Do ex-mgtow exist? | PurplePillDebate

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago* (113 children) | Copy Link

[–]PostModernCommieAnarcha-Femimnist (They, Them)5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PostModernCommieAnarcha-Femimnist (They, Them)1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PostModernCommieAnarcha-Femimnist (They, Them)1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PostModernCommieAnarcha-Femimnist (They, Them)1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigflame1232 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

What steered me away was actually what a lot of RP people consider confirmed their beliefs: actually getting a girlfriend and actually dating someone. I also began to think about how a lot of what RP relies on is individual field reports, huge generalizations and assumptions, and just poor data analysis and measures of human value (IE measuring intelligence through IQ, which isn't done by most academics because IQ isnt very widely respected among most of academia).

I personally used to despise women. I used to hate that I had to be the one to approach. I used to think that THEY were the ones who had it easy because "men always want to fuck them, so they'll give them an easier time". I then actually worked it out with my therapist and family and friends, and began trying to become friends with women rather than rejecting them in all regards because I viewed them as inferior. It's far better to work this out with a therapist, but some people will just write them off as "beta male simp blue-pilled faggots".

In regards to your last point, orbiters do exist. RP has grains of truth. But I've noticed that they kind of polarize all relationships with women into "beta orbiter, dominating masculine alpha, or betabux partner", and honestly all I can recommend is maybe go outside and actually interact with women, instead of just reading shitty studies from intellectually bankrupt academic journals. RP has truths to it, but it basically just assumes every friend of a woman is a beta orbiter because "all men just want sex". It's difficult to actually get past this thinking, but disengaging from these online communities and just interacting with the real world is all the advice i can give you.

[–]adool7772 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]adool7771 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]adool7770 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What contradicted it was what ive mostly heard and seen here and on TRP about the "true nature of women" and "what they're biologically attracted to". Specifically that all of them have similarities and that it's "blue pilled trash" to believe people on an individual basis can be different in tastes and attraction. I never said everything on TRP is bad, just the studies of "how society REALLY works" or "how women REALLY think".

This really isn't about "RP being mean", I don't fucking care of they're mean. What I care about is them purporting that their generalizations and assumptions are true because of anecdotal individual experiences they've had. And im in turn saying these generalizations and assumptions are false because of anecdotal individual experiences that ive had. Same logic.

[–]Zanajin 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yeezusshityall 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]yeezusshityall 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm4871 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]doctor_trucks0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

A majority is number you fucking idiot. My god...

"Subjects were undergrads"

The question being asked is whether young women date dark triad and then their preferences change as they get older. If we wanted to know whether or not young women were interested in dark triad personalities, why the fuck would we sample older women? The fact that most studies are performed by uni, and thus most participants are students, is often cited as a bias. However, we want a sample size of young women for the purposes of our debate. So, you just parroted that out.

And AWALT states that women evolved to be attracted to dark triad. If the majority evolved this way, and some few women did not, then those women's attraction mechanisms are broken.

And for the record, AWALT is a reponse to NAWALT. It is simply arguing that a single instance to the contrary does not absolve women on the whole of their nature. That is what is meant by AWALT. In my response to op, thus was the exact context that I used the term.

[–]doctor_trucks1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I thought adults could handle a little name calling.

51% to 100% gives us our staus quo! How the fuck is what the majority of women find attractive meaningless to the discussion at hand? I just explained to you think context of the term AWALT. If you would read the conversation that you jumped into, you would see exactly what I mean. I am stating that just because one woman prefers beats, it does not disprove the idea that women evolved to be attracted to alpha males. That's my claim. I have explained this twice now. If you want to argue another point, find someone else. I don't care what you think AWALT means. I am refering to the context above. I don't want to have to type all of that out again.

I am not young, but nice ad hominem. And men are terribly concerned with what young women find attractive because the older men still want to bang young women. Here's a study that shows just that:

https://jezebel.com/mens-favorite-ages-are-20-21-22-and-23-a-data-dive-1731660984/amp

If you want to bang grannies, you're weird.

And I don't care if you don't want to "chat". I wasn't talking to you in the first place.

[–]doctor_trucks1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigflame1230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I myself attract these type of woman because I am emotionally unconscious myself?

This is where a therapist would help massively. Contrary to what RP people tell you, therapy and Psychological treatment can be pretty helpful in overcoming this kind of acute erotomania. You might just be attracting this type of woman, but the first step to attracting the type of woman you want is to figure out what they want in the first place. This is (one of the few times) where Reddit could actually help, or online in general could help.

On one hand I want to be friends with women but on I also would be sexually attracted to them

This seems like a textbook case of erotomania. You should consult a doctor or therapist about this, because I understand what you're going through, but you can't fix it yourself. If you can, please do try to get help.

what would be a healthy type of approach to be friends with women?

Honestly? Just treat them like guy friends. I treat most of the female friends I have exactly like my male friends, and for the most part (while it can be alienating to a good number of women as they want to be treated differently) it works. If you want to be friends with women, just treat them like friends. Anyone that dislikes you or rejects you for not wanting to put up a energy-consuming facade to be able to be friends with women is imo very misguided. Treating women like this makes you view them as normal people, rather than some entirely different group of people that need to be treated differently.

Can you be friends with a woman and escalate it into something romantic?

I know people who mostly considered eachother friends for awhile, and then eventually became a couple because they both agreed that they were compatible as people, and we're sexually attracted to eachother. It isn't extremely common, but it is entirely possible. But what you should figure out is if you want to be friends with women because you want more friends and want social connection, want to be around women, or want to eventually develop that into a sexual relationship. Clarifying these (usually works better with the help of a therapist) can help you interact with and build connections with women much more easily, as you realize your priorities.

