Theory Tuesday Megathread: Is Mating a Zero Sum Game?

October 27, 2020
35 upvotes

I mentioned in one of my recent posts that mating is a zero sum game, to much backlash. I suspect there's a disconnect between what I mean and how people took it:

Any improvement in strategy for men will harm the strategy for women and vice versa.

Men and women have competing goals:

Women want to select, men want to be selected.

Women select for quality, men aim for quantity.

With this in mind, the more he can improve his perceived value, the more likely he is to be selected, while a woman's strategy is to ensure her discrimination is finely tuned to select for the apex of masculinity while filtering out frauds. One party's gain is another party's loss.

Additionally, on a gender level, men compete with men and women compete with women, creating other zero sum competitions as well.

What are your thoughts on mating being ZERO SUM?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Theory Tuesday Megathread: Is Mating a Zero Sum Game?
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 35
Comments 55
Date October 27, 2020 2:01 PM UTC (6 months ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/theory-tuesday-megathread-is-mating-a-zero-sum.322290
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/jj1npa/theory_tuesday_megathread_is_mating_a_zero_sum/
Similar Posts
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]Agreable_Actuator8418 points19 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, but how does seeing it as a zero sum game help you? If I improve myself and attract a partner I really like, who loses exactly?

There are so many messed up people out there I have decided to not look in the rear view mirror anymore. Their happiness level is probably not decreased in any way because my happiness level has increased. I win, my partner wins, the losers who make no effort were going to be trapped at a low level regardless.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]travelboii0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

anyone that has invested in that girl, or intended to invest in her has lost at a non-negligible level.

everyone loses at a negligible level because she takes up resources in our environment that is complete waste to others. she'd contributing to overpopulation and those from group A and others aren't benefitting from it.

for instance, i dont know her, and logically, it'd be better for me if they both were deceased from a purely mathematical perspective. (i wish them well)

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, but how does seeing it as a zero sum game help you?

Because now you know that prioritising her best interests or listening to her preferences often acts directly against you.

You must understand the "one wins / one loses" as an antidote to all the "happy wife happy life" woke bullshit that's around these days.

[–]Agreable_Actuator841 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sounds bitter. Have you never engaged in any win win transaction in your life? That would be sad.

[–]travelboii0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Agreable_Actuator840 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe you mean well travelboii, and I believe the OP does too. It still sounds bitter, and I believe ultimately self defeating to look at most transactions in life as win lose. And I would and do feel sad for someone who sees life in that limited way. OP’s position as I see it has a long and storied history - war of the sexes stuff can be seen in Ovid for example. But not every meaningful discussion can be limited to the rules of formal logic as expressed by the most excellent Irving Copi in his works on formal, informal and symbolic logic. Sometimes it boils down to aesthetics- what looks beautiful or feels right. Or intuition. Or life experience. Chose your path travelboii, and report back your experience in that path. I suggest you consider seeing male female interactions as at least potentially win win but with a caveat. The caveat is that If you are a recovering nice guy, I can see some danger in slipping back into being a people pleaser. Maybe for you having a period of seeing male female interactions as win lose may be necessary. I have been there and now find it more helpful to seeing myself as a person of abundance, and my presence is a blessing to others. But I have learned to not feel guilty or manipulated into staying if the relationship is not meeting my needs.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds bitter

Reality is as it is

[–]Agreable_Actuator840 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes! Is your reality bitter?

[–]Agreable_Actuator841 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Addendum: anyone who wanted to level up, I would gladly help in any way I could. So I don’t see how those who want more out of life could be negatively impacted by me leveling up. I’d just be another resource to help them. So I really don’t see it helpful to look at it as zero sum.

[–]Zech4riah19 points20 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

In western open hypergamy, I would say yes. All the goodies tends to flow to the men on the top. The lower SMV man (or to some extend woman) you are, the less you will get.

