This is a repost of a post made by /u/lono12 a few years ago. Unfortunately the hyperlink in his OP is dead. So after painstakingly searching the Internet, I finally found a PDF of the study he referenced. I've reposted his original text with the hyperlink updated to an archive of the PDF:
Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle
Everybody's been talking about the ovulatory cycle, even mass media articles. So here it is redpill style.
The science is pretty clear. Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month. Same with short term versus long term relationships. What's interesting is the specific traits and behaviors they're attracted to, and how these traits interact.
This quote for example:
Relative to women low in conception risk, those high in conception risk particularly preferred as short-term mates men who appeared more confrontative, arrogant, muscular, socially respected, and physically attractive. When high in conception risk, women were also more attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.
You heard that right. Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful.
We also tested these effects while statistically controlling for two behavioral display > indicators examined by Gangestad et al. (2004), Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness. In most instances, interactions remained significant or neared significance, indicating that the effects reported here are not redundant with the effects reported previously. For confrontativeness, arrogance, faithfulness, and muscularity, ts = 3.13 (df = 7986), 2.64 (df = 8081), -2.27 (df = 8057), and 1.85 (df = 7957), respectively, all ps < .041. For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081). For physical attractiveness, the effect dropped to nonsiginifance.t(7925) = 1.09, ns. Women rely on behavioral information when evaluating the attractiveness of men. The results suggest that fertile women are particularly attracted to these components of physical attractiveness.
What this quote is saying is that even while controlling for two big traits that were found attractive in a previous study (Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness), the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.81).
confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27
Basically, women love shit starting cunts.
The most interesting part was this chart: http://archive.is/lNvTs
Womens standards of attractiveness do not change across the cycle in general for all mate traits. Standards associated with particular traits perceived systemically change. This pattern is consistent with the good genes hypothesis. This hypothesis however makes an > even more specific prediction. about which male traits should be most attractive to fertile > women. Fertile women should be especially drawn to men who possess traits typically values > in short term mates.
Figure 1 shows the results of these tests. As can be seen, the extent to which male traits > were preferred in short-term mating contexts strongly predicted the extent to which this > was particularly true of fertile versus infertile women. indeed the correlation is close to > perfect .93.
And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock
Maybe I'm misreading the study, but aren't those relative values compared to long-term relationships? So faithfulness could be highly selected in long-term strategies but irrelevant to short-term strategies, and one would expect to see a negative value. Likewise, arrogance could be penalized in long-term strategies, but ignored in short-term strategies, and that would result in a positive ts.
Not that I disagree with what you're saying (we've got other evidence to back up those assertions), I just don't see this as evidence.
You're right.
Women prefer alphas for sex when she's horny, and betas for provisioning when she's not.
The article linked is further proof of AF/BB, varying across her ovulatory cycle. Short term sexy hookup, then get another guy to pay when she's less likely to get knocked up. Those bucks sure are nice, especially when she doesn't have to have those second-rate genes cluttering up her womb.
This whole study tries...and poorly, to make a point...and it sort of does, but not what OP talked about. Quick dirty trick, look at sample size. It was college students in the American south with an average age of 18-20 for both males and females. The sample size was incredibly low for a quantitative study and all participants got class credit just for being judged. Basically it actively and self selected for a specific group of people we know as Bros and Ho's. Any attempt to extrapolate it beyond this is completely insane. This study says nothing about betas losing to chads unless nerds are after the freshmen girls pledging sororities...not much in common there.
This seems correct. It seems they only care less about faithfulness, which doesn't automatically make the opposite true, meaning they dont "prefer" unfaithfulness at any time.
Yes it's not clear from the excerpt whether women prefer unfaithfulness to faithfulness when pursuing a short term relationship or if they choose unfaithful men more often for short term relationships than they would for long term ones.
I interpret "unfaithful" in this sense as a man whose demeanor conveys that his genes are hotly contested. More specifically, a man who acts like he fucks, and basically carries that pre-validation (that having a hot female at your side gives you) along with him in his attitude alone.
You've misunderstood, I'm not debating the definition of the word.
The formula that works for short and LTRs: lavish her with attention while you’re together, fuck her hard, and then don’t call for three days. Have the discipline to let her reach out to you. Give her the gift of missing you. Let her pursue you like a junkie pursues his next hit.
This isn’t just my long experience. There’s science behind it. I like to think that this study supports my assertion.
Please, in the name of God, expand!?!?!?!?
Really? OK.
I’m convinced that men, not because they’re insecure, but because they’re doers and builders, are always trying, consciously or unconsciously, to build and develop a relationship with the woman they’re interested in. And that’s not a bad thing. It’s what enables men to “lead” the relationship, in a sense. But it’s a virtue that can work against us in a relationship with a woman.
As Esther Perelman, my own psychologist friend, and this study point out, a man must have the balls and discipline to leave a substantial space between himself and his woman. As Perelman puts it, there must be a bridge to cross. The woman must be able to see the man as an independent person, not simply a piece of her life. And she must ACTUALLY FEEL IT. If we cannot do this, then the woman is left feeling like she’s “married the family dog,” as one author has put it.
