Red Pill Logic: Basic Premises – Biology Part 2
Black Label Logic | December 8, 2017 | by Black Label Logic
-------------------------
 [https://blacklabellogic.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/biology.jpg]In
Part 1
[https://blacklabellogic.com/2017/11/30/red-pill-logic-basic-premises-biology-part-1/]
of this series I outlined some of the major aspects of biology and
evolutionary theory that impact our present sexual market. The Red
Pill Praxeology [1] is the study of human action and conduct, and in
order to do this, a requirement is a foundation. An approach
frequently utilized by Enlightenment philosophers was to view humans
as non-constrained by human-created influences. For instance, when one
formulated natural law [2] one attempted to formulate a law determined
from nature, which is universal and exists independently of the
positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society
at large. Positive law being the human-made laws that oblige or
specify an action, and describes the establishment of specific rights
for an individual or group.

In a coming essay I’m going to talk about culture and social
mechanisms and their effects on an aggregate level, however for this
post the goal is to continue to describe the biological framework that
serves as a foundation for the red pill praxeology, but to tie the
biological principles in the first essay together with red pill
theory. This is done through utilizing the literature established in
the first essay, expanding this into a short theoretical framework,
followed by an exercise in the hypotheses that serve as part of it’s
ongoing development.

THE RED PILL PRAXEOLOGY AND BIOLOGY

The stated goal of the Red Pill Praxeology is to lay bare the
mysteries of intersexual dynamics. The lowly origin of the theoretical
framework comes from the observation that the hypotheses they had been
told about intersexual dynamics were not working. Men got rejected
when asking women out, they bought drinks only for the woman to leave
them 15 seconds later at the bar, they went on date after date but
never got laid, they developed their listening skills, they developed
their feminine side, and did everything they were told to do, yet the
expected results and the actual results greatly differed. This lead
many men to conclude that the hypotheses about intersexual dynamics
were not correct, because the predicted result and the actual results
did not match and when observations are made that contradict a theory,
one must amend the theory.

The original pick-up artists took a novel grounded theory
[https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/02/10/grounded-theory-and-the-pua-community/]
approach in which they made observations, formulated hypotheses and
tested these out without judgment in the field. For instance,
Mystery’s “peacocking” is a strategy inspired by the fact that
the male Peacock in fact handicaps himself in terms of survival
because he becomes easy pray by growing his magnificent tail, thus if
he was able to survive with such a handicap he must truly have amazing
genetics. Mystery’s outfit likewise made him an obvious target for
shit testing from women and AMOGing from men, however his ability to
pass such shit-tests and AMOG attempts meant that he demonstrated
higher value.

Much of the knowledge gained by the seduction community followed this
pattern, observe naturally successful men in the environment, create a
theory based on observation, formulate hypotheses to test the theory
and document the result in field reports. In essence, they would
observe the men who were reproductively successful within the
environment, identify the fitness cues they displayed through
deductive logic, create a theoretical version of the sexy son, and
then mimic it. This resulted in a theoretical framework and a
methodology that permitted men to become more reproductively
successful over time. However, it was only later that men started
asking the question why these techniques worked.

Seeing as game had been applied successfully in many different
countries, locations, by different men, in different cultures, social
classes, contexts and situations, there had to be a common
denominator. There is no denying that game requires some contextual
adaptation, such as day game, club game, online game, however the same
underlying principles appear to work largely independently of context.
If this was not the case, there would be a game variant for every
country, and occasionally a game variant for different cities, or
social classes.

Thus, when one starts to strip away these factors, that include
culture, social, psychological, and various others, one was left with
biology as the underlying mechanism. Once this was identified, it was
possible to identify relevant theories and hypotheses. David Putt’s
recent article [3] for instance that demonstrates that male
intragender competition was most likely conducted by threat or force,
and female competition through attracting mates, supports an earlier
essay on this blog on why women slut shame. Bateman’s
[https://blacklabellogic.com/2017/02/02/red-pill-logic-briffaults-law-bateman-and-peak-hypergamy/]
research from 1948 supports the hypothesis that for men the most
reproductively impactful strategy is to be a “Sexy Son”, and that
males inherently have more reproductive variability than females [4].

The identification of biology as a fundamental driver of present
sexual selection permits us to analyze behaviors in terms of
historical selection pressures. For instance, the fact that women
appear to cope better with the loss of a mate, sometimes referred to
as the “War Bride” dynamic, is theorized to have come from the
fact that in more violent times, most tribes would murder the men, but
permit those women who best assimilated to their new living situation
to survive and reproduce, thus this trait gave increased fitness and
spread through the population. Cuckolding on the other hand could have
emerged as a reproductive strategy that permitted women to diversify
the genetics of their offspring, resulting in risk mitigation, in that
rather than putting all their eggs in one basket, two children with
different fathers gives genetic diversification.

THE HYPOTHESIS AND THE HYPOTHESIS TEST

One of the things that crossed my mind as I was writing another
upcoming essay was that if one starts from the premise that the goal
of evolution by natural and sexual selection is to arrive at those
organisms that are optimally adapted to their environment, furthermore
that the tools at its disposal is genetic variance and such variance
is greater in men. One could hypothesize that as one man can
impregnate hundreds of women in a year, yet one woman may only be
impregnated by one man each year, the former gives access to a large
number of experiments, and the latter filters away those that are
unsuccessful.

