Interesting Observations from a Dating Class

Legitimate_Policy · 2019-11-13T05:15:24+00:00

Analysis

Section One: Pre-Selection Strategies and Social Proof

OP brings up the example of the three pictures. The male alone, the male with other males, and the male with females. The rank ordering of the photos, in a very loose fashion demonstrates the following.

Pre-selection strategies involve conspicuous observable behaviour. In simpler terms, a noticeable display of value. The picture example involves a pre-selection strategy involving the conspicuous and observable (because it is public) display of the social proof of the male via the proxy of his social companions. We can now make the following conclusions.
The man alone demonstrates no social proof. This is presumably a neutral display. However, it may in some cases be a negative display because it shows the male alone, absent other social companions. The absence of social companions may display through that absence that the male hasn't the attributes that would signal social value generally. Moreover, it may specifically indicate a lack of sexual market value because social value is a contributor to sexual market value.
Therefore, the presence of social companions is a display of social proof in the context of the photo display. The presence of social companions indicates the prerequisite qualities for having them, qualities which are themselves indicators of value.
The specific social companions displayed indicate the relative value of the male. To draw out the point, consider the difference in reaction if the social companions are attractive and display wealth signals as opposed to unattractive and display negative wealth symbols (signs of poverty). In the former case we are justified in thinking that higher quality of the social companions due to their higher social and sexual value displays reflects positively on the male. There is a possible exception to this if the male has the least social or sexual value signals within the displayed group. Such a case is likely to negatively reflect on the male. To return to the example, in the latter we are justified in thinking that the lower quality of the social companions due to their lesser social and sexual value displays reflects negatively on the male. However, if the male is of the highest relative social and sexual status indicators within the group it may reflect positively on the male.
The valuation of female social companions over male social companions in the picture example tells us two things. First, that the presence of male social companions indicates that the male has desirable social qualities as judged by his male peers. Second, that the presence of female social companions indicates that the male has desirable social qualities as judged by his female peers. Consequently, the direct positive evaluation of social desirability according to female criteria of desirability indicated by the picture with women is judged as more valuable by women. If we consider that women use male value hierarchies as an indirect measurement of the social value of a given male this makes sense given how it is very intuitive to prioritize direct value judgements over indirect ones. Concretely, women value other women's evaluations of sexual and social value more than men's.

Section Two: Coyness, or The Value of Ambiguous Response

OP raises the scenario of a man asking out a woman. The woman can respond directly affirmatively (Yes!), directly negatively (No!), or ambiguously (let me check my schedule and get back to you, etc.). A direct affirmative response indicates that the woman judges the male to be of much higher relative sexual market value. A direct negative response indicates that the male's relative sexual market value is so low that such an offer is not even worth an ambiguous response. An ambiguous response would allow the male the opportunity to attempt what we call either the "alpha" or "beta" mating strategies wherein the male could entice the female with either direct sexual value or indirect sexual value through resource transfer to the woman. For brevity's sake I won't go into further detail on male responses to ambiguous female responses. That whole topic is part of what we call "game". Now, OP notes that the only person in the room who said that the correct response from the female was the direct affirmative response (Yes!) is a man. What this indicates, given the setting (a dating class), is the social ineptitude of the man. Everyone else in the room realizes that the correct response is either the direct negative response or the ambiguous response, provided the man is of equal or lesser relative sexual value. On a further note for the sake of completeness, the ambiguous response allows the female to produce an indirect negative response because her excuse (scheduling) includes plausible deniability which allows her to negatively respond with a much lower risk of negative consequences from the male (see nice guys) or the broader social environment (she's a bitch).

Edit: Why would the woman not want to say "Yes!" (direct affirmative response) to every guy of equal or greater sexual value who propositions her? The answer has to do with power relations (though not the whole answer), what TRP calls "Frame". The direct affirmative response (Yes!) would establish that the man has the clearly greater value in the social relationship, that he is the thing to be sought or had and she is the one who has to go after him. The woman would want that to be the direct opposite. This is the case in most "Bluepill" relationships where the woman is on a pedestal (she has established herself as the valued one). A lot of what this sub advocates about frame is to teach us to maintain our independence in social relationships so we don't fall into subordinate or dependent roles in a given power relation (ex. putting women on a pedestal).

Section Three: Social Value is not Sexual Value

OP shows through the presenter's story that the dating coach can be socially popular with many women but not sexually popular. This is quite intuitive when we consider that the qualities desired in a sexual partner only partially overlap with those of a social partner. What OP is showing is that the dating coach has the qualities and strategies to effectively establish himself as an ideal social (bu not sexual) partner for women. This is shown by the woman's response to the dating coach's attempt to move from a social mode to a sexual one. To conclude, social value correlates with and in some cases directly contributes to sexual value but is not equivalent to or a guarantee of sexual value.

If you've read all this then thank you for your patience and attention.

meerita · 2019-11-13T16:57:37+00:00

The presenter told a personal story where he was the cool, funny guy who could talk to girls and was always hanging out with them.

This happen because he was the beta cuck, the female's personal jester. A good guy. The guy who entertain the female until the alpha enters the room, then this guy is the option 100th in the priority lists of the thots.

You need to appeal funny, cool, but show your frame always. Don't let the girls feel like they can use you as the jester. If female lose respect from you, it's over.

LucyDD69 · 2019-11-13T02:48:44+00:00

The 2nd part is slightly confusing... what did you mean?

DubbleFUPAwitCheez · 2019-11-13T22:05:04+00:00

Umm ah, I don't know, let me check my schedule and get back to you, let's see

There was a chick that has been giving me every signal in the book that I've seen a couple times in non-romantic scenarios so I ask her if she wants to get a drink sometime and she gives me her number. I tell her I'm free saturday night, she says ok, I say meet me at x at x and I get the above and my interest plummets. For the record she is not a young woman, she's not old but she is not young. She's around my age.

TRP is a representation of adapting to society and the change in culture while women have stagnated. As soon as I received that text I made other plans. The irony is every young girl I've interacted with tends to be eager and responsive. My peer group truly has slipped through the cracks. The unfortunate souls that were created before the pendulum swings back and you could be forgiven for thinking we exist to make each other miserable.

andreas-mgtow · 2019-11-18T05:14:47+00:00

Then he revealed the answer was 3)

What kind of ball-less twat needs a coach to tell him this?!

"Masterclass", SMFH.

chazthundergut · 2019-11-13T20:20:51+00:00

"Now prior to this we happened to strike up a convo for about 5 mins or so At the next break I went to her and said "Hey let me prove a point, we had a good convo just now right? Head nod it was flowing right? Head nod. Right so are you interested in dating me? OMG Wut????!!! Right so do you agree with me that <presenter's name> situation is very very possible?"

I think someone glimpsed enlightenment that day, but in true fashion promptly forgot about it"

I think you are the one who needs enlightenment. Why wasnt she into you? What are you doing wrong in your conversations?

Title	Interesting Observations from a Dating Class
Author	LordFa9
Upvotes	74
Comments	30
Date	November 13, 2019 2:38 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/dvl362/interesting_observations_from_a_dating_class/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/interesting-observations-from-a-dating-class.295021 https://theredarchive.com/post/295021

Comments