I have found that if I focus entirely on the woman while I am with her, have the out-of-control sex with her that feels dangerous (two steps away from charges being filed), kiss her sweetly and then “ghost lite” her for three days, it triggers a kind of insecurity in the woman that causes her to do things like (real life example) show up at your office with flowers for you. I could give other examples. I really believe that with enough time, I can turn almost any woman into a stalker. Women have told me as much. Not that we want stalkers, but you get the general idea.
Creating and deliberately maintaining space is essential. The man should never walk all the way to the woman. The man should walk 60% of the way toward the woman, and the woman should walk her 40% of the way toward the man. You don’t enter her frame and she doesn’t enter yours. Something new is created in the neutral ground between you.
So, in a sense, I disagree with the TRP idea that you should neg a woman. In my experience, it’s just a turn off. I’ve been with a fair number of women, and not once has negging a woman contributed to sex. I do totally blue pill things like get her a cold glass of water after sex. You can demonstrate confidence in different ways — like jumping right back into your busy and important life, being disinterested and allowing her to pursue you.
There are so many benefits to this. A major one is that the relationship feels a little bit dangerous and unsettled, and she is never complacent. But she can not point to a single thing you’ve ever done while with her that would suggest you don’t think she’s awesome. Because when you’re with her, you treat her like a queen (a queen who loves a good fucking).
If she ever confronts you about the difficulties she’s having pursuing you, you can respond with, “Baby, I just had the best sex of my life with you. What are you talking about?” And this too throws in an element of insecurity — she becomes aware of how she’s called the situation wrong and how vulnerable she is to your comings and goings.
I’ve received two marriage proposals and one proposal for a “commitment ceremony” — whatever that is — using this approach. I’ve called LE on four separate (and different) women because they wouldn’t leave me alone. I’ve had women buy me some extremely expensive items, unasked. I’ve had women approach me through proxies just to establish contact, and they’ve knocked on my door at 3 a.m. Not once did I treat them badly. You wouldn’t believe some of the voicemails I have on my phone.
I know this must sound arrogant and manipulative, but I’m just stating facts. I regard myself as no better than the next man in any sense — truly. I know many men who are better than me. I’m just a regular guy. Maybe I figured this stuff out early in life and have just been disciplined about applying it. I’ll probably go to hell for it. I have met one other guy who understands this stuff intuitively. Watching him in action is awe inspiring.
TL/DR: Give her 100% of yourself while you’re together, be absolutely confident and muscular in the way you have sex, leave her sweaty and exhausted and smiling, and don’t be afraid to be sweet to her. Then be hard to reach. Don’t inquire or chase. She will look for you like a crack addict looks for her dealer. Repeat.
Totally with you there. You can be as kind and considerate as you want as long as she always knows you are doing because you are awesome, not because she is. Betas fail because they always find a way to make it clear that she is on a pedestal to them.
I agree. I say the dumbest, most romantic shit — stuff that’d make you cringe — and I’m told “it always sounds real from you” precisely because I’m subconsciously perceived as being unfaithful (in truth, I’m merely busy). They WANT your sweet nothings to be real. They want them to be real because they feel insecure about their relationship with you. They believe that they’re competing with other women and want to be “the one.”
I’m so fucking manipulative. I can’t believe I do this shit sometimes.
I don't like the word manipulative. Everyone is manipulative in their own way - we just use different strategies. Betas use the extreme commitment strategy. Your strategy is the same as I am using, and it is very efficient - do not be ashamed of that.
This is probably the most useful thing I've read on here in awhile since I'm dealing with it right with a chick. I contacted her once to hang out but she couldn't due a little crisis, she seems a little distant. Part of me wants touch base with her to see how she's doing but the logical part of my brain is saying if she wanted to talk she would and if I try making plans again it's gonna make me look like a bitch.
Don’t pursue. Six months for now she’ll probably think, “What happened with [you]?” Her ego will become involved, she’ll feel like her status is lower than she’d initially thought, and she’ll call. I’ve seen it dozens of times.
It’s all about patience and discipline. I’d rather lose a few girls that I’d have had to work my ass off to keep happy, and instead bed the kind who’d walk across broken glass to be with me. And I truth, the latter tend to be very, very good looking. There’s an underlying element of “I’m gorgeous. How dare he not pursue me?”
6 months sounds long, what of there is someone new?
Bro hang in there man. Talk to some other women and she may come around. Happened to me recently. Had to put this chick on ice due to attitude and a week later I get a text saying how much she misses me and wants to know when is the next time we can get together.
Yeah, somehow 3 days to a week, always seems to be optimal. Athol says 5 days.
No idea what the hell to do, if you move in with a chick (to raise kids).
Don't they bother you, though? I think I'm at a point where I do this shit unconsciously and sometimes I despise the way they behave. I'd really be into some chick, but she suddenly starts acting like a psycho and it really turns me off.
