TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

      • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead

      • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

How do you guys reconcile TRP truths with conventional psychology, as well as conventional science as a whole?

donit
May 30, 2015
1 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill 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
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title How do you guys reconcile TRP truths with conventional psychology, as well as conventional science as a whole?
Author

donit
Upvotes 1
Comments 52
Date May 30, 2015 10:28 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/37w7iq/how_do_you_guys_reconcile_trp_truths_with/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/how-do-you-guys-reconcile-trp-truths-with.33101
https://theredarchive.com/post/33101
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by donit

Debate: "Canned" Openers -vs- "Just talk to the girl and practice being spontaneous."

52 upvotes
September 6, 2013
/r/seduction

To the guys with Approach Anxiety: Sarge/Scratch that girl!

52 upvotes
September 23, 2013
/r/seduction

Never suffer from AA again: Take a Ride On The Pickup Roller Coaster Ride!

46 upvotes
October 7, 2013
/r/seduction

Takeaway List: How to seduce and keep someone interested with teases and takeaways

38 upvotes
September 7, 2013
/r/seduction

Ultimate Openers: Interesting and/or funny, with a slightly patronizing edge- qualifying interrupts to get the convo going...

25 upvotes
September 1, 2013
/r/seduction

Should f-closing even be a goal on the first night you meet her?

13 upvotes
September 19, 2013
/r/seduction

FR: Practicing kino. Touching girls while you talk to them.

9 upvotes
November 5, 2013
/r/seduction

Should attraction be manufactured or determined?

5 upvotes
September 17, 2013
/r/seduction

Comments

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

As a practicing scientist, with a PhD, I can assure you that there is a scientific basis for a lot of TRP theory ... e.g. the negative effects of unconstrained hypergamy in mammals and the effects of testosterone on the human brain and its basis for differences in male/female behavior as well as increased neoteny in human females, including the evolutionary psychology aspects of neoteny in humans (i.e. why women resemble children).

In short, your post is factually incorrect. Is there some science that conflicts with TRP? Sure. But does all or even most of it? Hell no. There is plenty of evidence.

[–]antariusz1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://www.amazon.com/The-Consuming-Instinct-Ferraris-Pornography/dp/1616144297

There are 100s of cited studies in this book confirming many redpill beliefs from marketing, to psychology, to sociology. But your post is great too.

[–]donit[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about what is taught in colleges, which is how people get PHDs. My claim is that they are not being taught any of the TRP truths, but they are being taught many things that conflict with TRP truths.

You are listing scientific basis for TRP theory, but TRP theory is in spite of academic science, not thanks to it. All you're doing is hunting down and matching up studies that coincidentally refer to certain aspects of TRP truths that we already knew from our own research.

I bet I can hunt down and match up 100X more studies that conflict with TRP truths, than you can find ones that agree with them. That is the next logical step, so I will. I've already posted a couple of them in the comments.

[–]copralalic2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are operating under the delusion that scientists think that they know what is going on... they don't. If scientists knew everything, they could just close their labs and go write poetry about their own dicks or something. They aren't even close.

Do some argue passionately for their pet hypotheses? Absolutely. Is academia rife with political correctness? Definitely. Are the social scientists products of their environment? Without doubt. Does that mean that they are wrong and TRP is right? No.

Remember: everyone can be wrong simultaneously.

[–]Strongproudwoman0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never mind the studies. This knowledge is being used day to day and it shows results by the thousands of subs and hundreds of posts. Many positive results in my life from career to relationships because of this sub and I'm sure thousands of here will concur. Whatever that paper says doesn't matter, all the proof is here.

[–]NeoreactionSafe1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have to be more specific.

Red Pill draws on thousands of years of observations about human behavior.

Pop psychology is really only a few decades old.

My mother (now 80) actually went back and got a Masters Degree in mental health / psychology and I've read many of her textbooks, so I know the field. She practiced as a therapist for about a decade.

My experince with it is that it's rather scattered between many abstract ideas about what is going on, so you really need to decide which faction you are talking about.

Red Pill is based in nature, so it's more down to earth and common sense.

[–]DevilishRogue3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Your hypothesis is wrong. Academic sciences and TRP are consistent with hypergamy, status, dread game, etc. all supported by academia.