[–]bigflame1230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigflame1230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This could just be a case of you assuming her behavior. It happens a lot and it's not something to feel bad about. But how do you think it was really centered around validation her and blowing up her ego? When analyzing the actions of anyone, male or female, you have to understand that sometimes we totally misinterpret whats in between the lines and what the undertones of something are (a good example of this is RP guys saying "women saying they want nice, kind, emotional guys is just a shit test to make those guys more open about those traits so they know NOT to date them"), and people that entered the social sphere poorly can really poorly read these. You should consider if she actually was doing what you say she was, and try to figure out if she actually was doing these things.

As for withdrawing from her friend group but still treating them with respect, that's perfectly fine. But if you feel like they are and that she is, and have nothing to lose from the friendship ending, you could always just confront her about it and call her out on specific stuff she's done that conveys what you think.

[–]bigflame1230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Mainly because whenever I hung out with them, it was at pre game and they were more excited about putting me on social media rather than just have a relaxed conversation

It felt mostly about the sexual tension that was between me and her and her relishing in the fact that I desired her

Once I stopped playing into their mental game of making them feel special and just acted ordinary, it seems like they’ve lost a lot more interested in me and stopped inviting me to pregame

Another way simply is the fact that my former oneitis got with some other guy at pregame, while for a long time she was joking and pretending that we are a thing, even joking that I’m her husband and all

Her getting with that guy after such a long time of me pursuing her just made me feel like I was stuck deep in the friendzone and that she wasn’t really sexually interested in me but more how I made her feel validated

I will still try to rethink it again but this is how it felt so far?

And this is what still keeps me tied to the red pill even though it makes me feel alienated from women and female friends in general

I could’ve taken the opportunity to get to know more girls and female friends but I put up an internal resistance out of fear of being used for validation again?

[–]atm4871 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bigflame1231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atm4871 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you are feeling like shit because you read them, yes. Even the ones that are anti-RP. This isn't just me saying "REJECT THESE PEOPLE, THEYRE LYING" stuff, this is just life advice. If you feel like you're actively being brought down mood-wise because of these communities, don't use them or anything related to them. If you're somewhat attached to them, they can be difficult at first to move away from, but eventually you will mostly forget about them.

Also, keep in mind, I know the whole "be yourself" advice thing is a bit of a meme, but don't actively change your whole personality and beliefs and ideas solely to attract women. It's better to find someone who actually likes you for who you are, and in the highly unlikely event that no woman will like that (which is statistically unlikely but w/e), it is easier and generally less destructive to learn to cope with Solitude rather than changing your entire personality and abandoning your authentic self because you crave romantic intimacy.

[–]bigflame1231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atm4872 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bigflame1231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atm4872 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bigflame1230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scccP 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I definitely still think that, for example, attractive people have it (somewhat) easier than unattractive people, that there's some guys who will orbit and labor intensely for girls because he thinks there's a small chance he could get his dick wet, and I do still think that women should be the ones approaching atleast a portion of the time, but don't because they believe it's easier and that there isn't any pressure on them (when there is on men).

However, I mostly think women are generally not just hypergamous sluts who fuck 132 different guys in college and then "settle" for a "lesser man". I do think women are not a monolith we can all categorize in one way "because estrogen". I think women are just normal people, like men. They (usually) differ heavily, even if they are the same gender, and have different tastes in men, different beliefs and ideas, different perspectives and life experiences, etc. So in general, I think it's difficult to quantify what I actually believe about women, because women are just too different from person to person to have a view as a whole on.

In regards to you feeling scared of approaching girls, I think for now the only 2 options for men are to either "toughen up" and basically just push through that shitty experience of having to approach someone, or for men to just accept that (for now) it's just how it is, and to focus on coping with and accepting loneliness, and to enjoy your own company and your platonic relationships rather than romantic ones. This doesn't mean you should just automatically go to start reading Emily White, but if you are genuinely tired of trying to do it and are just looking for solace and a way to cope with it, that is probably the best solution (And not becoming a MGTOW person who constantly bitches about "the true nature of women" and why "feminism is why I can't get laid").

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AllPeopleMatter 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CombatStaceyBlue ovaries1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zanajin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditicantrecall2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GamingYourMom0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

Um, these aren’t particularly RP views. RP concerns itself with sexual strategy. None of these are about sex per se.

Not that RPM may not say or bitch about these things, but just to say that’s “them” more than it is “RP”.

Kinda like how many Democrats may be “pro-Europe” ... but being Pro-Europe isn’t a democratic position per se.

I’m not the commenters you asked, but I can have a stab at the scientific basis for these if you like.

IIRC Male and female IQ is basically setup to give the same results for men and women. I think, because of this, the average for both men and women is 100. However the Male bell curve is “flatter”. This means there are more “very dumb and very clever men” and more “in the middle women” although they both average to 100. So almost all the Forest Gumps and Einstein’s will be male.
This second one is true. Men earn marginally more money. Women spend a lot more money than men. How much of this is due to the fact that women do things like “a households grocery and clothes shopping” is up for debate. But advertisers are well aware that women make the bulk of spending decisions anywhere that isn’t a massive majority male pursuit. So spending on “golf” or “sports cars” is majority male, everywhere else it’s majoroty female and so that’s who advertisers target.
IIRC this is also true. Men much more commonly prioritise “high pay” over “better working conditions”. Women much more commonly prioritise “better working conditions” over “high pay”. This is why many dangerous or outdoor or long hour jobs are male dominated. Women are also much more likely to work flexi-time or part time. This is just a result of men and women having different aggregate preferences for jobs overall. It only becomes an issue due to female arguments concerning “the pay gap” which they say should be 0. In a fair world, where women make the decision they do, it will never be 0 because of their different preferences.