What is going on in their heads? 'Oh no, he didn't write to me for two days and the last time he did, it was only to set up a meeting. He must be fucking someone else. I'll better text him every hour to check that.'
No, I'm not, I just don't like texting. Stop pissing me off with your pointless messages.
I find airplane mode, accompanied by a tablet that has internet, but no communication/social media apps, to be a sublime escape from manipulative text barrages (and silent treatment alike, since you can't be sure she's not contacting you, until you check).
you really doubled down on that expansion didn't you son? :D good stuff btw
Just curious, what do ya do after 3 days and they are also too stubborn to reach out? Just call it good, and move on?
Give it 7 to 10 days. If you still haven't heard anything (which I still truly believe you'll get from a lot of girls, since some of them simply do not chase, ever), go ahead and contact. Nothing personal, just logistics trying to set the next thing up.
I've found that she will never contact you and remain in contact exactly how you want. She will always wait for you to text, or she will be really bad about responding in a timely manner, or she will ghost you after you've hooked up three times and she's decided she had enough. "It's just your turn", enjoy it while you can.
First off, how the fuck did you learn this?
Second, how do you get a girl to the point where they're this committed that you can safely ghost them for three days? What happens if she doesn't contact you for three days, and if she contacts you within one or two, do you tell her you'll see her later because you're busy?
You need to show her something of value first. Have higher social status than her, lots of money, be very good looking, or in my opinion the most realistic approach for most men, have mindblowing sex and give her tons of orgasms.
I've found that most guys aren't great in bed and just by laying down solid pipe I can get most girls to stay interested because they're not used to it. If I make a girl cum 3-4 times in a session then she'll usually hit me up again even though I'm a pretty solitary guy and I don't flash any money around. I'm decently good looking but nothing special. I just give some real good dick.
Also get them excited psychologically, be dominant, assertive, talk dirty, get them really horny and get them to do some fucked up degrading shit they're not used to. The average guy is an effeminate little bitch, it's actually not that hard to stand out.
Thanks man. I'm in uni and I don't know what to do and I'm having such a hard time pulling. I'm at an athletic school so it looks like anyone and everyone can lay good pipe anyway and they've got money to do exciting shit. I'm still working on lifting, I'm 150lb 6ft 13% bf. I can do all the techniques like teasing, spiking the conversation, being humorous sometimes, pass shit tests and whatnot, but I literally don't know what to do. It's like having a bunch of tools and not knowing what the fuck to build. Also, I'm alright looking and dress alright, but girls seem so meh that I'm wondering if it's worth it because a girl should be really into you and give you IOIs first.
I'm assuming everything else you said about being psychologically attractive is just being an rp man and leading her and following your mission? And the stuff about dominant sex would be in Sex God Method?
With sex, I've just now realized that I think I don't spend enough time on foreplay (it's taken me way too long to realize this), so I spend a lot more time making out, kissing her body, kissing her legs, eating her out, etc.
Do you have any other tips for give a girl a lot of orgasms?
A few days later. Roger that!
Great post man. You made me realize I meh too much. Probably 80% I am teasing her about something. I actually had a woman yesterday, first date, say "you are an asshole, but I like it."
I will say that this is an improvement from my BP days but I need to include a little more Pull to counteract the Pushes. They aren't banging down my door like they are yours and part of me wants that from them... an eagerness to please.
[deleted]
Reinforces that to truly control a woman you must demonstrate both alpha and beta characteristics. I think this especially applies when you’re dating a long term woman though, more so than just having a fling. Too much of one thing is always a bad thing( being too Alpha, being too Beta). Balance is key.
You have to be having sex with her for any of that to matter though, at which point it is somewhat redundant. If you haven't had sex with her, and you ignore her, she will simply forget about you due to many other options + her life.
And if you have had sex with her, then you can do a lot of things (your tactic included) or not and she will still like you for at least several months through half a year even if your game is garbage. So while what you're talking about may help someone get attached to you or maintain longer relationships (as long as your pull and lovey stuff accompanies your distance and hard-to-reachness), it really only applies to after you've done the hardest part. It's like icing or sprinkles. Getting into a sexual relationship is 80% of the work and is exponentially harder than managing the relationship after you've had sex the first time.
I think more useful advice would be tailored around getting to that point, and not on what to do when she has already given herself to you. What is your take on that?
Great advice and this resonates with a lot of my past experiences. Curious, how would you modify this to work in a situation where you live with a woman? I feel like this advice would be gold over on MRP and for more serious LTR's, but guys can't really vanish for 3 days on the regular. It's tough to keep that air of mystery and insecurity if she's around a lot.
This comment needs the +1 point thing. OP you are obv an experienced man, please do solid posts if you haven't already about this subject. Thanks either way, last line made me laugh
You clearly know what you're doing. What would your advice be, for guys that want to have kids? I'd like to have a large family, but have no idea how to survive the inevitable turmoil, of living with a woman (been there, it sucks).
[deleted]
Are you consciously aware of how often you hang out and keeping it in check based on a her behavior/your expectations of her and/or you have a busy life?
this.... ive had my ex buy me a car doing something similar.
