see the uncertain, fearful, anxious sides of attractive women. Top players do.

By the way, I still get ice cold rejections from chicks, blowouts, etc. I’m not some super-player. But I have learned (mostly) to let it go. And I have seen enough of chicks to see that many are worth trying to “build up…” but only AFTER they have invested deeply in me (or you). If you try to build up a chick who has not invested in you, you are just another beta dude feeding her free and unearned resources, attention, etc. As so often happens, there are guys talking past each other online, at different “levels” of the game or seduction process. A guy at one level, may not even PERCEIVE the other level(s) are there. This goes both ways, too. A bottom guy reading this will see women’s bitchy, cold social armor and think most of this post is ridiculous. A top guy reading this post may read it and think that it’s obvious to him, isn’t it obvious to every guy? I have been both in my life, at different times, with different chicks, etc. Probably my biggest transition is to let a lot of the bullshit go, to stop feeding attention to chicks who aren’t going in the direction I want them to go, to accept that most chicks will say no, to focus attention on the chicks who say yes or who are on the path to saying yes. A chick who is fundamentally a “no…” needs to be chucked. A girl who is a “maybe” is where a lot of the game is.

Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures

On Twitter there’s a dumb thread about a chick complaining about guys using her for sex and then ditching her, usually after bad sex. That’s an easy diagnosis: she’s almost certainly chasing guys who are +2 or +3 above her in sexual market value (SMV). They’re not going to date her, they’re not going to try in bed, but if she offers herself up one of those guys will go for her. I’ve been in the guy’s position before… my natural hunting ground is 7s: chicks lower than that aren’t of much interest to me, while chicks who are true 8s, are just not that common and are often particular. I’ve been there with 8s, I’ve succeeded, but I don’t see/meet very many of them, let alone bang them. I’m also just some hot chicks’s type, and when that happens I can cruise right into bed.

A few years ago (around the time I started writing on Reddit, or just before that) I tried an app called Kinkd, which advertised itself as being something like Tinder or Feeld for kinky people; as players know, “kinky = easy & sex positive.” Downside, though, is that most openly kinky chicks are not the best looking. Fetlife has the online market pretty covered, but I gave Kinkd a shot and managed to meet two okay chicks, high 6s, without too much work; both were novices and liked that I knew about parties, events, etc. Don’t underestimate social proof in this area, either. Both chicks seemed like they might be 7s, based on their duplicitous pics, but real life reveals all. One was a straightforward once a week lay for a couple weeks, and things ended when she said that “all guys are the same” because I said I liked her but didn’t think we are compatible.

The other chick I did more or less the same thing with, although she was more reluctant to have actual sex. But the first time I saw her, I basically fingered her g-spot into a multi-minute orgasm of some kind (at least, she said it was). It was a strange experience for me and, I think, for her. Did do a lot of bonding in a small space, though, and because my SMV was higher than hers and I also didn’t slut-shame her, she was into me fast. Too fast. They’re the kind of chicks I am now mostly trying to turn down, as marginal notches.

I actually think it’s good for guys to give chicks a good sexual experience, even if the guy decides he’s not that into the chick. It’s not that much extra work, yet many guys don’t bother. Most chicks are also responsive to toys, and something like an njoy pure wand is a good tool for both a chick a guy is into and one he isn’t (just for different reasons).

Female SMV is pretty straightforward for short-term activity and a little more complex over the long term. Male SMV is trickier and more contingent; chicks have a wider array of factors they’re looking at and are just more arbitrary. But if a guy is getting consistent blowouts, his SMV is probably too low. Chicks are also herd animals and will value a guy with a girlfriend, even a low-status one, over a guy without one. Having one makes it easier to get the next. Guys can branch-swing too, although most lack the skill, discipline, game, and inclination to do so.

Most chicks who complain about pump-and-dumps are simply chasing guys too high above them. Chicks with reasonable expectations find what they want. People who have an accurate assessment of their SMV and act accordingly tend to do fine. This is more common among guys but still less common than it should be.

Everyone has the same options: improve their value; improve their game; change their environment. Chicks who are chasing guys +2 or +3 above them… are going to get the kind of outcomes this person is complaining about.

Added: Another story, same basic situation. Almost no mainstream writers are willing to write frankly and honestly about SMV, particularly female SMV. That does a disservice to women, but the market for “You’re perfect, just the way you are” is much larger than the market for “This is how the real world works.”

Planning your life, ten years out

One way to assess your life now is to try and think about where you might want to be in ten years, then take daily steps towards wherever that place is. Chances are, you should want some aspect of your life to be different in ten years, but what aspect that is will vary by the guy. I’m thinking about this because I’m pretty sure that, in ten years, I won’t want to be doing what I’m doing now. But what should I be doing instead? That’s the key question. For a long time, chasing chicks has basically been my sport and hobby, and a lot of my life has been oriented around that activity. Things that support that goal I pursued, and things that detracted from that goal I mostly avoided. I’m okay with where I am right now, but I don’t think I want to be in the same place ten years from now… which means I need to think about what changes I should make.

