The focus on the Redpill has always been on the present and the future, how you are now and ensuring you’re a better person later in life. The delinquency of putting the spotlight on the past has compelled me to write my own piece on what I hypothesize causes the average guy to become “beta” or less successful than their counterparts. Everything I have written about comes from a mix of opinion, facts and observations. I aim to bring up behavioral ideas of why some children are more successful than others.

To understand my piece I first need to outline the basics of how we learn behaviour as humans. We learn vicariously (watching others), through operant conditioning (rewarded for good behaviour = more likely to repeat said behaviour; punished for bad behaviour = more likely to avoid said behaviour) and through classical conditioning = association based learning- I like this person because they gave me a cookie. There are other mechanisms but this is all I need to illustrate for this articles goal. The influences when trying to determine the origin of a ‘cause and effect’ on behaviour comes down to three main categories, “Genetics”, “learned behaviour through experience” and “socio-economic”.


This is going to be a short section as these are things that are not within our control but do appear interesting. Those that are tiered as genetically advantaged would be; the physically appealing, the taller, mesomorphs and psychopaths (to a degree). Essentially being genetically advantaged in terms of appearances allows for people to have greater opportunities in life (duh right), this is because of the way people treat you. Things are expected of them to fit into people’s preconceived schemas that society has stated how they should act and be treated.

People have schemas for everything, it’s just how we operate on autopilot mode; for example you know fire is hot so you don’t touch it, you know big loud noises can mean danger so you stop and freeze, you expect a chair to be a fucking chair, it should not break or meow when you sit on it. Such as you expect a genetically advantaged person to act in a certain way, so you treat them that way, the way society dictates they should be treated. This special treatment allows for them to gain more positive easier experiences, allowing them to be greedy and take more than the rest of the population, thus giving them a better advantage/more opportunities of developing into a more successful man.

Psychopaths need a whole article dedicated to them and I’d have to go off topic. In short a large number of psychopaths are successful sex and career wise. A friend of mine (Dr in psychology) proposes that psychopaths are the next step in human evolution. They are the apex human so to say.

I don’t want to write too much on psychopaths as my knowledge is limited on this subject but in essence psychopaths are not restricted by emotion unlike like you and I. There is no fear, only self-interest. Allowing them to take more bold chances and as we all know, everything is simply a numbers game.

Other notable gene influenced factors include; Testosterone production, dopamine production and brain anatomy (with interest to amygdala, dopamine , pleasure centres and pre frontal cortex – More emotional/less emotional, how easily you’re influenced by dopamine and how you interpret the world)

Learned Behavior

Behavior is the big one. As explained before the genetically advantaged have a lot more open doors and pleasant experiences which imprints on their behaviour as a whole. The average guy has a less easy time. From the minute you are born in your family’s eyes, you are this sweet innocent little boy that can cause no harm, they’re right you’re a fucking baby. However the problem starts when this is continued past key developmental points in your life, more on this later.

Now a dominant child, one that would be considered alpha of the group is usually a fearless little shit. They are loud, tough and develop confidence/IDGAF attitude a lot earlier than others. These experiences allow them to practice and enhance their retort excelling socially. They give abuse to their peers and expect things to be given to them, failing that they take what they want.

The beta kid is too scared to fight back in any confrontation and like a little sapling in the shadow of an oak tree becomes malnourished; the beta kid doesn’t get a chance to develop confidence as fast. They don’t develop quick witty responses as the oak tree will shoot them down and burn them (negative reinforcement), so they count their losses and let the oak tree get bigger whilst always remaining in its shadow. This shadow becomes comfortable, you try a little bit for light to grow, and you get burned so you learn to like the shadows as you avoid being burned. It’s a horrible cycle to break out of.

Now the Beta kid has been trained by his mother and father, that in school he has to be a nice little good boy and often gets rewarded for it with gold stars and report cards telling his parents how much of a great child he is, this rewards the child. The child likes these rewards and will strive for approval from grownups, will strive to be rewarded and will shy away from anything that will result in punishing him and taking away his reward.

No parent wants a shitty little brat of a kid they want a nice, kind, gentle boy who is perfect and courteous. They will protect this image for as long as they can; they try and protect their child from what the world is really like. Creating fantasies; Father Christmas, Tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Magic, Happily ever after, all to convey that the world is a perfect place and nice things happen to nice people (don’t get me wrong I loved these ideas when I was a child). However this over protectiveness sometimes carry’s on for too long, some parents can’t let go of maintaining the image that the world is an imperfect place, and will shy their children away from harm (as any sane parent would).

My own examples

  • My Mum made me play rugby because she thought football was too dangerous (roundball), ha one of my favorite mistakes which ultimately threw me down the right path. This gives an example of a parental figure taking an executive decision which has essentially shaped my life for the better, but it was all done to protect me.

  • I remember my first ever confrontation with a kid at school, it was due to me wanting to have a say in what game our group was going to play. The confrontation ultimately ended in a fight one day, in which I was shamed for my bad behaviour and my mum uttered to me “there are natural born leaders and there are followers, you are a follower, it’s just the way it is”. This act of protectiveness preventing me from fighting my own oak tree prevented what I’d argue a vital experience.