I was having the same thought for a while, but mine was like "overwhelm her with charisma, then leave".
I will try as u describe and let's see the results.
Amazing advice!
Any other advice if you live together?
You actually explained my style to the T. Not only is this Method of pursuing women extremely viable as every woman will see the best of yourself.
It can also help with false allegations. If she had such am amazing time with you but your just a busy amazing guy, odds are she won't want that to end. She won't have buyers remorse if you don't treat her like a hoe.
Be the drug she can get no where else.
You're probably just very good looking.
You are onto something buddy, The elusive man that women imagine while they masturbate. I would like to hear more about this from you I have a lot of questions I read a book recently about seducers. I will send you a direct message and we can take it from there
This is the best advice I've see on here is long time. Theoretically sound and very actionable. Please make it it's own post. Even if you just copy and past. Guys need to hear this.
[deleted]
I’d love to hear your theory in practical application. For example, I’ve currently been dating my first LTR after being redpill aware. The only major facet I struggle with a year into the relationship is manintaining attention when apart. I need a way to calibrate when to increase or decreased the attention I’m giving her. How do you personally go about doing so? I practice a lot of Corey Wayne’s teachings, letting her initiate first for a given day, not responding back for hours at a time, etc.
Nah. You're probably just attractive.
Nah. You're probably just attractive.
fuck reddit for banning incels
Lol I'm no incel. But you're retarded if you think this is normal female interaction with an average looking male, regardless of whatever "frame" shit is going on.
Negging a woman is not trp. That's mystery method old school pua shit.
The two are not mutually incusive
No!? Why did he delete his replies? They were amazing did anyone save them?
Yes, this is the formula that was always successful for me even before there was a "red pill" of aggregate male experiences. Alas! Soon as you marry them, it all goes down the toilet EVERY time. Two marriages to two ravenous whores in the beginning, both ended with cheating and divorce once they were "comfortable".
So.....it has to be a SHORT term game plan, for a LONG term relationship now...confused?
I think this is great advice, advice which I follow myself. One question though: with reaching out do you mean her actually asking you out, or just a random message. Cause girls will often text me first with something random, which I will use as an opener to set a date, but I am never sure whether just ignoring those messages until she explicitly requests to set a date is preferable to doing it yourself after she reaches out. As a rule I like to have her initiate a date 2 times for every time I do.
Changes in Women’s SELF REPORTED Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle
I can't stress this enough. Women were shown videos and self reported on their mate preferences.
The primary aim of female communication is to indicate and imply her own value. "I would only fuck this level of male attractiveness" is one way to do this, even though after a glass of sherry on a Saturday night she's anybody's.
Self reported studies into female behaviour are useless.
With this trend having in at least some part been observed and described in other parts of the 'Sphere (Rollo in particular), doesn't the above then as weak evidence at very least?
Fair enough, self-reported studies are pretty much useless, but when the results match a pattern already noted, I would imagine it indicates something interesting is happening.
Yeah, the effect is there alright.
Point is that it's going to be even worse than presented. Ever notice how women have their period once a month and go mental at their beta boyfriend, but don't lose their jobs, keep their friends, family etc?
Agreed, the fact that they were even able to devise the experiment in such a way that it somewhat controlled for the hamster amazes me.
Just FYI, if you want access to an article, http://sci-hub.tw and its mirrors are your best friends. And, you can try http://libgen.io/scimag/ . Just type in the title of the study (or the doi link) and voila, your article will usually appear.
"Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful"
This is true but there's more to the story, they're attracted to that because it's an opportunity to turn him into someone faithful. It's Beauty and The Beast and its the archetypal female hero's journey
And because of pre-selection. A man who is unfaithful is a man who has options and isn’t afraid to explore them, even if it means losing her. It also demonstrates that he views himself as higher value than her.
Pre selection, THIS. Nothing, nothing, nothing when it comes to game beats pre selection. If a girl see other girl "gaming" you or you kissing another girl then you don't even have to approach her, they will literally approach you and A3 you.
Can't upvote this enough. I've had one of the hottest and most intelligent women I've ever been with tell me straight up that if a guy is seen with a cute girl, that instantly upgrades his attraction level due to the curiosity it creates, ie: hmm, he must have something going on if that girl is with him.
Another RP nugget she dropped was, "girls simply want what they can't have." For the slow ones reading, competition of other women creates a bidding war that generates that feeling that they may not be able to have you, but they're damn well going to try.
That's why abundance mentality is so important. Even if you're going through a dry spell, your abundance mentality can tremendously help your game with a girl because it gives her the impression that other girls are gaming you too. The objective truth is irrelevant.
Right, but you are getting the exact concept wrong in this context. Pre-selection here means that these preferred men are thought to be successfully mating with other females. Hence they are seen as being unfaithful. But sex with multiple partners is itself a type of pre-selection for fertility.
When women are fertile (when ovulating) they prefer men who they perceive as fertile. All of these traits described, including unfaithfulness, are indicators for increased testosterone and virility.
