One of the discussions on last week’s Rule Zero that I felt I wasn’t able to complete was on self-filtering/self-selecting systems. This is a fairly simple concept that has large implications on the SMV. To illustrate the concept, any group centered around an activity has a way of filtering people within the group into a rank within the group, but also filtering people into- and out of the group. As an example, take professional bodybuilders, that population is largely composed of the people who are top 1% of people who:
- Started lifting early
- Have lifted consistently over a long period of time
- Have been consistent with their recovery and nutrition over time
- Are in the top percentages of respondents to strength training
- Are in the top percentages of respondents to “enhancements”
These are just a few filters but it illustrates the concept. A population centered around an endeavor will over time become dominated be an increasingly homogeneous group who shares many of the same physical, behavioral and psychological traits. Generally the selection filters work both to construct, maintain and screen for traits that permit advancement, but also to filter out negative traits. In a corporation for instance, a frequent source of issues with corporate hiring is that screening for “snakes in suits” is very difficult because psychopaths and narcissists usually have great interview skills, it’s hard to see through glibness and superficial charm during a 45 minute interview. Conversely, people with great skills for the job but poor interview skills tend to not get hired. Hence, over time a corporation gradually gets more and more dominated by the wrong people.
This is the same thing with the SMP over time it self-selects down to a point where very few good prospects exist within your age bracket as you get older. Once you hit your 50s and 60s expect women in their 50s and 60s to chase you because they have no options left, can’t go younger, don’t want to date a 70 or 80 year old man.
Relationships and Self-Selection
To illustrate this concept mathematically, I’m going to take some statistics on marriage [1]. By 25, 38% of women have married at least once, by 35, 74% have married at least once. The corresponding numbers for men are 21% and 67%. The average age of first divorce is 30 [2] and researchers estimate that 41% of first marriages end in divorce, 60% of all second marriages end in divorce and 73% of all third marriages end in divorce. The average length of marriage in the US id 8.2 years and 3/4 remarry after 3 years [4].
To make this a bit easier I made the table below:
In the table I normalized the data into three distinct groups, this is more categorical than how it often is in real life, however it lays the groundwork for the next step.
Here I’ve added in the divorce rates roughly aligned with how many marriages will end in divorce. I’m playing a bit fast and loose with the stats here, after all by age 30, less than 50% of men have married and 60% of women have. However the stats themselves are more illustrative than a statement of facts here. By age 75 96% of women have been married at least once, and the same goes for men. Thus, lifetime we can say that 96/100 people marry at least once, out of those a minimum of 40 end up divorced, out of those 40, 30 remarry. Out of those 30, 18 get divorced again, out of those 18, 13.5 remarry, and 10 (9.85) get a third divorce.
This is a great example of self-selection. As more and more people marry, the pool becomes increasingly dominated by those people who lack the character traits to “pull off” being in a long-term relationship. In a population of 100.000 men and 100.000 women at 18, there were 68.000 people of each sex that pulled it off, 42.000 that did not. After the second rush of marriages and divorces using those 42.000 eligible, you remove another 16.800 from the population. Leaving 15.200, out of which only 4104 pulled it off.
The pool of people available for an LTR becomes more and more dominated by those who are not good prospects for an LTR. Once you get into your fifties there might be an influx of “fresh blood” in the forms of women and men who’s first partner died young, but it does little to better the outcomes in aggregate. This is why you often see older men marrying younger women, because the pool of women age 20 – 30% has not yet been hit with the full force of self-selection. It is for this same reason that some of the older gents I talk to often complain of slim-pickings in their own age group.
Over time this group will be selected towards women and men with lower SMV and RMV. Thus it becomes important to know the signs otherwise you end up white someone who barely turns you on and makes you want to jump out a window.
Sexual Market Value Vs. Relationship Market Value
I decided to split SMV a bit for this, much for the reason I’ve grown used to referring to “Alpha” and “Beta” using only 2 definitions:
A) Attraction vs. Comfort
B) Sexual Success defined according to Heartiste.