This applies to guys in a lot of situations regarding women, sex, etc.:

  • If you’re 20, in ten years you’ll probably still want to be in the game.
  • If you’re 30, ten years out you might still want to be in, but you might not.
  • At 40… maybe so, but I start to wonder about that.

I observe that, the older people get, the more their families take priority and the less they care about a lot of other stuff, possibly including getting laid by the widest array of new chicks. This is an “on average” observation, so maybe you are different. In addition, I think many people go through life epicycles of 5 – 10 years. So someone who does monogamy or, much worse, a marriage from age 25 – 40 may get out of it and want desperately to f**k around for a couple years. A lot of people need to have sufficient variety in their life to make it intersting, but not so much variety as to destabilize it.

I have been dealing with some injuries, and I have been of course been observing the people around me. The older people I know who have families are almost always more satisfied than the ones without. I think we need the right, productive kind of struggle to live satisfied lives. For a long time, the right, productive kind of struggle for me has been in the game, with all of its attendant challenges. The important question is what should happen next. Some advice generalizes well to guys in all states of life (lift, stretch, maintain physical well-being, read books), but other advice is more age- and context-specific.

Some guys want to chase chicks till the moment they can’t anymore. If that’s you, that’s fine… one time I thought it would be me… now I’m not so convinced.

Book of Pook

Every generation has to re-learn the past’s lessons.

Two books that are really just post compendiums keep reappearing, The Book of Pook and The Book of Bonecrker (PDF download),and they were both written by guys in the late ’90s or early ’00s. They could have been written yesterday and seem eternal… though they don’t discuss social media and the modern attention economy, their male-female fundamentals are on point and I wish I had come across both when they were fresh (this: “You cannot obtain love by giving yours away for free” is a good summary of the modern attention economy). The information was out there but back in 2004 I didn’t have access to it.

If I can try to go meta on both books, I think they really argue that to achieve the best relationships, you need to be a complete human being. Many people are not complete. You can be incomplete and not get laid; you can be incomplete and be very good at the game and getting laid, however strange that may seem at first. But your medium- and long-term relationships will likely fail. If you are a guy who is solely interested in notch count and casual sex, that may not matter, and you can succeed while being incomplete. If you are a guy who has never experienced a wide array of sex with a wide array of women, you may not care about developing yourself into a complete human being, but you likely will at some point in your life. But many game failures start from within.

I pick out this, about attitude,

Are you ugly? Are you beautiful? It doesn’t matter. Women do not see beauty; they see only sexuality. So how does a sexual male LOOK?

To put it bluntly, it is the bad@ss. This guy has the look of power be it a shaved head, leather coat, professional corporate suit, backwards cap, a well toned body, spiky hair, or whatever else. This person looks like a guy. He is not androgynous. He knows what his sexuality is and embraces it.

How is a guy supposed to look? To be male is to drive against Nature, to pierce her. He is not a pretty boy (though, this might get some girls too). It is almost a ‘rough’ look. A guy has a look of some masculinity about him.

It does matter how a guy looks, but weak looks can also be overcome. A guy should be polarizing. He should do the opposite of what many chicks do. Many guys are trained not to embrace masculine identity and it hurts. Part of the masculine identity is understand pain, suffering, and rejection. Guys who can tolerate and even thrive under those conditions will thrive.

I hadn’t realized how long ago Pook was writing. Yet most of what he writes is still relevant, and the crisis in masculinity is if anything worse today than it was in the early 2000s. We seem to have learned little, retained less, and failed to help the next generation of guys learn how to be guys. Pretty depressing, overall. The conversations on seduction boards are almost exactly the same today as they were then, with the addition of smartphones and social media questions, but both those things seem to have only retarded guys’s social skills. The fundamentals of masculinity and femininity have not changed. Guys who cultivate their masculinity, strength, humor, fortitude, courage, etc. will thrive. Guys who do not cultivate these traits will often not thrive. The older you get, the more apparent these fundamental truths will become. Like, “Life is much more enjoyable as a masculine figure than a nerdy androgynous.” We live in a society that discourages us from becoming masculine, to our detriment. To live is to struggle, something that I didn’t believe when I was younger. I thought that to live was to try and minimize struggle as best I could.

The Book of Pook cannot be absorbed all at once, so I recommend that you read it at different points in your player journey. I don’t agree with everything in it. All guys have to find our own way. In some ways this book is dispiriting because I realize that a lot of what I am writing has already been said.

ADDED LATER: Nash found a book, How to Pickup Girls by Eric Weber, that was published in 1970 and is a precursor to modern pickup, game, London Daygame Model, etc. We are all reinventing the wheel. The terrible thing, though, is that schools will never teach us this material (and most schools are actively hostile to men and male teachers), so guys have to re-learn it all on our own, unless we have good fathers / older male relatives / male mentors. Most of us don’t. I am trying to be that guy, somewhat, right now, and that is why I like books like What Women Want by Geoffrey Miller and Tucker Max… while you can say it is not full Red Pill like Rollo Tomassi and others, it is also socially acceptable enough to give it to younger male teenagers you might know, whereas a socially intelligent person will NOT do that with a lot of other Red Pill and game lit.