When women are not fertile (non-ovulating or post-menopausal) they prefer faithful men who they can depend on to help them raise their existing children.
AF/BB paradigm: when fertile, seek to maximize pregnancy chance by having sex with the most virile men even if they have many partners. When not fertile, seek to maximize resources through faithful men more likely to commit resources to you.
Nothing you said contradicts what I said. Please explain how I got “the exact concept wrong in this context.”
The sidebar has the below definition for "pre-selection."
I'm arguing that this doesn't apply here. "Pre-selection" in this study isn't of the common social variety like this. Re-read the study above. There is no actual pre-selection occurring as defined in the side bar:
So women are intuitively guessing at men who they think are pre-selected, rather than any actual pre-selection occurring. They don't know he's unfaithful, they just think he might be and that's good enough. What's occurring here is that women prefer men with higher testosterone (what I'll call "pre-pre-selection") when they are ovulating - this comes out as preferring men who they view as having associated traits, including unfaithfulness, but without actually knowing this via true pre-selection. There is, in fact, no actual pre-selection occurring in this study and that's very important.
I never said there’s actual pre selection occurring. I said women are attracted to men who appear unfaithful because it demonstrates pre selection. This isn’t that difficult to understand
Doubt that. Its probably just related to the other traits + the fact that he has options
Please do say hello to Mr and Mrs hamster while you're in hamster town.
Only if they fall in love. They are attracted to the idea that you aren't "pussy whipped" and you more than likely are confident and good in the bedroom. A good fuck is a good fuck, everybody enjoys a no strings attached good fuck.
Unfaithful = taboo.
Put that " I can change them " shit to bed. That is for betas of both sexes.
I read it in more of a "he's clearly getting puss, I want to be queen bitch and find out for myself what's so great."
I bet your girlfriends love how macho all you guys are. There’s nothing better than getting laid for years without ever connecting emotionally. The best part is the trauma you cause them. They only get one life- thank heavens they didn’t spend it with someone who is sensitive and agreeable. That would suck.
Someone is in the wrong subreddit. Regardless not everyone in this subreddit is against connecting emotionally when you find someone worth it. When you find someone worthy of a LTR you will have to pass comfort tests and express some beta traits when she deserves it. It is important to still remain alpha and perceive to have a higher SMV. It's all about balance long term.
Dont feed the troll, brother.
“The trauma you cause them” lol what? Blaming the male as usual. These women choose to have sex with these type of males. If there’s any “trauma” it’s being done by their own hand. If they want a sensitive and agreeable beta they have that option but here’s the red pill, they don’t want that.
This is not a masculine trait. Science.
One can connect with multiple people.
What do they mean by confrontational behavior? I thought aloofness and plausible deniability was the way to go.
I believe confrontational is a poor description for what they’re trying to say. Assertive behavior (read: sticking to your guns/passing shit tests/CONFIDENCE) is more along the lines of frame control and the other traits they’ve described.
Yes, they are essentially describing markers for higher testosterone levels: assertive/confrontational behavior, musculature, high sex drive (multiple partners), arrogance/confidence, even physically attractive. Go look up that last one - women already find high-testosterone physical characteristics to be attractive, things like chiseled jaw, adam's apple, low body fat, etc.
I've had more success lately being literally confrontational and not worrying about offending people. The whole non-reactive, stoic thing only goes so far. The guy who makes a bigger idiot out of the others usually fucks. JS.
Depends on how you do it. If a guy gives you a lot of shit in front of girls A&A is the way to go imo, shows you are non reactive and don't give a shit. He's not on your level. Putting him down will make you look beta. On the other hand, it is definitely benefitial to offend/be confrontational with girls to get laid if you do it in the right way.
Just genuinely don't give a shit. Don't worry about appearing that way, that just makes you anxious. There is no right way, don't be a retard and trust your own process.
Subjective Synonyms. One can pass a shit test by confronting her bullshit.
Google Jordan Peterson and search for Confrontational vs. Agreeable people.
Confrontational behavior means that you aren’t afraid to maintain your frame.
All women love this.
In an LTR you just do it better, more calmly.
In other news, women also prefer fast, expensive cars over broken, cheap ones
Women like men who act like males shocker!
You mean women don't like weak skinny jean soyboys wearing knit caps and sporting beards while holding their wine coolers and talking about how toxic masculinity has ruined america???
If only every thirteen year old boy learned this.
How many more studies of science do we need before people the world over realize theredpill beautifully explains the dynamics of sex and relationships?
Great post and I wholeheartedly agree with the major points you've made but I think you might be misunderstanding the statistical measurements.
Specifically here:
Higher t-score basically means there is more significant of a correlation observed. So t=0 is no correlation observed, t=1 is a weak correlation, and t=3 is stronger correlation (and negative values indicate an inverse correlation).
So what the study is actually saying is that confrontativeness is actually the most strongly correlated (t=3.13) with attraction for short term relationships. Social respect (t=1.51) is actually the second lowest correlation and physical attractiveness surprisingly is the lowest correlation (t=1.09).
