Few things of value are free

The only free cheese is in a mousetrap. Some guy writes to me to ask, “Would you be able to give me some tips personally?” I guess he gets points for brazenness and going, “Will you give me for free the thing most people pay for?”, but, by that standard, the guy asking for change on the corner gets some points too. Sure buddy, I’m in a hurry to give you, a random guy, time and attention. It’s a top priority. He’s not the first with this request… if he were, I’d ignore it, but I get it often enough for me to wonder what’s wrong with these guys. I linked him to paid coaching, but I sense that the way he goes about asking for free shit is indicative of his failures with chicks… he says, “I haven’t had much success.” Right, cause if his approach with me is bad, his approaches with chicks are probably bad too. I don’t know him. He’s not offering money. Why would I bother? He lacks the wit to learn how to properly ask the question he’s asking. Why would I think he has the wit to learn anything?

He’s not written a player blog, something I recommend guys do, so he’s giving nothing back to the community. I routinely talk about “reciprocity” as a fundamental element in human relationships. Even newbie guys can have useful things to say about whatever’s happening on their journey. This guy wants free stuff… contrast him with someone like Madd Monk, who is telling his story, and who I’ve left comments for and talked with some in email. Madd Monk seems like an interesting guy who’s making some progress in the world… he may have started his player’s journey blog with my encouragement. What’s the guy asking me for free coaching providing to anyone else? Has he read me speculating that there is no real money in game coaching? This could be what chicks feel like, when guys unartfully ask them for sex.

There are ways to get advice from experienced players. Money talks. Contributions talk. A guy showing he’s worth some investment, talks. The internet is full of people trying to cadge something for nothing, while a few of us talk about the importance of real, lasting value. Prove yourself first. Men spend our entire lives proving ourselves, over and over again. Are you a man? The modern education system says “gender is just a construct,” which is the thing only two classes of guys say: the vast majority are pathetic guys who don’t get laid. The other class of guy is so high status that he can say it and get away with it, because he can already get copiously laid. He’s a version of the rich guys who dress like hobos, because they have so much money that they don’t care about he signal, or are going to counter-signal. Women who say “gender is a social construct” want to f**k guys who are hot, fun, interesting, challenging, competent, tall, desired by other women, etc…. like all the other women do… “gender is a social construct” is a troll, disconnected from their real experience and preferences. “Gender is a social construct” “I also want a guy who is over six feet tall and makes over six figures a year”—the same girl. Men learn we have to earn our way. Women get a lot of value delivered to them at puberty, by being thin and young. Create and display your value, or lose to guys who do. Choice is yours. You can choose to pick up the video game controller, or you can choose to create value.

The false mystique of the “top guy,” and what revealed preferences show women really want

Madd Monk suggests men “Become a Top Guy or Die Trying,” something I’m not opposed to (who doesn’t want to be top?), but it’s something that conceals as much as it reveals, because a lot of guys have problems with value delivery as much as or more than value building… Madd Monk says “If you want to live a certain lifestyle, and you want women that complement your lifestyle, it’s top guy or bust” and that “game is the delivery mechanism to display your value.” I don’t love the word “display” and would prefer another word, like “convey,” but I understand what he’s saying.

It’s a good post, read it, especially the section about his former mother-in-law pulling him aside for some hard-core realpolitik on his wedding day… but I notice that Madd Monk doesn’t define the “top guy.” Does “top” mean… money? Social respect? Skill in some domain? Something else? “Top” can be a lot of things, and no one is “top” in all things. A lot of guys think being the “top” guy concerns money, but, once we get to an income level where we can pay our bills and lead a normal life, chicks don’t care much about money. We’ve all likely met rich simps guys with no game and outcomes with women consistent with no game. We’ve all met guys in debt who do extraordinarily well with women. I don’t code as wealthy to women and have done well, and I think smart women realize that many of the richest guys blend in, rather than standing out.

Continue reading “The false mystique of the “top guy,” and what revealed preferences show women really want”