[–]donit[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Randi Gunther, Ph.D. notes:

“We" is a state of mind and heart. It means that wherever one partner is, the other is present in their thoughts. Partners who consider themselves a "we" act that way. When you talk to partners who live with and in the heart of their beloved, you experience that commitment in every way they present themselves. They communicate a pride in belonging to their partner. It's a powerful feeling of "us" over anyone or anything else.

See? According to this senior-level priest, Men don't need TRP. All they need to do is communicate pride in belonging to their partner, and that is what will solidify the bond they have with their partner.

And according to another high priest of Science: Gwendolyn Seidman, Ph.D, men and women are pretty much interchangeable, so there's no need for TRP or game. "The truth is that sex differences in most areas are relatively small, and there is much more variation between individual people than there is between genders."

[–]copralalic4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is annoying because you keep thinking these things are absolute declarations whole and entire unto themselves. It's not "all" that is required. Holy shit, you are annoying with your black/white -- the world is mostly gray, man. Scientists know that.

[–]donit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it's not gray at all. We have PHDs stating that men and women are fundamentally the same, and that all you need to do is respect your partner, while TRP says women are extremely different and MUST be treated differently or else you will get dumped, turned down, and rejected by them.

That is polar opposite advice, so somebody is extremely right and somebody is extremely wrong. You have to either follow the advice one way or the other. You can't do both because they are opposites.

[–]copralalic0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

all you need to do is respect your partner,

BP thoughts believe there are many other factors to compatibility as well, such as similar life goals, similar accomplishments, similar belief systems, good financial conditions, etc. A motorcycle chick and a Dungeons and Dragons nerd (to be extreme) would need to do a lot more than "respect" each other to stay together -- even BP would concede that.

Leaving aside any reductio ad absurdum, BP also emphasizes "honesty" and "communication".

while TRP says women are extremely different and MUST be treated differently or else you will get dumped

Not so. Many RPers recognize that there exist relationships that should have ended by RP philosophy, but for whatever reason continue on. Many of us would say that such a relationship is doomed to fail, or that the woman is happy cucking the man while he is willfully ignorant, etc, but relationships go on and on all the time even though BP tenets are followed. That is the true and subtle evil of both BP philosophy and beta orbiting -- sometimes, sometimes, sometimes it works. And that gives BPs and orbiters hope.

Furthermore, remember the category of "greater betas".

So, it's not all black and white. Not always.

[–]donit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But it is important to know the odds and direction you're going in, and that can only be done in black and white terms. If a beta orbiter knows that the odds of failure are 95% for focused orbiting but only a 75% failure rate for diverting his attention to other girls, he can use that information to decide which direction to go in.

But if you say sometimes this and sometimes that, he doesn't know which direction to go in. You have to say something absolute, like focused orbiting absolutely drives the girl away. Or diverting your attention can win the girl over, but focused attention will drive her away.

Any advice given is either going to strengthen the relationship or weaken the relationship. So, knowing which direction the advice is going to take the relationship is the most important thing.

Those examples above: (respect your partner more, treat them the same as you would like to be treated in the mistaken thought that both sexes are fundamentally the same) are believed by redpillers to be destructive and to weaken the relationship, because it doesn't honor the polarity of the female's sexual orientation. And so those actions are considered things that reduce the female's attraction to the male, within the relationship.

I realize those considerations are hard for people to accept, and that their validity is open for debate. But the main thing is you need to determine which direction you think an action will take things, so you can decide what actions you want to take. That's why it's important to make it black and white, so you can determine what route to take. You have to take some route, so you always have to decide things one way or the other.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the field of psychology/psychiatry in terms of "peer reviewed" publications. In my experience, you could wipe your ass, submit the shit stain as a roarshach pattern and get it published. "Peer Review" is a joke because everyone else is doing the same.

Not to discredit the entire field, it has given us insight in to the patterns of human behaviour, however its been propped up to a much higher place than it desserves to be.

On the other hand, observational science (looking at natural world) and applied science (manipulating the world to measure outcomes) are, in my humble opinion, much more prestigious branches of science. TRP makes sense to me because it is spot on if you analyse the material using an evolutionary biology perspective.

[–]donit[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think TRP is just the tip of the iceberg. Our scientists were extra-motivated to find the truth because they needed to know it in their own lives. But soon I think other areas will be exposed as well. Students spend 99% of their time studying the history of the study of their subject, rather than the actual subject itself. The process is the same across all fields, so there's no way that psychologists are the only ones. They're just the only ones who got caught.