Secondly, p-value is the probability the observed correlation was only due to random chance. So while a high t-value indicates a strong correlation, there is still the chance that we are seeing a false correlation just due to random chance in sampling and data collection. P-value tells us what that chance is. So a p-value of 0.081 means that the observed correlation is not that likely to be a result of random chance, to a confidence of 91.9%. But it depends on the rigor you wish to use.
It is common to require 95% or greater confidence to consider the result statistically significant. Some studies even use 99% or 99.9% confidence.
So the social respect correlation (p=0.081) is not considered statistically significant to a 95% confidence, but the other measures are significant to 95% confidence since p<0.041 for those.
attractive men arent dicks by choice. well, i occasionally go out just to be a dick... just because I feel like I'm doing the world a service by getting some revenge for the guys who are always disrespected by women. but more often than not, its just a lifestyle. it's what you are accustomed to. attractive men and women get everything they want. why be overly nice when everyone treats you like a god anyway? I mean sure its the decent thing to do, but no one gives a fuck about decency anymore bro. on the other hand, less attractive people have to "try" harder, by being nice and cracking jokes and all that other bullshit. Why do you think the hot chicks always end up with the assholes? You never see ugly assholes with hot chicks, why? Because assholes that are ugly, well, theyre just assholes and nothing else. Basically what Im saying is that hot people can afford to be mean because.. theyre hot. We are all just playing the cards we were dealt with my man. Thats why PUA is bullshit and they have to try to "pick up" women. When those cameras stop rolling, those fat bearded guys who "gamed" drunk women arent fucking them. They may get a kiss or makeout session, but I've seen plenty of women kiss multiple guys on any given night to make themselves feel like "they've still got it". They are just spiking their emotions for a brief moment, but sooner or later the women come off of the "high" and end up coming to their senses and going home to fuck the infamous character you guys refer to as "Chad". If someone is genuienly interested in you, or thinks you fit their physical needs, you dont have to try all that PUA shit. Go up. Say hey. If she wants to talk, you met a certain criteria or were up to her standards and now its just about escalating. If you dont, and feel like you have to "try" in order to get her to be attracted to you.. then you never had a chance and you were her place holder until someone that fit their attractiveness description came along.
Summary: Play the cards you were dealt. Dont overthink life. Assholes win because assholes are 10 times out of 10 either atttractive or wealthy. Live your life and the right people will gravitate toward you.
Enjoyed in parts but some parts blatantly untrue.
Asshole = Alpha. I’ve never NEVER N.E.V.E.R known an asshole who struggles with women.
Now a square-jawed muscle-bound 6”2 asshole will obviously do a million times better than a physically average asshole.
But both will do better than a man with a “nice” personality who otherwise matches their description.
And PUA works. It works. How could it not?
You teach a guy who thinks women are made of sugar, spice and all things nice that women don’t want to be courted respectfully by a gentlemanly best friend but want negs, frame and push-pull and he suddenly “gets it” and is naturally rewarded. Worked wonders for me long before trp existed.
Thanks for your honesty. I wasn’t necessarily saying PUA doesn’t work, but I def meant that assholes that are ugly, who serve no benefit to the woman (money, status,, etc) will almost always be unsuccessful in picking up when, simply because they offer no value.
Asshole does not equate to alpha. There are plenty of guys who get on reddit to be an asshole because they think it makes them alpha, but in actuality, women and other men simply view you as that angry person who’s just mad at the world for their unfortunate looks or life.
I’m glad we can discuss this and agree to disagree instead most of these guys on here who pretend they have these qualities, when they are really just pretenders.
I call shenanigans. I see ugly, weak assholes with hot chicks all the time.
Equating masculine traits to being an asshole is for the whiny nerds that sit home and fap it on a Sat night.
This just ruined your entire beta rant. Quit living vicariously through successful men.
I never said that was masculine. I’m just sayin that’s how life is. I don’t like to be an asshole. Sometimes it’s just how I am. Same w/ you and others. Doesn’t mean you are alpha. You may just be having a bad day or whatever the case may be. And call it what you want my man. I can send a picture of myself if you’d like. But you probably won’t respond because you like to think you are cool by arguing on here w/ no purpose in order to make yourself feel cool. If you’d like to have a constructive argument then cool. I’m all game. But I don’t argue w/ people that just like to argue for the sake of arguing. I think that’s kinda feminine.
I was challenging this, from my own experience.
I disagree with your opinion, put the boner away. How is this a "constructive" retort?
Constructive in a sense that we agree to disagree my man. Not that we are just on here shouting back and forth at one another w/ no end in mind. That’s all I’m saying. I appreciate and respect your opinion nonetheless.
Equating masculine traits to being an asshole is what woman do.
Check out Chateau Heartiste’s site which is arguably devoted to proving that theory with plenty of science to back it up if that’s your thing.
Asshole game works because the hindbrain assumption is “if he is willing to be an asshole he is fearless/brave and can handle any comebacks”
This isn’t necessarily true particularly in a civilised modern environment but as we know women are attracted to what works in a pre-civilised age.
Not the same way men do.
The confrontational guy that does not put up with someone's shit and stands up for what he believes in = asshole to women.
Men equate "asshole" to make an excuse for rejection.
So we end up with a bunch of spergs running around acting like dick heads and then wondering why women want nothing to do with them.
My experience is the complete opposite. In fact I’ve said numerous times on here that I still can’t quite believe swaggering around the club like said dick-head works so well over “treating women as individuals” and other intuitive and altruistic behaviours.
Assume by “spergs” you mean sufferers of autism? Well I’m no expert but it’s little wonder they struggle at social calibration. The majority of men who don’t suffer have a difficulty understanding the counterintuitive nature of female attraction.
Spergs as in, "social autism".
They believe it because their current game is shit, and they fail. They then observe the successful males and hamster up a reason as to why "that guy" is prosperous. Never once taking a moment to look into the mirror and blame themselves.
As far as your "nice behavior" point, if you are a beta, you go into orbit. Alpha's are seen as compassionate. Your logic fails because you are saying that X Y Z behavior equates to all pussy.
You don't have to be a dick head to be competent.
THIS NEEDS TO BE ON THE SIDEBAR FOR ALL THOSE PRICKS WHO LOVE PUA
No it doesn't. It's a pile of horseshit.
Why,because you dont like it?
Because looks are just one part of SMV.
Which is exactly why in the summary I stated that if you don’t have looks, money, or add any value to someone’s life, what’s the point in keeping you around? It’s kind of like that saying, “if they aren’t adding to your life then they are subtracting from it”. Same idea. I appreciate your input however.
Sounds like ole Aziz Ansari should be lifting! Ole Grace wasn't turned on by his boyish physique. Just saying...
As a man, are you threatened by Aziz in any fucking way? No.
She wanted to shame a beta for fooling her.
Science has never kissed a girl
Instead, science gave her a screaming orgasm.
Would this mean that in tribal times, once the women became pregnant, they'd seek betas for taking care of the kid?
Yeah, in a tribe they are called "the other woman". I wouldn't worry too much about the social structure of a tribe unless that is the type of girl you are currently trying to land.
As a shit starting cunt, I can wholly endorse this study.
[deleted]
Well, that actually makes sense. If the same woman was asked how confrontational she found the man she also found to be attractive, wouldn't her answer be skewed by the Halo Effect? IE wouldn't she say that she found the man she was attracted to, to be less confrontational because that term generally carries a negative connotation?
Confrontational: they see a man being a man and get the tingles or they don't.
Most women have a very difficult time expanding on the positive, they just feel good and go with it. But they can go on for weeks about beta behaviors. I have heard women say many times " love how you can put your foot down and not take any shit", I have yet to hear one say " I love how confrontational you are".
Using different groups is one way you control for variables in a psychological experiment.
I look forward to reading your scientific rebuttal in a peer-reviewed journal
Sheesh, it was on the Wayback Machine, hope you didn't waste too much time
So should I aggressively ca out a girl I was trying to plate and sort of did for 2 weeks and than she just ghosted me?
Not that simple. Dominance is not necessarily correlated with other rated attractiveness in female partners. It is possible that women who expect to have daughters require more parental investment in the father as opposed to seeking dominant males if they want sons. Perhaps even choosing between both in one partner. And they do have sons because they are usually more dominant themselves and marry further up in SES than non dominant women. However they did mention the parents as in those who married them which can affect studies as dominance is negatively correlated to faithfulness.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/14553/etd8641_JPalmer-Hague.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6me3Z_N3YAhVLiFQKHTdqCP0QFjAHegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2zMZ9Ir-ntsX0EC0D5Hi3z
Dead on RP. NGAF + lifting = the pick of the litter.
In other words, if you're an arrogant meathead most of the women you attract will be more interested in flings and one night stands. Could this mean that these women are more likely to cheat in an LTR?
What does being confrontational mean in the context of this and/or TRP?
Not quite sure what to make of this. This doesn't happen in other primate species. The betas don't take care of Alphas leftovers unless they are Alpha Widows and the Alpha has died.
this is so dumb, as if women wanted any short term relationship whatsoever
yes women ovulating will want to have sex, when not ovulating they will want to chill but this has nothing to do with relationships
make the test yourself : you have a blonde frat girl dressed like a whore with her ass rounded up for the picture and a cute average girl in pyjamas with a hot chocolate
You are horny as fuck, which one do you pick ? the first one
You're not horny and just want to chill, which one do you pick ? the second probably, the first would eventually do too
Horny = attirance for opposite sex traits skyrocketting, nothing about relationships.
breaking news : women will want to bear your child in exchange for resources as long as you're above her in terms of power or money. It has nothing to do with being a beta, it's basically how couples have worked forever.
Which applies maybe to 10% of women who aren't looking for a relationship right now and want to have their wild phase. Some of these girls are non-trashy, but most of them are trashy.
Try to be the alpha douche with attractive women who have abundance or women or women who aren't into hookups (90%) and they will roll eyes and lose all attraction for you.
So, alpha douche works for trashy chicks or chicks who aren't looking for a relationship right now.
Of course, it also works for girls that are less attractive, since it doesn't matter what you do, can be alpha douche, beta, nice alpha and she'll be attracted regardless.
It's not even always trashy women, even the "progressive" educated, career-orientated women are just as receptive to those behavioural traits.
This is blue pill horse shit. Hypergamy doesn’t give a fuck whether she’s “looking” for a short term relationship or not. She will have a short term relationship with the right Alpha douche at the right time no matter what type of destruction it causes to herself and those around her. AWALT
Eh, maybe for young girls. They are very impressed by alpha douchebags. But later on, once they've had 2-3 alpha douchebags, it doesn't interest them anymore, novelty has worn off. Women crave variety.
That’s because older girls are on the hunt for a beta provider and they’ve become consciously aware that the alpha douchebag isn’t him. It doesn’t mean the alpha douche gives them any less tingles than he did when they were young.
Being older and more experienced, they may be a little better at controlling their hypergamy but like I said, all it takes is the right alpha douche at the right time.
You've gone too deep into this stuff. Sounds to me like you've read more than you've dated.
Sounds like you have probably been cucked and don't know it.
Adultery statistics say you have no clue what you are mumbling about.
Women don't cheat for short term sex. They cheat emotionally with a man that they can see themselves with long term.
Women are oxycitin cheaters, men are dopamin cheaters. Few women are dopamin cheaters with a short term lover.
Women ARE emotionally driven, period. AWALT!
You are wrong about the "Alpha Douchebag", it reads like you want that to be true more than it actually is. Bad habits are hard to break.
Again, when it comes to women finding some side dick, I don't think you have any actual experience and you make up shit to support your fiction.
So let me just say you'd be right If you were interpreting alpha douche properly here. When they say a guy is confrontative, they don't mean he walks into a bar and starts a brawl with the first guy in a sports jersey he doesn't like... it means he stands his ground or asserts rather than folding or avoiding confrontation at the cost of his own stature. When they say a guy is less faithful they mean that he has options and isn't grabbed onto them like the last drop of water in a desert, and musculature and looks are a given. These things are with all other traits being equal. The only mistake you're making is assuming it means a cartoonish muscle-bound bafoon, like the jerk in a Disney movie. That's all.
This is probably the softest interpretation of this RP post. 90% of subscribers won't interpret it like that.
Guys like that wouldn't be preferable for a short term relationship though, they would be the preferred option for both short term and long term relationships.
What's with all these percentages in your comments? Who cares about interpretation of this post, the idea is that is the actual truth of the statistical evidence, they weren't testing cartoon characters but people. And yes women prioritize those things short term.... guys are going to plow confident good looking girls who date around but may double bag it to avoid knocking those type of girls up, it's just human nature really.
Please stop making shit up, you are not influencing anyone here.
It's not like that. Every (more inexperienced) woman assumes the guy will be faithful. It's only later than they accept it's not true. When it's too late for them. My cousin showed me her dating profile. What I inferred from it, was that if a guy was too obnoxious/arrogant/let's come sex baby, she ignored him, but then ignored rest of the betas anyway. The lesson learned - be a douche, but lie to her.
AWALT, and yes, this includes your made up number of women supposedly not into hookups.
Well duh, thanks Dr. Obvious.
Now this is interesting. For all the ugly bastards out there.
Now you know the obvious with science. Yay, science!
Motherfucker, did YOU call me ugly?
I can smell the pussy already.
"Science"
facepalm
A study involving 238 women and 74 men done in early 2000's means jack fuck all. That isn't even close to statistical significance. Just more pseudoscience bullshit on this sub as usual.
I look forward to reading your scientific rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal
I'd hate to break this to you cupcake, but I don't need any "scientific rebuttal". If you conduct a "study" against 200 people where the majority liked licorice and conclude that humankind likes licorice, I don't need to conduct my own counter-study to point out how retarded your conclusions were for your "study".
Just because you arbitrarily and randomly decided that the sample size they used was too small does not mean the results were “statistically insignificant”, “pseudoscience bullshit”, or “retarded”.
There's nothing arbitrary about it. Educate yourself: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-statistical-significance.htm
In this day and age "studies" get performed all the time that have no statistical significance yet everyone wants to immediately jump on them when they see them and say "AHA! SEE?! TOLD YOU SO!" as if it proves anything about society. But if the study did not have enough subjects to be statistically significant, it is as good as anecdotal evidence at best. How do you think a poker player gets rich? You think they see a person go all in on a flush draw when they are beat before the river and end up winning and say "AHA! SEE YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BET WITH A FLUSH DRAW!"
No, because they aren't idiots. Try not to be an idiot.
How about you explain why you think the study is statistically insignificant instead of just arbitrarily claiming the sample size was too small
In other science related matters they have recently discovered that water is wet