When we talk about “Female SMV” it usually has a way of breaking down into the classical biological traits youth, fertility and beauty, for good reason. These three traits arguably make up 80 – 90% of men’s “raison de baiser“, the remaining being largely availability. However, just because a girl has the above desired traits in spades doesn’t necessarily mean she is worth keeping around after you’ve slept with her. This is the reason I decided to bring up RMV or Relationship Market Value. Some of the more orthodox people in this space may view RMV as covered by SMV, however I think they are better if conceptualized as separate, because it’s done intuitively by men very frequently. A bit anecdotal here, but every guy I know who has been active in the SMP for a while has had girls he’d ONS but not plate, girls who he’d plate but not LTR and so on.
To make an attempt at defining RMV, it would include traits such as being low-maintenance, nurturing, low emotional lability, low narcissism/dark triad, a higher level of maturity, not conflict seeking, good conflict resolution skills and so on. What often characterizes the women in the group mentioned in the last section who are unable to function in an LTR is not necessarily low SMV but low RMV. Hot girls with mental disorders can have very high SMV but their RMV is very low, meaning that they are self-absorbed, devoid of nurturing skills, are highly emotionally labile, high dark triad and so on.
This is similar to the “Blue Pill Alphas” who have attraction traits and behaviors in spades, but end up with five and six divorces under their belt because they cheat in every relationship they have, yet cannot conceptualize a long-term relationship outside the bounds defined by the blue pill paradigm. Blue Pill Alphas often get some of the worst SMP outcomes because they fail to learn from their mistakes until it’s too late. Take the “I’ll defend milady’s honor” high school QB who knocks up a 15 year old, marries her because “that’s what you’re supposed to do“, loses his scholarship gets a job as a car salesman and regularly cheats on his wife, gets hit with divorce papers, knocks up another girl and repeats until he dies at 58 paying child support to 5 different women because “that’s what a real man does“.
These people, both men and women have high SMV but low RMV. A simple way to think of this, SMV gets you into relationships, RMV maintains relationships. The exchange between RMV and SMV depends on desired outcome for a ONS all SMV, Plate 70-80% SMV, 20 – 30% RMV, LTR 60 – 70% SMV 30 – 40% RMV.
Summary and Conclusions
The only real thing I advise men not to do is get married. I realize saying that makes the “Trad” cohort rise up like “There goes Carl, always hating on marriage” but I don’t always hate on marriage, I have to get some sleep once in a while. The reason I advise against it is simply that in the modern marriage convention, it is all upside/no downside for a woman and all downside for a man. I’ve held this position for years and I have yet for someone to present an empirical argument to what advantages marriage has over cohabitation for men.
I also recommend dating multiple girls over a period of time, not so much to relive the last days of Caligula, but to do three things:
A) Learn your preferences (Do I actually want an LTR or do I just think I do?)
B) Learn about women (How is this woman compared to my overall sample of women?)
C) Close the knowledge and experience gap between yourself and girls.
Girls start swapping notes about boys when they’re like 12, they often start dating around 13 or 14, and have a string of older partners all thorough their teens. Boys often start out 2 – 3 years behind girls, and in the case of many of the men who enter this space 7 or more. If you do decide to get into a relationship at this point, the girl you do that with will have had much more time to learn her preferences, develop her relationship skills and confidence. This means you are at a disadvantage by default with little opportunity to bridge that gap. Add to it that you’ll be making a big portion of your rookie mistakes with that girl, while she’s made them all before and I hope you didn’t get the state involved.
In the end, if you hit 30 without at least a handful of ONS/FWB situations, you’re missing something. If you hit 30 without at least 1 monogamous LTR lasting 1 – 3 years, you’re missing something.
The Red Pill is not anti-LTR so much as it’s anti-LTR from a position of weakness and necessity. The old saying goes women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of commitment, and most men are shitty gatekeepers. The older you get, the more being a good gatekeeper becomes a valuable skill, because the dating pool becomes filled with more Vampires who should not be invited into your life.
Sources:
[1] https://flowingdata.com/2017/11/01/who-is-married-by-now/
[2] https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/
[3] http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/city/city_index/214133-city-index-marriage-lengths
[4] https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/family-law-blog/2012/october/32-shocking-divorce-statistics/
