Science Proves Asshole Game Works

One day, CH will achieve the perfect post title that captures the spirit of the cosmic shiv. You will read it and the gleaming knife will metamorphose from the words right before your eyes. Perhaps this one is it…

A reader forwards a study and adds this promising promo:

Powerful people lack empathy.

Asshole game proven by science.

Nice guys do finish last.

The paper is called Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy. The abstract:

Recent research suggests that lower-class individuals favor explanations of personal and political outcomes that are oriented to features of the external environment. We extended this work by testing the hypothesis that, as a result, individuals of a lower social class are more empathically accurate in judging the emotions of other people. In three studies, lower-class individuals (compared with upper-class individuals) received higher scores on a test of empathic accuracy (Study 1), judged the emotions of an interaction partner more accurately (Study 2), and made more accurate inferences about emotion from static images of muscle movements in the eyes (Study 3). Moreover, the association between social class and empathic accuracy was explained by the tendency for lower-class individuals to explain social events in terms of features of the external environment. The implications of class-based patterns in empathic accuracy for well-being and relationship outcomes are discussed.

I bet you’re wondering where this is going. The suspense is delicious!

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications/kraus.socialclass.2010.pdf

FYI, before delving into the paper, “empathic accuracy” simply means the ability to read another person. Someone with high empathic accuracy is very good at discerning how other people feel, based on social and visual cues.

It’ll seem counter-intuitive* to some, but lower class people in this study were more empathic. When you have fewer resources, the external environment exerts more influence on your life outcome. A well-off person can insulate himself from trouble (hi, Cheap Chalupas!) in ways that a poorer person can’t. So the poorer person needs to be more aware of potential dangers (and benefits), and that means being better at reading people to determine if they will hurt or help him.

*It’s fairly well-known that most criminals are less empathic**, dumber and poorer than the general population, so a study which purports to find that lower SES people have higher empathic accuracy than higher SES people would seem to fly in the face of the typical criminal profile. However, certain aspects of criminal psychology are better thought of as sharing more traits across SES than within; that is, high SES criminals may be just as anti-empathic (sociopathic) as low SES criminals, even when there are far fewer criminals as a proportion of the high SES group.

**Also worth noting: Empathic accuracy — precision at reading others’ emotions — doesn’t necessarily mean identification with those emotions. A person with robust Dark Triad traits would be very good at knowing what people are feeling and using that knowledge to manipulate them, but he wouldn’t feel much guilt from exploiting others.

Our central prediction was that participants with manipulated lower-class rank would discern the emotions of other people better than participants with manipulated upper-class rank. Initial analyses revealed that participants in the lower-class-rank condition (M = 27.08) showed greater empathic accuracy than participants in the upper-class-rank condition (M = 25.23), F (1, 77) = 4.64, p < .05. To further test our hypothesis, we conducted an ANCOVA with our social-class manipulation as a between-participants factor, gender and agreeableness as covariates, and empathic accuracy as the dependent variable. As Figure 3 shows, participants experimentally induced to experience lower-class rank were better able than their upper-class-rank counterparts to discern emotions from subtle expressions in the eyes.

This is additional evidence that social priming works, at least temporarily. (Social priming is the presumed foundation for a lot of inner game concepts, as well as “alpha maximizing” and testosterone-raising power position body language techniques.) Subjects who were made to think they were lower rank experienced improved empathic accuracy.

One prediction that follows from these tendencies is that lower-class individuals should be more accurate judges of the emotions of others than upper-class individuals are. In three studies that tested this hypothesis using measures of both objective and subjective SES, lower-class individuals, relative to their upper-class counterparts, scored higher on a measure of empathic accuracy (Study 1), judged the emotions of a stranger more accurately (Study 2), and inferred emotions more accurately from subtle expressions in the eyes (Study 3).

So what does this have to do with game and assholery?

Finally, the findings relating social class to empathic accuracy have potentially profound implications for how social inequality affects close relationships. In fact, the greater social engagement exhibited by lower-class individuals in past research (Kraus & Keltner, 2009) may spring from a similar need to perceive the external environment accurately in order to be responsive to it. Empathic accuracy may mediate influences of class on relationship quality, commitment, and satisfaction. It is also interesting to speculate about the costs of heightened empathic accuracy for overall health and well-being, particularly because lower-class individuals tend to experience chronically elevated levels of negative emotion and negative mood disorders (e.g., Gallo & Matthews, 2003). Future research should investigate whether being able to identify other people’s negative emotions contributes to relationship turmoil among lower-class individuals (Argyle, 1994; Levenson & Ruef, 1992).

Intriguingly, highly empathic people may get stressed out from constantly reading and reacting to other people’s emotional states. And this accords with experience; alpha males seem happier and also less likely to concern themselves with how others are feeling. Beta and omega males who fret about what women think of them are nervous nellies and tightly wound.

The relation of this paper with asshole game requires a connect-the-dots jog, but here it is:

Women love socially dominant men.
Socially dominant men have less empathy. They’re more self-focused and less concerned with the opinions and feelings of others.
A lack of empathy is a hallmark of assholes.
Being as asshole is attractive to women because they perceive it as the behavior of a socially dominant alpha male.
Weepy, sensitive niceguys stock up on Jergen’s and Kleenex.

Any questions?





Comments


  1. […] Science Proves Asshole Game Works […]

    Like


  2. “You will read it and the gleaming knife will metamorphose from the words right before your eyes.”

    Metamorphose, not metamorphosisizezeded. ‘spect.

    Like


    • CH, please do not attempt to interpret science.

      The environment does not CAUSE traits (except insofar as epigenetics are concerned); traits cause the environment. If there is a correlation between empathy and socioeconomic standing, it is the former that is causing the latter, not the reverse. It is not because they CAN be less empathic that the rich aren’t; they got rich in the first place because lack of empathy was a selective advantage. This trait would show hereditability.

      [CH: either you didn’t read the paper or you failed to comprehend it.]

      Like


      • on October 3, 2014 at 11:46 am Bobby Cuddlefuck

        Ever heard of the Stanford prison experiment? Environment matters.

        Like


      • ‘If there is a lack’ – this is a theory only. The Dark Triad was mentioned in the article and one thing that is accepted by psychologists and their ilk is that a lack of empathy is consistent with sociopathy. Does CH, his pals and followers really subscribe to assholery? I have recently come across someone who behaved in this manner. By (British) societal standards he was well placed and did not need to do this. For those who want to improve their skills with women, fair enough to learn game. But I cannot help think it will be the ruination of many men

        Like


      • There are two really important aspects associated with the concept of “empathy”: 1) Sensing what the other person is feeling, and 2) Actually giving a damn about what you are sensing [versus merely using the knowledge to manipulate the other person for your own gain – which is what defines the Sociopath – who, by definition is incapable of giving a damn].

        Like


      • There’s no question but that the combination of learning to sense a chick’s emotions [which seems to be difficult for many nerds & geeks?] combined with ditching your conscience [when it comes to the pump-n-dump] will get you all the pussy you could possibly desire. But that sort of behavior is also a pretty good recipe for destroying an entire civilization.

