At a university near me, there were experiments into social or anti-social behaviour as pertaining to economic decisions - basically, the participants got to play a decision-making game with points that were converted into real money at the end. The most common one had them grouped in a group of 3 which played 20 rounds, and during each round they decided how many of their points they would put forward into a central pool - which was then multiplied and equally divided among all members of the group.

They fiddled around with the parameters (such as the multiplier, anonymity or the access to punishment mechanisms), but generally they established through these experiments that there are 3 types of decisionmakers out there:

- Utilitarist/pro-social: People who generally decided to do what is best for the overall good of everyone even if it disadvantaged them, generally creating a cooperative environment

- rational egoists/followers: People who normally work to maximize their individual gain regardless of the position of others, and generally following the flow of the environment

- predatory/anti-social: People who wish to maximize their edge even relative to others (would even take losses if it meant others lose more) and otherwise seek to profit expressly at the expense of others through any kind of manipulation (for example not putting much money in the common pool and still punishing the others for holding back, welshing in the last round when they were safe from retaliation etc.). They create non-cooperative or even antagonistic environments

What the researchers found (at least that's what one of them told me, I know, without a citation it's basically anecdotal evidence, but humour me) is that the vast majority of people belong to the second group, with the pro-social or anti-social people being both the smaller groups and the defining elements - so groups were usually somewhat cooperative and could be coaxed into near-full cooperation by enough utilitaristic people - or "tilt" the other way.

If a sufficient number of anti-social people were present, eventually most participants would refrain from cooperating, withdrawing their points and reducing the overall sum of points earned - but safeguarding their own points (and lesser payout) that way. Depending on transparency and the effectiveness of punishments, the tipping point was earlier or later - but generally speaking, once too many of the wrong people enter the market, cooperation breaks down.

That particular researcher hypothesized that this gave clues into failed states - Somalia was, more or less, what happens when cooperation breaks down on a society-wide scale. A society to riddled with predatory people that it no longer generates much greater good for its people, and is fraught with danger.

Of course those experiments are simplistic and do not entirely model states - or the dating market, for that matter - but the parallels, to me, are striking. MGTOW is then, basically, a defensive reaction to a dating market in which the dangers of being taken advantage off far outweigh the benefits of participation and cooperation (I believe good, positive relationships are not a zero-sum game and provide a net positive - although I will freely admit dysfunctional relationships do not, and relationshits allow a bad partner to take advantage of the other to quite an extent).

And that's it, really - men generate a certain amount of resources and emotional work, so to speak, and are perfectly capable of utilizing those towards their own satisfaction and contentment. The overall greater good is diminished, maybe, but beta men are actually vital contributors, and in a world of chads and AWALTs there is no incentive for them to make said contribution. MGTOW is basically a natural (and mostly inevitable) reaction to the sheer extent that most men are taken advantage off by both Chads and women.

The dating market is fucking Somalia. Unless it's fixed all sane men SHOULD GTOW.