The hypothesis being that if one creates 100 different combinations
genetics in man, giving rise to 100 different men with varying degrees
of traits and behaviors, and then allow nature through natural
selection and women through sexual selection to remove those that do
not result in beneficial traits from the population, one is left only
with those experiments that resulted in a competitive advantage. One
can imagine this as constantly running March Madness bracket of men
all competing to be the best adapted for survival and reproduction.

To exemplify (simplified) evolution may formulate the following
hypotheses:

0 Testosterone levels have no effect on survival and reproduction in
men

1 Testosterone levels have an effect on survival and reproduction in
men

In order to test these hypotheses, it would create a group of men with
very high testosterone, one group with very low testosterone and one
group with normal testosterone (_the control group_). It would release
these men into the free, and in the next generation one would see the
genetic impact each group of men had on the gene pool. That group that
had the highest impact, would have spread the genetics for their group
to the highest number of progeny, who would then spread their genetics
to the highest number of progeny in subsequent generations. Over time,
the genetics of the group that had the highest reproductive and
survival success would spread throughout the entire population.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As I stated initially, I elected to start this series with
evolutionary biology, because in my view it’s the foundation of red
pill theory and game. We are influenced by many other things, and
naturally there is a degree of genetic variation between groups of
humans however, I would dare to wager that distinctions here are
smaller than those of culture or psychology. One would struggle to
argue that our knowledge of biology is “Western Centric” however,
this is an argument one could easily make about certain parts of the
field of psychology or sociology.

Evolutionary theory, explains much of the behavior one observes in the
sexual market place, from teenage girls screaming at famous men to get
their attention, to the woman who switches mates after her present
union ceased to be reproductively optimal, to the Alpha male 1.0 who
finds himself divorced over and over again due to infidelity. These
are adaptations that have been successful throughout our mating
history. Whether these are still successful becomes more of a value
judgment rather than a judgment of value, depending on what one
utilizes as the metric for success. If one judges purely based on
reproductive success, defined as maximally impacting the gene pool of
subsequent generations then one can measure this quantitatively.
However, if one were to measure by “contribution to to betterment-
or decline of a social group” it becomes much more iffy. For
instance, one could argue that high levels of reproductive competition
leads to the betterment of the group through ensuring maximal genetic
fitness, however on the other hand one could argue that increased
conflict due to such competition would have a negative effect.

In essence, it breaks down to a case of “Is” and “Ought”. This
is one of the arguments I’ve seen many times in the years I’ve
read PUA and Red Pill writings, those who take the position that the
praxeology should strive towards being the description of the reality
of human mating, and those who wish it to be something more.

This is perhaps best illustrated by a quote by Friedrich Engels

> “Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and
> especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition,
> the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the
> highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the _animal
> kingdom_.”

It is not my argument, nor the argument of many others with similar
positions that one should accept human nature as is, and should not
strive to rise beyond our lowly origin. It is however my position that
the description of the underlying mechanisms must remain free of moral
and value judgments, for this serves little purpose other than to
again shroud it in mystery and human rationalization. There must be a
wall erected between the descriptions of the knowledge, and suggested
applications of the knowledge in order to ensure the integrity of
both. Describing that women by large prefer men with low body fat and
high muscle mass is different from telling men to eat plenty of
protein and lift weights. The former is the “what” the latter is
the “why” and the “how”. The cause and effect is quite simple,
before one can know how to act and why one should act, one must know
what to act upon.

This is not to say that one should discard the aspiration of becoming
more than nature. Our history as a species and the development of our
civilization is in many ways the tale of continued cycles of failure
and success in controlling our nature. However, as I will cover in an
upcoming essay, this is the specific role that social and cultural
factors play, they exist to dress up our basic nature, and in order to
control our basic nature towards non-natural ends.

It is an emperor and clothes situation in which we can attempt to
dress up the truth in pretty words and lofty aspirations. We can seek
to cover it up completely because to stare into it, means that it
stares back at us. One can even refer to the acceptance of it as a
form of moral nihilism whereby accepting that the mechanisms that
shaped our development as a species have no inherent moral sense, one
is preventing a more fruitful and beneficial time to come into
existence. As was the argument of Mr. Engels and Mr. Marx who sought
to sublimate human nature for what they envisioned would be an ideal
state in which humans would be free to prosper. As an economist once
said, “Communism would work amazingly well if it wasn’t for human
nature”. To quote Albert Camus

> “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is”

A NOTE:

I recently launched a Patreon page
[https://www.patreon.com/Blacklabellogic] where I will be posting
additional content every month for those who support me and I will do
a Google Hangout for the highest tier Patrons (limited to 10 people).

I’ve also had some requests for consults, which I’ve declined up
until now, but due to demand I’ve chosen to open up for doing some
consults on request. For details please check out my Consulting and
Patreon Page [https://blacklabellogic.com/consulting-and-patreon/]

As always you can buy my book Gendernomics at Amazon.com as both
paperback and Kindle
[https://www.amazon.com/Gendernomics-Black-Label-Logic/dp/1520743750/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539436955&sr=8-1&keywords=Gendernomics]

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/praxeology

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20law

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X1500189X

[4]
http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy2664/Documents/trivers.pdf

-------------------------
Archived from https://theredarchive.com/blog/Black-Label-Logic/red-pill-logic-basic-premises-biology-part2.24189