Is TRP falsifiable?

HedRotPiliCeppers · 2014-08-01T22:20:00+00:00

That is the difference between feminist and the red pill: We want to be proven wrong. I want a girl who will be 100% loyal, fuck like a rabbit, and love me like my mom. I DESPERATELY want a 'life partner' who understands me and enjoys talking about feelings and aspirations and I can be vulnerable around, but I realized that those people are my bros. Women are disgusted by displays of vulnerability unless they're trying for those beta bux.

AFPJ · 2014-08-01T19:49:49+00:00

what findings would falsify the central claims

An 8+ woman with a poor, short, 2-5 man would falsify hypergamy.
Any woman with a bottom 50% man who doesn't provide or validate her would falsify Briffault's Law
Short, feminine, high earning men in sexually satisfying relationships would falsify BB
Tall, masculine and dominant men not getting laid would falsify AF

Neither I nor anyone I know have ever observed any of these in reality. Have you?

redpillschool · 2014-08-01T21:01:44+00:00

Go out, approach women. If TRP doesn't work for you, do something else.

BluepillProfessor · 2014-08-01T20:47:34+00:00

Yes TRP is falsifiable but the establishment is hiding the proof and preventing us from doing actual research on female attraction cues and triggers.

Try a simple experiment:

Approach 10 women boldly. Make eye contact, talk confidently, be a RP man and try to get their phone numbers sooner rather than later.

Now approach 10 more women, eyes downcast, in a supplicating manner and try to get their phone numbers at the end of the conversation.

If the second group of 10 women are more receptive and more of them give you their phone numbers then you will have tended to disprove RP theory. Good luck with that.

Or you could follow spreadsheet guy and approach your wife or LTR 20 times. Since it is the same person mix it up. Approach 10 times whining and begging. Approach 10 times confident and firm while assuming the close. If your whining and begging gets you laid more then you have tended to disprove RP theory. Again, good luck with that.

ubiety · 2014-08-02T15:09:05+00:00

TRP is not an academic philosophy nor is it completely back up by the scientific method.

This is OK, let me explain why:

Academic philosophy deals with actual truths, which the Red Pill fails immediately because exceptions exist that do not disprove the general statements and evidence that support our claims. Outsiders believe TRP members actually think these claims succeed 100% of the time, but this is not true either. TRP is based off thousands of anecdotal evidence averaged into generalities about each sex given our common experiences.

For example, take your local weather. If you lived in California all of you life, you have a fair idea of how the weather will be in any given month or day (warm summers, mild winters). Some days fluctuate a lot, (really hot, really rainy), but on average, the weather remains consistent as a far as you're concerned. No one claims that heat waves don't exist, nor do people claim torrential rainfall is the norm. Those facts are irrelevant to our claim that California has nice weather.

Now a TRP member comes along and claims a falsifiable truth: "The weather in California is really nice." Obviously this is a generality and it's not always true. Some days it's really hot, some days it's raining cats and dogs. Does this mean California weather 'sucks'? No, most humans live along the same latitudes as California throughout the world for its hospitable climate so something about those temperatures are ideal for humans.

What if someone claimed: "California weather is generally nice, but gets hot and wet sometimes." Is this true? Yes. Falsifiable? No. This statement isn't scientifically rigorous, nor does it try to be. This statement explains California weather to someone who has never live there, but understands how weather works. People who live in California would agree , but might add "don't forget the fog", even though the fog doesn't effect a lot of Californians, just those who live in San Francisco - you get the idea.

The TRP 'works' best for the members who have experienced its teaching first hand, understand why (and when) it doesn't 'work' and can fluidly adapt to changes and exceptions. We're not trying to be politically correct or cater to everyone's needs. If you don't agree AND do not wish to put forth your own claims, go complain somewhere else.

If we're really the bitter, unhappy, narcissistic, misogynists the internet claims we are, most of us will live lives devoid of happiness. If your claims, like ours, are 'generally true on average' from your perspective, then you should accept the 'truth' you believe and move on. Except, what we're saying isn't as bad as who you think we are, which are the type of people who are difficult to control/convince of the 'wrong' perspective and extremely hard to manipulate to another person's will.

We'll change our views back to how we acted before TRP or the next, idea set if it doesn't work out. So fair, it does work. Maybe that's an even scarier thought.

DevilishRogue · 2014-08-01T19:39:40+00:00

Sexual strategies can be assessed to determine which are most effective and are therefore entirely falsifiable. Red Pill is simply the acknowledgement that certain strategies are more effective than others.

EDIT: Also, see /r/RedPillScience

hohamocha · 2014-08-01T22:17:07+00:00

When scientists want to find out if a hypothesis is correct, they try to prove it wrong, rigorously. When rational layfolk want to know whether to accept a scientific claim, they look at those sincere, peer reviewed attempts to falsify

Lets flip the script here. You're saying the hypothesis is TRP. What if I said the hypothesis is that spontaneous love and unicorns exist? That would make sense because the idea of hypergamy and sexual nature of women have been backed up by science. Take a cruise through TRP's search bar and you'll see science (with citations) proving AFBB, Alpha males, beta males, hypergamy, masculinity being seen as sexy by women. But the idea of "there is a special someone for everyone" or "women like you for being yourself" are in no way proven by science. Therefore, it should be seen as the hypothesis itself.

noblepaladin · 2014-08-02T05:25:20+00:00

There are no absolutes when dealing with a "soft" science like human psychology or human interactions. There is no rule that will be right 100% of the time, there will always be exceptions. And even if you prove or disprove something, it could be that it is specific to culture or location, or that times have changed and what was true in the past is no longer true now. You can never be 100% sure.

The thing about real life is that you don't have the option to not play. You have to choose a strategy and put it to action. When you meet someone, you have to act. Even if you don't apply TRP, you have to apply some other strategy when interacting with that person. You will have incomplete information because you don't know everything about this person.

At the simplest form, TRP is really just applying Bayesian probabilities. For example, I know that divorce rates with single mothers are far higher than with women who do not have children (these statistics are easy to find). Since there are millions of women in the world within my age group and I cannot interact with all of them, I have to filter them down somehow. I may choose to filter out single mothers because there is a strong correlation with single motherhood and unsuccessful marriages. Will I accidentally filter out some good women? Of course. But statistically the remaining pool is better off than the pre-filtered pool if I want to improve the odds of the a successful marriage. I've read some posts here where some people don't care about marriage and they believe that single moms are "easy" so they specifically look for single moms (there are many other conflicts there, you will see one post saying Asian women are better, and another saying that they are the most materialistic women in the world and should be avoided). The strategies can vary, but it is based on the same principle, that you apply Bayesian probability to the data you observe to figure out what you can do to increase the odds of a favorable outcome (what is favorable varies from person to person, could be sex or marriage, etc). Different people observe different things, which is why there are often contradictions here too.

The chief complaint about TRP is that it is wrong to do stuff like this. When you filter out an entire group of people, such as single moms, that is similar to doing something like filtering out all black people who are applying for a job. If you have an issue with this, you can choose not to apply TRP. TRP is not a moral code that says what is right or wrong, it is simply the strategy of applying Bayes rule when you have incomplete information. It doesn't change the fact that those correlations exist. Some people have different strategies, such as trying as hard as they can to make their first relationship work and never jumping ship even if he identifies some flaws. They often feel that they hold the moral high ground when doing that, but from my point of view I don't see anything moral about that. I wonder why they don't give anybody else a chance. But we are not here to argue morals, we all have our own code.

At the end of the day, because we do not have infinite time, we must make decisions with incomplete information. We cannot meet everybody and learn all about them. TRP is one strategy to this problem. People can argue that it is a "dirty" strategy like throwing the football at whoever the slow fat kid is defending. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a legitimate strategy.

2014-08-01T19:36:30+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Tom_The_Human · 2014-08-01T22:14:44+00:00

"So for TRP, what findings would falsify the central claims, and who is attempting to do so?" Acting like a beta yet drowning in pussy.

Hokuto199x · 2014-08-01T19:33:49+00:00

The existence of a unicorn, and I think every man wastes at least some time looking for one.

Cavemonster · 2014-08-01T19:33:59+00:00

TRP isn't science, its a philosophy.

2014-08-02T00:09:37+00:00

TRP is kind of like the soft sciences like sociology or anthropology where science operates in the periphery. Most of what gets discussed here is falsifiable but unlike in a science you're not looking for the exception, because there's going to be a lot.

And we'll be the first to tell you that if TRP doesn't work for you that you're either A: Doing it wrong or B: you should keep looking. TRP is about helping you get from where you are now to the person you want to be and you should not waste a second on it if it isn't helping. Then again nine times out of ten the, "help, what did I do wrong?" type threads that come through here are people who genuinely don't understand TRP.

2014-08-01T20:43:16+00:00

I am actively seeking out women that prove TRP to be wrong. I have not had any luck and I've searched several groups. The entitlement and immaturity is present in all women.

Even my mother, whom I respect, argues as if she is twelve years old. I've met hundreds, maybe even thousands of women.

They are all the same... very depressing.

fapuffin · 2014-08-01T21:03:27+00:00

Potential TRP thought that is open to falsification:

Men are more loyal and more able to be sincerely in romantic love than women are.

For the most part, evolutionarily men should not be like this.

Potential explanation is that BOTH women and men are equally as likely to be loyal/disloyal, and the lack of loyalty we are seeing in "hot girl examples" is due to environmental factors than some innate "thing" within the female gender.

TheD_ · 2014-08-02T01:09:54+00:00

TRP isn't falsifiable. Largest counter-piece of evidence is its beta males in monogamous relationships are having reproductive success, whereas, alphas while having more coitus, have less reproductive success.

dandeezy · 2014-08-02T00:32:15+00:00

This is like asking to make experiments on something society does not allow, like slavery. you can choose to be a slave but can't be turned into one by force (today). I realize most slaves were slaves by force centuries ago and back to eons ago.

however social experiments have been done with male/female groups and confident alpha traits observed in the successful males. I'm on mobile, I'm sure someone here can link if you can't find it. I'm on mobile.

kick6 · 2014-08-02T01:07:52+00:00

TRP is applied social sciences such as evo-psych and socially. Of COURSE it's "falsifiable." All you've done is find a clever way to state "not all women are like that." And we fully realize that this is the case. Human beings aren't that predictable. However, human behavior does tend to cluster normally, and we teach men how the people in the first standard deviation act. We talk in generalities, not absolutes. So your falsifiability discourse is basically concern trolling attempting to be too high brow for most to pick up on.

FLFTW16 · 2014-08-02T02:52:37+00:00

Everyone should applaud OP for taking a more difficult, nuanced stance and defending it sans emotion.

I will remind you OP that some people on TRP have done "Tinder experiments" and "OKCupid experiments" etc that seem to be about as controlled as you can get in the real world.

TRP first and foremost is an observation about how the world works. Some people form hypotheses from those observations. Some people test them out. Other people in the world (blue pillers, feminists) start from a completely different observations about the world. Who we are in society greatly determines the type of observations we will have during our lives, what will effect us, etc.

When a TRPer or MRA observes the disposability of the male in modern culture, we need only look at official government statistics to see if our observation is in fact true. Why, yes, men are killed more at work, die in wars, are locked up in prison, receive harsher sentences, are homeless, victims of crime, etc etc etc. The stats don't lie, they support the observation. That is falsifiable, but it is confirmed.

So for TRP, what findings would falsify the central claims, and who is attempting to do so?

White knights, blue pillers, and feminists would love to falsify redpill claims about the nature of society and the role of men. They are unable to do so, and often confirm our observations begrudgingly. The fact that they can not falsify our claims is what leads them to shout us down, shame us, and castigate us and lump us in with the Elliot Rodgers of the world.

Opioidus · 2014-08-02T07:04:29+00:00

TRP is not a science, and it does not claim to be. Also it does not conform to this new trend of ''logic no real, only empiricism'' and it uses personal experience, logical deductions, soft sciences and hard sciences to present a better understanding of gender relations and human nature than the prevalent one.

The alternative to TRP is feminism, which is not only non-falsifiable, it actively fights the science that doesn't go its way.

exit_sandman · 2014-08-02T09:23:22+00:00

But at it's heart, there are a number of claims. It seems to me that logical folks interested in the value of TRP would be looking for falsification rather than confirmation.

The problem with the general presentation of TRP is that most of its proponents have a "one size fits all"-approach when it comes to women.

Of course not all women are ^literally like that, and if you're not a woman-hater, you can probably name enough level-headed women who indeed are not. However, if you're honest, you'll also see enough who do. In fact, just by judging from my social circle, meaning all the people I've got to know on a personal level - every single time I saw a woman actively (and seemingly irrationally) making her relationship fail or at the very least more complicated, and more unpleasant for her SO, or sabotaging her own dating live even though a bit of introspection could have solved her problems, the redpill perspective on women has offered a very unflattering yet valid explanation.

whitey_male · 2014-08-03T06:24:40+00:00

I'll play devils advocate. The main thing is trp isn't false. Its just a bit hypocritical. Nice girls turn us off too. A long time ago I had the queen cheerleader who was a year above me after me. Blonde big tits. But she was a fucken idiot. Shed laugh at my jokes even though I was blatantly not telling a joke.

Desperation is a turn off. But trp helps us fight it. So we can hopefully get the girls we really want instead of being bored with the ones we can get easily. Some women could do with some rp theory themselves.

Also feminism simply has gone too far. So trp addresses at least two issues that nowhere else will touch.

trafalgar112 · 2014-08-01T21:29:53+00:00

Same way we would falsify behaviors scientist believe in female mammals. Their behavior patterns are documented and we can draw very precise conclusions.

2014-08-01T21:15:47+00:00

I expect trp is not falsifiable. No real way to really do hard science on it. It's likely an art. Artists perhaps are born with a certain flair or not but it takes training and work to create good work. There is no formula for what makes art work although certain aspects of composition , teqhniques are known.

Title	Is TRP falsifiable?
Author	The_BitterTruth
Upvotes	31
Comments	78
Date	August 1, 2014 7:25 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2cd1ir/is_trp_falsifiable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/is-trp-falsifiable.18772 https://theredarchive.com/post/18772

Comments