[–]despoticVeracity1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not quite. He says both partners need to consider themselves to belong to the other person.

To put it in TRP terms, both partners need to be high SMV and value each other's SMV equally or more.

If a man values a woman like that without being respected himself? He'll end up as a disrespected betabux.

If a woman values a man like that without being respected like that, she'll end up a plate.

Perfectly compatible.

[–]donit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He specified quite clearly what he thinks is most important in a relationship. He is wrong and all the hamstering in the world won't change that. You're just going to have to change your paradigm to match this reality. Either you agree with TRP or you agree with that guy. Rephrasing it with TRP words is not going to bend that reality to fit this one. One is wrong and one is right.

[–]p3ndulum3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Science is not truth, it's a process.

Establish a hypothesis, run some tests, evaluate the results and see what kind of information you can extract from those results. Do they confirm or debunk your hypothesis?

TRP is science in that it is a collective of men making observations, developing hypothesis and running experiments in an effort to extract information to confirm or debunk their hypothesis.

If a thousand men all ran similar experiments and found somewhere that they could exchange their information and draw their own conclusions, is that not "science"?

If the majority of those men all discovered the same "truths" after running similar experiments, is that not "science"?

Maybe this has little to do with science as a process, and more to do with which findings suit your sensibilities more favorably. I mean, you haven't actually given any examples of where RP "science" and mainstream "science" conflict with each other.

[–]BlaiseDB0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But we have no idea of the numbers involved. There is a reporting bias - perhaps enforced here - that emphasizes successes over failures.

[–]p3ndulum0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's an imperfect science anyhow, because of how naturally transient human behavior is. Which is why it's been said before, the red pill is about adapting to the SMP, not trying to force the SMP to adapt to us (like campaigning against fat shaming and the like).

The "science" that TRP is concerned about is about what needs to be done to have sex in today's sexual market place. Those things might change 10 years from now, and as it is with TRP, we will adapt with those changes.

Where, I think, most people get hung up are on things like "all women are the same" and "women are naturally hypergamous", and they want some guy in a white lab coat, holding a bunsen burner and a microscope to tell them whether it's true or not.

Personally, and I think the majority of us are like this, but who the fuck really cares about "science" when it comes to getting laid? Even if a "legitimate", government funded experiment was run, the findings would just change people's behavior anyway.

Look at how many women will say things like "I know how to spot a RP man (or a pick up artist)". That awareness will incrementally, at least, change those womens' behavior - especially with respect to the dating game.

I forget the name of the phenomenon, but basically it's about how our behavior changes when we know that we're being watched.

In that respect, how could anyone run a fully transparent experiment about the nature of human sexuality and how men and women respond to certain things. Like, how many women are going to say "I want a nice, stable guy, etc etc" and then force their pussies to get wet when it comes time to cash in their chips?

In my opinion, the most reliable observations are made when your subjects have no idea they are being monitored. But then, again, once the findings are published, there will be all kinds of outcry, I'm sure, and then behavior modification moving forward.

So this science debate in my opinion is just a masturbatory exercise and will never lead any of us anywhere we are trying to get to.

[–]BlaiseDB0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All science is imperfect, until we actually develop "Heisenberg compensators" ST:TNG. The level of error in anything we do is dictated by Planck's Constant. Planck Space, Planck Time, Planck's Wall and any other factors have held fast as the limits (Heisenberg figured out the minimum level of indeterminancy is Planck's Constant). . Adapting to the system rather than changing it has a long, 20th century history if you look at economics and political economy, not to mention the failures of Communism and such. . Adapting to change is not science, it is just common sense. It is only science when you can muster enough acceptable evidence to say any particular adaptation has advantages over any other. The other key is to have a mechanism - a why - to explain that advantage.
. Who cares about science if you are getting laid? EXACTLY! If you are getting laid already or you try some of TRP techniques and they work, you are not going to ask questions. However, if you are going in blind and want to know what is the best way to get laid, then a truly scientific assessment of techniques and outcomes would be the first place to start. . Professional poker players are social wonders in their own right with a whole bunch of personal and psychological techniques and strategies. However, I don't think there is one who does not try to master the statistics (the science) or what cards come up and when. . I am not a PUA, but my opinion is that (except for the most notorious womanizers with high SMVs) the key to being a successful PUA is to never let them know that you are a PUA: you either have to fake being a natural alpha or happy-go-lucky DGAF kind of guy. The real deal would bury the bitch that accused him of being fake, and she would crawl out of her grave and be all over him in no time. . I am no expert but I can read, and the experimental ethics have tightened up a lot so certain "interesting" experiments could never be run. . But go here to find a lot of experiments that generally support RPT. . There was a cable TV series "The Pick Up Artist" that had Mystery taking a bunch of losers and trying to school them. I watched a few episodes and there is a lot of editing. There is no concrete discussion about approach or any other technical aspect of game. . If and when there can be some "science of seduction" then we will all have to pay attention. Until then, pursuing science over collective wisdom or common sense still rolls on.