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TrumpCardStrategy0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zeppelin445 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Well no, that’s not quite it.

There are ways of testing intelligence that women are better than men at. Any verbal fluency test, for example. There are other things men are better than women at. Mentally rotating shapes, for example.

There is no sense in which the “men’s” tests measure “real” intelligence and the “women’s” don’t. They measure different aspects of intelligence.

As the IQ people are interested in testing the intelligence of “humans” irrespective of gender... the tests are specifically setup to give neither gender an advantage.

They’re balanced such that the “average” human scores 100 regardless of sex.

That’s not the same as “handicapping the men”. It’s notmalising the test across different, but all equally valid, types of intelligence.

[–]zeppelin445 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

No, they outright handicap men and openly admit it.

Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.[9][138] Popular IQ batteries such as the WAIS and the WISC-R are also constructed in order to eliminate sex differences.[139] In a paper presented at the International Society for Intelligence Research in 2002, it was pointed out that because test constructors and the United States' Educational Testing Service (which developed the US SAT test) often eliminate items showing marked sex differences in order to reduce the perception of bias, the "true sex" difference is masked. Items like the Mental Rotations Test and reaction time tests, which show a male advantage in IQ, are often removed.[140] Meta-analysis focusing on gender differences in math performance found nearly identical performance for boys and girls,[141] and the subject of mathematical intelligence and gender has been controversial.[142]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Sex

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

That quote says explicitly what I just said above.

You’re reading that as “they handicap males”.

They don’t. They’re interested in “how you measure intelligence for humans”. That means explicitly creating the test in such a way that “markers of intelligence women have an advantage on” are as heavily weighted as “markers of intelligence men have an advantage on”.

If women started averaging 102 and men 98 they’d take away or reduce “linguistic intelligence” portions until it was 100:100 again.

They wouldn’t be handicapping women when they did so. They’d be recognising the test had become unbalanced towards aspects of intelligence females have an advantage on.

There is no sense in which a “rotation test” is more “real” intelligence than a “ability to manipulate a linguistic question” test.

“the brown dog ate the white kittens dinner” - Which animal ate the food ? is as valid an intelligence test as “which of these items would fit in the hole if rotated”.

Because they’re interested in overall human intelligence, they normalise the tests to ensure that sex doesn’t “prejudice” the result up or down just because that test includes “more valid tests males are better at than valid tests women are better at”.

If the man can’t answer the dog/kitten question that says as much about his intelligence as does a woman being unable to rotate the shape into the hole.

[–]zeppelin445 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

No, it’s done because they’re trying to “measure the intelligence of humans” in a way comparable across humans. Not the intelligence of males, or the intelligence of females.

And, no. It’s not done for ideological reasons but for scientific ones. From the same wiki article here is how they decide how to add/remove/adjust questions to measure ALL humans accurately

Differential item functioning (DIF), sometimes referred to as measurement bias, is a phenomenon when participants from different groups (e.g. gender, race, disability) with the same latent abilities give different answers to specific questions on the same IQ test.[54] DIF analysis measures such specific items on a test alongside measuring participants latent abilities on other similar questions. A consistent different group response to a specific question among similar type of questions can indicate an effect of DIF. It does not count as differential item functioning if both groups have equally valid chance of giving different responses to the same questions. Such bias can be a result of culture, educational level and other factors that are independent of group traits. DIF is only considered if test-takers from different groups with the same underlying latent ability level have a different chance of giving specific responses.[55] Such questions are usually removed in order to make the test equally fair for both groups. Common techniques for analyzing DIF are item response theory (IRT) based methods, Mantel-Haenszel, and logistic regression.[55]

You’re seeing bias here because you want to see it. Not because it’s there.

If the DIF tests indicated that women were getting an advantage due to linguistic tests they’d be adjusted in the same way using the same methods.

Not everyone does things for the reasons a PPD poster would do those things. Other places have higher standards.

[–]zeppelin445 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How exactly do they determine they have the same latent abilities if they score lower on the test?

Because you have a test with 10 sections.

So let’s say the average “college educated” person scores 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 110, 100, 100, 100, 100 .... and the average “high school educated person” scores 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 80, 90, 90, 90, 90 .... they know that there, on that section the college educated are getting an advantage over the high school educated.

Because an IQ test isn’t supposed to be measuring “whether you went to college” but instead “latent intelligence irrespective of college attendance” they’d remove that section as failing a DIF test and use another question/set of questions.

It’s a little more complicated than that, they’ll be doing multiple regressions, using P and Z values, using other scientific methods to make sure it’s valid. But that’s how they adjust the tests to make sure it measures “overall latent human intelligence” and eliminates things like bias due to education level or sex.

The answers all the way through the rest of the test indicate that groups “baseline” and they’re looking for consistent scores all member of the group share on aggregate.

And what do they mean by "disability"?

Blind people ? The kind of people who’d have a lot of difficulty “rotating mental images” as they haven’t had nearly as much practice at it for that reason (say).

Maybe the same for deaf people in another way. Maybe they score 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 80, 100, 100, 100, 100 to the non-deaf populations 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 . That would indicate something there that deaf people have a disadvantage on that doesn’t mean they “aren’t as intelligent” just that there is an artefact of being deaf that makes a certain type of question more difficult irrespective of intelligence. Maybe that’s a “verbal fliency” type test.

