The red pill has very little value all of which is nullified by the overconfidence and secret hoarding tactics it lends its supporters.

the red pill has very little value all of which is nullified by the overconfidence and secret hoarding tactics it lends its supporters. the red pill is an attempt to take an omnipresent view of the nature of all humans; this is a coping mechanism by those involved in documenting / developing the philosophy so that they can make sense of any human interaction without adapting. while in this human interaction, the red pill conduit will judge others against a rigid set of criteria, taking solace in the power / secrets that he reserves for himself. the red pill reveals none of these qualities in social interactions in fear of abandonment and disapproval, yet does not realize that other people are judging him too. most of these people are judging based on a completely unique set of criteria that they have developed through their personal experiences, keeping their secrets quiet because they value differences as they add to the depth of the group. when the lowest members of a society have adapted this philosophy to validate their own choice of loneliness and remain in such a state, it is evident that the red pill is not as valuable as one might think. the red pill cultivates cynicism, grandiosity and a watered down view of the world. people are different. to navigate this requires adapting. having a credo to stick by is not a bad thing, yet if this credo is keeping you in your place because you are under the guise that you have adapted the “optimal philosophy” (inherent in the name the red pill) then you will have no incentive to adapt. the optimal philosophy is not found in the summaries of someone else’s experiences. the optimal philosophy is chiseled out by experiencing life and learning, adapting, reflecting and repeating. even once you have a bearing of how to function and let others function in a vast set of situations, you will still have to learn, adapt, reflect and repeat. all I am saying is that you cannot get caught up in this idea of “one true philosophy” or “one true way” as these are cop outs developed from averages over a series of interactions lived by other people. my guess is that if you are aiming to find such a grand philosophy that you are not interested in the average so why develop a credo from it?