The Red Pill and the Ultimate Attribution Error

Entropy-7 · 2016-05-18T04:18:10+00:00

First off, TRP doesn't take one example and extrapolate to all women. It takes hundreds or thousands of examples to make a generalized conclusion about the group at hand: women. It's called inductive reasoning.

Blue pills consider the in group (women) to behave badly in individual cases while considering themselves dating gods roaming fields of unicorns ("I've never met women like that";"I have done well with women"). Meanwhile, they generalize TRP members based on isolated posts or on explicitly situational grounds like being in the anger phase.

TRPers largely have had all of the same experiences that BPers have had, plus the additional, terrible ones involving women, and have figured out ways to eliminate, minimize and mitigate the downsides while maximizing their upside.

There are terrible drivers who have never been in a car crash and otherwise competent drivers who have. So who is more reasonable: the driver who learns defensive driving, always buckles their seatbelt, and generally assumes that other drivers are idiots; or the driver who sort of wings it because neither they nor any of their friends have been in an accident?

As if the "Fundamental Attribution Error" wasn't bad enough (it is neither fundamental nor necessarily an error) as an over-intellectualized stick to beat conservatives, right wingers, white men, Christians and such over the head with. The "Ultimate" version takes on a grandiosity as if there can be no further discussion (by definition, there is nothing beyond ultimate) . Right on cue, some blue piller tries to apply it to an alt-right men's group while using the very errors it supposedly condemns.

phasetwenty · 2016-05-18T04:44:32+00:00

The sub's stated goal is to discuss sexual strategy, which necessarily includes discussing women's behavior as a group. It only follows that the members frequently attribute behavior to all women, and would less often make statements about men's behavior as a group.

you_done_messed_up · 2016-05-18T06:04:12+00:00

I think it's true, TRP falls into this trap. Ironically so does TBP. :) Or any other ideological group, liberals, conservatives, religious groups, atheists etc. It's human nature.

But to some extent this is nothing but the NAWALT / AWALT discussion again.

There are 2 things to remember. In mainstream society it's taboo or at least politically incorrect to criticize women as a group. This is not true for men.

Another important thing: the men that RP tries to help are especially prone to default to the "women are wonderful" effect. Several things that contribute to their sexual / relationship failures are related:

approach anxiety
putting women on a pedestal
oneitis
deferring to women, being pussy whipped
DEERing
etc.

These men have to get rid of their conditioning and realize that women are in fact not angels, they are fallible and have faults and biological urges. So a mindset where they focus on the negatives while biased, will actually bring these men closer to the truth.

homeliss · 2016-05-18T10:34:21+00:00

You understandably feel bad about being judged on the generalizations of most women, but that doesn't mean those generalizations aren't true.

A gereralization only has to broadly apply in most cases to be correct. Thats what generalizations are.

In the thousands of posts on trp that came before each of your "examples", there were examples of that same behaviour that weren't based on the personal experience of some internet trper.

They were based on collective experiences drawn from novels, history books, philosophy, science and theory texts, sexual strategy, mating habits and evolutionary biology concepts studied in animals, from the present moment to hundreds of years in the past and from extremely different cultures all around the world.

TBP should collect as broad a range of collective experiences in the world as trp has to justify it's views. But so far they only have posts like yours, which are not correct.

We are living in a very connected age, so in a glimpse we get to see the collective experiences of millions of other people, every day of our lives.

alreadyredschool · 2016-05-18T11:31:38+00:00

http://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/research-approach/inductive-approach-2/

You see 1 guy having 1 example and doing it, he probably saw 100 examples, added his one and stated the theory, twerps see another data point.

AutoModerator · 2016-05-18T01:21:10+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

kick6 · 2016-05-18T15:00:21+00:00

So we cultivate a single archetype for what constitutes alpha, but we're guilty of making it personal

*scratches head

I guess.

fiat_lux_ · 2016-05-18T21:42:55+00:00

Which confuses me, because apperently he is okay with women saying that?

Maybe. I'm only speaking for myself, but I don't care if men get called pigs.

And here I thought TRP was also in favor of men getting things like more custody and not getting divorced raped, something that will certainly not happen if women keep a mindset like this.

That's the MRA subset of rpers. A manospherean group is bound to have MRAs.

Also, here is another bper came to the realization that there's both "descriptive" and "prescriptive" wings of rp.

Some rpers aren't "in favour" of any social shift, just interested in observing and modeling reality.

Munroe of xkcd is interesting/fun for his scientific observations, but his social ones are superficial. I don't think they are applicable in this instance. I don't know many people, esp rpers, who cry AWALT while simultaneously denying that there are AMALTy behaviours.

Johnny_Lawless_Esq · 2016-05-18T22:52:44+00:00

A great example of TUAE is the OP.

ThatGreekLady · 2016-05-18T01:24:48+00:00

TRPillers tend to be like "my personal experiences are the one truth, your personal experiences are lies/rationalizations."

betterdeadthanbeta · 2016-05-18T12:13:09+00:00

Yes, I know that some feminists do this too.

*nearly all feminists. The entire privilege concept is just a means of extrapolating the societal advantages of a few cishets/whites/men at the top onto all cishets/whites/men.

As much as you don't want to discussion to stray into feminism, there's some solid reasons why it, and nearly every other social movement, find a conveniently generalized-about enemy to unite against.

"Straight white men are the enemy and they have ____ attribute, tend to think like this, and tend to do this."

You can substitute whatever demographic group in you want. Republicans, Democrats, the bourgeoisie, the blacks, etc. Almost every human being on this planet is currently aligned against some number of outgroups, whom they generalize about to justify their opposition to aforementioned groups. Perhaps this is why they call it the "Ultimate" Attribution error? Because it's so widespread and the advantages of adopting it (in terms of mobilizing and galvanizing the In-Group) so numerous.

In case you doubt me, just look at your own post.

Very basic explanation is that in your ingroup (so men in TRP's case) attributes are personal, but when looking at an outgroup, they are characterizing for the entire group.

You yourself just characterized an entire group based on a handful of posts.

Justbeingme145 · 2016-05-18T01:32:19+00:00

Parsing human nature from individual personality is difficult to say the least. Philosophers have fucked it up. You think a sub full of autists is going to do much better?

JBrogrammer · 2016-05-18T15:21:04+00:00

You're absolutely right about a lot of posts and indeed a lot of people on TRP. They are mostly quite stupid, but then again, most people of all country, colour and creed are quite stupid.

The fact is that in spite of the large number (I might even say majority) of hypocritical, groupthink imbeciles on TRP, the philosophy and teachings hold up in practice, and these in my opinion can only be truly confirmed to yourself by experiencing them firsthand.

But yes, I totally agree with you that there are a LOT of morons in our sub and the posts these days are basic garbage compared to what they were 2 or 3 years ago.

thenoorys · 2016-05-18T01:41:57+00:00

Imo I think all generalizations are acceptable because as an individual most people in the world are not going to fuck with you on any level.

The universe and destiny have ruled out the possibility of you fucking with and being loved by everyone/most on the planet, only a handful of individuals will fuck with you, that includes all categories of sex, friendships and relationships.

most people will hate you and you're going to hate most people, the grand generalizations are fundamentally true and the ideology you choose to filter/ perceive it through is just there to add color and meaning where there is none.

wawawawipeout · 2016-05-19T20:09:44+00:00

I think the fundamental simultaneous perversion and strength of relationship advice in general is how little it speaks to the individual.

Specifically, what I mean by this is the fact that relationship advice seeks to transform its listener into a person with general strength, rather than solve the structural problem of dating.

Meanwhile, the two assets a person has in finding a mate have nothing to do with their general strength: availability (how often the person meets people in reasonable settings to form relationships) and compatibility (bonding over compatible neuroses and weaknesses, having shared activities).

Relationship advice and raving about gendered behavior doesn't solve these much bigger problems of finding compatible people more often. So most people don't actually agree or disagree with "men are from mars, women are from venus" so much as they think it isn't a sane thing to obsess about. Most peoples' advice is "you need to meet people" and "you need to get out of bad relationships and move on".

There are also a certain number of people on these forums who simply don't have much to offer a relationship, or aren't interested in one, but still wonder why they don't have one. This is a modern predicament. Throughout human history, you would be more obsessed with survival, or your tribe would force you into marriage, and you'd make the best of it. Nowadays, you have way more time and ability to seek pleasure alone, so the need for relationships are displaced, revealing how bad people are at the deeper part of relationship bonding. There is no solution for this. It's just how life changed. Divorces are common because people don't need each other, not because the people are worthless - they were always boring, worthless people, it's just that now two worthless, boring people don't have to put up with each other. Similarly, people who grow apart or wake up disliking someone and don't want the effort of liking them again are now able to wander off more easily.

Title	The Red Pill and the Ultimate Attribution Error
Author	Justbeingme145
Upvotes	21
Comments	113
Date	May 18, 2016 1:21 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4ju8oe/the_red_pill_and_the_ultimate_attribution_error/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-red-pill-and-the-ultimate-attribution-error.274623 https://theredarchive.com/post/274623

Comments