[–]p3ndulum0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here is TRP "scientific process" in a nutshell:

Guy 1: "I'm not getting laid, what am I doing wrong?"

Guy 2: "Have you tried (this)? Works for me almost every time."

Guy 3: "That works for me, too."

Guy 1 (and others): "Ok, I'll try that."

Time lapse.

Guy 1: "Ok, that worked for me."

Other guys: "It worked for us, too!"

Time lapse.

Guy 4: "I tried that and it didn't work. She said that (something about last minute resistance/her negative feelings about what has happened), what can I do?"

Other guys: "Ya, that happened to me, too."

Guy 5: "That happened to me, and then I tried (this) and it worked."

Other guys: "Ok, we'll try that."

Bringing "mainstream science" into it just seems ridiculous to me. Like, why bother?

[–]BlaiseDB0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Realistically, the people who it didn't work for are people you will not really hear from. People who don't need it might have found their own truths which are completely at odds with RPT, and you won't hear from them either.

It may not be as insidious as Scientology where the cult takes the credit for the successes and the individuals are blamed for the failures, but if you have ever had a sleepless night and watched the infomercials at 3am you will notice that everyone talks about how the get-rich scheme worked for them. There is probably an "individual results might vary" sort of disclaimer, but there is no rigorous examination of the efficacy of the system being promoted.

I stand by my earlier statement that TRP is a "collective wisdom" where groups of people pass on to and exchange with others what works and what does not.

The difference between TRP and RPT is that the former deals with what works - that is technique, not science - and the latter deals with WHY it works - which is at best philosophy that has not made the transition to science (formerly known as 'natural philosophy' with a bunch of procedural issues built in).

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Psychology, as it is practiced today, is not science. It is, at best, social science, AKA statistical pattern recognition. Science produces hypotheses in the form of laws, that are able to be tested by experimentation or observation. If the hypothesis is correct, the results will match the predictions exactly.

What science about male-female relationships has academic psychology produced? What predictions does a psychological hypothesis make that I am guaranteed to be able to reproduce, given the right measuring tools?

None.

That's why you should not lump psychology with the rest of the sciences. TRP isn't science either, but it's based on observations and hypotheses that were not curated by political censorship. It's imprecise, it's and ad hoc approach, and it may not work under all circumstances, with everyone. But we are people who've tried it and for whom it did work, so while I'll take Science over anecdote, I'll take personal anecdote over a politicized and poorly motivated statistical correlation.

[–]BlaiseDB0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's not completely true as there is almost always statistical variation, especially with anything at the quantum level.

RPT is more collective wisdom than science or whatever. If someone could run a reliable and valid experiment about RPT, that should carry more weight than any individual anecdote. With a large enough sample size, that should displace certain aspects and reinforce others.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Quantum physics predicts very well-defined statistical distributions that are completely testable. This has nothing to do with social sciences.

[–]BlaiseDB0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The point is, there is a statistical distribution. Psychometrics, demographics, some brands of economics and such can give you some large scale numbers to work with while not providing any insight on the behaviours of individuals. Something as simple as an element's half-life can do the same.
. Still, NAWALT is not something I would bet on any more than proton decay.

[–]JohnDavidsonR 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP isn't the only thing that goes against conventional psychology. Evolution, and actual science usually goes against conventional psychology. If Today's psychology was real or effective; Pretty much everyone would quit their jobs s soon as they started to see a shrink. I mean...Have you ever met anyone that wants to be a psychologist? I haven't met ONE that was even remotely sane, and I knew a lot of em.

Today's psychology is here to say "You're not crazy, you can keep living how you live, and be fine.", or give you medicine if they don't actually say that.

[–]alpha492 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You need some specifics here OP. What elements of psychology?

[–]donit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Here's an example from a senior-level priest of conventional psychology:

Myth: Men and women have fundamentally different personalities and orientations toward relationships.

This myth is often perpetuated by the popular media. In his best-selling book, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, John Gray argues that men and women are so different they might as well come from difference planets. The truth is that sex differences in most areas are relatively small, and there is much more variation between individual people than there is between genders.

And just because a gender difference is “statically significant” doesn’t mean it’s large, simply that there is a reliable difference, on average. For example, men are taller than women, on average, but there is also plenty of overlap in men’s and women’s heights—and many women who are taller than many men.

And most gender differences in personality are a lot smaller than gender differences in height. There is, in fact, a great deal of similarity in what men and women want from relationships: Both men and women rate kindness, an exciting personality, and intelligence as the three most important characteristics in a partner, for example.

Focusing only on gender differences when dealing with our partners tends to oversimplify things and exaggerate the truth, leading to less, not more, understanding of one another.

-Gwendolyn Seidman, Ph.D (6 Myths About Men, Women, and Relationships)

[–]frostchomp 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Both men and women rate kindness, an exciting personality, and intelligence as the three most important characteristics in a partner, for example.

so that's why there are loads of nerds and nice guys getting laid all over the place, and in fulfilling relationships: because they're nice and intelligent!

They lack the exciting personality, but that is the only one of those 3 criteria you can safely admit to be looking for in a partner, without coming off as shallow. Women want to be seen as good people, saying they're looking for a dominant man is not fitting with the feminist narrative, and saying they're looking for looks will make them seem shallow. Saying they're looking for status will do the same, in a study. So they lie.

The men lied too, just for different reasons.

That is bullshit anyone can see through by looking at the real world.

[–]freethinker340 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Studies that rely on self reports and verbal reports are innacurate. Accurate studies would observe peoples actions, not their words. Red pill is good science because it is based upon the observation of womens ACTIONS

[–]frostchomp 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have quibble with the whole 'science supports the Red Pill' thing. And that is because we often like to tout that AWALT as if it's fact, when really, it is literally impossible to guarantee that AWALT. Sure you could say that a sample size is representative of the entire female population, but that doesn't counter the fact that it's impossible to study every single female out there. Since you can't do that, how can we possibly say awalt with such confidence?

[–]redpostx 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only point that might be confusing is 4, and i think that's anger related.

1) The sentiment "I really, really, really hope the myth that girls are the hopeless romantics gets kicked to the curb ASAP. Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa" Is literally the same point your reference makes.

2) you can't negotiate attraction is as far as TRP goes. There are plenty of stories about "hot but crazy." Attraction is a factor, but it's clearly not the only factor. Which agrees nicely with your article.

3) Yeah, women are totally into casual sex.

4) This is more subtle, and yes i would wholeheartedly agree with "Focusing only on gender differences when dealing with our partners tends to oversimplify things and exaggerate the truth, leading to less, not more, understanding of one another."

Men and Women deal with anger very differently and neither particularly well. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar03/angeracross.aspx) TRP is in an angry place for a lot of new members. Once these meatheads get the idea that anger doesn't matter, opinion converges pretty quickly. Just suck less is a great way to make all aspects of your life better.

5) I don't think anyone would disagree with the demand/withdraw model presented.

6) Yeah, men get beaten by their spouses. Phil Heartman was recently discussed. This place is keenly aware of that dynamic.

[–]antariusz1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're failing to read critically. There is nothing wrong with what that scientist said.

You just drew the wrong conclusion by saying it's invalid. He said that women "rate" these things as important. This is what women say. Women and men also report a different average (mean, not median or mode) number of sex partners... Which is mathematically impossible. (Math being the least infallible science of all).

The red pill just teaches us, (and there are plenty of other examples in real science) that what people (both men and women) say, and what they do, are two completely different things. Look up "Milgram experiment" if you want a clear example of people behaving differently than what was expected of them.

[–]donit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What part of the claim that "Men and women have fundamentally different personalities and orientations toward relationships." "is a myth" do you not understand?

The phrases are pretty clear: "fundamentally different personalities" and "orientations toward relationships".

If you agree with "the scientist" that men and women have fundamentally the same personalities and orientations toward relationships, then there would clearly be no need for TRP's gender-specific techniques.

[–]copralalic0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The most definitive statement in her weasel-blurb above is that one, which she is attempting to demolish. Straw man. Her own claims are far more subjective. You are going to have to learn to read more critically if you want to criticize science.