I live in a city of ~200k population. My (active) rotation consist of 5 beautiful girls. Now imagine if (or when) there is 100 other high SMV guys doing the same. That would mean that 500 of the "most beautiful women" in age range of ~18-30 are taken. That's significant part of the available single female population in this kind of city. Now, these 100 high smv men get what they want but the women don't (commitment) and they won't be seeing lower SMV guys because they are in the process of getting alpha widowed so low SMV guys won't either get what they want.

This was kind of simplified example but imo speaks for the fact that mating in free western country is somewhat zero sum game.

EDIT: Bolded simplified example because the nitpickers struck right away.

[–]1arakouzo12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

This example assumes that every woman who is having non-exclusive casual sex with a man is having sex with only that one man and is not having sex with anybody else or dating to try to find a real boyfriend while enjoying sex with a casual partner (which is very common).

It also assumes that each of these women is being a consistent casual partner and not just having one-time hookups with different men when they're in between boyfriends (which is also very common).

It also assumes that these women want commitment with their casual partners. This is actually very rarely the case.

It also assumes that if there was no hot, socially skilled casual partner to fuck, lots of women would happily date low-value men versus being alone. This is not the case. Women would rather be alone than be with a truly unattractive guy.

When you meet a girl at a bar or off of Tinder or another online app, the odds are that she's already having sex with one (or more) other guys. But that doesn't mean she's "taken". If you are reasonably above average and your game is okay, you can have sex with her, too. If you are a low-value man, that's going to stop you from having sex regardless of who some woman is or isn't sleeping with.

[–]Zech4riah1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this was simplified example like I said. Also i could give you a lesson how women behave even in the beginning of open relationship when they are really into you but that would be probably waste of time.

[–]1arakouzo6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Regardless, the main premise is flawed. You having sex with five women isn't preventing four low-value men from getting laid.

Those guys weren't going to get laid anyway. Women would rather be alone than fuck them.

Unless we go back to the dark ages where women don't have jobs or rights and require a husband in order to not starve to death, anyway.

[–]Zech4riah2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You are incorrect sir. Of course being with alpha affects their interest in lower value men. Also when they are into you, they don't desire other men so there is that also.

And I'm not saying that they wouldn't have other guys in the fast dial, I'm just saying that these things really affect the behaviour of a woman.

I know this is something new to you but many women in the open relationship don't even exercise their right to fuck other guys when they see you as their apex alpha. Same goes with plating.

[–]1arakouzo2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Even so, when you're fucking 5 women, and every single one of them is fine fucking only you and not dating, at least for now, you might be keeping a guy like me from fucking 4 of them, but you're not keeping a low-value guy in the cold. (The penis-measuring you're doing leads me to believe we're pretty different age-wise, though, so I doubt we're competing for the same women.)

Anyway, those women you're seeing would not fuck low-value men were it not for the option to fuck you. They would fuck other high value men, or remain alone.

The reason women are not fucking low-value men any more is not because they have options with high-value men. It's because they are no longer reliant on having a man for money and security. They can get jobs and pay rent on their own now. That ship sailed long ago. A woman will be alone before she fucks a legit ugly or legit creepy guy. Even without any opportunity to fuck a cool dude like you.

[–]Zech4riah1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ok, some key words. The relevant concepts in this matter also are: "alpha widow" and "entitlement".

When they feel like they are entitled to a high SMV man after a high smv has plated them (usually their perception is distorted especially now - also other things like social media affects this). This means that they won't accept the men who they would have accepted in the past. That's why I hear comments like "All men feel like cheap versions of you" from my plates. This is quite basic red pill stuff which I'd assume we can agree on and the net effect is that lower SMV guys get less.

The reason women are not fucking low-value men any more is not because they have options with high-value men.

Yes I agree and this was one of my original points when I wrote: "All the goodies tends to flow to the men on the top. The lower SMV man (or to some extend woman) you are, the less you will get."

I'm not swinging my dick here. I'm just giving some background based on my experiences as well. All this is basic stuff and nothing special when you have experienced them - it only seems dick swinging for less experienced guys.

[–]AgreeableHelicopter21 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This was a good discussion. I learned a lot from you both!

See this is what hapoens when two high value men have a discussion. Everywhere else the betas will insult eachother etc.

[–]1KirthWGersen2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess you mean 500, not 5000. But even that is wrong, as it is unlikely the 5 women in your rotation are only having sex with you (they are not taken), so there are many duplicates.

Also: churn. Girls come in and out of rotation all the time, so there is plenty of opportunity to connect with one when she is available.

Women who are sleeping with high SMV guys regularly sleep with low SMV guys at the same time, or between one high SMV guy and the next. It's nice to be worshipped and adored, especially when your self-esteem has taken a hit.

[–]Zech4riah0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess you mean 500, not 5000

Yeah, fixed the typo.

And yes, it was simplified example. There is plenty of exceptions. My core rotation tends to stay quite long - especially when the emotional bond grows stronger and they also keep coming back when they try to get commitment from the other guys only to realize that they don't want commitment from those guys.

[–]TrenWarrior2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Another point being, High SMV women will gladly share a high SMV man over committing to the lower SMV AFC further exasperating the lower SMV AFC's loss.

[–]1arakouzo7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

In modern times, a LOT of this has changed.

Biologically, yes, mating is all about the female of the species selecting the best male genes, and the males competing for the opportunity to mate. So biologically, a male "tricking" the female with a "strategy" and the female rooting out male trickery are competing interests.

But we're humans in 2020, not pigeons. In our world, cheap, widely available, and extremely effective contraceptives exist. And casual sex has become socially acceptable (even encouraged). There are hardly any risks or consequences for having sex with the "wrong" person. Women don't get pregnant with bad genes or socially shunned for having sex. The worst that might happen is a girl's friends might give her a hard time if she fucks a guy who isn't that great, or a guy who doesn't know the game might get jealous and clingy and make a big deal out of things and make a girl uncomfortable.

The old Red Pill theory was that you had to be some kind of amazing "top 20%" alpha male who was super attractive with incredible game because women are highly selective when it comes to casual sex partners. Therefore, men must strategize about how to appear attractive to win sex from women who are zealously trying not to have it with the wrong men.

This is turning out not to be true. A woman on contraceptives who is down with casual sex will have a hookup with a slightly above average guy because she's horny. Sex is fun for her. She's having sex like a man because she can. There's almost no pregnancy risk, hardly any social consequences, and it's super-fun and exciting both physically and mentally. This isn't exactly natural or healthy long-term, nor is it good for society. But that's a different issue. As far as women are concerned, they are not jealously guarding their sex from the wrong men any more, and men aren't having to trick them into it.

If anything, a woman's standards for casual sex are much lower than her standards for a steady boyfriend. Her boyfriend is going to meet all of her friends, maybe her family. So her boyfriend needs to be hot, rich, and socially skilled. Some guy she hooks up with one time? He just needs to be cute enough for tonight.

[–]thanoshasarrived8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There are hardly any risks or consequences for having sex with the "wrong" person. Women don't get pregnant with bad genes or socially shunned for having sex.

There are huge social risks, but more fundamentally, it disgusts a woman at the base level. Regardless of contraceptives, women in general will act like it is the worst thing that could happen, because their hindbrains do not know what contraceptives are. It's how they're programmed. Women are extremely eugenicist.

In general, almost everything in your post is wrong and bluepill. The dating landscape of 2020 is long past 80/20. It's more like 95/5 nowadays.

[–]1arakouzo1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This idea that only a very miniscule portion of men are able to have casual sex only exists on the internet. It doesn't pan out in the real world when you actually get out there. TONS of average guys have normal casual sex lives.

Now yes, if you are legit ugly, or if you are socially weird and creepy, that will very much repulse women. But if that is the case, you aren't an average guy. You are a bottom 20% guy.

And yes, if you are a top 5% guy (or whatever percent you think it is), you can have an extreme casual sex life (that far exceeds a normal casual sex life). You can reliably go home with a woman every time you go out, and women climb over each other for a turn to fuck you. But you can still have a normal casual sex life even if you're not a superman who can have an extreme one.

Women have sex with average guys all the time. Some plain-faced, slightly chunky 5/10 woman is not turning her nose up at a 6 or 7/10 guy all because this one time in college she fucked a 9 and now she thinks that's what she deserves forever more. Sure, she'd happily marry a 9, but she's not going to be celibate for the rest of her life waiting for him. If she's single, out, and horny and a cute 6/10 guy hits on her, a girl that's down with casual sex will say "why not" and go home with him.

All you have to do to have a normal casual sex life is be at least a 6/10 and have decent game. It's really easy.

Anybody who seriously believes that women are only fucking a tiny percentage of men is a bottom 20% guy who thinks he's average, but he's not.

[–]thanoshasarrived2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You are completely delusional and bluepill, and this is coming from a top 20% guy.

[–]1arakouzo0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry dude. If you're having that much trouble getting laid, you're not a bottom 80% guy. You're bottom 20%.

Your dogged insistence on internet manosphere talking points that are clearly not true to anybody who actually does the bar and online dating game outs you as one of the many pretenders around this forum. I get that the academic stats and rules are interesting to some guys because it helps them feel like it's less their fault, but I don't see the attraction in pretending to be something you're not on the internet when the resources for having a normal sex life are literally right in front of you, and it's not even that hard.

[–]thanoshasarrived1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you auditioning for a soap opera? Writing fiction about me (hint: you're wrong) and talking your face off isn't going to change that you're delusional and bluepill. Go read the sidebar.

[–]tomsmith8560 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, one of the few people on this sub who is actually cute enough for tonight.

As someone who (pre lockdown obviously) gets roped into sex with bored girls who don't even want friendship, I can spot another guy like this a mile off.

I swear like 90% + of the commenters here are virgins who live in TRP theory.

[–]ModernDao2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Dating not zero sum because in improvement in reprodutive strategy ultimately produces a better quality "product" for the opposite sex so long as people actually reproduce at some point.

As men improve, it makes them more attractive to higher caliber women. Win for both.

As women improve their girl game, i.e. femininity, they get better at keeping high value men. Win for both. Thus it's not zero sum. But the game must be played to win, and in a way that allows everyone to win. It's an iterative prisoner's dilemma.

This is positive, beneficial, and eugenic so long as everyone finds an optimal stopping point.

If people don't reproduce, the game of reproduction is played in simulation mode only, and it's basically just for fun, to pass the time, to get some dopamine whilst we spend some time in these meat-suits on an interesting planet. Because it's a simulation, there are no stakes.

And because there are no stakes, it can ONLY be zero sum. In order for it not to be zero sum, you must have skin in the game.

[–]R3v4mp3d1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting point with the simulation theory. Some people throw the idea around sometimes (even Elon Musk mentioned it quite firmly). Any good evidence for it? Also, any way of hacking the Matrix? :P

[–]Proto_Sigma1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Potentially unpopular opinion, but yes and no.

In the strictest sense, there are a limited number of mating opportunities, so that is unquestionably zero sum.

For men there is a cap on the available number of fertile females so that’s a zero sum bottleneck- every woman you impregnate is a woman that can’t be impregnated by someone else. Women have a very limited number of good years and viable eggs.

For women there is a less rigid limit on the available amount of resources for provisioning (since economic production can increase far more readily than fertile periods) There are only so many quality men to go around, and while their sperm may be cheap, their time and money is not. Every second or third wife or concubine a man takes represents resources that aren’t going to the women.

The zero sum nature of mating is more vicious for intrasex competition than intersex competition. Men want to maximize sexual access and minimize commitment while women want the reverse, so in that way when one sex wins the other loses, but ultimately both sexes want to maximize their number of successful offspring. Women and men can compromise their strategies so that they’re both better off than if they tried and failed to pursue their pure strategy, which is why marriage and other similar conventions emerged in the first place.

Prohibitions on cheating, extramarital sex and premarital sex may harm specific actors but also may raise the general quality of mates by enforcing bare minimum standards and can be considered a net win for both sexes as well. That’s more of a game theory way of looking at individual members of a sex vs the hypothetical collective interest of that sex.