Is a retard given a higher IQ score cause his retardation made him pick the wrong answers?

No because retards in aggregate would give a test that was 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60 indicating no problem with any section of the tests, just a consistently bad score.

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So let’s say the average “college educated” person scores

So why aren't they also taking into account college education? Or just general socio-economical backgrounds in general? If the reason why race and gender are messed up with because they impact the socio-economical background, then why not go for the root issue instead?

But that’s how they adjust the tests to make sure it measures “overall latent human intelligence” and eliminates things like bias due to education level or sex.

The problem is that you assume if men score higher then it must be due to a "bias".

Blind people ? The kind of people who’d have a lot of difficulty “rotating mental images” as they haven’t had nearly as much practice at it for that reason (say).

Aren't blind people given their own special tests?

[–]-TheGreasyPole-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So why aren't they also taking into account college education?

Because it’s a test of innate human intelligence, not a test of “how educated you are”. That’s what it is designed to do.

If I cloned you tomorrow, and sent your clone to college, an IQ test after college (if it was operating correctly) would still score both of you the same as your innate intelligence is identical, even if your level of education isn’t.

Or just general socio-economical backgrounds in general?

Same reason. Your clone living in his house in the Hamptons should store the same as you living in a shack in Bumfuck, Iowa.

If the reason why race and gender are messed up with because they impact the socio-economical background, then why not go for the root issue instead?

They’re not messed up for that reason. IQ tests attempt as much as possible to do ends runs around those reasons. They want to measure raw innate intelligence.

The problem is that you assume if men score higher then it must be due to a "bias".

No. It’s because the “whole human baseline” is a baseline that includes male and female forms of intelligence.

It doesn’t matter if the deviation is male up, or female up, or male down, or female down, or blind up, or deaf down.

It’s notmalised to measure human intelligence irrespective of any individual’s membership of any of those groups. It’s not an “Is he deaf?” test or an “Is he blind?” test or an “Is she female?” Or “Is he Male?” Or a “did he go to college?” test.

It’s a general human intelligence test.

Aren't blind people given their own special tests?

Probably. At the very least I’d assume a Braille version is required.

It was just an example. You asked for an example. I used “blind” and “deaf”. I could have used “has one leg” or “has no sense of taste” or any other disability.

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-TheGreasyPole-2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But you just said that they're removing tests and results because an educated person is more likely to score higher than less educated ones

Yes. Because someone who went to college is going to have a higher innate intelligence on average than someone who didn’t.

Perhaps an average high school dropout has 90 innate intelligence, and the average college gamrad has 110. Because cleverer people go to college.

But the college guys score should be 110. Not 120 because of education he received that enables him to score higher on tests.

But if one group scores higher then why is that no longer raw innate intelligence?

Because they’re not scoring higher everywhere else as well.

And because we’re not talking individuals here (who can score differently on different parts). We’re talking group aggregates.

And because we’re trying to measure “general human intelligence”... the aggregate intelligence all humans can display.

If you write an intelligence test made up of 10 questions... who was Jesus dad ? Who was Jesus mum ? Name the 13 disciples.... that’s NOT an intelligence test. Christians will score higher than Muslims even if they are no more intelligent.

You’ve got to measure human intelligence in the aggregate. Not in ways that give some groups advantages over other related to other factors (like religion or gender) that aren’t intelligence.

What information would be lost if IQ tests would say "there's a difference between men and women in average score"?

None. But if you did so you wouldn’t be measuring general human intelligence.

You’d be saying “women are less intelligent than men on tests tailored to give men higher scores than women” or vice versa if you did that on a test where women scored higher, like a linguistic test.

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes. Because someone who went to college is going to have a higher innate intelligence on average than someone who didn’t.

So then why should the test meddle with the results again? Why should it artificially lower the results of college-educated people?

But the college guys score should be 110. Not 120 because of education he received that enables him to score higher on tests.

Why? Why would you remove education from the equation?

Because they’re not scoring higher everywhere else as well.

And so what? Some people are clever in some ways while dumb in others.

Not in ways that give some groups advantages over other related to other factors (like religion or gender) that aren’t intelligence.

How are you determining that it isn't intelligence?

None. But if you did so you wouldn’t be measuring general human intelligence.

Yes, you would. Admitting general differences between different groups doesn't mean you no longer objectively study those groups.

I don't think you understand how illogical your argument is. You're basically saying that being biased and meddling with results is a way to counter bias and results being meddled with.

You’d be saying “women are less intelligent than men on tests tailored to give men higher scores than women”

Your argument is that any test that shows a difference between demographics is proof that the test is tailored to give that result. I don't know in how many more words I can say that you're wrong and irrational. An unequal result doesn't imply an unequal standard of testing.

[–]Shabompistan1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Allow me to clarify:

Lets go with the college educated and high school educated example.

Let's also say we have an IQ test we're trying to tweak that consists of four sections.

The college educated averages these results:

100 90 100 100

The high school educated averages these results:

90 80 80 90

The section that requires attention is the 3rd section. The reason for this is because the difference between each population's baseline score (let's say 100 for college and 90 for high school) and the score on section 3. Here's what these differences look like for each population:

College:

0 10 0 0

High school:

0 10 10 0

Section 3 is the only part that has a discrepancy. Section 2 is fine because they vary from the baseline by the same amount. It's fine if the college educated score 100 and high school educated score 90. Same thing applies for 90 and 80.

