I'll be drawing on Statistics and Economics to make my point, perhaps those of you in Finance and Psychology can contribute as it is relevant to all 4 disciplines.

"An important concept in economics, finance, and psychology relates to the behaviour of consumers under uncertainty. It is well documented that, in general, consumers are risk averse. Consider a seemingly fair gamble where you flip a coin and get $10 if it is heads and lose $10 if it is tails, resulting in an expected gain of zero(10 x 0.5-10x0.5=0). For a risk averse consumer, the pain associated with losing $10 is more than the pleasure of winning $10. Therefore, the consumer will not want to participate in this seemingly fair gamble because there is no reward to compensate for the risk. Researchers have used this argument to explain why the expected return from stocks is more than the risk free T-Bills rate..." Source: Business Statistics, Jaggia & Kelly

This applies to red pill theory in the sense that Alphas invest in stocks, betas invest in bonds. Betas want security. A wedding and consistent pussy from a wife. The alpha takes on more risk by blazing his own path. While the beta has guaranteed sex in the form of a wife(guaranteed return on a bond due to the government ties to central bank which mints currency) the alpha has to go venture out on his own in the face of possible rejection. Who wins though? While the betas wife grows old and out of shape, the Alpha is risking it with hot young women. Point is, invest in stocks, not bonds. Taking risk=getting laid. Ofcourse calibrate.