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.

I can’t believe I have to post this

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 will do what she wants. Heartbreak happens.

When it does, you can rage futilely against it. 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.

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.

Men, game, and social media strategies

As far as I can tell, there are two good, functional strategies for guys thinking about the game. Strategy one is the one I follow: no or minimum presence. I have an Instagram account but don’t use 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.

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. To me this looks hard to pull off 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.

In either case, public interaction with other people’s statuses should be minimal. We’ve all seen the thirsty like cascades that 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 and should be avoided. I’d love to omit this paragraph but these things happen all the time. 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.

Most guys I know seem to choose neither 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.

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

Someone just posted about the value stoicism has in their life. I loved that post. Social media is usually used as the opposite of stoicism. Before you post stop to ask yourself: 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).

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 pursuing 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 sites are video games for women.