        Like


      • Especially if they are Jews, chimps or armadillos. Do NOT put any buns in those ovens (for the Jews, would those be matzos?)

        Like


      • How much do Axelrod & Sunstein pay you guys? And I wonder whether the Koch Bros would pay me as much for enduring this shit?

        Like


      • Did you mean “heritability?”

        Like


      • I’ve heard of beta monkeys assuming the alpha role after the alpha dies in battle . That’s contextual. From the study it seems like a persons baseline empathy can be turned up or down according to how high or low status they feel.

        Like


      • Just V-K test all your dates.

        Like


      • …and by “shit” I mean “well deserved infamy.”

        Like


      • Well, you’re in their heads alright.

        Like


      • Glengarry, I’ve been eyeball gaming this fresh-off-the-boat-from-Judea-N-Sumaria hebrew-speaking YKWess at the swimming pool; the poor woman doesn’t even have an iPhag yet [she carries books and papers with her, as though it were still the 1990s], but Jesus H Christ does she already yearn for the Zombie cock. Her mixed allegiances are gonna cause every manner of problem for her Mossad handlers.

        Like


      • Just tell her you’re half-bro and she’ll want your meat for sure. Just sayin’…

        Like


      • ZS, that reminds me of an afternoon spent by the pool in [LOCATION REDACTED] getting eyefucked by a green-eyed, black-haired jewess in her youthful prime, at that point in her life where curves have not yet begun to sag or bloat but just miraculously hang forever like MJ. She was in a group that had just gotten out of the IDF they told me later that night. Hahaha, good times.

        Like


  3. What does this have to do with race?

    Like


    • What do you have to do with intelligence?

      Like


    • on October 3, 2014 at 9:52 am Just Went Rogue

      From the research paper, if you had actually read it:

      “The current results were observed among university stu-
      dents or employees, and these samples likely underrepresent
      individuals from the richest and poorest sectors of society.
      Therefore, our findings will be bolstered by research in sam-
      ples that reflect the most robust upper and lower socioeco-
      nomic conditions. In addition, future work is needed to study
      social class in more ethnically homogeneous samples to fur-
      ther separate effects of class and ethnicity.”

      Like


      • class and ethnicity is not race; 2 white people can be of different classes and ethnicities and still be white:

        Russians and Ukrainians, Czecks and Slovaks, English and Welsh…

        Try again faggot.

        Like


      • ethnicity and race lead to class.

        Poverty causes blacks.
        Bad schools cause blacks.
        Crime causes blacks.
        Low property values cause blacks.

        or maybe I have all that backwards…

        Like


      • I’ll just quote this again.

        “In addition, future work is needed to study
        social class in more ethnically homogeneous samples to fur-
        ther separate effects of class and ethnicity.”

        Let me know if you need me to slow down, Coltrane.

        Like


      • Jeez, the try hard is brutal in that one.

        Don’t you have some Radiohead to go listen to?

        Like


    • I don;’t know exactly…but I am pretty sure that the three key tenants of game are:

      1)Buns in the oven…use your powers for the good of breeding white babies

      2)White Supremacists are such fine examples of their value to the planet

      3)It’s all pretty much necessary to rebuff the Zionists.

      Like


  4. There is a group exercise used in workplaces, where you are told that you have just crash landed in the desert. Your team must rank twelve objects salvaged in the crash from most to least useful for our survival. The game is here, although they have blacked out most of the pages:

    http://www.humansynergistics.com/Files/Simulations/Desert_PB.pdf

    The point is to discuss with each other in the right way: come to an agreement without voting (which creates winners and losers) and without someone silencing the rest. The point is also, of course, to figure out which objects are most important. The game has been tried on many different groups of people, and it turns out that CEOs were the most successful. They actually scored better than people living near the desert.

    So while CEOs may be less skilled than hobos at reading the threat in someone’s eyes, there certainly is a reason why they are the ones who reach the top in a highly competitive environment.

    For fun:

    You can also play variations of this game where you are lost at sea or lost in the snowy mountains. Here is one where your plane has crashed in the extremely cold parts of northern Canada in January:

    http://scoutingweb.com/scoutingweb/SubPages/SurvivalGame.htm

    Objects in the Canada scenario, to be ranked from 1 (most important) to 12 (least important) :

    A ball of steel wool
    A small ax
    A loaded .45-caliber pistol
    Can of Crisco shortening
    Newspapers (one per person)
    Cigarette lighter (without fluid)
    Extra shirt and pants for each survivor
    20 x 20 ft. piece of heavy-duty canvas
    A sectional air map made of plastic
    One quart of 100-proof whiskey
    A compass
    Family-size chocolate bars (one per person)

    Like


  5. Another way of putting this is, don’t try to please women. Every woman is happy when I’m around, what’s there not to like?

    Like


  6. Long comment stuck in moderation. Oh well.

    Highly interesting study, CH. I read the link to your earlier post, and the earlier post that that one links to, I must have missed those. You name the traits in men that women like, in descending order of importance:

    Psychosocial dominance (game).
    High status/fame.
    Personality (passion/charisma/humor).
    Wealth.
    Good looks/height/muscularity.
    Cleverness/smarts.
    Dependability/reliability.
    Sexual prowess.

    I have often heard four traits mentioned: Money, Looks, Personality, Status. This list seems to fit with those, just a little more detailed. But can we be sure this is the hierarchy of the traits? Isn’t it difficult to place them in a particular order? For example, if one trait is far above average, it seems the traits above it in the list could be ignored as long as they are at least average. For example, great wealth could give a man great success with bedding women even if all the traits above wealth in the list were lacking, yes?

    I notice that smarts is on the list, but not intelligence. I suppose that’s true: Intelligence is good only when it brings wealth and other things that are already on the list. Intelligence can also be dangerous since it leads a man to have ideas of his own, which is not something a woman wants to hear. “Jesus, we’re going to raise a child together and we both have work and a social circle to take care of, isn’t that enough for you? Why do you have to rock the boat by questioning things? Why do you read things written by men who died long ago? That’s just strange, no one I know does that.”

    Like


    • No woman who gives me grief about my historical reading gets to stick around for long, much less for an LTR. I expect polite silence on the subject, at a minimum.

      Like


      • Same for me.

        I know one girl who appreciates Western philosophers, though she doesn’t read them. Most men don’t either, but even fewer women. But I showed her this link to a page with a summary of Thus Spake Zarathustra, and she read that and thought it was fascinating.

        Not that she would agree with or understand everything I suppose, but just to see thoughts that weren’t anchored in the current debate climate.

        But the girlfriends I have had all had the notion that philosophy was a thing men did. And it is. They accepted it and could listen to some things I described, but they wouldn’t read it themselves.

        Then, I have met both men and women who are hostile to philosophers because they recognize that this is part of Europe’s past before the socialist control. They are hostile to the philosophers for the same reason they want to destroy 19th-century buildings: there must be no reminders that there ever was such a past. People must only read about it as a dark era in school textbooks. (Slavery! Sexism! Wars! Holocaust!)

        I think these people would want a new calendar with 1945 as Year 1.