If we tried to change all the 100s into 90s (or the 90s into 80s etc), then that would be handicapping the college educated because you're changing the overall baseline (average), but that is not what's being done here. We are changing differences, but the baseline must stay the same. This is how you control for demographics without making every group have the same average score.

(disclaimer: this is a simplification of the statistics that go into constructing the test)

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shabompistan1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You mean 20, not 10.

In this case I subtracted the college results from 100 and high school results from 90 (two different baselines) but it doesn't really matter what you use as a baseline since the difference is shown in any case. Better practice would be to use percentages I think, but I'm simplifying.

If college educated people score higher in a certain section then why would you simply hide that?

"Hiding" is not really an accurate word in this case. Let's say section 3 had questions about the process of factoring a polynomial. What is shown in the results above is that college educated people are better at factoring polynomials than high school educated people. Makes sense right? You could very well publish these results in a paper and discuss it your heart's content. I would venture to guess that's roughly how we found out how men are generally better at spacial skills like rotating shapes, while women are generally better at language skills. the results are not hidden, it's still published research.

However, an IQ test is not testing for who is better a factoring a polynomial, that would be a algebra test. It tests this nebulous concept of "innate intelligence", which has a pretty vague definition. This is why people have shied away from using it in the academic scene, its hard to quantify something that is debated or up to interpretation. So, in futile effort to figure this out, we try controlling for all factors possible by testing for specific concepts that no demographic is particularly good or bad at and observe differences in the baseline.

Does that make sense? It's a weird concept but it is what it is I guess.

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

two different baselines

I'm confused, what baselines?

It tests this nebulous concept of "innate intelligence"

And factoring polynomials is a part of that.

I don't understand why you'd have an issue with this unless you believe that intelligence is something completely innate and cannot vary based on your lifestyle. You can become more intelligent throughout your life if you train yourself to be, so it's a pointless endeavor to try and remove whatever factor makes someone more intelligent simply because it's "unfair" or whatever logic is applied here.

The purpose of IQ test is to determine intelligence, not determine what's a trained skill and what isn't.

Do you believe that blacks, or women, or gays or whatever should have easier exams in school cause their demographic might be tied to a lower general score?

Does that make sense?

No.

[–]Shabompistan1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unfortunately I can't really figure out how to explain it any other way. I'm not advocating for IQ tests, I'm just trying to explain why they were made the way they are.

And factoring polynomials is a part of that.

Is it? This is where the words "nebulous" and "debated" comes into play. Nobody really has an idea on what IQ is actually measuring anymore. You could argue nearly anything is a part of "innate intelligence". Factoring polynomials, plucking a chicken, how to operate a forklift... who knows?

Do you believe that blacks, or women, or gays or whatever should have easier exams in school cause their demographic might be tied to a lower general score?

No. comparing academic exams to IQ exams is not useful because academic exams have very clear expectations and standards for everyone, while IQ tests do not. This is why people don't really use IQ anymore.

If you want to study gender differences, you do it by testing for the specific kind of intelligence you're studying.

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shabompistan1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zeppelin4452 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]neopalm20501 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zeppelin4451 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]neopalm20501 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zeppelin4451 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sivariasMauve Dragovian0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zeppelin445 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atm487Purple Pill Man, Leaning Blue0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

MGTOW has made itself a very very wide umbrella.

I have had multiple MGTOW's try to tell me I am one of them because I don't want marriage even though I am in an LTR.

Others are much more strict and say you cannot be MGTOW unless you cut women out your life forever.

Then others in the middle say nah just don't commit to one, ONS and FWB is fine.

So it's hard to work out what MGTOW even is to begin with.

The subreddit for it is just full of incels in denial as is obvious from skimming it for 5 minutes. They spend all their time getting angry at women just like incels, when surely they should be focusing on what to do with their newfound freedom having gone their own way?

As others have already said here, there are examples of MGTOWs who left and even got married the first time a girl showed interest in them, which kinda proves they are mostly "men sent their own way." Classic fox and grapes.

I'd say the "true MGTOWs" are guys who would never think to go online and learn about the silly label in the first place.

Felix Dennis is my favourite example. He was everything MGTOWs wish they were. A self-made multimillionaire with a net worth of £500m who never got married and just fucked Playboy girls and whores and did a fuckload of coke. He was actually the creator of Maxim.

But people who achieve that level of success in life rarely have time to waste sitting on Reddit complaining about what eeeevil bitches their ex's are because they're too busy earning immense wealth.

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-clickhere- 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I can help with some background info, if you are curious:

First, MGTOW has levels, such as (a) its not worth it to be married, so GTOW, (b) its not worth it to LTR, so GTOW, (c) its not worth it to date, (d) why have females in your life at all, even friends, (e) and finally GTOW from society itself, and just traveling around the world a free man.
Thus, your MGTOW friends are correct that if you don't want marriage, you fall under MGTOW, at least the first level.
Also, your other friends are correct that a very strict interpretation is cutting out females completely. It all depends upon what level you want.
All the levels are based upon the same concept, that the "juice is not worth the squeeze", ha!
And its up to you to decide the cost/benefit analysis of whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

Finally, its important to realize that the 'anger phase' you reference is actually a healthy thing, that you should encourage, because its a type of therapy, where they are learning new information, trying to better understand the world, in a non-violent way on reddit, and after they work through the anger, they leave the sub and move on, while more people enter and start the process of healing. The anger phase, like similar phases in all types of therapy, is a way to work through things and grow.