[–]donit[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The words are pretty tight-there's no wiggle room.

Either men and women have fundamentally different personalities and orientations toward relationships or they don't.

Their personalities are either fundamentally different or they are fundamentally the same. Their orientations are either fundamentally different or fundamentally the same.

If their orientations were fundamentally the same, they would both be attracted to alpha personalities and both be repulsed by beta personalities.

Or they would both be repulsed by alpha personalities and would both be attracted to beta personalities.

Guess what: They're opposites in personality orientation. Women are attracted to alpha personalities, while men are repulsed by alpha personalities. Men are attracted to beta personalities while women are repulsed by beta personalities.

Thanks for playing devil's advocate and making me break it all down and explain it more thoroughly. I'm going to add this explanation to the original post.

[–]jsl2837 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]copralalic1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The number of weasel words in that snippet is impressive. She's not wrong, she's just... fudging. Notice the subjective voice and inexpert analogies... a proper philosopher would leave her sobbing in her hands with despair.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Who cares about academic findings when I predict and witness a phenomenon with my own eyes time and time again?

[–]System2560 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Others witness that phenomenon too, that's how articles like this are born: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915003232 Academic findings are consistent with TRP (but for some reason, OP thinks that a few sentences by a random psychologist equals the state of science).

[–]donit[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Conjecture and empirical anecdotes are simply not allowed within the cult of Science and are specifically banned in r/science. If you have any information that doesn't originate from within the cult, they don't want to know it.

"Every submission must be a direct link to or a summary of peer-reviewed research with appropriate citations. Peer-reviewed research means the research is published in a scholarly journal which practices the peer-review system."

[–]copralalic0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not so much a cult as it is a systemic way of approaching the unknown. It is a flawed system, indeed, but if you know of a better one they would very much like to hear it.

[–]BridgetheDivide0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could you explain exactly where you feel the conflicts lie? I'm certain lying no Phd but most of the conclusions seem to go hand in hand from my pov.

[–]UnpluggedMan0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People in the real sciences (that is, the ones which make mathematically testable predictions) take Psychology or Sociology at all seriously. They are nothing but a punchline to the people who do real science.

The funniest part is when they demand to be taken seriously. That's when you put their paper up on the fridge, to make the wee tikes feel better.

[–]freethinker340 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The red pill, extremism aside, is very consistant with evolutionary science. Sure, some things talked about in this sub reddit are overblown because there is male bias in here, but for the most part Red Pill teachings are congruent with science.

[–]BlaiseDB0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP is generally in line with evolutionary psychology. You can go here to read up on it. \ . Off the top of my head, I don't know of any "conventional" psychology that touches on RPT regarding gender relations. I think a lot of those studies are in sociology and anthropology which barely qualify as "science" in their methods.

[–]GeminiCrickets0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Heartiste posts about every other week how science backs him up. Here's a great recent post explaining how science affirms women's sexuality as narcissistic: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/women-desire-to-be-desired/

here's another on science affirming overconfidence as the key to success in all endeavors - not just with women: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/the-atlantic-accepts-the-heartiste-theory-of-jerkboy-charisma/

[–]System256 1 point1 point1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is this a subtle trolling attempt? The red pill is consistent with science. Here's an article from a scientific journal that basically explains alpha fux: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19350760

And there are many more like it. Someone posted about this yesterday: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12147-015-9142-5#

[–]donit[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

No. I appreciate any examples you can find of conventional experts agreeing with TRP truths, but I expect that I'll be able to find 100-1 ratio of "experts" disagreeing with TRP to ones agreeing with TRP.

That example you cited doesn't appear to support your point in any aspect. Even if you found a person who agrees with a portion of the TRP truths, it would still be the exception by a wide, wide margin.

TRP truths are partially based on some scientific studies, but the truths are in spite of the scientific/academic community, not thanks to it. If you tried to post any of them in r/science, they would quickly be deleted because they are not congruent with the inertial paradigm of conventional science.

[–]copralalic0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they would quickly be deleted because they are not congruent with the inertial paradigm of conventional science.

Sounds like you have a hypothesis. Go test it. When it gets removed, politely ask why. Good experiment... report back later.

[–]copralalic0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

False dualism. You need to study philosophy before you study science.

(That's what the "Ph" in "PhD" stands for, BTW.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter