TRP vs Academics

OlBastard · 2015-04-03T17:20:03+00:00

Most of what you'll find in social science textbooks is just as feminized as the rest of society, that's not a surprise. The interpretations presented by the authors of papers and books are not theories, but merely candidates.

TRP isn't a science. It's about utilizing science and research to develop efficient strategies on living well.

When you read interpretations which don't jive with TRP(as it's a fairly fluid philosophy), chances are, it's merely the author's biased take on the data. Go find the study, look at the methods and the data, and draw your own inferences.

1) Justifying myths? Swallowing the pill isn't easy. It's a dreadful and sobering experience.

2) Just-world? If anything, TRP claims that the world isn't just, and that you're supposed to take initiative and make it just for yourself.

3) Positive illusions? Once again, TRP deals with the ugly reality, and does its best to avoid misplaced grandeur.

If you have any theories countering TRP, I'd sure as hell like to hear them.

ThatRedPiller · 2015-04-03T18:29:58+00:00

I really, really do not see where you're coming from with this. I don't think that the idea that academics disagree with TRP is accurate at all.

Sure, if you directly presented TRP to them, most would probably deny the truth of it due to their own bias. However, if you look at actual research and studies that are not based on 'this many people SAID they did/like/prefer/whatever this' (ask a woman if she likes a guy who is jacked or average, she'll normally say average - but present images to her of a ripped guy and an average guy in an anonymous survey... Guess who wins) , the majority of it lines up well with TRP.

In fact, in the last few weeks I've seen solid studies showing that women are more attracted to the SAME person when they know that they're wealthy. I've seen studies this week showing how women prefer heavily masculine traits when ovulating and less so when not (comfort vs alpha traits). This is agreed with in TRP as anybody will tell you that if you want to have a successful LTR you need to BALANCE beta and alpha traits, not just be alpha. I've seen studies in the last week that show that when women are more fertile, they're more likely to be noticed at a bar and be more social, which works perfectly with red pill ideas, especially when you link it to the first study.

Science backs all of this shit up. Look at evolutionary research, behaviouralism, general biology and, despite what you say, psychological studies. They might frame it in a fairly blue pill way a lot of the time, but the actual facts heavily back up TRP.

Ask any serious biologist and they will tell you that humans are animals. That's it. We're driven by instinct far more than we would like to admit. That is what TRP is. TRP is understanding that we're all driven by instinct and just what that means... And science absolutely backs it up. Just about all of it.

LeGrandDiableBlanc · 2015-04-03T20:47:43+00:00

From when I was in college, I can remember the very moment that I lost 'faith' in established academics.

I was wondering why professors were writing their papers on seemingly banal and overdone topics. Why weren't many really interesting things being studied?

The answer comes down to grants. Academics and grants go hand in hand. This is especially true for research based academics like Psychology and Sociology.

Academics focus their studies where the grants for studies exist. This means that most or all academic researchers are biased towards wherever the money is coming from. This is problematic, because things as seemingly benign as how you phrase the subject of your research can have a significant impact on your findings. These academic researchers are also heavily incentivized to come up with positive results. You want the grant givers to feel like the grant was worthwhile, and you want your academic record to look like you’re figuring all kinds of shit out so the university/college is more likely to grant you tenure, etc.

And that doesn’t even begin to open the Pandora’s box that are the methodological problems in the social sciences. I have never met a ‘hard’ scientist who takes any social science research seriously. The methodology of the research is almost always shaky at best. Self reported survey results are essentially at the mercy of how the survey questions are phrased, for example.

I think you might benefit from some old school style Greek skepticism. You have to take all authority with a grain of salt. Official titles don’t necessarily mean everything. Be suspicious of everyone. For a great example of a self-described idiot who actually was a lot smarter than officially titled figureheads, look no further than Socrates. Here is a compendium of Plato’s Socratic dialogues.

Danedina · 2015-04-03T17:43:10+00:00

No, I don't agree with what you're saying. I have a high degree of respect for academia. I look at the research they've done and cast a critical eye on their conclusions. I do the same here. I don't take anything on face value.

I'd be happy if you provided some examples of the types of spurious reasoning in psychological literature you refer to. Are you talking journals? Most of these tend to be dry and heavily qualified. Textbooks? They usually seem pretty safe to my eyes. Lectures? There, sure, you're going to get personal bias, but I don't have a problem with that. A good professor tells a story based on facts that touch on deeper meanings. Do some of them go to far? Sure. But that's why you need critical thinking skills and the good ones encourage debate.

masterrod · 2015-04-03T21:14:06+00:00

I think we all can agree that there's a difference between the ideologies of modern day academia and TRP

Why do you think this?

The problem is that people in the academia tend to be experts in their respective fields, professors of psychology, sociology and various other disciplines harbor theories that run widely counter to TRP.

I'm not sure this is really true. There are conflicting views on relationships. You also must think of perspectives. The common theory of relationships is that they are nearly random, but there are skills that each partner can learn. That's because it doesn't serve anyone trying to figure out how masculine or feminine any given person is.

Would I rather believe experts in the field of human psychology or bunch of internet nobodies who claim to know better?

Which ones and about what exactly?

j0hnan0n · 2015-04-03T22:20:39+00:00

Believe what you want to believe. Then, consider asking the academics how their relationships are going. Then, try putting TRP practices quietly into play in your life and observe the results.

Then decide again what you want to believe and why.

InscrutablePUA · 2015-04-03T17:31:39+00:00

If you want an example of an academic who 'gets it', check out F Roy Baumeister at UF

TopTRP · 2015-04-03T18:33:22+00:00

The problem is that people in the academia tend to be experts in their respective fields, professors of psychology, sociology and various other disciplines harbor theories that run widely counter to TRP.

This is the crux of your argument but it's a flawed statement.

Academia is dominated by leftists. Naturally they're going to push their own agenda. Just because they have credentials doesn't make them correct.

Here is a great documentary on the topic of 'gender equality'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE&list=PLBgaE8_tapyjb5PPQ6xoBeovrwKqA2a-5

It gives examples of people in academia who are full of bullshit pushing their own agenda.

It also cites counter sources and real studies done by other professors.

Both sides have credentials, moreso than any "bunch of internet nobodies who claim to know better", but obviously one side is full of shit.

Why is that if they're experts in their field? How can they be wrong?

Next up, if that series isn't enough, you have professors whose teaching clearly line up with RP philosophy.

Here's a Standford series for reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

blackhornatnight · 2015-04-03T23:17:41+00:00

I went to school in California in the UC system and I never experienced any biased professors or delusions. I am sure they exist, but I think the issue is, quite honestly, overblown.

I took classes in political science, philosophy, and psychology, and all the professors without exception always encouraged free thought and coming to your own conclusions. In fact, my favorite professor was a butch feminist. She was awesome, and she always listened to you respectfully and encouraged you to push in any direction you wanted. She really just taught the texts, and really laid into you if you didn't know the texts or if you were bullshitting. She taught early modern political theory, Locke, Hume, Hobbes, etc. She knew that shit like the back of her hand. She fucking steam rolled the losers in class who thought they were being clever by agitating opinions not found in the texts.

Title	TRP vs Academics
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	5
Comments	16
Date	April 3, 2015 4:58 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/31bsh3/trp_vs_academics/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/trp-vs-academics.191292 https://theredarchive.com/post/191292

Comments