Relationship advice (White pill advice) Pt.2

September 19, 2022

4 upvotes

Hi Folks, this is part 2 of my series of relationship advice for a healthy relationship.

I'll start with the work of Dr. Panksepp and his discovery of the mammalian play circuit. Panksepp did an observational experiment with rats. Male rats like to wrestle with each other as a form of play. If a rat was 10% bigger, that mouse can win 100% of the time. If you would expect the goal of the game was to win, then the bigger rat would win every game. But that's not what happens. What happens is the bigger rat lets the little rat win 30% of the time. Then you might ask, why? The answer is because, if the little rat doesn't win at least 30% of the time, the little rat won't invite the big rat to play.

He discovered that there's an intrinsic need for fairness within mammals.

Now how does this relate to the human experience? Let's start with an abstract explanation. You can imagine every interaction you have is a small game. While playing this game, you can decide if you want to win or lose. Let's say you decided to win. Great. But the game doesn't end there. You're invited to play again. You win. Then again, you win, then again and again and again. Then it gets to the point where you're no longer invited to play. What does it mean when you're not invited to play? It means you've lost.

That's the meta game. That's the game of life. How many times can you get invited to play? The winner of the meta game is the person who get's invited to play, all the time.

So here's an actual example of this playing out in the real world. You have a spouse. And you're playing the game of husband and wife. You get into an argument. Lets say your spouse did something stupid. Okay. What's your response? You can argue and beat your spouse verbally into submission. Great. You won the argument. Now what? Well, do it 10 more times and see what happens. Now your spouse no longer wants to play with you. What game were you playing? Well, you were playing the game of communication. And all you wanted to do was win that game. Now your spouse doesn't want to communicate with you.

There's a way to play the game where the other person isn't left defeated. And what's even better, there's a way to play the game where BOTH party wins at the same time. Maybe instead of winning the argument, maybe your goal instead was to help your partner overcome their stupidity. Then what do you have after that? You're partner is no longer the same idiot they were before. That's great. And you get to be with a person who's less of an idiot! And on top of that, you get invited to play again! That's a win/win/win situation.

I consider this to be a fundamental truth in our human existence. The truth of winning the game of life should trump the truth of winning the one game. There's many ways to be correct, but if you want to be the most correct, the answer is to play the game in a way that you're invited to play tomorrow.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 - Being honest

https://www.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/xf76hm/relationship_advice_white_pill_advice/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Relationship advice (White pill advice) Pt.2
Author	Hodgekin
Upvotes	4
Comments	19
Date	September 19, 2022 1:07 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	/r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/relationship-advice-white-pill-advice-pt2.1139578 https://theredarchive.com/post/1139578
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/xibk4r/relationship_advice_white_pill_advice_pt2/

Red Pill terms in post

game

Top posts by Hodgekin

Happy Father's Day.

26 upvotes
June 15, 2018
/r/MGTOW2

The apparent problem with choice in relation to dating

12 upvotes
August 6, 2022
/r/AllPillDebate

The decay of the intrinsic value of women.

9 upvotes
August 8, 2022
/r/AllPillDebate

Relationship advice (White pill advice)

8 upvotes
September 15, 2022
/r/AllPillDebate

How to deal with trolls as a Mgtow?

7 upvotes
March 22, 2018
/r/MGTOW2

[Discussion] Does Mgtow lean towards a disposition of apathy?

6 upvotes
November 9, 2017
/r/MGTOW2

Cheering for the end of civilization?

5 upvotes
November 21, 2017
/r/MGTOW2

Do Mgtow men have higher IQ?

4 upvotes
December 9, 2017
/r/MGTOW2

[–]RazhL 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a great question. And I sympathize 100%. I understand the world is unfair. We see this in the mgtow movement, and people always ask why did such a movement came about? To me it's obvious. These men constantly lost or was never invited to play. For whatever reasons. And the unfairness that they felt translated to them opting out of playing the game. That's why mgtow acronym is "men going their own way". They've decided it's no longer worth playing the game, whatever game they've decided wasn't worth playing.

But what if you never even get to put this into practice?

What do you do as that guy that was never invited to play with anyone no matter what?

Now to answer your question. This is going to sound strange, but I do believe a person can have a relationship with themselves. You know when you do something stupid, and right after you tell yourself "damn it! Why am I such an idiot? I'm so stupid! I'm so useless! I can't get anything right!" You talk to yourself all the time. And you think because you're just one person, that the doesn't constitute as a relationship. So then who are we talking to when we beat ourself up for doing dumb things?

The answer is your past self.

You see, you as a person don't exist in one time frame. You exist in iterations of time. There's the past you. There's the present you. And there's the future you. The relationships you have with yourself are with you in different time frames.

And how you decide to treat yourself is important here. Because you can make the decision to treat yourself poorly. And God only know how justified you would be to just beat yourself up for your own insufficiencies. Your useless. Your stupid. Of course you should be harsh on yourself! Well, what sort of game are you playing when you do this? Are you looking to just beat yourself into nihilism because you're insufficient?

What would happen if you decided to treat yourself as a person in need of help? What sort of life could you live if that was your default strategy? You said

never invited to play with anyone no matter what?

Can you honestly say to yourself that you've tried your best? Did you interact with the world with optimism, even though you have every justification to be pessimistic? Did you work as hard as you could, even though you have every justification to be lazy? Did you tell the truth whenever you could, even though you have every justification to be deceitful? Can you truly said you tried your best, even though you have every justification to give up?

I think there's a level of genuine honesty in the way you live life that other people can perceive. And I believe that people genuinely respond with positively when they can see it. You may not get to play every game in life. But if you were the best you possible, I do believe you will be invited to play, even if it's only a handful of people. And from my experience, it's not about the number of people, it's the quality of the relationship that matter.

[–]Glad-Discount-4761 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi Glad,

I like you a lot, so I will respond. I've decided to stop going on this sub, so this will likely be my last comment. I also like triggurwarning and bumble so if they chimes in, I'll oblige.

The metaphor is a simple one. There's really only 1 metaphor that's being used repeatedly. That's the metaphor of human interactions is "like" a game.

When you play a game, what does it involve? Usually you have two players. And the interactions with each other is retrained by a set of rules.

When you interact with me in this dialog, what we're doing is essentially a mini game. The rules are implicit, but it's basically, we both use English. We both try our best not to insult the other person. etc. etc.

What's nice about the game metaphor is that everyone has played atleast one game in their life. So it's easy to relate to. At least that's what I hoped.

I've said it at least twice in the post, the goal of any human interaction is to get invited to play again. I think half the people are glossing over this point and are too focus on the analogy itself. When you play a game, before you get to play, you're invited.

We can abstract the idea of being "invited to play many games" as a game in itself. That's the meta game.

You can tell if you're doing it right when you're a "likeable" person. People gravitate towards you and always invite you to hang out. That's winning at the game of life. That's winning the meta game of being invited to play all the time.

And the idea here, which I admit, I may have worded it poorly, is that the strategy to win a single game (a single interaction) is different than the strategy to win the meta game (to be invited many times after to play again). Example: Your friend always pays for dinner. You get to eat for free and never offer to pay them back. After 10 dinners, your friend stops inviting you. Why? Obviously, you were playing the game of "how many dinners can I get for free?", instead of "how many dinners can I be invited to?".

Many people here that are criticizing the idea have no clue that what they're essentially doing is what I'm saying here. They've opt to play the single game. Which is to nit pick someone's argument about semantics instead of addressing the idea itself. They rather win the argument with me instead of cooperating in a more civil discussion/debate. Sure, they think they won, but all they are doing is telling me my ideas aren't welcome here.

And this doesn't just end with me. A lot of other people with different ideas came to this sub before and decided to leave. What's going to happen eventually is instead of being the allpilldebate, its going to become the "whoeverispopulardebate". If that's your goal for this sub, so be it. I'm not interested in discussing ideas with people who are closed minded.

[–]RStonePTRedPill 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RStonePTRedPill 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

honestly, your negotiation strategy is weird. you're treating a victory as winning against your spouse but having them be good with it, as if their acceptance is a win state.

I get you're not redpill, but I find it naive. Instead, consider that your partner ISN'T an adversary, and that you're the dominant personality in your relationship. Do what you do, assuming you do whats best for the relationship and the other person is valuable enough to deserve it.

They are allowed to get mad, or happy, thats fine. You don't get to manipulate others emotions. But ... they either accept your decision and stay with you, or leave because it's not worth it for them. This is the only way to ensure people never take advantage of you in a sustainably happy way.

Then you don't have to worry about making conscious, manipulative double speak and language tricks while others are using instinct and emotion against it. In an attrition war, emotion always beats deliberate action over a long enough timeline. Also, you stop validation seeking behaviour (call this what you want, ultimately you're searching for their validation) overt manipulation (which is off putting, even if you make it transparently 'win win') and a reactive demeanor (if she reacts, I do X)

But I think the more important question isn't how many relationship, it's is your relationship good? The answer is yes, my relationship with my wife is very good.

Sure. Every relationship is, until it isn't. I'm 13 years in myself, and through ups and downs I've had the redpill method work much better than any attempt at negotiation or manipuation.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The example wasn't specific because you can apply it to many scenarios.

I can give you an even more specific example. My wife is doing the dishes and drops a plate. It breaks. It happen a few times before. I can say a true statement about the situation. I can tell her, purely factual statements, you broke several plates, you cost us financially. Now, how I say it is important. Because I can use it as a club and hit her verbally with it. I can say it very harshly. And I can make her feel deemed. And because she's done it several times before, I have the justification to be harsh. And if I do this several times in a row, what's the result? Maybe she breaks a little less dishes over the course of several years. But if she does break one, she'll hide it. And on top of that, she'll be less incline to tell me other problems.

I can say I won the argument because I spat facts and was 100% honest. But as you can see from the example, I lost the meta game of life. Because she'll be no longer inclined to tell me when problems do arise and our communication will suffer.

I get you're not redpill, but I find it naive.

I'm very redpill. If you've recognize my user name in other post, I'm as redpill as any other guy here on the sub.

Instead, consider that your partner ISN'T an adversary, and that you're the dominant personality in your relationship.

I don't see how this advice claims the partner is an adversary. Or that there needs to be a dominant to implement said advice.

I am the dominant one in my relationship, but I taught my wife the same strategy when dealing with me. Her goal in life is to also live in such a way that I will be willing to play with her on a continual basis. We both share the mutual understanding it it benefits the both of us.

You can make the situation adversarial if you choose to win the game without considering the meta game. Like my example above, I could have easily just won the argument. But that would make it so she'll become my adversary in the future.

You don't get to manipulate others emotions

How is this advice manipulating others emotion? If you stay calm and discuss a problem in life, in the goal to serve both you and your partner's well being, how is that manipulation others emotion? Maybe I'm missing something and you can explain to me.

hey either accept your decision and stay with you, or leave because it's not worth it for them. This is the only way to ensure people never take advantage of you in a sustainably happy way.

I agree. I'm a firm believer in setting boundaries. I don't see why you can't implement the advice of playing the meta game a long with setting boundaries. The two idea's almost go hand in hand.

You're red pill. I'm red pill. We know women test boundaries all the time. So what's the meta game here? Well, if you play the game correctly the 1st time she test your boundary, you can show her that you're serious and she won't test the boundary again (atleast for a while). And maybe, if you do it probably enough times, she won't test your bigger boundaries, because you've made it clear with the smaller boundaries. I don't know if that made sense, I'm writing this fast.

I thought I was very clear with my advice. If I made something unclear, I apologize. Do you agree that there's ways to play life where the outcome isn't just winner/loser? Or are you suggesting there must be a loser/winner in every decision we make? This isn't double speak. I know that there's ways to play where more than one party can win. A simple example would be selling a service to a customer. The customer gets quality service that they are happy to pay for. You are happy with the amount and do the work. It's a win/win for both party.

Well, I am happy that your relationship is still intact. You mention ups and downs. We all know life will bring situations that test a relationship. But how you deal with the situation is within your control, is that a fair statement? So when you mention ups and downs, are you talking about the situation or are you talking about you and your partner relationship?

Also just to reiterate, I'm very red pill. I know I label myself white pill, and it may seem deceptive.

[–]RStonePTRedPill 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RStonePTRedPill -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pikecat 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Arguing is not playing with your spouse. Getting into an argument is lose - lose. Winning is a hollow victory.

You're not going to make your spouse smarter. The only way that this works is if your a smart guy who is with a woman who knows it, or you're with a smart girl who talks through everything with you, and you learn from each other. Otherwise, as someone said, emotions rule.

Arguing is to be avoided, so is "winning" an argument. Knowing how to get along and agree, without ever arguing is how to win. When you do "play," it's for fun, not to win.

Making your spouse smarter is paternalistic. If you're with a dumb girl, it's a bit like being with a child. Not good for long term.

You're post is essentially game theory, not relationship advice.

Social interactions are not zero sum games, everybody can win.

With a spouse, you're a team who win at life together. Following this advice in personal relationships is going to make you seem like that strange guy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

We're talking using metaphors here. I'm not suggesting that it's literally a game to be played.

The use of the word argument is to depict a disagreement on both sides, where there's a possibility of tension rising if both or one party does not seek to resolve the situation amicably. Maybe I should have used the word disagreement instead.

I understand the importance of holding frame to keep your girl in check.

I also understand that a person must be willing to learn for there to be any lesson taught. Do you think my advice goes against this?

Arguing is to be avoided, so is "winning" an argument. Knowing how to get along and agree, without ever arguing is how to win.

I agree. But I think it's not likely that there will never be an argument, ever. Learning how to "win" the argument in a way that leaves both sides satisfied with the result is a good skill to learn.

When you do "play," it's for fun, not to win.

Again, the use of the word play is a metaphor for engaging in a set of rules that constitute the confines of the interaction. I'm not trying to demean the person or interaction. You're taking the words too literally and your not being flexible with the ideas being said here.

That's your interpretation of the advice. Maybe I wasn't specific or clear. But when two people come together, there's a very high chance that both party doesn't know everything about life. Even at the age of 32, I find I'm still learning more and more about life. To assume that you don't have to offer anything to your spouse and that your spouse doesn't have anything to offer to you is not realistic. I don't know why you're assuming that by making someone smarter (teaching them), is equivalent to a parent teaching a child.

Your comment here is pretty much trying to teach me something, that I'm somehow wrong and may need to correct my way of thinking. Are you saying that you're paternal to me? Or can there be a situation where we're both peers on the internet trying to learn from each other?

[–]pikecat 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe the way that you worded your post is not conveying what you actually meant. You're now telling me that you meant it a bit differently. I just responded to what you wrote. So clarifying is fair

Also, you are using analytical skills to dissect personal relationships. This is mainly my beef with your post. Most people don't work like that. So in this sense I am saying that I know something that you don't. How do I know? I was predominantly analytical, then I got really good at people, seeing the feeling world, that you can't really put into words. I've also had many relationships, that vary from valedictorians to bimbos. What's interesting is that the top and the bottom are the most fun and easy to get along with.

Theres no w better way to learn about relationships than to have a bunch with many different kinds of girls. Academic study is not the way.

You can have years long relationships without any tensions let alone disagreements. It's not one person getting their way either. I guess some people are just well tuned together, and agreeable. Agreeing just seems to be effortless. While some other people seem prone to disagreement.

I also thought that you see things as zero sum. To win, another has to lose.

Wording. You don't teach your partner, as a parent teaches a child. You show them what you know and they show you something that you don't know. Or you discuss ideas, as you do with smarter people. Some people actively don't want to know something that they don't already know.

There's all kinds of people and relationships, no one way is best or correct. You have to be different with different people and situations. This is how to be agreeable.

Also, what you described sounded like game theory as well as psychological manipulation of people. Things not to do with personal relationships. You literally started out by quoting an academic who studied games with mammals. So when you say win later, it means win as in win a game or beat your opponent in an argument.

I've studied game theory. It's not for personal relationships.

When you play games with people, they're overt for fun, not covert for advantage.

You literally say that every interaction is a small game. I'm am saying that this is completely wrong, in the context how you used win, earlier in your post. Now your reply to me is something completely different from the idea in your post. So, I'm not really getting what you mean.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. Thank you for your critique.

I did mention that "I'll start with an abstract idea." It's to help explain the idea using a metaphor most people are familiar with. I guess it had the opposite effect.

My intention, I think if you re read it, is to say you can have a situation where more than one person wins. You can have a win/lose, which I advise against, and you can seek to have a win/win, which is part of your critique that it's better to not argue in the 1st place. If you can reach that state of being, then its a good thing.

This advice is tailored to be who find themselves arguing with their important relationship, and unable to understand why their important relationship isn't functional.

The mouse experiment is not a game theory explanation. I said it's a mammalian play circuit for fairness. Meaning there's an intrinsic need for fair play even in rats. We're higher order species, and we can rationalize reasons for failures and even victory, but we can't escape what happens if we find ourselves losing too many times. We start to grow resentful and bitter. That's the neurological circuit in you that's telling you the game you're currently engaged in is not a fair game.

I have no doubt the unfairness can be imposed by outside forces. But I'm trying to explain that people have a role in their own outcome. Maybe that unfairness that caused the relationship to collapse was part of your own doing, knowingly or not.

For a great example, look at this conversation between you and me. I think I'm right. You think your critiques are right. I could have disregarded your critiques and insulted you. That would have ended our conversation abruptly and leaving you and me with bitter feelings. Instead, I tried to explain myself and was humble enough to apologize for being unclear. You responded positively, and I thank you for your comment.

[–]pikecat 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A scientific study is not a metaphor.

The study may have been about the instinct for fairness. However, cooperating a bit with an opponent, so that both can do better than one outright winning, is what game theory is about. So he accidentally saw game theory at work.

You'll note that the so called fairness, was to benefit the winner anyways. It's manipulative to do it in personal relationships. Humans are much more complex, we already know that people have a sense of fairness.

I saw your idea of applying games to personal relationships as wrong. Try looking into people and see how they feel. Once you see into people, how they feel, getting along will be effortless, no analytical thought or games necessary. You will feel opposed so much less.

Your first reply told me much more of what you meant, however, I am out of time to talk now. Lots of nuance in this could be discussed.

[–]edgyny 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kappador66 -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link