Players outrank Scientists in the art of seduction

If I could offer one piece of advice to the newly-red-pilled reader of the manosphere it would be this:

Stop listening to all the pompous fools in comment sections of manosphere blogs. If you have a question about women, go try it out on ten hot women and then see if you still have your question.

Having just scrolled through the comments thread in a recent Rollo post while eating pizza, I was sufficiently exasperated that I’m going to break my embargo on arguing against aspy gammas. There’s a larger point that needs making that is derailing some relative noobs. It all started when Rollo was kind enough to quote an old tweet of mine regarding the development of Game knowledge in order to make a point about how the progression of red pill knowledge owes a huge debt to the orginal PUAs it has become fashionable to discredit.

It’s a great post and includes a rather obvious thought experiment that nonetheless had never occurred to me:

âNow, imagine for a moment that, today, all men had to build on was the antiseptic studies and controlled experiments of a social science academia firmly steeped in a feminine-primary, feminine-correct social context…. Only the PUAs of then and now have had the unfettered freedom to perform in-field social experiments, and relate their collected evidence and observations with other men; the types of which social science has been forbidden from due either to ethical considerations or by feminine-primary social conventions.â

To translate into English: PUAs had the freedom to conduct research that social scientists could not, and thus broke new ground.

That’s an incredibly important observation and Rollo does a great job walking through exactly which areas of red pill wisdom we now take for granted that had to be earned the hard way by PUAs in the field before there was any reliable and valid data for the manosphere philosophers to ponder and construct theories from.

Now, let’s start with a few basic principles.

• Internet comment threads about Game are almost entirely a battle of awkward intellectual one-upmanship by fronters who have zero ability to score hot women themselves.
• The manosphere is rapidly becoming a knitting circle of witless feminised men and aspy gamma bullies treating Game as if it were an abstract historical concept rather than a real-life testable theory.
• You really shouldn’t be claiming authority on Game until you’ve had proven results in the field. Any dickhead can run his mouth on the internet whereas getting younger-hotter-tighter girls into bed requires actual compliance from the real world that suggests your theory works.

So the gamma fool in this case is siirtyrion (and to a much lesser extent, braggart Glenn, who is co-opted into his misunderstanding of science). The first fallacy is to misunderstand what science actually is. Despite claiming to be a scientist Siirtyrion doesn’t appear to know what science is. What it is not:

• Wearing a lab coat and handling petri dishes
• A set of framed postgrad degrees on your wall
• The length of your bookcase
• Your citations in journals

Science is an epistemology. Really, go read some Karl Popper. It is a way of knowing the world based mostly upon the principle of falsification. Additionally the two cornerstones of data collection is it must be reliable (possible to consistently collect data that reproduce the same results) and valid (it measures what it claims to measure). Let’s put that into simple examples:

• If you boil water with a thermometer in it, the temperature will show 100C at the time the water boils no matter how strong the heat source. Whether you boil it ten times or a thousand times, whether slowly on a small flame or quickly on a strong flame, it’ll always show 100C. Thus you have reliable data that water boils at 100C based on experimental evidence.
• If you boil water with a variable flame while playing Aqua’s hit Barbie Girl on repeat, the water will boil at different times during the song. Every time you boil the water, you record a different time. Thus if you first record the boiling at line four of the fifth chorus, you cannot reliably reproduce that result.

• If you measure the water temperature with a thermometer, you are getting a valid measurement of the heat. The thermometer measures what it claims to measure â temperature.
• If you instead measure it by rolling a pair of dice to bounce off the pot, that’s an invalid measurement. The numbers turned up by the dice have no connection to the phenomena under measurement.

Simple stuff. It becomes complex when applied to social science. It has long been a bugbear in the philosophy of science that natural scientists can be incredibly arrogant over their self-perceived superiority in collecting data. Partly this is because the natural world is quite orderly, predictable, mechanistic and doesn’t change much through the act of observation. The social world is far far more complex and thus the explanatory power of social science comes with all kinds of caveats. Consider the Hawthorne Effect noted when factory workers were measured operating under different lighting conditions. Both the Control and the Experimental groups improved performance, leading to a conclusion that:

âa phenomenon whereby individuals improve or modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observedâ

The old guard of social science knew the problems of social measurement but people from the natural sciences often bring their simplistic data collection strategies over to the social world without due regard for the inherent limitations of measuring people. This mistake is particularly bad with evo-psych majors. Just think of the obvious reality of science as it’s actually carried out in research facilities and compare it to the infield experiments of PUAs:

Science

• Ask a bunch of grad students to sit down in a air-conditioned seminar room, pour a cup of cheap coffee, and as them about hypothetical situations and to write down answers with a pencil. Grade those papers according to your own classification system and then torture the data with tests of statistical significance.
• Dig up some old skeletons and pots from an ancient civilisation. Fit the pieces together and then interpret them in light of what scraps remain of their few written texts.
• Watch some baboons mating, discern some patterns, then imagine the primates are human and draw conclusions.