        Like


    • are you incredibly stupid??? there are certain women who love smart guys…I get them all the time. They actually disapprove of my working out, getting swoled, and doing violent sports at a high level like BJJ. Some chicks dig nerds even.

      Like


    • Well that explains why I never see any of the smart women then!

      Like


      • Some coward using my name, I see. Poor little boy is too afraid to discuss.

        Like


      • He wants you to go to his house and fuck his wife as he jacks off in the closet.

        Like


      • I am having that SAME problem! Pisses me the fuck off how hard I work on my meaningful contributions here…helping the lesser betas with the breadth of my experience being pretty much the Alpha of Alphas…only to have my good name sullied.

        Like


  7. How long, Heartiste, until you break ground on the HBD Foundation for Research on Human Relations? You’d put some of that sweet, sweet gubmint grant money to good use.

    Like


  8. Well, I may read through the study more later as I am highly distrustful of the methods of social scientists. One thing I do not miss about UC Berkeley was the administration’s adoration for the poor. This seemed like a weapon aimed at the upper classes more so than a tool that can explain what women want. For example, in study 1, I don’t think they controlled for women when they actually measured the different groups empathetic responses and they even admitted women were more empathetic. But I think this overall message should be nuanced a bit. It is hard to imagine women actively seek sociopaths without empathy but empathy can be a bad thing. For example, if we all cared about what fools thought we would all drive ourselves mad.

    Like


  9. “A person with robust Dark Triad traits would be very good at knowing what people are feeling and using that knowledge to manipulate them, but he wouldn’t feel much guilt from exploiting others.” Bingo!

    Like


  10. “alpha males seem happier and also less likely to concern themselves with how others are feeling”

    she wants to focus on pleasing you instead of talking about her stupid feelings. dhv and control the frame and you won’t have to listen to her blah blah blah about her blah blah blah. keep her jumping through hoops and watch her glow while she swallows your load.

    “Beta and omega males who fret about what women think of them are nervous nellies and tightly wound.”

    do not engage in management. she wants to be taken and discarded. this is how she knows you’re higher value. high status men don’t have time for pillow talk and cheap breakfast. they move on to the next thing (she is but one of many things) with single minded focus.

    you are the prize. act like it.

    Like


  11. I think I may have come up with a more precise definition of ‘Alpha male’.

    First some definitions for direct and indirect benefits in mate choice.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice#Direct_and_indirect_benefits

    Direct benefits are those that increase the fitness of the choosy sex through direct material advantages. These benefits include but are not limited to increased territory quality, increased parental care, and protection from predators. There is much support for maintenance of mate choice by direct benefits and it is the least controversial model to explain discriminate mating.

    Indirect benefits increase genetic fitness for the offspring. When it appears that the choosy sex does not receive direct benefits from his or her mate, indirect benefits may be the payoff for being selective. Examples of indirect benefits include better genetic quality and more attractive offspring. R. A. Fisher described this less obvious model in a book called The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.[9] Fisher explained that, through indirect selection, fitter individuals inherit both the genes and the mating preference for some indicator trait. This linkage of an indicator trait and the preference for such trait results in exaggerated phenotypes and is known as Fisherian runaway selection.

    An ‘Alpha male’ is the male who gets the *best sex with the investment of the least direct benefits. Thus he is being selected primarily for indirect benefits.

    *Best sex= some optimum of quantity and quality. i.e. banging numerous hot 18 year old virgins is better sex than i) banging numerous hot 30 year old sluts, or ii) one hot 18 year old virgin. (Not sure if banging 1000 hot 18 year old virgins once is better than banging one hot 18 year old virgin for a lifetime, what one subjectively prefers would depend where one sits on the r vs K spectrum I imagine. (Personally I would prefer one hot 18 year old virgin for a lifetime who is also faithful and loyal over one night stands with 1000 different hot 18 year old virgins, but I guess I’m pretty K selected.))

    Or put even more precisely,

    An alpha male, is a male who is sexually selected maximally (or at the maximum) for indirect benefits while sexually selected minimally (or at the minimum) for direct benefits.

    This is also the optimum strategy for not being a cuckold.

    So a corollary of this definition would be that the alpha male, is the male who minimises the risk of cuckoldry.

    Framed another way, for example, the alpha male is the male women want to fuck because he is soooo sexy, even though he is not nice, his sexiness is just too overwhelming. i.e. maximum indirect benefits (being sexy) with minimum direct benefits (not being ‘nice’).

    Like


  12. More reasons to truly not give a fuck.

    Like


    • giving a fuck leads to poverty. You try to share too much…ever notice that the dirt ass poor are highly socialist? Everything is everyone’s. Primitive tribes with their chiefs shared within the social group. So everyone had jackshitnothing.

      Like


      • That’s not true.

        Socialists are often fallen aristocrats or elite skilled labor.

        Other people parrot their rhetoric but fall short in reality.

        Like


      • “ever notice that the dirt ass poor are highly socialist?”

        Got it backwards. The working class are Democrats, the middle class are Republicans, and the rich are Communist.

        Like


      • The poor are proletarian-Marxists, the middle-class are Capitalists, and depending on which side of the aisle, the wealthy are either Feudalists or Stalinists.

        Like


      • “Ever notice that the dirt ass poor are highly socialist? Everything is everyone’s.”

        Wrong. The dirt ass poor are highly covetous: everything that’s theirs is theirs, and everything that’s yours is theirs. They vote for people who will direct the violent powers of government to steal money from others and give it to them — it’s a form of robbery by proxy, thus even more cowardly than actual robbery. See: any city, state, or nation infested with shitskins.

        Like


      • “The working class are Democrats, the middle class are Republicans, and the rich are Communist.”

        Wrong. The moocher class votes Democrap, the vanishing middle class votes Repuke, and the rich vote Democrap. More people in the US are on some form of welfare (109 million) than working (106 million), and the total number of Americans suckling any form of gubmint tit, including Social Security, is 150 million. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.9% because labor force participation dropped, yet again, not because there’s any econ recovery. Your analysis is so 1962.

        Like


  13. CH and Cheap Chalupas are Magneto and Professor X respectively. I see you two playing chess in your old age. X-men got it wrong casting Magneto as the villain.

    Like


  14. Since you asked for questions…

    I am, and have been, supremely sensitive to my social environment since early childhood. Perhaps my parents squabbling created behavior-modifying anxiety. Anyway… Since about year 2000, I adopted the mantra, “I don’t care,” especially regarding business concerns. I’ve found this usually sufficient to avoid any psychological consequence from perceiving disapproval, anger, or opposition from clients and colleagues.

    Is this the break you would advocate for men who are naturally empathic: see it, but don’t care?

    Related to that, does this also provide a use for in-group and out-group socialization such as racism, sexism, and religious discrimination? Can men adopting a racist outlook maintain empathy for in-group allies, which is critical for developing trust and not instilling terror in subordinate allies, while ignoring the empathic feedback from out-group opponents, which is necessary for such tasks as disabling, killing, and skinning animals?

    Like


  15. Empathetic accuracy…Got me thinking of Rust Cohle. True Detective is fascinating. Rust comes off as the “Sigma”…the introverted alpha….a guy who comes off as truly not giving a fuck…but is absolutely passionate about whatever he believes in.

    Check this scene: he interviews a prostitute…She wants to fuck him…then—well you guys watch…this is how true “asshole game” works… “of course i’m dangerous…i’m po-lice. I could do terrible things to people…with impunity.”

    Like


  16. Asperger Game sounds like to me. Need more data to sort out contradictions.

    Like


    • On the note of ‘spergs, PUA can be beneficial for teaching them how to read people’s emotions and learn to interact with society. Tyler from RSD definitely has some massive sperg to him and admits he had no idea how to read social cues for most of his life and would weird people out but not understand why and he had to consciously learn to read those cues (and he still fucks it up now and then which is why his vibe is still weird at times).

      It’s not going to be some magic cure that fixes someone with Aspergers, like I don’t want to belittle the condition as if “oh if they just follow these 5 easy PUA steps they’ll be cured!”, but a lot of what PUA teaches can help someone at least develop an objective checklist in their mind to try to apply in real life interactions to get by a little smoother in day to day interactions. “oh that person is performing this action, that means they’re probably feeling this way, and a good response for that is to do this thing.”

      Like


      • YR, I tried to post something to the same effect above, and I was actually thinking of you as I typed it. In the big scheme of things, I’m not crazy about the idea of teaching people to fake being something other than what they really are – so much potential for abuse and misuse and disaster.

        Like


      • Because Aspies are defective and I am not sure I want them putting those buns in the oven and passing on that genius gene…

        Like


    • Asperger’s or having a personality like it is good in that what you do or feel passion for is the most important thing. When they latch on to something…everything else moves into the background. But social cues and not being able to read situations well with people is the weakness.

      Like


      • Right, but YR is talking about teaching them the algorithms so that they can fake it.

        Like


      • And with so much of this shit being genetic, I don’t know that they will ever have the option to “make it”. Which then begs the question of what they would do with their newly acquired artificial [unnatural] superpowers – superpowers which don’t reflect their true natures.

        Like


      • And if they aren’t rue alphas in their true nature, it pollutes the gene pool that natural alphas like me have. Best to leave those oven bare and hope that one of the Zombie Shames comes by to pollinate.

        Like


      • on October 3, 2014 at 9:41 pm Randy the Random

        Elon Musk has Asperger’s for sure. How many people do you know who deserve to reproduce more than him? The man has literally moved mankind forward a century technologically.

        Like


      • “Elon Musk has Asperger’s for sure. How many people do you know who deserve to reproduce more than him? The man has literally moved mankind forward a century technologically.”

        LOL

        You mean, the guy who got a $500,000,000 loan from the Federal Government (ie The Taxpayers)

        And started a car company that forces taxpayers to subsidize the sale of each and every car via a plug-in vehicle tax credit, to the tune of $7500 per Tesla sold. That is just Federal law, not even counting to the State taxback benefits which taxpayers must also finance. Keep in mind, that this is hard-earned middle-class taxpayer money, being refunded to buyers of $100,000 cars!

        To quote a well-written article on the topic:

        Tesla didn’t generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by selling sleazy emissions “credits,” mandated by the state of California’s electric vehicle requirements. The competition, like Honda, doesn’t have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million, or $11,400 per car.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/

        In short, the more Tesla sells, the more the taxpayer has to shell out. Pure crony capitalism. Elon Musk is nothing more than a narcissistic, left-wing media creation, a wannabe Tony Stark playing with Joe Taxpayer’s money who champions the ideas of carbon taxes (more taxpayer-financed bullshit).

        He didn’t move mankind anywhere other than forcing taxpayers to contribute a portion of their hard-earned paycheck to buyers of his luxury vehicles.

        Another article sums things up nicely:

        “Musk is also the model businessman in the age of Obama: His businesses thrive on mandates, regulations and subsidies. Tesla received a federal loan guarantee to make its plug-in cars, which are also subsidized through tax credits for buyers. SolarCity’s suppliers are subsidized solar panel makers, and its customers get tax credits for getting the panels installed. SpaceX is largely a government contractor.”

        http://washingtonexaminer.com/elon-musks-rocket-company-gets-subsidies-from-u.s.-and-france/article/2547874

        Not to say he isn’t a smart guy. He is. But many of us are smart in different ways, we all have our strengths and good ideas. He is simply well-banked by Uncle Sam, possibly even “too big to fail”, giving him the means to leverage his thought stream into physical prototype reality without the financial risk exposure which often constrains many startup ventures.

        Like


      • Elon Musk lives off of kleptocratic Ebolanomics stimulus money. He’s a high-tech conman and a thief. [Which, sadly, fails to distinguish him from about 99% of the rest of the nihilists in tech these days.]

        Like


      • Actually, those kinds of folks are precisely the ones whom I worry about learning Game – because they are smart enough to fake it [and then with their new superpowers, immediately proceed to causing catastrophic damage if they aren’t stopped].

        Like


      • “Elon Musk has Asperger’s for sure. How many people do you know who deserve to reproduce more than him? The man has literally moved mankind forward a century technologically.”

        LOL

        You mean, the guy who got a $500,000,000 loan from the Federal Government (ie The Taxpayers)

        And started a car company that forces taxpayers to subsidize the sale of each and every car via a plug-in vehicle tax credit, to the tune of $7500 per Tesla sold. That is just Federal law, not even counting to the State taxback benefits which taxpayers must also finance. Keep in mind, that this is hard-earned middle-class taxpayer money, being refunded to buyers of $100,000 cars!

        To quote a well-written article on the topic:

        Tesla didn’t generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by selling sleazy emissions “credits,” mandated by the state of California’s electric vehicle requirements. The competition, like Honda, doesn’t have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million, or $11,400 per car.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/

        In short, the more Tesla sells, the more the taxpayer has to shell out. Pure crony capitalism. Elon Musk is nothing more than a narcissistic, left-wing media creation, a wannabe Tony Stark playing with Joe Taxpayer’s money who champions the ideas of carbon taxes (more taxpayer-financed bullshit).

        He didn’t move mankind anywhere other than forcing taxpayers to contribute a portion of their hard-earned paycheck to buyers of his luxury vehicles.

        Another article sums things up nicely:

        “Musk is also the model businessman in the age of Obama: His businesses thrive on mandates, regulations and subsidies. Tesla received a federal loan guarantee to make its plug-in cars, which are also subsidized through tax credits for buyers. SolarCity’s suppliers are subsidized solar panel makers, and its customers get tax credits for getting the panels installed. SpaceX is largely a government contractor.”

        http://washingtonexaminer.com/elon-musks-rocket-company-gets-subsidies-from-u.s.-and-france/article/2547874

        Not to say he isn’t a smart guy. He is. But many of us are smart in different ways, we all have our strengths and good ideas. He is simply well-banked by Uncle Sam, possibly even “too big to fail”, giving him the means to leverage his thought stream into physical prototype reality without the financial risk exposure which often constrains many startup ventures.

        Like


      • elon musk, are you fkin serious?!? Name his contribution that moved us forward a “century.” This is utterly absurd.

        His company cannot produce a profit and his cars cost $80,000…a tool for rich people in CA who indulge in ignorance that their state buys COAL POWER from Arizona.

        Like


  17. Another FRIDAY CHALLENGE… If you have been out opening girls, you will come across the NO girl… Like before you even get a word out, she shoots up her hand and says “No”… and there you are! (fwiw – seems to be the younger girls who do this the most, may be something they are taught?).

    The Scenario:

    You are in a bar, see a girl (maybe a single, maybe with a girlfriend, let’s say no guys in her group) and you go over to her and start to say something and she shoots you the hand and just says “No”… That’s it… “No”… and turns away…

    What can you do to salvage and optimize the interaction? Let’s see your tight game, albeit it may be a Hail Mary…

    Like


  18. on October 3, 2014 at 1:41 pm The Scolds' Bridle

    Like


  19. One sign of a good PUA is that he excels at reading people’s emotions. When I’m out I’m hyper-aware of most of the room’s emotional state because it’s relevant to my pickups. If some angry guy is staring me down as I talk to a girl, I need to be aware of that and figure out how to diffuse it. If some girl is into my buddy, I want to be aware of that to help him get her. If I joke around with a bartender and the table of girls across the room perks up and notices me, I want to be aware of that.

    And when I’m interacting with people I’m always a few steps ahead of them (I know what they’re probably going to say or feel next, and how I can change that outcome by doing certain things). It’s how we pace someone’s reality and then lead them into the state we want them to feel. It legitimately feels like a sort of minor omnipotence, and it’s a skill that you develop through field experience, just going out a lot and observing people and interacting with a wide variety of them and taking mental notes as you pile up the reference experiences.

    But like CH’s article says, there’s a difference between reading someone’s emotions and getting wrapped up in them yourself. In PUA terms we call this “holding your frame” VS “falling into someone else’s frame” and it’s an important concept. When your frame is weak and you fall into other people’s frames, you become very reactive to your environment and you go on emotional ups and downs along with the person. This can make them feel like you understand them but isn’t productive because you end up in as fucked up an emotional state as they’re in themselves and just kind of enhance/re-enforce it. If your frame is TOO strong, to where you can’t identify with other people’s emotions, people feel like you can’t relate to them or understand them and they won’t open up to you or trust you.

    So you want a balance of being able to identify their emotions, but at arm’s length where you can empathize/sympathize with them so they feel you understand them and have a connection (pacing their reality), but you’re still holding your own emotional state enough to be able to lead them into a more productive state (diffusing an angry person, cheering up a sad person, bringing a shy person out of their shell, making an AMOG insecure enough to lay off, etc.).

    You can get good results in terms of sex by being a totally un-emphatic narcissistic sociopath type, obviously. But to be a really good PUA where you have minimal drama in your life, can get consistently positive reactions from people you interact with, can build and merge social circles, can work a variety of groups and diffuse cockblocks and befriend AMOGs and get people you’ve just met to open up and connect with people from vastly different walks of life, handle people at your work place, etc. you need to be able to read their emotions and strike that balance between empathy and detachment.

    This comes up when people get on me about not caring about women and faking all my emotions and being a robot etc. The people who say that are generally the type of people with overly emphatic frames (often it’s women and chodey beta guys who say this stuff) who get sucked into people’s frames and view getting wrapped up in their emotions as “having feelings”…so they can’t really relate to someone, say, seeing another person crying and not crying along with them. Not crying with them is cold and robotic to them because that’s how they interact with people. But there’s a middle ground between not feeling any emotion at all, and feeling too many emotions to where it affects your judgement/state/life/decisions…I love my girls, and care about what’s happening in their lives (I usually let them vent to me about life shit while we’re cuddled up after banging) but I don’t let that emotion consume me or affect my standards/judgement for what I consider acceptable behavior from them.

    Also a big part of why my Field Report breakdowns are helpful (and why they take me a long time to write up) is because I know what the guy writing it is going through and what he probably felt in the moment (based on my field experience) so I know how to communicate with him in a way that he’ll understand because I can put myself in his shoes and relate to him on a personalized level where my advice will make sense to him and clear up things that I know were probably foggy for him. If I was an emotionless narcissist I wouldn’t be able to help guys as in-depth as I can. This is part of why Field Reports are important, not just for the guy writing them, but the guys learning to critique them. It’s basically a little training exercise in empathizing with people.

    Unfortunately the community in general (from PUA boards to the Manosphere) has grown so large and mainstream that it’s tough to get the really good FR breakdowns. There are a lot more armchair jockeys authoritatively giving adamant advice and lectures based on their theory of how pickup works from the stuff they’ve read in their computer chair or based on their desperate grasp on how they wish the world and women worked while they try to out-alpha eachother as the definitive authority with zero empathy. In the old days on the original message boards the FRs were a fucking gold-mine. I used to almost exclusively read the FR sections because watching guys who go out regularly break down other guy’s FRs was an epic learning resource.

    [CH: For concealment reasons, I can’t offer my own FRs the way I’d like to, which is too bad. The things I have to tell would make these posts seem tame in comparison…]

    Like


    • on October 4, 2014 at 2:35 pm midnight toker

      great post

      especially this part: “there’s a middle ground between not feeling any emotion at all, and feeling too many emotions to where it affects your judgement/state/life/decisions…I love my girls, and care about what’s happening in their lives (I usually let them vent to me about life shit while we’re cuddled up after banging) but I don’t let that emotion consume me or affect my standards/judgement for what I consider acceptable behavior from them.”

      i think some of the guys on here need to remind themselves of this. we get plenty of advice on how to stay aloof and indifferent so we don’t get hurt but not nearly enough advice on how to maintain the right kind of balance for having healthy fun relationships with women.

      many of us get so concerned that we’ll lose frame and the girl will gain the upper hand that we try to act as though we have no feelings at all. that’s not enjoyable for us and it’s not a healthy or effective way to manage a relationship with…anyone.

      Like


    • @YaReally I’m also very good at reading people and situations….except when I start to get overly invested in the outcome. Then i get clouded with wishful thinking and over-analyzing.

      My game has gotten tighter this year just from the learnings and analysis last year.

      The experiences and quality of women I’m meeting are much better and overall drama is much lower. I’m doing a lot of things right.

      Two areas I slip up: when I do something that worked on another girl and get a different reaction it throws me for a loop. I need to realize this isn’t a formula, it’s a structure.

      The other area I slip up is not escalating fast enough EVERY time. When i escalate, it’s pure gold.

      I went to my actress’s play the other day. I went back-stage where she was having her make up done. I had a small gift which is customary in the theatre for the lead role.

      She was surprised I came to see her….she was beaming: “How did you get back here???” Me: “I know my way around…” Her: “Is that gift for me?” Me: No, it’s for me, it’s my laundry….”

      She wouldn’t kiss me saying it would mess up her make up. I laughed.

      What’s weird about this girl and some of the others is when I’m with her she’s all smiles and beaming, affectionate. But…she is the worst texter ever. It’s all basically one word. We have a code word we use that sums up whatever we’re feeling that day.