[–]zino1931 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but definitely not.

Have you done any algebra in highschool?

You know those systems of multiple equations that had the same unknown values, not just x, but it contained y, z, w, v, p, q....

Well that's life.

Solve the equation of material support for the baby - simple - get a old guy - with tons of cash and literally a village of maids.

Solve the equation for manly genes - get gangbanged and let the healthiest spermatozoa win.

Solve the equation for connection and emotional support - simple - get a spiritual, empath poet to be your live in cuddle buddy.

Life is about choices, it's not about optimising for everything - if you eat the cake, you won't have cake anymore.

So in relationships men have one list of needs, and women have another. They will give and take, concede and manage - so that the overall benefits FOR BOTH - outweight the overall costs FOR BOTH.

All associations, consensual ones at least - must be not only non-zero sum - but be of added value - otherwise they aren't rational/sustainable.

If he is a cheating bastard - that steals your COVID check - and you stay with him - that is because he scratches a itch that you can not find anyone else to scratch, he gives good, dick, he reflects your self image or is a strong father figure that keeps away the existential dread late at night when you realize that no man will love you for who you are.

Conversely if your gf is a pornstar that comes home and cooks pasta, is a great mom and pays for your mortgage - you are getting some good sex and probably don't mind that much if she gets good sex someplace else.

[–]snow_traveler1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT. Society has, in its gynocentric focus to reinforce child rearing responsibilities, forgotten the male imperative. Men are taught they should want what women want. Then their women stop wanting to fuck them. Friction of OPPOSING goals is what ignites sexual desire, and it is a war. There's a reason why it was said, 'All is fair in love and war.' They are the same..

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Everything is a zero sum game, including mating in a low trust society. Think pack to the hight of the US lockdown in may when there were food shortages in supermarkets for about 2 weeks. Buying eggs and butter was a zero sum game because there wasn't enough to go around.

Likewise finding attractive women in the United States is a zero sum game because 60% of women are overweight or obese. Conditions of shortage create zero sum games.

[–]Proto_Sigma0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not everything is zero sum. The entire basis of an economy based on voluntary trade is the fact that people have different subjective judgements of economic value and different talents. Specialization of labor, competitive advantage, economics of scale, all allow people to come together and get more than they would have gotten otherwise.

I believe that so many people are drawn to communism and other redistributive political movements in spite of their continual failures because our brains are adapted to zero sum games. Mating is zero sum and there is a strong argument the high general purpose intelligence of humans is entirely to navigate our stupidly complex mating system. The amount of prey, the amount of arable land, all of these are either fixed or out of the conscious control of humans, and if one person has more that means another person has less.

The reality that we’re continually making more pie and people are compensated in approximately commensurate terms to what they produce gets lost in translation and we fall back into attacking each other over who gets a bigger slice of what we assume must be a fixed output.

[–]BlackSeaGull990 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this is why we get the imbalance and 50:50 women to men ratio doesn't work. I read somewhere that best is when 70:30 women to men ratio. Every guy gets laid more or less some with 1 woman, others with multiple and keeps things balanced, as women need that competition anxiety, men are scares, etc.

If all women want top 20% of guys it means its a zero sum game, cuz even if the other 80% of guys get pussy eventually it won't be on their terms and won't be the quality they want and won't be the girls best years. If alpha chad here got 100 girls to be alpha widowed in his life time. and these 100 marry some beta guy, the beta guy won't get her best years and the girl will already be alpha widow, so its a zero sum, alpha chad took beta guy girl's soul.

+ for alpha chad, - for beta guy, there is your ZERO SUM.

[–]Sumsar010 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And it isnt even 50:50 if you dont have war and famine, since more males are born.

[–]throwaway764321109820 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Any improvement in strategy for men will harm the strategy for women and vice versa. <

You're thinking too much in aggregates. There is no men v women sexual strategy. The whole point of RP is to optimise your individual strategy to make the most of the female sexual strategy: women want the most 'alpha' man they can get based on their SMV, and a man wants the most attractive woman he can find based on his SMV... achieving a Nash Equilibrium of sorts.