But I will agree with your overall sentiment that they would do better by focusing more on solutions, rather than just anger. But if you believe that, why not help them. Post some solutions and help them work through the anger phase.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that in practice the MGTOW community is mostly the level you label as d. Their posts even here on PPD, which tends to be more moderate than the main "pill" subs, liken women to being as destructive as alcoholism. Someone said that to me ITT.

So as for your last paragraph, that's not the kind of mindset that can simply be reasoned with. Clearly these are men who have an emotional basis for being bitter at women. A lot of them went through rough divorces.

I can't really go in and convince them otherwise, nor do I really care to. It's their lives, if that's how they wanna live it's on them.

Personally although I may fall under the first "level" you list, I don't feel I have too much in common with the MGTOW community. I am pretty sure if I went on the sub and said I'm in an LTR I'd get responses warning me to get out of it before my gf fucks my life up through false rape accusations or something.

Again, hard to reason with such mindsets. They have emotional reasons for holding their beliefs so they can't be met with reason.

I don't really buy the anger phase is only a phase for the MGTOW's who are active online. I see it more like the moderates who used to kick around gave up when the angry ones with axes to grind took over the community more and more. Then when the incels sub was banned I think many of them found refuge on MGTOW too.

I think the more sensible breed of MGTOW has already stopped participating in the sub and there's no point trying to reason with the guys who remain.

Now someone has tried to make a more sensible MGTOW sub, I think it is /r/MGTOW2 designed for those who are out of the anger phase. Which is a great idea... but look at how inactive it is.

Honestly the ones who have become sick of the anger have largely left the community altogether to go live their lives imo.

It's a shame because the underlying ideology as you lay it out is never something I've been opposed to. If an individual man decides well I don't wanna chase women I'd rather dedicate my life to business or the arts or my hobbies or whatever... more power to him.

What I don't get is how they stay stuck being angry at women instead of moving onto actually using their sense of freedom to do something constructive in their lives.

Anger is only useful if you use it to motivate you. Which I don't see those guys doing or supporting.

[–]-clickhere- 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-clickhere- 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

I can use reason to prove that statement incorrect, if you wish (?).

Everyone is "emotional" all the time, to varying degrees. Its a constant feature of the brain. So by your logic than no one in history can every be reasoned with because they are 'emotional'.

Also, even if you disbelief everything I just said, you can influence emotional people with 'emotional' arguments. See any of the books on 'influence' which argue that humans are inherently irrational and emotional arguments work best.

But the larger context is even more interesting, if you are open to it, in that cognitive dissonance argues that your prior statement (I can't reason with them) is a way to justify your pre-existing stance that you dont "want" to reason with them. Google cognitive dissonance for more info. Its an interesting concept.

But I am here to help you, and them, and everyone, so here is a solution. Rise above cognitive dissonance. Even rise above your distaste for them. See each person as an individual, searching for a better life, and provide compassion to help them get there. That is what I am doing with you right now. You may not like what I have to say, but after a few days it will sink in, and you will grow from the process. Same with you helping them on that sub. They are just looking for help, reaching out to each other on that sub, and would welcome someone to provide clarity, even if its a harsh truth that is hard to digest, as you are having a hard time digesting this truth.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't have any distaste for them. And yes I know what cognitive dissonance is.

As you said, the level people are emotional and unreasonable is variable.

Let's use a car analogy because those are easy.

Guy 1 feels like he doesn't need a car because he can just take the bus. Part of this view may very well simply be a rationalisation because he cannot afford a car. In that case, if he's able to afford it, he will probably buy a car. Even though the decision to not own a car is largely emotional, his mind can be changed if circumstances change. Or indeed if a family member gave him their old car he'd probably take it.

Guy 2 saw his brother run down in a hit and run at a young age. As a result he absolutely hates cars on a deep emotional level and doesn't want anything to do with them. He wouldn't even take one for free. He hates people who enjoy driving because of how dangerous it is.

I would argue that reasoning with guy 1 is pretty easy while reasoning with guy 2 is virtually impossible, or at least so difficult it's not worth the effort and probably requires a trained psychologist - although even then you can only help someone who wants the help.

Now let's go back to MGTOW.

Guy 1 thinks having a gf is not worth the effort and thinks it costs too much money to keep a woman happy. He's maybe had a bad breakup or two and doesn't wanna go through that again. Or maybe he has simply had a hard time finding a girl who likes him so he's given up trying.

Guy 2 had a bitter divorce where his ex-wife cheated on him then took half his money, made him sell his home, took the kids, and left his life a mess.

As with before, I think guy 1 would probably enter into a relationship if he met the right girl. But guy 2 will be utterly opposed to the idea.

Under MGTOW you broadly have those two types of guys. But the main ones who are active in the sub and on the forums etc are guy 2. Which is why they are such angry places.

Again I have no distaste for them and harbour no ill will. If they wanna live their lives thinking every single woman in the world is just as evil as their ex-wife that harms no one except themselves. And you are right I simply don't care enough to try and change their minds. Why should I? Psychologists get paid, friends and family have emotional investment, I am a stranger behind an internet username.

But I stand by my point. If your views are so extremely emotional you think all women are evil and all relationships are doomed and every man gets a horrible deal from trying to be with a woman... there is no point trying to rationalise with that person. It's like trying to talk sense into a creationist or a flat earther.

Also, people form their views largely from personal experiences. If your experience of women is epitomised by a bitter divorce that's what will stick. No stranger on the internet is going to override your actual real life experiences.

[–]-clickhere- 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I like your thoughtful reply.

But once again, by that logic, you believe no one can ever be saved because EVERYONE has an emotional moment in their live, and by your logic they will never change from it, and yet we all do. We have all had broken hearts. And yet over TIME we changed.