PUA

• Go hit on some actual women in real live environments, try to fuck them, then figure out what went well and what didn’t.

Just ask yourself which research strategy is more valid? Which group are getting closer to the phenomena they are trying to measure and are eliciting more accurate raw data about actual human mating? This is why Glenn’s following comment is so wrong-headed:

âLetâs say Krauser does 1000 approaches and gets laid 11 times. The only way to tell if game works is to have a non-game trained guy, with the same SMV, do 1000 approaches as well to the same girls. Tell me, do you think that guy wonât get laid at all? Siirtyrion is saying that this guy would probably do just about as well as Krauser, given similar attractiveness. If you donât have control data like this â you arenât doing science, period, and everything you conclude from âthe dataâ is horseshit, like the statement that Rollo quoted from Krauser.â

His simplistic conception of the scientific method (essentially âit must be a controlled experimentâ without regard for the limitations, and ignoring the same person can be tested in different time periods to measure progression) means he misses the very obvious fact that going in field is the only way to get valid data. Even if you get perfectly reliable lab data, it’s just in a lab. It’s not valid. It’s close to worthless. Glenn isn’t just throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a sign of binary thinking), he’s throwing his hands in the air in despair that such data can even be collected…. until he wants to give credence to scientists doing a much worse job of approaching the same phenomena.

The obvious answer is lost on gamma males because that’s the one thing gammas don’t ever do â hit on women and successfully fuck them. Let’s review the relevant characteristics of the gamma male:

• Constant need to posture as superior to those around him, especially per his intellect.
• Completely deluded about his low SMV rank and thus in denial.
• Always constructing elaborate theoretical structures that conveniently place him at a high SMV rank (in his own mind).
• Relating long-winded, highly-suspect, completely unsubstantiated tales of their own successes with HB8.5s.

So the existence of PUAs presents something of a dilemma for the game-denying gamma. He can’t possible argue based on real-world experience (he sucks with women and won’t risk his precious ego by hitting on them), he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, he needs to deny Game works in order to avoid admitting he’s too scared to do cold approach, yet he absolutely must prove to the world that he’s awesome. What to do?

Go look at siirtyrion’s (and glenn’s) comments to find out.

There’s a reason Tom Torero and I constantly admonish readers to go out into the field â 90% of the Game is played while standing in front of women. Without the discipline of infield feedback a small theoretical mis-step becomes a flight of fancy and eventually cascades into going completely off track into comfortable delusion. The woman is your mirror. You need compliance in your life, and when it comes to Game you can only get that by cold approach.

Addendum

My own success ratios were, rather ironically, used as evidence against Game. Apparently I have a low success ratio that suggests Game doesn’t work and I got my few successes either because (i) blind luck â the numbers game or (ii) determinism â there’s a limited number of girls who would consort with a man of my SMV rank and cold approach is just flipping stones to find them.

There’s a few problems with this reading.

1. My results demonstrably improved over time, every single year. In my first 1,000 approaches I didn’t get laid at all. I’ve approached maybe 400 girls this year and had sex with 19 of them.
2. I’m having sex with girls who are, on average, 16 years younger than me and two points hotter. That should be impossible under the deterministic explanation. And of course you’d expect the success ratio to be low â that’s what happens when you aim high. It’s why boxers do statistically better in their tune-up fights than their title shots.

Aspy gammas don’t have the nuance or experience to read soft data â such as me knowing that it’s taking less effort to get the same girls now that I’ve improved my skills. After indulging his trolls for a while Rollo eventually correctly identified the true scam that the gammas are running:

âIâve perused Siirtyrionâs blog and while I respect his observations and intellectualism, I canât help but come away with the impression that heâs more on a personal crusade to discredit Game than he has any real interest in the evo-psych basis of intergender relations.â

What’s interesting is how successfully such intelligent and posturing gammas such as siirtyrion can out-frame the weak-willed ninnies of the manosphere comment sections and get them dancing to their tune. At no point are the ninnies demanding evidence that the gammas can actually pull hot women. It’s to forewarn these impressionable noobs that I’m pointing out the gamma ego-validation racket perpetuated in Game blog comment sections.

Stop acting as if scientists are the authority on seducing women. When academia disagrees with successful players, it’s the academics who are wrong. Just look at their wives.