      The most expressive we ever were to each other was when I told her what i thought of the play in a voice text..of 45 seconds.

      To me this interaction is strange because the drama queen I wrote so much about used to text me 15-20 times a day with photos, requests, anything. She once asked to move in together…by text.

      These recent girls I’m seeing just text: “hey babe…” or “morning babe” to me and I reply “oy”.

      If I was advising a dude on here about this, I’d say “You’re doing it right”.

      But in my own situation, it feels odd. The more detatched I am the more analytical I can be about reading situations with 95% accuracy.

      You find that?

      Like


      • @walawala
        Ya, it’s just being too close to see things objectively. It’s common. It takes a while to be able to step outside the interaction, especially when you’re invested in the outcome. That’s just human, we all drop the ball at points lol Eventually when things get more on autopilot for you, like where it’s all unconscious competence, it’s easier to be analytical and objective even in the moment, but especially when you’re attempting to consciously apply things and observe the results it’s hard to see the full picture.

        When I’m going out a lot and on fire, I can see 50 steps ahead. When I’ve been working all week and barely go out I can’t see my hand in front of my face. I’ll still do alright if I throw myself in and get in the groove and shake off the cobwebs, but that initial “ah shit I can’t believe I missed all those signals wtf” moment is always a kick in the balls.

        Different girls are different, you get used to it. By fluke you can run into a bunch of similar girls for a while and then run into a bunch of the total opposites. I knew one girl who even tho we banged the night we met, I kept convincing myself she wasn’t that into me or lost interest because her txts were always short blunt and expressionless and I’m used to girls who text a lot. I called her out on it and saw some of her other txt convos and it turns out she just sucks at texting lol she texts like a dude just short blunt and logical. The funny part to me was that she had no idea how off-putting her txt style was to dudes and she said she had trouble keeping guys interested. I’m pretty sure it’s ’cause guys thought she was blowing them off when they texted her lol I told her flat out that she sucks at texting and helped her learn to text a bit better but it was surreal at first.

        There’s also what my buddies and I call “relationship texting” which is what a guy who’s used to having a girlfriend does with new girls. Like if he’s been in an LTR for a while and starts gaming girls while in it or if he gets dumped and starts gaming, he’ll text like he texted his GF (replying instantly, keeping things boring and safe making idle chit-chat about the day (because the intense sexual passion had died down of course), big long pointless texts, daily texting, xoxo at the end etc.), and he’ll expect girls to text like his GF texted (responding right away, not flaking, confirming plans in advance, making idle chat, texting to say goodnight etc.) and get frustrated that they aren’t acting the way he’s used to and we have to give him a bit of a bitchslap and tell him he’s single now and these girls aren’t his GF so shit is different but it takes guys a couple months to adjust.

        Just the natural ebbs and flows of game. Appreciate them for who they are, not for who you wish they were…if they were all the same and predictable, you’d get bored. 😉

        Like


  20. This is like how a pet dog will check his owner’s face and look the owner in the eye every 10 seconds to see whether the owner is happy with the dog because the dog is behaving correctly, or if the owner is going to punish the dog for doing something wrong. A dog that is owned and trained properly by a male owner knows the owner is the alpha; the dog is beta. Both are happy.

    In a relationship, the woman should be the beta. When the man is the beta, the woman is repulsed and confused. With a dog-owner relationship, when the owner is beta–like a single woman owner–the dog is confused and unhappy. You will notice, if you are a dog owner who walks his dog every day, that the dogs owned by single women spinsters are the ones who are nasty to other dogs; they are confused because the female owner treats them like a living furry teddy bear and never disciplines the dog properly.

    I have just summarized all of CH’s teachings for you. I’m not even kidding. Read carefully and think about it.

    In a dog-owner and in a woman-man relationship, the beta (submissive) will look at the alpha’s (dominant’s) face every 10 seconds and is very good at detecting whether the alpha is pleased with the beta.

    I actually read a book about dogs one time and then I started noticing this. My dog looks at me every 10 seconds, looks at me in the eyes, and determines if I’m happy or upset with it. My dog never tires of working to please me.

    Like


  21. Hmm, I could see empathy being a handicap if you’re constantly fretting over what other people think of you and trying so hard to make everyone like you, but honestly, I’ve always found the ability to put myself in other people’s shoes very useful, including for persuading people to do things I want (i.e. it can bolster one’s charisma). For instance, if I’m able to anticipate and read what others are thinking (e.g. a girl I’m interested in), in general it’s helpful when I’m trying to convince them to something for or with me.

    Not being hung up on what everybody thinks is crucial, I agree, and asserting yourself despite opposition is also key, but simply summing things up as “being an asshole works every time” to get people to do what you want and to respect you is inaccurate. I think a good degree of subtlety and nuance is key. Douchebags can get girls, yes, but they’re smart and suave with how much douchiness they apply and in what situations they use it.

    [CH: i agree that putting oneself in a woman’s shoes is a powerful seduction talent. maybe it’s best if we distinguish between cognizance versus empathy? one can be cognizant of other’s feelings without unduly empathizing.]

    Like


    • I’d agree with this. It sounds more like lack of empathy within yourself is a strength. Who cares about how you feel when you are thinking about what people think about you. The asshole part of your personality is within.

      Empathy with others though is a strength to have as a man. It doesn’t mean kiss ass to get people to like you…it means reading social cues well and saying the right thing at the right time. Even acknowledging someone else for no reason other than you can may work in your favor.

      Like


      • for me it’s been a handicap, and an acute one. it’s non-scientific, but i believe i have very high empathic accuracy. i combine that with waaay too much identification with people and concern over making sure what they feel is good towards me.

        that can be good with girls early on and reading them, good for lays, so long as i actively keep myself from thinking about their feelings. in any relationship, that becomes very difficult and i sabotage myself into being such a complete pussy.

        probably something to do with parents divorcing when i was a kid, trying to hold things together, but it’s an active struggle into middle age to try to emulate not giving a shit.

        Like


    • Well-said.

      My experience in private-school jives with both you and this study.

      The key is that most of these kids have had Both a) more independent material resources than they ever needed, with few limits in-sight, and b) enormously-high self-esteem, bordering on sociopathy, either i) because of the countless ” ‘atta-boy”s they got, or ii) the sociopathy osmosed from their parents.

      Many of them had that perfectly-arrogant, self-amused Peter O’Toole air that had every girl in the area-code launching themselves at em.

      Kind of poetic to watch; funny at times, too. Nothing like seeing a hilarious arrogant bastard smack-down the hottest girl in school because she’s so incredibly-boring. lulz.

      Like


  22. i disagree this time. the fact that lower classes are better than upper classes at reading emotions is simply because upper classes are being selected (through the SAT college system) to be Asperger.

    Like


  23. being highly empathetic is a disadvantage ..and can drive some people crazy.. unless/until you learn how to drive it..like anything else pos/neg.. like listening to talk radio.. or comments on blogs..you think people are nuts stupid ect – if you can read emotions thoughts of others well ..you start to think the same ..especially if you dont have control of yourself

    most people unfiltered are a tangle of confused beliefs thoughts feelings superimposed on a genetic template that can be highly adaptable or less so..

    the idea im an alpha or im a beta is moronic.. as its surely only a pose..go deep enough in self awareness self development .. you are whatever you need to be at the right time..

    Like


  24. Great points about Asperger’s etc., but one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that persons of lower status are dependent on persons of higher status, so they have to invest more effort into reading them. Does the sergeant have a better idea if his soldier’s having a bad day, or the soldier if his sergeant’s having a bad day?

    Like


  25. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ebola-us-border-111581.html

    “Even if we tried to close the border, it wouldn’t work,” the top health official added. “People have a right to return. People transiting through could come in. And it would backfire, because by isolating these countries, it’ll make it harder to help them, it will spread more there and we’d be more likely to be exposed here.”

    Like


  26. on October 3, 2014 at 6:13 pm Mean Mr. Mustard

    I am nominating the new David Fincher film, Gone Girl as the Red Pill (by contrast) film of the year. Not his best film, but well worth a look.
    Bitchez be Crazy. LOLZ

    Like


  27. Shivalry…

    Like


  28. so basically i just have to be a dick and it will make broads encircle me like a vulture does a dead gazelle?

    or am i missing something (like building initial attraction, seeing as it seems that asshole game is the rapport)

    like lets say u go up to a girl 9 or 10, at the mall. this can be ur line

    asshole pussy wrecker: “you make that shirt look fat”
    broad: “excuse me? *grins uncertianly*
    APW: number *pulls out phone, quickly closing out the nude just recieved, and handing it to her*

    based off of this study and asshole game i see no reason why this wouldnt make her gush like a garden hose.

    (but the real question, i suppose, is who is bold enough to do this sober?)

    Like


    • Bull to the everlovin’ shit. Here’s how it’d really go:

      asshole: ‘you make that shirt look fat’
      broad’s motherhen*: ‘excuse me? no one was talking to you’
      asshole: ‘i’m talking to your fat friend, not you’
      broad’s motherhen*: ‘if you don’t leave us alone, i’ll get mall security’
      asshole: pulls out phone, handing it to broad
      broad and motherhen*: ‘as if,’ and they walk away quickly to find Officer Blart

      * motherhen, because attractive HB9/10s never go out in public alone

      Like


  29. but, but, I wuz gonna be her back-up plan when she left the ex?

    Like


  30. “A reader forwards a study and adds this promising promo:’

    Powerful people lack empathy.

    Asshole game proven by science.

    Nice guys do finish last.

    This is why antidepressants are so prevalent and popular today. They basically kill your moral/give-a-shit brain cells and give you a me-me-me attitude.

    Behind every fat feminist you will most likely find these lobotomy like, brain altering drugs. They give the user the false ambiance that they are important and they, and their opinions matter, a lot.

    Giving off the assured arrogance will only get you so far.

    Like


  31. but there is truth and power behind the phrase “fake it till you make it”…so they say.

    Like


  32. *It’s fairly well-known that most criminals are less empathic**, dumber and poorer than the general population, so a study which purports to find that lower SES people have higher empathic accuracy than higher SES people would seem to fly in the face of the typical criminal profile.

    This statement makes a couple of reasoning errors. First, the term ‘criminal’ is too broad to generalize to class. There are different types of criminals found at different class levels. Also, no distinction is made between criminality and race in low SES.

    I’ll give my experience. I’m low SES but went to a high SES private school. Low SES people are more empathetic, and thus their interactions are different. My high SES friends cannot keep up with even normal (non confrontational) low SES interaction. They also run into issues with me because, as a lower SES person, manners and social behavior means a lot to me. The reciprocation just isn’t there with them when it should be, and when they don’t recognize protocol it comes off as disordered from my perspective.

    They can be assholes, but many aren’t – as most are constrained by their SWPL ethics rather than any innate empathy. However, in some cases, their lack of empathy leads to a specific type of anti-social behavior that is a definite precursor to dysfunctional social behavior if not criminality.

    Absent sociopathy, which is what Heartiste conflated with ‘normal prole criminal behavior’, the typical normal IQ (100) prole personality is less criminal prone than higher SES personalities. This is due to empathy. What makes up for that, in the statistics, are higher levels of low IQ individuals (<100), abuse or attachment disorders that screws personalities, and more culturally accepted violence as a means of resolving disputes amongst males. In black communities, that violence is amplified to much higher levels because it's instinctual rather than cultural (empathy is shockingly low amongst blacks in general); hence the disparity in violence between prole white and prole black neighborhoods.

    In other words, proles are nicer and more reliable friends but more unpredictable for dysfunctional behavior in groups. Higher SES individuals are more uniform in behavior but also in their lack of reliability and trustworthiness as friends and in business.

    Here's something funny that I've noticed: when higher SES individuals begin to engage in business in competitive environments, they find that those environments simulate lower SES threatening environments and thus they all of a sudden put more emphasis on loyalty and other prole social norms that depend on empathy for execution. There's nothing more valuable to a high SES executive than the loyalty of his few truly prole underlings.

    Like


  33. Just about everybody I’ve ever known tells me I have zero empathy.

    I have an extremely hard time not dominating the social space. This can take extreme forms, such as changing my states political priorities after one outburst.

    (You’d be shocked at how desperate politicians are for viable (big) solutions instead of straight forward bitching and moaning. Why, the next thing you know, the Governor is reading from ones policy mantra. Freeways get built to your vision. Things actually happen.)

    As you might imagine, this is a personal tick. I don’t recommend it.

    %%%

    Strangely, the babes just about throw themselves at me — the more insensitive I get. For some crazy reason, they all want to invest themselves in my world. Oft times this means that I’m pulling women that I have no desire for. This is unintended, of course.

    I might feel more empathy for my subordinates — if had any purpose in this world.

    Near as I can tell, their universal desire is that I should hug them and love them even though they’re constant screw-ups and losers… That’s what empathy appears to them.

    I have too many subordinates to coddle even one. If they really need loving, they should join the Marine Corps. Then they can feel fulfillment just staying alive. They might even serve the nation and humanity at large.

    All of the above is a testament to how even a flawed man can still attract more women than are SMV suitable. It reaches its peak when my friend’s wives are chasing me…. You don’t want the tawdry details.

    The fuller your personality, it’s all the better for your women to cuddle up to. They need a soul to be empathic under.

    Like


  34. You have to balance being an asshole with being a “normal” guy.

    A lot of women are insecure about assholes. They get defensive and bitchy.
    Very often they form some sort of a group and try to exclude you from any communication, if they feel you are too cocky. They start spreading defaming gossips about you.

    I mean I know it’s good in a way (once isolated a from a peer pressure a girl or two will want to have sex with you) but again too much asshole won’t help you in a long run with the same group of women.

    Like


    • Or if you have established yourself as a world famous asshole- aim for hot girls. 6-7s won’t sleep with you.

      Like


  35. And one more things- you have to an asshole who is still loved by women. An asshole women listen to,a funny one, a skillful one, a cool one.

    There is nothing more pathetic than a socially awkward incel acting as an asshole.

    Like


  36. Woman tries online dating – hilarity ensues – note all the stay away boxes she ticks off – overweight, doesn’t cook, likes to watch Netflix with her cat, self-esteem issues etc etc etc

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/xojane-/online-dating_b_5909274.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

    Like


    • god what a trainwreck that bitch is…

      women frequently steadfastly REFUSE to date or even be interested in a man who is too short but they chafe and cry rayciss at anyone who tells them to lose fucking weight.

      She got ignored by the hot rich rockstars she believes herself entitled to, while the ordinary men who DID contact her simply “weren’t her type.” And she will NEVER “get it.” American women believe reality OWES THEM what they feel entitled to. And in the comments, there are a thousand enablers cheering her on and sheepdogging those who inject some realtalk.

      Like


  37. Women might also appreciate a lack of empathy in their men because it serves as a guarantee against her man leaving her to rescue some infantilized damsel in distress of her own making.

    Like


  38. Is there an acceptable way to tell your girlfriend you cheated, or is the only reasonable response to swallow it? I know enough not to be overly apologetic, but can I tell her at all? Suffering from a bit of an overactive conscience. For reference, it was a ons in another country, so the only way she finds out is if I can’t keep it to myself, which I’m a little worried about. This is the first time I’ve ever cheated, and I feel like shit.

    Like


    • She probably fucked a chimpanzee and 2 armadilloes while you were banging that starving Somali hooker, so let it go.

      Like


      • You are probably right. I still don’t think I appreciate how sweet and innocent a girl can appear while doing things that would tear my own conscience to shreds.

        However, assuming I’m fairly outcome independent (I’m pretty sure she won’t leave and I’ve been thinking about winding things down anyway), do you think it’s more beneficial to my development to try to swallow this and keep it to myself or to tell her to ease my conscience? And is there a way to tell her without seeming like a big puss?

        Like


      • The way to tell her without seeming like a big puss is to say it straight and not crying about it.

        It will ease your conscience. Besides women have some sixth sense about when you are hiding something.

        Like


    • If there is a health risk to her, then yes. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

      Like


    • Dude, isn’t ‘swallowing it’ her job? Or are you… gay?

      Like


    • Keep your mouth shut and bury the whole business in your head.

      Like


    • ohshit: “Suffering from a bit of an overactive conscience.”

      Good. That indicates that you are a well developed human being. In my view, those without conscience are not truly human. Instead, they are a lower form of animal, albeit vaguely human shaped.

      ohshit: “…do you think it’s more beneficial to my development to try to swallow this and keep it to myself or to tell her to ease my conscience?”

      She is not your parish priest. Confession is for friends, not for chicks. Confessing to her for the purpose of easing your own conscience is immature, selfish, and weak. There may be other reasons to confess, but I doubt any apply to your situation.

      A man lives with his decisions, for good or ill. He also learns from those decisions. If he has a conscience, as you do, he should seriously and carefully consider which path he wants to take in the future – what kind of man he’s going to be, or at least try to be. Whatever decision you make, the results are likely to be highly imperfect. The game is the game.

      It’s hard for an alpha to be faithful to a particular woman, no matter how hot she is but, at the end of the day, there is a lot to be said for it. I do think that casual cheating damages otherwise good relationships, even if the cheater never gets caught. At times the damage is great, at others more subtle and harder to put a finger on.

      In the short run cheating may actually make the girl even more attracted to you, can boost your confidence, and so forth. But in the long run, the results aren’t so good. This is why cheating in high trust societies, while of course it happens, is discouraged and frowned upon – sort of by definition. There are very good reasons for that, and you don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

      No matter which way you choose, there are costs. So choose wisely – and whatever you do, don’t become “Ohshit the Confessor.”

      Don’t put on those Bad Idea jeans.

      Like


      • “She is not your parish priest. Confession is for friends, not for chicks. Confessing to her for the purpose of easing your own conscience is immature, selfish, and weak.”

        This is true. When your negative emotions are haunting you, it’s a sign. A sign that you have conflicting beliefs to resolve.

        It’s not a sign that you should dump all your un-handled emotional shit on a girl and dissipate the emotional pressure that’s motivating you to grow as a man.

        As a female, the overt message that you are sorry will be ignored. The covert message will be believed: that you fucked another girl and are rubbing it in her face, or that you are just all around weak.

        Confession hurts her, lowers your value, causes pointless drama and fails to deal with the real issue. Lose-lose.

        You don’t need redemption or forgiveness. You need to heed your emotions and resolve your conflict. Take the reigns yourself, don’t hand them to a chick.

        Like


  39. on October 4, 2014 at 11:30 am Eliezer Ben-Yehuda

    Nothing new here. It’s as old as the hills….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abishag

    Like


  40. I once raped a woman with a study that confirmed chicks dig asshholes.

    She’s coming over at 7 to cook me dinner.

    Rape!

    Like


  41. Assholery or confidence? Women, like everybody else, like leaders. Accepted.

    Like


  42. bros…I’ve made a point in the last year to never explain myself. Even when a girl or colleague or just someone in general is outright demanding an explanation for something. It may show a lack of empathy being you could make a choice that hurts feelings or pisses someone off but it also exudes confidence in your decisions…do leaders explain themselves? “Well you see, I said that because I was thinking you would be OK with it because 2 weeks ago we talked about that thing where you said xyz….” lord that sounds gay as hell, you can practically see the hand wringing….don’t fuckin do it. It ties into apologizing, being a wordy fuckin beta, DLV’ing (think man, your girl doesn’t require an explanation for a damn thing…trust me, it doesn’t do any good if you do try to extinguish her anger flames with a rational, logical explanation so don’t even waste your breath), and really just lack of confidence..if you have to explain yourself then you don’t put off a vibe that you are fully comfortable with why you did or said what you did. Assume everything you do is the right way. Pay attention when someone is explaining themselves, watch their body language when they do, it’s uncomfortable and you can literally see their self esteem crumbling, they care deeply about what you think of them, bad for bedding girls and keeping your girl faithful

    2 things that are really easy to stop doing right this second to enhance your game, especially for LTR guys! Don’t explain yourself and Don’t verbally apologize for anything….that mean’s no “i’m sorry”!! Avoid at all costs. When your girl hears you say “i’m sorry” she takes it as you’re a sorry man who lacks judgement, she doesn’t give a shit if you feel bad about whatever it is you did. It communicates that you embrace your own judgement.

    Both of these are harmless but key sociopathic characteristics where the subject lacks empathy, no wonder they do so well. They just do what they do without being a fucking bitch about it. Plus, when you take out all the explaining yourself you’re now much more mysterious and are forced to talk about other things, that are actually entertaining!

    Best thing I ever did for my LTR game. another easy, but for another day…quit mate guarding ya chump!

    Like


  43. […] One day, CH will achieve the perfect post title that captures the spirit of the cosmic shiv. You will read it and the gleaming knife will metamorphose from the words right before your eyes.  […]

    Like


  44. […] people consider “niceness” to be merely a means to an end for low-status people, therefore nice people are low-status (and therefore have lots of grievances bubbling below that […]

    Like