Don’t talk to strangers is another one. The younger version of you would have been fearless, relentless, talked to anyone. I got my parents in trouble for it as I would speak my mind freely, the story of how i would point at fat people and shout “Mum look at that big fat woman over there!”(Whilst she would hide and pretend that I wasn’t her child) is often repeated at home. The point I’m trying to argue is that some of the anxieties and social awkwardness may be related to “stranger danger”, don’t talk to people you don’t know. I’m pretty sure if you thought about it hard enough you can probably remember a time in your childhood when a strange person spoke to you and the stranger danger anxiety kicked in.

Imagine having an anxiety, an irrational fear implemented into you at a young age where you grow up to fear the unknown, it’s a great example of classical conditioning. For example in The Little Albert experiment, Albert (a baby) is exposed to a loud noise every time a white rabbit is placed near him, Albert cries and begins to associate this white rabbit with fear. This noise exposure + white rabbit is repeated enough times until the point where the white rabbit is enough alone to make Albert cry. Now this irrational fear carried on through his life and poor Albert was not just scared of white rabbits but of white rats and I’m pretty sure cotton wool balls also. Take the example above and match that to stranger danger, you are Albert, the stranger is the white rabbit and the loud noise is the danger that you are taught about, the white rats and cotton wool balls are just about anyone you don’t know.

Female role models

It’s quite apparent that there is an abundance of female school teachers in the school system, they can be great with kids and they do their job. The problem is a lack of male role models, and that can be our fault. During early years of education (4-12 years) I’d bet that the majority of your teachers 90% of the time were female. They’ve got expectations for how little girls should behave and how little boys should behave and there’s not a great difference in their expectations. If you were to step out of line they would often say “when I was your age, I would never do that/ I would do this/ my mum made me do this, therefore you should also”, this point is also relevant for Mum’s. What happens is they’re raising a child the way they were raised as a girl, with the expectations that their own parents had of them. It’s their own world view of how a child should be reared, which is not healthy or beneficial when it goes against the child’s biology and it’s the child’s only frame of reference.

The point I’m trying to make is Children are constantly learning from their environment. More healthy experiences in life yields a greater return for the child as an adult. It’s just like a diet, eat the right foods and you’re going to be lean; eat poorly and you risk becoming fat.


Where you are born does have an effect on the likelihood of your potential success in the future. To illustrate this I will walk you through two examples.

Boarding/public school boy

Having met dozens of them over the years and listening to their countless stories there is a few reasons why these boys do so well in life. Firstly, they are surrounded with other boys, and boys naturally have a tendency to compete with each other all the time. This inter competitiveness will often cause them to push themselves to limits not seen by other people of the same demographic outside of this environment.- which is advantageous

Sport, a lot of them are pushed into tough sports, such as Rugby. Again increasing the competitiveness. In combination to this, they are fed very healthy diets and as such will consume some of the best nutrition to facilitate their sports and growth. The mentality; you’re brought up knowing that you are better than the majority of the population, that you’re guaranteed a successful career and that you’re connected to a large group of guys with an in-group mentality. There is no doubt and absolute pure confidence in any action, because really what’s the worst that can happen in life?

Other noteworthy differences; it’s mostly male teachers, meaning less female influence. The education is better, there’s a better quality of it thus a better influence with more STEM subjects encouraged. Less media consumption, time is often spent playing sports, videogames and pranking one another.

Local Government/State school boy

Time is spent in mixed classrooms, ran by mostly female teachers, where boisterous behaviour is often punished. The likes of running and playing rough games is discouraged for fear of a parent becoming upset by their potentially hurt child. This is often replaced with walking and standing stretches for the duration of the break. Mixed classrooms mean equality is pushed onto the children (not always a bad thing i.e. sexual orientation, race, disabilities etc). Mixed P.E. (gym class), ensures sports are catered for all and that roughness and therefore excelling in a sport can often be limited for fear of hurting another pupil.

Soft liberal subjects are encouraged vs traditional STEM subjects. Often but not always the case pre teachers will chose the likes of Sociology, Psychology, Arts & Humanities, Media studies, Gender studies etc at college/university, then take a route to conversion to become a teacher. As a result you will get more teachers who will encourage children to take up their specialities in higher education and not enough coming from STEM backgrounds. Those that take STEM subjects expect a higher wage than what a government funded school offers and therefore a gap is filled by what and who’s available.

At home time children from this demographic will, when spending “quality family time” come home and consume what their parents consume. As a society as a whole we cater to the lazy, emotion seeking, easy dopamine rewarding individuals. Meaning that a ‘tough’ 9-5 will have parents too lazy to cook a nutritious meal, where simple fast no effort meals become the standard. The likes of the news and soap operas are watched religiously as part of a routine for their high and low emotions they give us. This is seen as the norm and makes it much harder in life to move onto a healthier diet and developing own interests.

In closing there are many more niches that could be added to this article such as religion, feminism and race, however there’s enough information of feminism on this sub and I can’t speak from experience from the other categories.

In essence the picture I’m trying to paint is, the experiences we have in life ultimately paint who we will be later in the future. There are some things in you can control and a lot of things that you can't. If you decide to have children it may be useful to learn about developmental psychology and behavioral psychology. If anyone wants to criticize, add or bring anything interesting up, dive straight in.