Mating would only ever be zero-sum if only one woman existed on the planet and of course, only one man can impregnate her at one time.

Like I said to you in the other thread, true zero-sum games rarely happen in real life outside of games.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

There is no men v women sexual strategy. The whole point of RP is to optimise your individual strategy to make the most of the female sexual strategy: women want the most 'alpha' man they can get based on their SMV, and a man wants the most attractive woman he can find based on his SMV... achieving a Nash Equilibrium of sorts.

Ignoring the entire market.

What changes at a bar with 100 women and 1 man vs 1 woman and 100 men?

The market matters.

[–]throwaway76432110982-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The market isn't a 100:1 ratio in either direction. What happens in the bar is a bunch of people who lack abundance mentality feeling like they need to put everything on the table to compete for 1 woman/man. All these people need to realise is they can walk outside the bar and there'll be loads of options.

If mating was zero-sum, then a core RP principle (abundance mentality) would be a suboptimal (maybe even negative) strategy. Abundance mentality is about teaching you that there is a world (and many women) beyond what's in front of you.

So either abundance mentality is a massive RP cope , or mating is zero-sum is wrong - which one do you believe?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So either abundance mentality is a massive RP cope , or mating is zero-sum is wrong - which one do you believe?

That's utter nonsense. There can be abundance (i.e. more than one woman) and still have a market in which market forces take place.

[–]throwaway764321109820 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

The market, in an economic sense, is a mechanism for distributing scarce resources to where they are most in demand (ie fetch the highest price per marginal unit).

'market forces' in no way create a zero-sum game, if anything the market (sexual or otherwise) is the greatest example of a positive-sum system in existence.

market =! zero sum. These two things are literally opposites of each other.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you read my OP, it says the strategy is a zero sum game. Not sure how you got here from there.

[–]throwaway764321109820 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And as I and several others have suggested to you, this is incorrect. Strategy is not zero sum, but it tilts towards one party having the advantage: if the total reward is 1, one party may have 0.6 and the other 0.4.

The only 'zero sum' sexual strategy is rape, everything else is win-win to one extent or another.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Missing a world of nuance.

If a man and woman have a one night stand, but he never calls her back and she was hoping to start a family, who wins?

If a woman gets pregnant and manages to get child support from a one night stand, who wins?

There is a level of detail here you're wholesale ignoring.

"win-win" suggests that sex is the same utility and value for both sides of the equation. It isn't. If sex were equally valuable to women, they'd never turn down sex again.

Meanwhile, men rarely turn down an opportunity for it, even if she's far below his standards.

Clearly both genders have differing value systems and therefore conduct their strategies differently.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]throwaway764321109820 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Scarcity and zero sum are not the same things brother.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]throwaway764321109820 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's kind of what I'm trying to tell OP. A lack of information creates zero-sum thinking (aka the zero sum fallacy), where there is usually a seperate positive-sum solution to the game as you stated.

Thanks for putting that more succinctly than I thought to.

[–]trollreign0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Insofar as we accept that women want commitment and men want casual sex, then yes, it is a zero sum game. When you improve yourself and attract hot women who want commitment from an alpha, but you don't give it to them, then you "win" in zero sum games against both the woman and other men who would happily give her commitment.

But, if you actually want an LTR and, through improving yourself, you become attractive to an attractive woman and you LTR her, then it's a win-win situation: you increased both her mating success and yours. Of course other men who could have had her still lost out, so it's still zero sum in some sense.

[–]travelboii0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women want to select, men want to be selected.

idk, im also selecting.

Women select for quality, men aim for quantity.

idk, im also selecting quality.

but over all i dont think im opposed to your video on male strategies being zs w girls

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who do you think gets more 'no's? Women or men?

Who do you think turn down more people? Women or men?

If you can't answer that one honestly, maybe this isn't the sub for you.

[–]tomsmith8560 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Mating is less zero sum than we think, mostly because we can go abroad

[–]Nihilisticmdphdstdnt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bottom of the totem pole men get as many women as the top of the totem pole men decide.

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter