Red Pill is not the bible

studbro69 · 2015-01-01T21:00:41+00:00

Posting this as a response to a couple posts that involve definitive substantiation of red pill ideas. This sub should not be thought of as some doctrine...

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 69 points70 points71 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lordofthejelly 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]truchisoft -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lycanthr0py8 points 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Modified_Hackware 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ITravelin_Man 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hokuto199x 66 points67 points68 points 11 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]MildlyFunnyUsername 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]miss_sogony -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]OurMindsLiveOn 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago* (54 children) | Copy Link

Okay, this isn't a subjective feeling. Let me give a real observation. There are plenty of men who exhibit behavior consistent with what is sufficient to deem a woman as having a rationalization hamster.

Since a rationalization hamster is only a metaphor, and the behaviors are indistinguishable, pragmatically speaking, we can conclude both sexes have the rationalization hamster in their head.

If this is so, why the emphasis on women exhibiting the hamster? If men are equally guilty of essentially everything you pin on women (rationalization hamster included), how is your philosophy any different than sexism?

The longer I stay subbed to TRP, the more I feel that it is missing huge chunks of the picture. For example, how do you account for homosexual men who act in a manner similar to women (transsexuals/transgendered people notwithstanding, IoW, not men who wish to emulate females as a sex, but just gay men who exhibit what you would call woman-like behavior, i.e. similar positions of power in the human power structure)? If your philosophy is to be an objective philosophy about human relations, it should account for all members of the human race, not imply, "well, we're not talking about gays/transsexuals/transgendered here."

And if it is the case that you accept gays/etc. into your picture, which you would have to do if you're being objective, then the distinction of men and women, as genders, loses its synonymity with the classifications of sex, e.g. male and female, which would entail that males can take on the social, gender role of women, and females, men. And again, I'm not talking about genderqueer or transgendered people here, nor am I speaking of transsexuals; regardless, there is a difference between all of those terms, and if you'd like me to articulate the difference, I can certainly do so.

Anyway, if what my argument entails is the case, then isn't everything that this sub is founded on in jeopardy? I mean, you support your arguments with axioms that are supported by supposed empirical facts (as having empirically supported axioms is the only way to have a strong argument in the social sciences) based on theoretical evolutionary biology, e.g. warbride syndrome and hypergamy, yet there is sufficient empirical evidence to say that not only do females exhibit this behavior (which, if it were them alone, would mean almost certainly there is a biological cause to the behavior), but that males do as well (which means it is at least partly environmental).

If this is so, then what does TRP say now? That human beings like to rationalize their behavior and strive for the best they can get? Well no shit.

In any case, I always keep an open mind. There are certainly things on this sub that can help any male, and I am not of the position that it is completely bunk, but there is certainly a particular ethos prominent in this sub that makes me question the validity of some of the observations put forth here.

It's not that the observations are incorrect. It's that this sub seems to have an incomplete picture. That is the big problem I find with this sub. To use an analogy, it's like you're not outright lying, but you are lying by omission; in regards to this sub, you're obviously right about some things, but you are omitting obvious conclusions that would undermine some of the fallacious reasoning used here.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

someone who isn't a feminist.

EDIT: BTW guys, I appreciate that I wasn't immediately downvoted for giving what some would call an oblique viewpoint to the sub. That's certainly a good sign of a capacity for logic and reason, which, obviously us males have such a voracity for. ;)

EDIT 2: And there goes somebody downvoting all of my comments instead of giving me a substantive reply. Guess I spoke too soon. I realize, of course, that there will be people who cannot debate with logic and reason and thus must resort to what is the equivalent of a gag order, i.e. downvoting cuz they mad, and that they are not truly representative of this sub. But maybe they should stop being a passive-aggressive, downvote handing woman, and debate like a man.

[–]Zaphod_5 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I like your point about behaviors described as 'hamstering' being observable in people from any gender.

I (a man) have learned to watch for it in myself, since learning about TRP.

While TRP doesn't focus on hamstering in males, I haven't noticed anyone here suggest it to be impossible, either.

TRP makes a strong division between the self (where no unwanted behavior is to be accepted) and others (where unwanted behaviors are expected and must be planned for).

Since this is a male community dealing with gender identity, the 'self' defaults to 'male' and 'female' defaults to 'other' unless otherwise specified. Those aren't meant to be global defaults, of course, they're just defaults for this community.

There are many TRP principles that apply to anyone self aware enough to make use of them, but mileage may vary since the principles are developed for males by males. :)

[–]RU_Crazy 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

While TRP doesn't focus on hamstering in males, I haven't noticed anyone here suggest it to be impossible, either.

Very true. My point is that there is a deemphasis on that point, and an emphasis on females being the culprit of such behavior. And that is surely promoting an us vs them attitude, even if the person who is making such an observation did not mean to imply that. IoW, the boys who are learning how to become men here are making false inferences that jeopardize their relations with the opposite sex, and it is this subtle, possibly unconscious omission that is partly responsible for that phenomena.

TRP makes a strong division between the self (where no unwanted behavior is to be accepted) and others (where unwanted behaviors are expected and must be planned for).

Hence my admission that there are definitely good things to learn here, and why I keep an open mind and stay subbed to TRP. I just realize that one must either take the philosophical truths here with a grain of salt, OR extrapolate them further where many of the men here wish not to, or just haven't consciously chosen to do so. I'm not berating the users here either, I'm just saying, be careful of the implications of what you write. The pen is mightier than the sword, as they say.

Since this is a male community dealing with gender identity, the 'self' defaults to 'male' and 'female' defaults to 'other' unless otherwise specified. Those aren't meant to be global defaults, of course, they're just defaults for this community.

I find this interesting, but why can't you extend the philosophy to gay males as well? It seems more like that this sub is for straight males, not just males in general. You know what I mean? And it is this particular omission of a group of people in TRP theory that I believe makes many of the fledgling TRPers here infer certain things about the female sex, and thus further inferences about their own sex, that are inherently incorrect.

For example, if men and women equally are subject to such behavior, then that means that when a feminist says NAWALT, she doesn't mean that she doesn't believe that all women aren't like that, because that is a truth; but that all females aren't like that. And I think that sometimes, TRP may make the fledgling TRPers infer that all females are like that, because of the writing featured prominently here being based on biological theories. The truth is that, yes, "all women are like that," but that males are included in that too. You get what I mean? There is a very prominent confusion of gender and sex here that needs to be sussed out for the newer users to understand that females and males can both be equally men and women, but that there is certainly a high correlation of man-behavior to males, and woman-behavior to females.

There are many TRP principles that apply to anyone self aware enough to make use of them, but mileage may vary since the principles are developed for males by males.

And my contention is that this sub seems only to speak on straight male relationships, given that if a female tries to post here, they are most often immediately told they are supplicating, or looking for attention, or are hamstering, etc. etc. when in reality, if what you say is true, females, should be able to post here equally.

Not to mention, there is the default assumption that a male who wishes to take on the female gender role (again, not a male who wishes to become transexual or transgender in the sense that he wishes to appear as a female, but that he wishes to assume the feminine role in the power structure of human relations) is a piece of shit, cowardly, inferior etc, which I would say is objectionable, if what you are saying is true. Because if the TRP principles apply to anyone, including females who wish to take on the role of man in her interpersonal relationships, we cannot then, invalidate the complimentary (yet, not equal, of course) role (in men) that would allow females to exude these principles. And not just that; there is also the implication that gay males who take on the societal gender role of woman are somehow inferior to their man-counterparts. But that is certainly not the case.

In short, the logical conclusion is that a male who wishes to be a man is in no way "better" than a male who wishes to be a woman (in the sense I've described above) and thus any sentiment otherwise IS a subjective notion.

[–]RU_Crazy 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]jamesbilly20201 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is no such thing as objective philosophy in my view that would be the dividing line between science and philosophy. Although now we are delving into the realm of existentialism.

Even if you wish not to call this a philosophy in general -as TRP is purported to specifically be a science, and empirically based- your findings still must be objective. That is, it must include all facets of the picture, and not ignore the unsightly portions that would discredit your theories. IoW, if your observations and arguments support conclusions that would destroy the ethos of the sub, it is necessary to do so out of objectivity and for the sake of integrity.

That being said I'm not sure your statement makes logical sense. You claim that since a particular philosophy does not apply in a universal manner to all human interactions it is flawed and "based on emotion." Care to explain?

If we are speaking about philosophies that claim to be about human interactions, based on empirical observations, then yes, they must be objective. You are taking empirical observations -science- and creating a theory -philosophy- that is based on those observations. Science and philosophy are wholly inextricable.

Now, if you wish to paint a particular picture by omitting the objective conclusions of your observations, you are engaging in pseudo-science and subjective philosophy.

So, would you still like to emotionally distance yourself from the obvious conclusions of empirical observations of human behavior that don't fit your model? Or are you going to create an objective philosophical theory that encompasses all of the empirical observations we make, and not the ones you choose to pay attention to?

[–]RU_Crazy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're clearly trolling at this point but since you can at least type coherently I'll amuse myself by continuing this discussion.

Science and philosophy are wholly inextricable

Not only is this absolutely false but you've devolved this discussion into one of semantics which is particularly abhorrent.

Here's a modern take on philosophy:

Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences. Pretty much after quantum mechanics, remember the philosopher is the would be scientist but without a laboratory, right? And so what happens is, the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and that point, and I have yet to see a contribution -- this will get me in trouble with all manner of philosophers -- but call me later and correct me if you think I've missed somebody here. But, philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences, when there was a day when they were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word physicist didn't even exist in any important way back then. So, I'm disappointed because there is a lot of brainpower there, that might have otherwise contributed mightily, but today simply does not. It's not that there can't be other philosophical subjects, there is religious philosophy, and ethical philosophy, and political philosophy, plenty of stuff for the philosophers to do, but the frontier of the physical sciences does not appear to be among them.

See the difference?

So, would you still like to emotionally distance yourself from the obvious conclusions of empirical observations of human behavior that don't fit your model? Or are you going to create an objective philosophical theory that encompasses all of the empirical observations we make, and not the ones you choose to pay attention to?

If I have a theory about how horses interact with each other is that somehow tainted by the fact that it has not accounted for elephants?

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I will be getting to your other posts in the morning. In the meantime, I will answer this post.

Not only is this absolutely false but you've devolved this discussion into one of semantics which is particularly abhorrent.

First off, with what justification can you say that philosophy and science are not inextricable? Because surely, science goes hand in hand with philosophy of science, and the whole theoretical component of science (as in, creating a falsifiable theory that metaphorically "skewers" as many empirical observations as possible, like a kabob, if you will), whether it is in physics, cosmology, biology, etc. demonstrates that they go hand in hand, as the theorizing part is not empirical.

What I'm saying is essentially this, our scientific theories (which is a form of philosophizing) either breaks down to theoretical mathematics (another branch of philosophy) as is the case with theoretical physics, OR philosophy of science theory itself, such as evolution. I am an atheist, and I do claim to have JTB in regards to evolution, but the point I'm making is that when we claim particular scientific beliefs -such as the belief in evolution- we aren't engaging in non-philosophy; in fact we are engaging in a specific form of philosophical pursuit, because we have found that this particular philosophy (namely, empiricism and the scientific method via falsification) yield truths that are as close to reality as we can objectively tell.

It is an unfortunate reality that modern day, scientistically-inclined (read: I'm not speaking about being scientifically-inclined) non-philosophers have made a mockery of philosophy, and say that it is no longer pertinent to science. Of course it is. Science is but a small fraction of the overarching umbrella of philosophy itself, and when we make theoretical scientific claims that aren't empirically based, such as evolution, we are engaging in philosophy- specifically, scientific-philosophy.

See the difference?

I've always known "the difference." I just hope that you realize that science is a form of philosophizing.

If I have a theory about how horses interact with each other is that somehow tainted by the fact that it has not accounted for elephants?

If your theory led to treating elephants as inferior to horses and didn't allow elephants to engage in rational discourse with the horses out of a misguided understanding, then yes, it becomes tainted.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The superiority complex is implicit.

When I say, "if the horses didn't allow elephants to engage in rational discourse with the horses" I mean that sayings like NAWALT imply that no matter what a female does, she is always rationalizing her actions and behaviors, and thus can not be trusted as a contributive member to the forum.

These are hardly rambling, and while I have not provided any specific evidence, if you don't see this behavior in this sub, or at least infer that this is how TRP males treat females, I'd remark that you are blind.

The problem is that TRP comes from an almost psychoanalytic slant that is able to come up with a reason for why a woman is speaking or behaving in a specific way no matter what. It's akin to when psychoanalysts say things like, "oh that person acts that way because of the oedipal complex." respondent: "but he has no mother." "oh well, it's because of a reverse elektra complex, blah blah blah..." There's always some type of reason. In fact, it's the person rationalizing to themselves why they are right about another's behavior, and if one rationalization doesn't fit, they just move onto the next one.

Granted, there is a certain irony in my citing anecdotal evidence for my belief that there are many TRPers who have implicit superiority complexes in regard to the differences between sexes, but if you cannot suss that out from the clearly misogynistic writing in the sidebar, there isn't much else I can do for you.

[–]RU_Crazy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure there are plenty morons in this sub spouting useless bullshit.

Agreed.

But the core ideology - at least my own ideology (I could care less about the sub's purported ideology) does not include such things.

Would you care to espouse what you're speaking of?

Any hivemind groupthink is prone to devolve into mediocrity. That's why I've been stressing this concept of thinking for yourself.

I'm going to assume that the latter sentence is not in reference to our conversations, but rather, in general conversation within this sub. I think that is a fair point to make.

But there is a reason you must cull through all of the bull shit here. As you've rightly noted, groupthink will devolve into mediocrity, IF it is not based on fact or objectivity with justification. This place is sorely lacking in those regards, which requires males, such as you or I, to have to take many things with a grain of salt, and also watch as particular things are said or implied that are completely fallacious, while other users take them as holy writ. That last sentence is more literally meant that I should wish it to be; this place has essentially turned into a religion from which I can only extract some partial truths, rather than an objective philosophy on life that I can agree with.

Irrespective of that there is going to be good and bad things to be gleaned from this sub. Its up to you to sort them out for yourself.

Which I've duly noted as well, multiple times. Thank you for being honest in this regard though.

To me its all about self-actualization and a basic realization of how biological tendencies propagate themselves in inter-sex interactions.

Clearly, this is truth.

Whether those beliefs cause others to label me with unpleasant terms is really none of my concern. I'm focused on the truth not on other people's perception.

Of course, and you may not even be a part of the problem, based on this latter reply. Remember, I'm not trying to attack you personally, unless you bring up a personal point without justification. I am merely attacking the general ethos of this sub.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No it was actually in reference to our conversation. Above all else you should think for yourself. After-all the only person running your life is you. Make a fucking decision.

The nature of the sub is discussing the subjective reality we live in. Its almost impossible to be objective in this context.

Do you expect to come here and see peer reviewed articles discussing these topics? Do you not realize any such studies would be funded by groups/individuals with a PC agenda thus tainting them from the onset?

Your argument seems to be "well TRP has some good stuff but its not perfect." My question to you is - what is perfect?

Would you care to espouse what you're speaking of?

I split things into two strategic categories. First, how to best obtain sex. Second, how to best obtain a suitable LTR. I suppose there can be some grey area but you get the drift. There are certain characteristics and modes of behavior that work best for obtaining these goals and I should note they are not mutually exclusive.

[–]codex5610 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Each and every year millions of people wrongly use the term "I could care less". The phrase "I could care less" has become a very common phrase used to express your lack of interest in an aforementioned topic. However, the phrase makes no sense. We, the people of the internet, must fix this!

Now, by using the phrase "I could care less," the point you are trying to make is, on a scale of 0 - 10, that you care absolutely 0. However, if you could care less, you cannot be at 0 caring, as there must be a level below that to care less.

Now, the correct phrase to express 0 caring is "I couldn't care less." If you could not care less, then you are Absolute 0 Caring. You CAN NOT care less than you currently do. Absolute Zero Caring.

Summary:

I could care less : WRONG

I couldn't care less: RIGHT

Duty Calls...

[–]feelinglazy 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zaphod_5 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hokuto199x 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And while that may be true, can you name any of the other behaviors attributed to women in this sub, that can't be found in men?

I doubt it. And that's the problem. The objection to "NAWALT" completely loses its power if what I'm pointing out is the case, because then "woman" just comes to mean anybody who finds her/himself in the "less power" role in the power structure of humanity.

And if that is the case, then feminists are right in a sense that females can be men too. Granted, if females wish to be men, i.e. take on the "more power" role in the power structure, they shouldn't expect to find many males who identify as men to want them as partners, given that males who identify as men and like females who are women wouldn't want females who identify as men (as defined by the power structure of humanity)

[–]RU_Crazy 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2IVIaskerade 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Hypergamy is one. Men do not tend to date "up" they tend to date "out", and whilst some might claim this is the same, it's not. Men on the whole do not care as much about the status of their mate as long as they are above a certain level, they instead try to obtain as many such mates as possible. Women will, in the absence of preventative circumstances, tend to "branch swing" to a higher value mate without retaining the old one.

First, let me state that we are going to operate with your definitions of men and women. I take it that for the sake of your post, you define "man" and "male" as synonymous, correct? I ask, because within the post that you're replying to (aka my post), I'm using man/male interchangeably.

If you're not using man/male in the same way, then the rest of this post will not be an according reply, so please let me know whether or not you think that male/female and man/woman are synonymous.

With that out of the way, I'll ask that you please pay close attention to my phrasing. I asked for behavior attributed to women that can't be found in men.

We can certainly find males who are hypergamous, especially within the gay subsect of the male population. I agree that males don't tend to date up, but that wasn't my point. My point was to find something that females do that males necessarily don't. And no, males really do branch swing, although they tend to be homosexuals. That doesn't take away from the fact that males still participate in such behavior, and thus, nawalt loses its effective edge.

Sure, but "can" does not mean "want to".

And did I say this? I agree that most women won't want to. Most females wish to participate in a partnership as women, as the submissive. The point though, is that there are females that do want to, and can be the man, and therefore, if we are to be objective, we must recognize this fact, and allow for equal opportunity.

This does not mean that we as males, who wish to fulfill the man role in a partnership, need necessarily participate in a relationship with such a female. In fact, we should note to feminists that they can not have their cake and eat it too. If they wish to take on the pants-wearing/dominant/man role in a heterosexual partnership, they should then not expect any male who identifies as a man in a partnership to wish to participate in such a relationship. But, as males, we shouldn't quash a female's ability/desire to be a man in a relationship. If she desires such a role in a heterosexual relationship, she will have to deal with the results of such a choice.

We can affords feminists equal opportunity, but we should also explain to them, as men, that the upshot of such an opportunity will not result in the typical male/female-man/woman relationship.

Feminism evaluates women by the standards that men are judged on, and them attempts to squash them into those same standards, rather than having different standards for each because they are different.

I think you're going off on an irrelevant tangent, and I'm not saying that to out of spite or anything. Can you show how this particular statement is relevant to our discussion? Maybe an example? I would like to charitably interpret why you included this, and it would help if you could provide some type of explication.

[–]confuseacatlmtd4 points 11 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Men and woman do use almost entirely different sexual strategy. That is mostly what this sub is dedicated to. And they do tend to love differently.

Certainly. Hence my staying subbed to TRP. I am a male, and I definitely see the merit in this philosophy. I just think that some particular things need to be shown or sussed out that will allow for better relations with females, rather than allowing ourselves to be demonized and not care about it.

In other words, we need to have better public relations, and the best way to do that isn't necessarily (but may be) to say that we should just cut off public relations all together, i.e. rules 1 and 2, but rather, give an objective view of humanity and its social power structure so that anyone of any sex, or orientation (but obviously not gender, as women, male or female, wouldn't fit here) can participate here.

[–]confuseacatlmtd1 points 11 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]confuseacatlmtd1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My logic is that if there are less alphas, there will be less competition for me.

Surely.

If there are less woman here, the redpill will be more male oriented.

Why is this important if being a male has nothing to do with accepting TRP truths? Of course, if you're using my definitions, then yes, of course, women shouldn't be here, but that would also include males who take on the gender role of women. But if this is the case, then females who are men should be able to participate here freely, as the philosophy objectively applies to them as well.

I dont need it to be validated by being subjected to scrutiny by more people.

Of course not, but that isn't quite the point. The point is that if you wish to claim an epistemologically rigorous framework, then you must be objectively accommodating to all observations and data, including the ones that may force you to revise your TRP theories.

I already know the theories are fairly accurate because they work and I see them happening.

This statement is akin to a religious person saying something along the lines of, "believing in god is a fairly accurate model and it works because i see many successful people who believe in God." It doesn't necessarily make you right, or objective, however.

There are plenty of female oriented places you can go if you want. It sounds like you want the redpill to be some kind of religion to be spread around and preached.

Ironically, it is quite the opposite. The truth is that TRP is like a religious cult right now, but that it certainly can be turned into a truly objective science about the power-structures of mankind's interpersonal relations.

[–]confuseacatlmtd1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dude, you are still not getting it. Most people here, myself included, dont care about scientifically verifying any of this.

That's really not the point. I understand where you're coming from. Let me be charitable and explain:

There is certainly wisdom to be found on these forums. I am not denying that. You can see certain things that are explained here as being correspondent to reality, IoW there is truth to be found here.

I am not saying that you necessarily must "scientifically verify" TRP, and I think that may be where you're misunderstanding my stance here. What I am merely doing is calling out the hypocrisy of this sub. It's not completely hypocritical, but it is partially hypocritical for sure.

TRPers wish to act like their philosophy is objective; that it is founded in logic and scientific truths about a specific sex, i.e. females (e.g. warbride syndrome, hypergamy, rationalization hamster etc.). It omits pieces of the truth that would be unsightly to maintaining the particular slant the TRP philosophy wishes to go for (i.e. that there are men who equally exude those problems purportedly found only in the other sex, e.g. what I've listed above about females). This is a problem, because it creates a misogynistic and sexist cult-like appearance to outsiders.

What I am pointing out is that TRP hypocritically points the finger at women (i.e. females, as we all know that TRP doesn't take to the notion that males can be women too, because if they did, they would include it in their philosophy) for acting in a particular manner, while implying men (i.e. males, because TRPers don't seriously accept females as men into their discussions) don't act that way, when there are certainly males who do the same thing that supposedly only women do, based on their biology.

So what I am calling to light is that if TRP wishes to continue taking a certain direction with its philosophy, it will turn itself more and more into a grotesque caricature of what it has potential to be. As it stands, TRP is founded on pseudo-scientific theories, and subjective philosophical musings. If TRPers wish to say that anyone who is able to hold their own in a logical debate is allowed to engage in debate with them -as the TRPers say that their philosophy is not subjective and based on the feelings of the users- then they should be able to discredit what I am saying. Unfortunately, they can't, and this is why I've taken to calling the sub a cult-like entity.

Cults tell their people how the world is in a specific way, omitting specific information that would jeopardize the cult's world-view, and promoting the information that helps confirm its followers' biases. Would you care for me to demonstrate how TRP does this? I don't feel I need to, as the evidence is quite clearly in front of you, but if you'd still like to blindly assent to what you think is the truth (but is in actuality only a partial picture that must be taken with a grain a salt), then I wish you the best of luck with your free choice.

...dont care about scientifically verifying any of this.

and

It isnt really akin to the example you used of religion, because religion doesnt hold up to observational evidence in real life.

Seems to be a contradiction. What do you think observational evidence is? You're engaging in the scientific method when you perform such an action. So clearly, you do care that your observations are falsifiable (are able to be proven wrong) and verifiable/repeatable (others can perform what you've performed, and consistently produce similar results) because if they weren't either, how would you welcome anybody willing to debate your philosophy, or its efficacy?

If you don't care if your methods are falsifiable, then nobody can tell you you're wrong, JUST like religious people. If you don't care if your methods are verifiable/repeatable, then what merit does your philosophy hold? Jack shit.

Nobody wants to publish on this subject; at least not Red Pill theory. If TRP doesn't care about being taken seriously, then it may continue on as it has.

I do constantly see hypergamy, smv coming into play, shit testing, frame control, and I see my own life improve tenfold when I incorporate and respond to these theories.

I do constantly see people sinning, atheists who have shit lives, children out of control without religious principles, people who seem lost without meaning, but I see my own life improve tenfold when I incorporate and respond to the theories of my religion.

See the similarity?

[–]RU_Crazy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marthman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]RU_Crazy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Certainly I did not say males should/shouldn't act in a particular way so I suppose to ascribe "you" to mean the sub as a whole.

Whether a man wants to take on the traditional female role is totally up to his prerogative. And I'd venture to guess given the current state of social affairs men will increasingly chose to do so.

That being said, there is very little information relevant to men on this sub. I'm not really sure what you're point is in all of this.

Regarding the term "anecdotal evidence" - I personally think this term is increasingly used by certain groups of people in order to some how taint an individuals personal experiences and detach their world views from reality. There is no definitive line between anecdotal evidence and whatever other forms you'd like to come up with that are more "clean" in your eyes.

[–]Marthman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Certainly I did not say males should/shouldn't act in a particular way so I suppose to ascribe "you" to mean the sub as a whole.

That is correct, I am not personally trying to attack you. Thank you for charitably interpreting my choice of words.

Whether a man wants to take on the traditional female role is totally up to his prerogative. And I'd venture to guess given the current state of social affairs men will increasingly chose to do so.

By that last sentence you mean, given that we've assented to the social contract and live in society? Well, sure.

That being said, there is very little information relevant to men on this sub. I'm not really sure what you're point is in all of this.

I don't understand what you mean by this, unless you are speaking in terms of how gay men interact.

I guess my point is that if your purported scientific theories, based on empirical observations, are shown to be fallacious, then you need to either scrap your philosophical model and start over, OR appropriately accommodate all demographics in this sub. It's not about being an SJW. It's about logic and objective science. If you're going to say that all women act a certain way, you must be rigorous in your definitions. Does "all woman" refer to "all females?" Or does it refer to the gender role that is separate, which would entail that males are just as likely to be hypergamous and rationalizing?

If you take the former stance, then you're wrong, because not all females are women. There are certainly females who identify as or are implicitly men (but may not necessarily identify as transgendered/transsexual etc.). Likewise there are men who take the opposite role, and so TRP would be partially omitting the truth, and to that I would ask, "is that really an error made in good faith, or are you purposely bolstering a sexist agenda?"

If you take the latter stance, then why all of the emphasis on females being purportedly inferior to males? I mean, that is literally the ethos of this sub. Why the constant rationalizations that females cannot participate in this community? Of course they can, if you accept this standard, because there are certainly females who take on a man's role, and thus have something objectively contributive to add.

Regarding the term "anecdotal evidence" - I personally think this term is increasingly used by certain groups of people in order to some how taint an individuals personal experiences and detach their world views from reality.

I find this to be the biggest blunder in your post. The point of my posting:

If you are about to provide anecdotal evidence as to why a male shouldn't put himself in this position, I'll ask you one question: How sure are you that you aren't just falling prey to confirmation bias and the texas sharpshooter fallacy?

was to illustrate the willingness to accept particular anecdotes, and consciously ignore the obvious reality that there are plenty real world examples where males take on the woman-gendered role in a heterosexual relationship and the relationship works.

Of course there are horror stories for either side, but the point is that I am asking you, "how do you know that you're not falling prey to confirmation bias when you read such anecdotes? Are you ignoring the obvious contrary anecdotes? How do you know that you're not drawing inferences from purposely clustered, cherry-picked-for-an-agenda data (the anecdotes; in reference to the texas sharpshooter fallacy)?

There is no definitive line between anecdotal evidence and whatever other forms you'd like to come up with that are more "clean" in your eyes.

Uh, of course there are. Anecdotal evidence runs along the lines of, "my grandfather smoked cigarettes until he was 90, and he died naturally," whereas empirical evidence runs along the lines of, "90 percent of the smoking population will die from some lung or heart related cancer/disease by the time they are (x) age." What are you going to want to base your beliefs of smoking on?

The demarcation is completely salient, and to base your views on anecdotal evidence, which is what placing "michael's story" in the sidebar to help confirm the bias of your readers is doing, is to not be scientific and empirical. So either you give the complete and objective picture that the data clearly paints, or you don't at all. TRP is the middle ground that says, we're going to accept certain conclusions, but forego others because of (x) emotional reason, e.g. all women (implied: females) are hypergamous because of their biology. What are you ommitting? Certainly, the fact that there are males that exhibit this behavior as well. Conclusion? It is not just biologically based, males can be hypergamous too, and that needs to be included in the picture. Not all females are a certain way, but that is what this sub likes to imply. And thus, an implicit (if not explicit) sexist agenda is furthered.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Would you agree the default is that a man take on a masculine role and a woman take on a feminine role?

I wish not to make this difficult for you by engaging in semantics or sophistry. While I find "default" not to be the best word (as it seems to imply abnormality if not the default), I will charitably interpret you as meaning that there is a certain correlation of man-behavior to males and woman-behavior to females, as I've previously stated in another post.

Secondly, there are certain subjects where "clinical data" (a term I made up for the purposes of this conversation) as opposed to "anecdotal" falls victim to the clinician's biases. In short, any form of data is susceptible to skewed views. Its up to the individual to sort them out for himself.

This may be true, and I will not deny the reality of this particular scenario. However, I think we would both agree that quantifiable data is much more efficient and justificatory as grounds for a conclusion than anecdotal evidence is.

I get the sense that you are equating the two types of evidence as being equally fallible, and yet, they aren't. Surely, you can form a more objective picture of reality from quantifiable/statistical data rather than anecdotal evidence, and what is truth but objective correspondence with reality? Which would you rather use to inform your beliefs about the world? Personally, I will take scientifically quantifiable, falsifiable, repeatable data, not anecdotal data that can fall prey much more easily to confirmation bias and other fallacies.

And if my findings support more than just what my theory espouses, I would incorporate all of my findings into my theory to make it a complete picture, rather than giving a subjective partial picture that promotes a particular slant. Just saying.

There is currently no scientific way to "prove" TRP theory is true.

In the same way that one can't "prove" evolution? The problem of induction surely tells us that we can never "prove" any scientific theory, if by "prove" you mean justify as "absolutely true."

Are you saying that TRP is unfalsifiable? Then why would you want to adhere to such a philosophy, especially if it promotes implicit inequality between the sexes?

In fact, I think it is okay to adhere to philosophies that aren't falsifiable, but if your theories are based on empirical observations (as the sidebar would have us consider) that ultimately means you are proposing a scientific theory. And what I've done here is merely poke holes in the scientific theory that purportedly serves to be justified by your empirically observed data.

Specifically, what I've done here, is shown that while your TRP theory may not be incorrect, it is an incomplete picture. And upon taking in the whole picture, objectively, one will realize that there certainly are principles being espoused here that are completely fallacious.

Human interactions are too complex to be measured in the way you seem to want.

I'm detecting uncharitableness here, but you said "seem to," so I will allow you to justify what you mean by this, without personally feeling slighted.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which would you rather use to inform your beliefs about the world? Personally, I will take scientifically quantifiable, falsifiable, repeatable data, not anecdotal data that can fall prey much more easily to confirmation bias and other fallacies.

You miss the point. There is no way to quantify the evidence we have. Thus we must fall back on our own brains and experience. Shuddering thought apparently - that we should rely so heavily on ourselves to understand things.

Are you saying that TRP is unfalsifiable? Then why would you want to adhere to such a philosophy, especially if it promotes implicit inequality between the sexes?

No. There's no need to engage in absolutes. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The sexes are not equal. The sheer fact that they are different makes them inequal by definition. Society should be one of equal opportunity not equal outcome.

Specifically, what I've done here, is shown that while your TRP theory may not be incorrect, it is an incomplete picture. And upon taking in the whole picture, objectively, one will realize that there certainly are principles being espoused here that are completely fallacious.

Provide some examples. You cleverly talk in a pure theoretical sense on one hand and then decry the actual application of real life experience. Its quite backward.

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You miss the point. There is no way to quantify the evidence we have. Thus we must fall back on our own brains and experience. Shuddering thought apparently - that we should rely so heavily on ourselves to understand things.

At this point in the conversation, I must note that we've deviated quite a bit from my original point, which we will get to in the next paragraph. If you wish to say that TRP is anything but subjective musings, then it can't be what you've just said it is. And if TRP is just subjective musings, and not an objective philosophy -that is, a science that can be repeated and verified, and doesn't rely on pseudoscience- then nobody can debate the efficacy of what you're promoting, and thus you've turned TRP into a grotesque caricature of itself, i.e. a cult-like entity.

My main point since the beginning is that TRP purposely omits particular information about one sex, bolsters information about the other, and promotes a skewed image of what is actually the truth. THAT is the hypocrisy I've been speaking of since I've made my first post, and the exact reason that I responded to someone asking for someone to make a logical argument that wasn't based on a subjective feeling of this place being wrong. I've provided sufficient evidence for my position in this regard.

No. There's no need to engage in absolutes. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

What is this in response to? That TRP is unfalsifiable?

The sexes are not equal. The sheer fact that they are different makes them inequal by definition. Society should be one of equal opportunity not equal outcome.

Nobody said the sexes are equal. That would be an idiotic fucking thing to say (pardon my language, I am merely being enthusiastic about this fact, not being confrontational). Clearly, evolution [metaphorically] designed the sexes to be complimentary, yet not equal. But this also isn't my point. My point is exactly what you stated here:

Society should be one of equal opportunity not equal outcome.

Well where is the equal opportunity for females who identify as men to participate? Why is it that whenever a woman posts on here, they are very often given a cold-shoulder, or told they are supplicating, or rationalizing, or engaging in histrionics or whatever other bull shit pseduo-psychoanalytic reason a user can come up with for her behavior on such a sub?

Where is the equality of information? Why promote a skewed world-view, and purposely at that? I'm calling out the bull shit as I see it. I am not saying everything here is wrong. It's not. If it were all wrong, I'd have left by this point, and not have entertained this conversation. There surely is a glimmer of hope here.

Provide some examples.

Gladly. First off, you omit the fact that the exact behaviors that you decry females for are found in males as well, which leads to two conclusions. First off, that any biological bull shit theories (warbride syndrome, hypergamy etc) espoused here are really only entertaining pseudoscience that is completely unfalsifiable; and two, that you're promoted a skewed ideology, and purposely. Females all act a certain way, but men don't either? Bull shit. First off, HUMAN BEINGS tend to act in a certain way. Secondly, there are plenty of females that have taken on the role of man, and do it better than many men.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a feminist; in fact, I am pretty conservative when it comes to social interactions between men and women. I don't think females can have their cake and eat it too; if they want to be a man, then they shouldn't expect males to want to be their woman, because males most often want to be the man too. And feminism says that females should be able to be the man, AND still ask for the male to be a man too. THAT is a bull shit power dynamic that will NOT work, and why I believe there are certain truths here.

Further, it is heavily implied that males who wish to take the woman-role in a heterosexual relationship are inferior to the man-role counterparts. This particular sentiment is completely unfounded and wrong. If a male wishes to do so, it doesn't spell automatic doom for the relationship. The problem comes from more pseudoscientific bull shit, namely, the small sample size of men who provide anecdotal evidence in regards to their failed relationships when they participated in the woman-role. What this leads to is a clustering of information in the form of anecdotal evidence that is served on a silver platter here to confirm the biases of TRP's users. Nevertheless, naturally and according to biology, males will often take on the man role, and females vice-versa. But this place wishes to state that the other way around never works, which is bull shit.

Therein lies the religious, cult-like undertones. "Live your life a certain way." "If you don't, you're inferior." "We don't need to provide actual evidence for our findings, our disciples know it's true." "We purposely omit particular findings that don't agree with the view we wish to promote."

I am not even going to touch TRP's opinions on marriage or LTRs with a 10-foot stick; or how certain, heavily-promoted behaviors (speaking of here, in the TRP sub) will actually lead followers to failure in finding a good partner or a fulfilling life of family. It's not worth my time to get into detail, but I think I've hit on the head what this sub should be promoting, and you can read it again where i start with: "don't get me wrong."

I should wish to thank you for this healthy debate as well. It is important that you are able to justify your beliefs, and not just claim they are true because you say they are true.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're missing two key points still. I will try to be concise to prevent any obfuscation.

You continually decry the idea of anecdotal evidence yet you fail to realize three things:

a. Its impossible/impractical to actually gather objective "clinical" data on the subjects discussed in this sub.

b. Clinical data (especially when the topic is inherently subjective and sufficiently complex) can be just as misleading and susceptible to bias as anecdotal evidence, if not even more due to the fact that the one conducting the study can game the results.

c. Even if it were possible the best sign of good data is when the clinical data matches the anecdotal.
You keep complaining about the underinclusiveness of this sub yet fail to realize it is totally acceptable for this sub not to be inclusive. I'm getting tired of writing the obvious. This is a sub for men discussing sexual strategy in the context of "normal" heterosexual relationships.

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're missing two key points still. I will try to be concise to prevent any obfuscation.

As I've said before, we've completely gone off on a separate tangent that isn't really necessary, and has almost nothing to do with what I originally posted. When you post shit like this:

You continually decry the idea of anecdotal evidence yet you fail to realize three things

You're setting a strawman up of my argument. I made one comment that said that if I were to make particular conclusions, I'd rather my findings be falsifiable or quantifiable. And you have the balls to say that I am continually decrying anecdotal evidence. One, maybe two posts mentioned it? So what? You're purposely glossing over the salient points I'm making, because you can't logically argue against them.

It's obvious at this point that you are flailing around, grasping at straws, trying to argue for the sake of argument. There is a reason that my initial post that goes against the ethos of this sub has 16 upvotes; funny enough, it has nothing to do with claiming a necessity for your bull shit, home-brewed term, "clinical data."

Its impossible/impractical to actually gather objective "clinical" data on the subjects discussed in this sub

That's great. That's hardly my problem with the sub and not why I initially said that TRP isn't objective. Instead of spouting bull shit onto the moniter for the sake of argument, why don't you actually read my posts, charitably interpret them, and actually understand the information presented to you?

TRP isn't objective not because it doesn't have "clinical data," and I don't know why you're focusing so much on this point. I mean, I do- it's because you have nothing else to argue against, and so you're picking out one part of my argument, inflating it's supposed importance to my logic, and then knocking down the strawman, but it doesn't matter. I don't have time to debate someone who doesn't know how to charitably and gentlemanly participate in debate. If you keep pushing that this is such an important point to my topic, you can do one of two things:

1) Either evidence your claim that I've said that "clinical data" is necessary for this sub to be objective, including instances of when I've "continually decried anecdotal evidence," keyword: continually,

or

2) Actually present a substantive argument in rebuttal to the MAIN POINTS I've presented to all of the users in the first posts I've made.

I predict you will go with option 1, considering you cannot provide a substantive rebuttal to what I've posted, because I am correct. However, I am always willing to change my mind, should your arguments with substantiation prove otherwise. Granted, you have about as much of a chance as a Christian does in proving to me that Jesus performed miracles and was the son of God, but I am always willing to be open-minded.

Before you go and run to look at all my posts and decide that you want to prove that I argue that you need clinical data, you need to realize the point I was making about anecdotal evidence: the way it is presented here is to confirm biases in TRP's users:

That is why I wrote this:

If you are about to provide anecdotal evidence as to why a male shouldn't put himself in this position, I'll ask you one question: How sure are you that you aren't just falling prey to confirmation bias and the texas sharpshooter fallacy?

and:

The demarcation is completely salient, and to base your views on anecdotal evidence, which is what placing "michael's story" in the sidebar to help confirm the bias of your readers is doing, is to not be scientific and empirical. So either you give the complete and objective picture that the data clearly paints, or you don't at all. TRP is the middle ground that says, we're going to accept certain conclusions, but forego others because of (x) emotional reason, e.g. all women (implied: females) are hypergamous because of their biology. What are you ommitting? Certainly, the fact that there are males that exhibit this behavior as well. Conclusion? It is not just biologically based, males can be hypergamous too, and that needs to be included in the picture. Not all females are a certain way, but that is what this sub likes to imply. And thus, an implicit (if not explicit) sexist agenda is furthered.

The point since the beginning (I'm referencing the first quote of myself above), and what you seem to be missing, was not that this sub somehow needs to get "clinical data." It is that the philosophy, and purported objectivity of TRP is based on an over-reliance of anecdotal evidence, purposely clustered together to present a particular slant, and confirm the biases of its followers. This was the main reason I brought up the skeptical attitude towards this subs inclination towards anecdotal evidence in the first place, and why I've repeatedly stated that TRP is currently a cult-like entity. *It's like bad journalism. TRP wishes only to present particular stories; stories that promote a particular, skewed agenda.

Clinical data (especially when the topic is inherently subjective and sufficiently complex) can be just as misleading and susceptible to bias as anecdotal evidence, if not even more due to the fact that the one conducting the study can game the results.

That's great. Take your psych and socio 100 to someone who isn't already familiar with these topics.

Even if it were possible the best sign of good data is when the clinical data matches the anecdotal

Says who? What kind of subjective bull shit is this?

You keep complaining about the underinclusiveness of this sub yet fail to realize it is totally acceptable for this sub not to be inclusive.

This is where you just don't get it, and where the conversation seems to be over your head. The underinclusiveness of this sub is a sign that it is sexist, divisive, bigoted, pseudo scientific, bullshit, subjective philosophy.

I've already demonstrated this point to you on numerous occasions. Whether or not you wish to accept the truth of this statement is up to your capacities for reason, which at this point, I've determined are most likely on the lower end, given the ungracefulness in debate that you've demonstrated thus far.

I'm getting tired of writing the obvious.

I'd be tired of writing the same unnecessary, irrelevant shit too.

This is a sub for men discussing sexual strategy in the context of "normal" heterosexual relationships.

"Normal?" There goes your credibility, notwithstanding your use of scare quotes.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You call it strawmanning I call it moving the goal posts.

Do you even understand what I'm saying to you? Do you even understand what you're talking about?

If I'm to understand your sentence properly, in that "it" refers to the same thing in both your uses of it in your quote, you're saying that you yourself are engaging in the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts.

I said you're strawmanning. You say "no, what you call strawmanning is what I call moving the goal posts."

You do realize that that's something you don't want to do, right?

You seem to care way more about this than me. At this point I have nothing left for you other that repetition.

In other words "I concede not only that I've lost this debate, but that I can no longer engage in any substantive argumentation."

Why don't you go find another place to soap-box at?

In other words, "the mean man bruised my ego. I don't want to acknowledge the objective truth, I want to believe what I want to believe."

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is nothing to concede. You have your point of view as do I. I tried to at least convey what the other view was but you're not interested in that are you? You're only interested in displaying your self-aggrandized view of intellectual superiority.

I find it funny that you think that you can speak for me. Of course I am interested in hearing the other side. When I am welcomed to debate TRP in general -because apparently TRP's philosophy is based in logic and evidence- and a user steps up to defend TRP, I'm not going to pull any punches. It has nothing to do with being intellectually superior. It has everything to do with seeing whose argument is superior, or in other words, whose arguments are more justified.

It's nothing personal. I called out problems as I saw them with the sub, and those problems really haven't been answered for properly; that's that.

And don't worry anonymous internet people cannot bruise my ego I'm more so rather amazed by the amount of work you're putting into these posts.

I enjoy debating. So sue me.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you just come here to disagree with people and troll them. You love seeing people get worked up.

Are you worked up or something? That certainly wasn't my intent when I posted my initial post, nor was it my intent at any point during our exchange.

You make assertions that you surely know are ridiculous such as saying TRP should be all inclusive

Why is it ridiculous to assert that all men, i.e. males and females who identify within the power structure of human relations as the dominant, should be able to commune together?

Is there something so repulsive to you (whom I assume to be a man) about dominant females (men) treating submissive males (women) the way you treat submissive females (women)? If so, what exactly don't you like about that?

If you don't agree with equal opportunity for both sexes (male/female), then by definition, you're a misogynist, and that is a difficult position to justify with anything other than subjective emotions and feelings, something you (read: TRP in general) hypocritically decry females for.

Of course, I'm not saying there should be equal outcome, but there should be equal opportunity.

Yes I'm quoting you.

Society should be one of equal opportunity not equal outcome.

In fact I thought that particular quote was very well said. Why not practice what you preach?

and that it needed to be backed up by scientific data (is that better for you than clinical? keep in mind they mean the same damn thing). Obviously scientific data does not exist when it comes to these subjects.

Wrong. What I'm saying is not that you necessarily need scientific data. I'm saying 2 things:

1) that your method for coming to TRP truths/axioms should be empircally derived, aka scientific

and

2) That your theories that are purportedly based on the science of evolutionary biology must actually be scientific, i.e. verifiable, testable, replicable, falsifiable etc. If not, then your theories are crackpot pseudoscience furthering a subjectively driven agenda.

and a bonus:

3) and that basing your views about human beings on purposely clustered anecdotal evidence leaves you wide-open to confirmation bias and fallacious thinking.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Definitely not worked up. I'm just growing tired of repeating myself.

People can commune every way they want. The point is not every community has to be all inclusive. This should be obvious. I couldn't care less how other people chose to live their life. The point is I don't have to include them in mine. Again this should be obvious. It is tyrannical to suggest every group must include people in it lest they be labeled bigots - that would be the opposite of freedom. And I'm not sure what that has to do with equal opportunity.

Empirical evidence is anecdotal. To suggest a community is somehow fundamentally flawed for coming together and sharing common experiences in order to reach a higher understanding is foolish. To suggest these people have the means both in terms of raw time and acumen to conduct the level of research you suggest is even more foolish. And to suggest the scientific method is not employed here is most foolish of all. The basic scientific method is exactly with this sub does. It is observation (experience) driven. People make observations, come up with hypotheses, go back out into the world and test their theories. There's a reason why this shit works its because people are constantly testing it and proving to be true. This is science 101. Would you be happier if we wore a nice white lab coat while we did it?

Again you sidestep my comment and instead provide peace-meal responses. Why do you continue this? What is your agenda?

[–]Marthman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Definitely not worked up. I'm just growing tired of repeating myself.

Well, you explicitly brought it up.

People can commune every way they want. The point is not every community has to be all inclusive.

On rational bases. Sure. What is your rational basis for your non-inclusiveness?

If you discriminate on some irrational level, that's when it becomes a problem of bigotry. So go ahead, I'm listening.

This should be obvious. I couldn't care less

looks like you finally got that phrasing down. good job.

how other people chose to live their life. The point is I don't have to include them in mine. Again this should be obvious. It is tyrannical to suggest every group must include people in it lest they be labeled bigots - that would be the opposite of freedom.

Said the whites when they didn't want the blacks in their ice cream parlors.

And I'm not sure what that has to do with equal opportunity.

Yes you do. You're obviously not stupid, so use your brain. Unless there is some rational reason to be non-inclusive, you're being a bigot (aka letting your feelsies dictate your behavior and thought processes). How about you don't impinge on others' freedom?

Empirical evidence is anecdotal.

This statement has me thinking that you bothered to look up neither empirical nor anecdotal. So, here we go:

empirical evidence: a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation

anecdotal evidence: well, it may be better if you just do a little reading

To suggest a community is somehow fundamentally flawed for coming together and sharing common experiences in order to reach a higher understanding is foolish.

I didn't suggest this. It's no wonder you grow tired of repeating yourself: you can't even buy your own bull shit. Read my last post for problems with TRP in general.

To suggest these people have the means both in terms of raw time and acumen to conduct the level of research you suggest is even more foolish.

If you wish to claim facts about the world, scientifically or philosophically, either bring forth your respective empirical evidence or objective, theoretical justification, or GTFO and stop complaining.

And to suggest the scientific method is not employed here is most foolish of all.

Well, considering that you don't know the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence makes me question your authority in regards to such a statement.

The basic scientific method is exactly with this sub does.

No, the sub as an entity in general does not engage in anything remotely scientific. There may be some individual users who engage in social-scientific endeavors, but it's certainly not the sub as a whole. Do recall my saying that there are some indispensable truths here, if you will, in many of my posts.

It is observation (experience) driven. People make observations, come up with hypotheses, go back out into the world and test their theories.

Huh, I wonder how you test theories like rationalization hamsters, NAWALT, warbride syndrome, etc.

Not to mention, I wonder why a full picture isn't given in regards to, for example, the existence of hypergamic behavior in both the sexes, rather than just a slanted picture of it occurring in only one.

There's a reason why this shit works its because people are constantly testing it and proving to be true. This is science 101.

Cool it. I didn't say everything was bull shit. I said a lot of it is, because it is; users tend to unjustifiably extrapolate far beyond what their findings actually indicate, in addition to purposely concealing contradictory or unsightly findings, both of which are extremely unscientific behaviors.

[–]RU_Crazy1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OurMindsLiveOn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok now i understand your original question with a much clearer picture. you dont understand why people are downvoted for questioning such strong POVs. You "think" your being objective but your not. If you were youd see that most of the things you pointed out (besides trangender stuff) is addressed in the sidebar, and the main tenant of trp is just what you accused each individual of not doing... realizing their own hamster.

Look at this obectively for a second. 1. how do we view the typical "nice guy" 2.how many "betas" are praised and lauded 3. what is the mindset we hold towards enabled cuckolding, giving up material goods and showing to much affection.

none of this is considered good, but yet we understand how it has happened and why it is advised to change. where is the hamstering in regards to self improvement and deconstruction of these behaviors?

You also seem to have come to the conclusion that if our information proves women do things, and men do things of a similar evolutionary strategy (which you didnt provide so im not sure what it is). then its for a reason and we are looking at things subjectively, from objective data. Therefore we are voicing faulty positions. But thats wrong because we still operate in a system that allows one gender to operate towards their reproductive goals, much more so than the other. The government, television and our society (the humans we are forced around since birth) all perpetuate this. How is this subjective? How else could we address this?

Finally you seem to believe everyone else has drawn the wrong conclusion, and is lying by omission, How could you do this? only by using your own reasoning from objective information, and a limited and biased world view AKA subjectivity.

I want you to understand when you try to steer someone towards seeing things from your point of view that is subjectivity. people can see through this very easily and choose to silence you rather then waste as much time as i did responding.

EDIT: oh shit your not the same person that asked the original question, oh well im leaving it there.

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

when you try to steer someone towards seeing things from your point of view that is subjectivity.

Exactly. What TRP is (somewhat) objectivity (i.e. as close as we can get to it), drawn from the experiences of tens of thousands of men.

To discount TRP, over the opinion of one person (the OP's) is a bit myopic.

In fact, "main street" consensus is myopic as fuck-- it's politically correct bullshit we've been fed all of our lives.

Hence, while I don't accept all of what I find on TRP, it is a very important source of ideas and potential values for me. It is a shared experience with other men.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Guys who have experienced first hand the shittiness of the American Self-Absorbed Female Entitlement Complex, come here their two cents about many things: - how the world works - their concerns with cultural trends - their recent experiences with other people - ideas & motivation for self development

No one is pushing TRP on anyone, it's just there.

... as a collectively-shared human experience.

Sort of an anonymous, written, modular documentary in motion, written on the fly from the minds of thousands of (virtually entirely) straight males.

Anyone who doesn't take "TRP" with moderation (like anything else a person tells you, whether via word of mouth, internet, written word, we're each individual people.. prone to all manner of qualities including insanity and enlightenment) and realize that the experiences written about on TRP are circumstantial (unique to that person/those people and event) and not necessarily applicable to every situation nor necessarily are experiences replicable, is shooting themselves in the dick.

[–]truchisoft7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

We've all been taught different things bro. I have no fucking clue what you've been taught, or where you're from. Only you can figure that out for yourself, and TRP is a good starting place for clarifying misconceptions thanks to the trends in ppl's shared experiences one can observe here.

Different cultures are learn different things, including misconceptions growing up. This practically defines "culture".

Read the sidebar, take mental notes, and afterwards I suggest /r/AskTRP to ask some questions, receive feedback, and share what you (think you've) learned, from your perspective.

I truly believe you have enough braincells to answer this yourself, but if you don't, post this question on /r/asktrp :

"What parts of what we've havbeen taught are contradicted by TRP?".

Likely though you'll get people telling you to read the sidebar, because people who do that are capable of answering this question for themselves.

There are some options for you. You know which one is the r

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

[–]R4F1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sir_wankalot_here 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Hokuto199x 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]pissoutofmyass11 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FetusFeces 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]polysyllabist 10 points10 points10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]aesthetic-as-fuck 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

There's a lot that's useless here, such as the stuff about how women don't have personalities or they're inherently weak and so on. Look, that's misogynistic and poisonous. No self-actualized/zen/powerful person ever says shit like that. It simply doesn't cross your mind to criticize people gratuitously if you have a good life and a good self image. There's no such thing as a racist who loves himself for instance. If you were getting laid by a few hot girls in a rotation you almost certainly wouldn't be calling women weak.

Hate, or actions that most people would agree are malign at heart...that's an emotion of weakness. Everything from systematic bigotry to road rage comes from a feeling of powerlessness. I make it a point to never get mad in my car anymore because I'm in control of my destiny at all times. My life isn't determined by traffic. I can get anywhere on time if I take control like I'm supposed to. Dumb, but you gotta live it in every facet of your life. Just be a fucking winner at all times.

What I find useful about TRP is you can improve your acuity in reading people and handling different social situations. I read stuff that I never thought of before but which applies to my experiences. It only helps to think critically about your social interactions all the time. SO this is mainly for sexual strategy IMO but the skillset is applicable elsewhere too.

TL DR - I agree that society maligns men a bit and women currently have too much SMV due to that + technology. But hate is for losers. Be honest with yourself and don't rationalize hate as cold analysis of "the way things are."

[–]hybridwarrior 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aesthetic-as-fuck 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hybridwarrior1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]aesthetic-as-fuck 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]hybridwarrior1 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Is trailer park white trash Billy Bob superior to highly accomplished black president Barack Obama? Does the generalization of "superiority of the white race" apply to these two extremes as well? If the two met on the street, based on your beliefs, Barack Obama should be bowing down to Billy Bob, cleaning up his trailer, and buying him some beers just because his race is inferior.

Seems false to me. But one believes what one believes.

What you said about Buddha sounds hilarious, though from a intellectual standpoint, I'd need sources to actually consider that was the Buddha who said that. I have read that some Chinese women in power treated sex as an act of power acquisition, so their male partners were said to have been "devoured". I could see that aligning with that snake's mouth > vagina mentality.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hybridwarrior2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hybridwarrior1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jordoom 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Totally agree.

FWIW, I do read the Bible, and I do have religion, so I would never go to RP for that, anyway. And my faith is the filter through which I view everything, including what I read on here. Honestly, many of you might probably call me a beta for some of my opinions, beliefs, and choices, but I have always been an alpha in making them and in my refusal to bend to whim or convention.

Anyway, RP helps me sympathize with people I might not normally sympathize with (by understanding the science and thought-processes behind their mistakes, and my own past mistakes), and it also has helped me know what kind of women to "weed out", and how, and how to tell. I'm a very sensitive and emotive person, I'm empathetic and make connections (not even just romantic) quickly. RP has helped me guard my heart better, and given me tools in pursuing the kinds of women I am interested in.

In short, I use RP not to pick up women, but to pick up less women.

[–]hybridwarrior2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]1User-31f64a4e 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2RedPillSafe 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]Rugnardl 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]truchisoft 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I completely disagree. I have a BP friend that I am trying to convert, he is slowly coming to terms but i am constantly met with "What you are saying is offensive to me", only after a few weeks of rational discussion i manage to make him see the truth. Being open to dissent will open the floodgates to these kind of dwellers, and this will only hurt everyone in the short-mid and long term.

Red Pill is the culmination of over two decades of battle-tested field research by countless souls, nothing you say contrary to RP can be true. But of course RP is upgradeable, there might be better way to explain what RP explains now, but the core of RP is canon because it explains the real truth.

This is like the Original Three laws of physics, you can still explain the world using them, even if they are outdated now, and there are better laws that explain the world to us. Thing is, they all grew from the original three.

[–]studbro69[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]R4F1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]studbro69[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]ultrasuperthrowaway 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]1cover20 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Nitrobroom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nitrobroom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I try not to use big words because I know lots of High School educated guys like you will not understand. Actually, I teach research methods to college students, among other courses.

Consider a simple, basic experimental design which has never been done so far as I am aware: Experimenters A and B are 2 men who look subjectively alike within 1 point as ranked by 20 of their peers. They are solid 9's. Hawwwt guys.

Subject A tries the Blue Pill approach, bowing his head, shoulders slumped, talking softly, basic supplicating behavior. No eye contact etc.

B approaches like a playa, confident, cocky, funny A & A, sexualizing early and often, Kino, the full monty.

Each approach 100 women randomly at a night club over several nights. The targets are randomly chosen by other experimenters.

This is a controlled experiment. The only variables are the behavior of A and B and how the women react to A and B. Note also, A and B are subject to the same conditions in the same experimental paradigm.

You could make it more complicated by adding 2 additional men- say 5's or 6's, regular dudes. Now you can compare the success of the regular dudes and the hawt dudes using game because you are using the same controls in the same experiment.

In contrast, deducing the Red Pill involved one guy approaching 100 times and telling us. Then another guy approaching and telling us and so on. These observations are not within the same experimental paradigm and the variables are MANY in each case. He records success, but what is the basis of the success? Did he dress differently? Did he speak more forcefully? Did he just 'get lucky' last night and is shining today? Did he go to a different club? A different country? Did he look better or worse than other guys who report? There are no controls on his behavior so he is not engaging in scientific experimentation.

The only Independent variable in the experiment I propose is the behavior of A and B.

The Dependent variable is the woman's response to the behavior of A and B.

There is also a Hypothesis guiding the research: We hypothesize that the Red Pill acting playa will get more girls to suck his dick and spend more time interacting with each girl.

I am not aware of a single controlled experiment isolating the variables in one paradigm because you could not do an "unethical" experiment like this. The IRB would not let you, and yes, you can't do modern science without IRB approval under the Nuremburg protocols. It is simply not allowed.

[–]Nitrobroom 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

It depends on the IRB (even small schools have a separate board). Almost all of them are extremely strict and will not allow anything that might harm human subjects. They also require full disclosure of the experiment and only allow "deception" in narrow circumstances and only if it is revealed to the subject later. These are the Nuremburg protocols for a reason as they began all of this after the horrifying Nazi experiments on human subjects. The idea is you need to get informed consent to experiment on human subjects. PUA experiments would fall under Social Psychology and I can't imagine anything like what we have done on this blog and many others to be allowed, ever. That is one of the reasons our methodology is superior to modern day "science" because Informed Consent is not going to work very well in seduction.

[–]Squeezymypenisy -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]studbro69[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Squeezymypenisy -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Red Pill is not the bible
Author	studbro69
Upvotes	236
Comments	130
Date	January 1, 2015 9:00 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2r19rs/red_pill_is_not_the_bible/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/red-pill-is-not-the-bible.27280 https://theredarchive.com/post/27280

Comments