How? By other people influencing us. The very thing I am advocating, and you are avoiding. But I appreciate your honestly that you admit this all comes from you "simply don't care enough to try".

And its blinding you to some obvious truths, such as from your OWN example of Guy #2, because people get married again after a divorce all the time. In fact, almost half of people who get divorced re-marry (see PEW for more info).

Coming back around to the central argument, I am simply saying that without actually trying you don't know whether or not they will/can change. You refuse to try, and thus precludes you from having an informed thought on the matter. You refuse to try because you "simply don't care" and then come up with these statements to justify it (they can't be changed, they are too emotional, etc) all of which are logically incorrect post-hoc generalizations divorced from reality, the very reality you could see for yourself if you try (but you don't so the cycle continues).

If you "simply don't care about them", that is fine, and up to you, but I will leave you with this thought, that they VERY fact they are so emotional is the best time to reach them. That is when people make the biggest break-throughs in therapy, and that is what that sub is, therapy (group work therapy). The problem is everyone in the group is a patient (to use that analogy) and no adult therapists leading them out. Its people like you, who need to be there, to be the adult in the room, and lead them out, otherwise they are trapped for longer and longer, and in pain for longer and longer.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The only issue there is that it's a false dichotomy.

"Either the guy can't get laid and is an incel and is taking his ball and huffing off, or he's a bitter person who was hurt by an ex wife and thinks all women are the same as his ex-wife."

That is not only unbelievably patronizing, but incredibly short sighted. It ignores that there are a larger number of men who are approaching this from "what can a woman DO to me" and approaching it that way.

The chance of a woman actually getting raped by a stranger jumping out at her in a dark alley is, statistically speaking, pretty low. But nobody sits there and says "you know what, avoiding dark alleys at night when you're alone is in no way sensible. You should take no interest in your safety at all because most men are reasonable." They generally agree that even though the chances are slim, the results of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are so severe that limiting your walking around alone and drunk in the dark in a bad neighborhood are so dire that not doing so is considered sensible.

Almost nobody gives women any grief about the myriad number of reasons that they themselves could possibly choose to avoid relationships. "I don't need a man, I can earn my own money, and I have no interest in settling for anyone less than who I think I deserve". Many of the drivers of marriage were things like women not being able to work, and/or being handed over as property. Nobody's complaining that these changes are driving down the marriage rate any more that we're worried about the number of females being virgins later and later being the result of a drop in sexual assault.

But here's something your frankly smug and patronizing summary of the situation in your view does: it entirely removes the possibility that men have the agency and the responsibility to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. If women don't need men to wife them up because they can earn their own living, then men really don't have an obligation killing themselves earning enough for two in order to wife them up.

If marriage becomes such an untenable and one-sided contract, and the society does everything it can to hurt men who fall afoul of it, then it's actually pretty reasonable for men to avoid it. If you want further proof, look at Canada, where co-habitation (which used to be a reasonable way for people dating to deal with high rents) is very much on the wane the moment the government decided that living together also constituted marriage and also allowed a woman to claw at a man's assets.

Men have every right to decide that any contract: social, legal or otherwise - is not something they wish to engage in, and ignore it. They don't need to be "losers at life" or "bitter twisted ex-husbands" to come to this conclusion, and increasing numbers of young men are working that out for themselves without the drivers you reduce it to, thanks very much.

It also means that as a society, you'll end up trying to apply the wrong solution to the problem. If you simply think these people are just twisted and bitter people in need of a therapist, you won't be working on the social changes required to effect the change you want.

And the fact that you reduce the whole problem to "broken little boys refusing to man up and do what we want them to do" is part and parcel of it.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wub12342 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CombatStaceyBlue ovaries2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CombatStaceyBlue ovaries0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wub12341 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CreightonWAbrams 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]3rdYearPPD 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]3rdYearPPD 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]3rdYearPPD 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]3rdYearPPD 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaddad90001 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zippo-Cat0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Misanthrope4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zippo-Cat7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rus9384Misanthrope2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zippo-Cat2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]itiswr1ttenEndorsed Negotiable Instrument0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CombatStaceyBlue ovaries0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme14 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme12 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme10 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme13 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]VAOTOMARNOCU 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zanajin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme12 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zanajin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ziczor 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaddad90001 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chaddad90000 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ziczor 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ziczor 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme10 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zippo-Cat3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zippo-Cat1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Workaholico 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rockbottommale123 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chaddad90001 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NockerJoeKing Hater7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NockerJoeKing Hater3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That one dude said it was like a snap. Like overnight he said he saw though a bunch of the bullshit narrative and it went from a fee lies around a lot of truth to a lot of lies with a tiny core of truth.

I never joined the community but when I first saw "the material" it kinda shocked me and there was so much of it it formed its own narrative. But if you keep looking and see who's saying what you can see theres a lot not accounted for and that a lot of these role models are morally sketchy dudes who talk about shit like illegal drugs or not being fulfilled with their grand new lifestyle.

There was another dude who had it similar. He went from pudgy incel to gym rat PUA and even though he got himself out of that initial hole he wasnt happy and was getting caught in drama and fighting his new 'friends' over dumb shit. The fact that the two ideologies were only vaguely related and had contradictory points didnt help.

[–]BeyondAnyPill 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme12 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sir_KoopamanSexually Identifies as a Potato1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flibbitythrowaways 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, it is entirely possible that their relationships with women are toxic, addictive, and damaging. Some people simply can't get in healthy relationships. Whether because of the pattern of attraction, their attachment disorders, or they're just drawn to the 'passion' which is actually abusive. We all know the one guy who just keeps trying to make a girlfriend out of a ho, or the one girl who keeps bringing home absolute garbage. It's really no wonder when they decide it must be the entire opposite sex's problem. Because it's not an easy problem to solve. Delving into your own psyche, figuring out why you're attracted to people who seem to not share that many features but actually all end up terrible/crazy/abusive/whatever. It's far easier to say AWALT than "oh, all my awful exes had shitty relationships with their parents and handled money impulsively, that better be something I be selective about" or "I keep modeling the unhealthy relationship my parents showed me, I'm attracted to people with the same negative attributes." It's easier to say instead simply that all women are like that, and thus there's nothing I can do about it.

The problem of course is when they insist that their experience is actually everyone's experience, that everyone in a good relationship is lying or soon to end, etc.

[–]DREADC0RSAIRNo Pill | Just Dead Inside1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This

As a man, I've had tons of relationships. The first 5 or so ended with me being cheated on, lied to, or stolen from. Admittingly, I ended the last couple before my history could repeat itself. Partially from recognizing similar red flags from the past, partially from fear of getting destroyed emotionally again. I've been in love, but it never felt good enough to be worth the risk of being hurt again. Kind of like heroin, im sure that yeah it must feel great but its not worth the time, money or withdraws if i cant get a fix. I don't believe relationships can't work for anyone, but I have a complicated lifestyle and career that makes playing the game of relationships not worth it for me, especially with the high likelihood of it ending. Not every guy that's going his own way does it because he hates women, its just a decision that relationships aren't for us.

[–]flibbitythrowaways 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DREADC0RSAIRNo Pill | Just Dead Inside2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of them appear to be nice daisys at first, some guys just trigger their dark sides for whatever reason. I tried to be the best boyfriend I could be but young girls in their 20s are loose cannons. I read this sub and sometimes think "Maybe I could try again" then I go outside and I'm blasted with red pills. Maybe it's my environment, maybe I'm just a magnet for corrupted devils with pretty faces, who knows. But I'm just burned out from that game, for now.

Edit: You know I think that nice daisy mentality is what is making men turn away. I grew up thinking that women were pure and they could do no wrong, so when I learned just how deceitful they were capable of being from experience I was left disillusioned and like my world was flipped. I think this is what leads many men to finding the red pill and resonating with it.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pngmafia97my type is chadcucks1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pngmafia97my type is chadcucks0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flibbitythrowaways 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AllPeopleMatter 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think it is possible to “grow out of” redpill views, because to at least some degree, they are true. Acting like an arrogant dickhead will get you some pussy, especially when backed with overt displays of muscle, money, and status. Women are more superficial, selfish, and less trustworthy than the extremely idealistic portrayal of them pushed by media, feminism, and the mainstream.

However many people grow their conceptual framework to include, but not be limited to, redpill views. You might come to the conclusion that TRP works best on a subset of damaged, slutty, or unusually submissive tradcon women. Or that TRP only works because the men who find it suffer from a deficit of so-called toxic masculine traits.

I think only the newest of newbies is able to fully unplug from TRP, and claim it was all bullshit. Anyone who stuck with it and actually applied it, or at least examined women and society through its lens for a while would achieve enough success to realize that it is at least partly true. Not the whole entire truth though.

It is a lot like Epicureanism, stoicism, or any other ism. It’s something you should read, learn about, and think about, and even possibly apply to your life, but ultimately shouldn’t define you. There are many sources of knowledge in the world that you can put together to come to a more cohesive view

[–]ilptrandom3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes and no.

From the prominent ones, Spetsnaz got his Youtube channel deleted recently and stopped producing any new content looong time ago; Marcus went into indefinite hiatus. Probably some of them got married; probably some of them are raising children. It is possible. MGTOW is not a sacred vow of lifetime loyalty to the red pill and celibacy. You can start; you can take a break; you can quit. HuMAN even proposed distinction between the idea of MGTOW (that he proposed to call by "full" name - "going your own way" - rather than acronym) and the "congregation" of MGTOW, and, according to him, even getting married can be part of the idea of going your own way, even if it kicks you out of the "congregation".

If would be silly if ex-MGTOWs reacted to people pointing fingers at them and screaming "Hahahah, hypocrite!". Huge part of MGTOW is developing immunity to shaming.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]douchebag_throwaway32 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Workaholico 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Workaholico 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yaseedog will hunt1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaddad90000 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flibbitythrowaways 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Workaholico 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]douchebag_throwaway33 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWilsonsBuck 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MercedesBenzoAMG 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]douchebag_throwaway32 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I've not seen anyone who's mgtow and then realized later that they were wrong

Because it's not about being right or wrong. It's about going one own's way.

Either this means the group keeps people from leaving (which I think is unlikely to be the full reason) or people who join genuinely never see anything to prove them wrong.

It's not a group really. There are no leaders, no rules, no dogma. It's a corpse of ideas. The whole point of going one own's way is not to be restricted by somebody else's way.

Personally I do not label myself as a MGTOW because there is too much emphasis on women when that label is mentioned. But I am still one because I am against conforming to society's expectations. And I'm not talking about the romantic aspect. The whole lifescript Tm. Society creates docile sheep anyway.

[–]neopalm2050Purple-Red Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zanajin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Zanajin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AllPeopleMatter 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Do ex-mgtow exist?
Author	neopalm2050
Upvotes	12
Comments	260
Date	March 28, 2019 4:37 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/b6eh48/do_exmgtow_exist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-ex-mgtow-exist.256570 https://theredarchive.com/post/256570

Comments